Day: July 10, 2017

Private donations net $55G to replace destroyed Ten Commandments monument


Hillary Hunts For Role in Midterm Elections


Private donors have raised $55,000 so far to replace a Ten Commandments monument on Arkansas capitol grounds smashed a day after it was put up on June 27.

The filmmakers of the Christian “God’s Not Dead” series donated $25,000 to the cause.

The 6-foot granite tablets were erected close to the Arkansas Supreme Court building but came toppling down the next day when Michael Tate Reed rammed his car into them. Tate, who in 2014 also damaged a Ten Commandments monument in Oklahoma, faces misdemeanor and felony charges and is being held on $100,000 bond.

Republican Arkansas State Sen. James Rapert, who spearheaded the bill to erect the monument on capitol grounds said the new one will be up in two months’ time.

“People need to focus on being civil and debating issues rather than thinking they can take the law into their own hands and commit acts of violence against people with whom they disagree,” Rapert said.


Watters Gets Wrestling Fans’ Take on Trump’s CNN Body-Slam Tweet


The project sparked debate about religious symbols taking up government property, despite that the replacement and original were both paid for by private donations. The Satanic Temple and the American Civil Liberties Union stated they will sue if the Ten Commandments stay up.

“Tell me what America would look like if Americans honored the Ten Commandments,” Troy Duhon, an executive producer for the “God’s Not Dead” series said at a Thursday press conference.


WATCH: Trump Retrieves Marine’s Hat at Windy Andrews AFB

Putin: TV Trump Very Different From Real Trump

Sanctuary Cities Promise to Make 1 Million Immigrants Citizens in 2017



Source link

How the West Became A Shepherdess of Wolves


Once upon a time, there was a shepherdess who was charged with keeping her sheep in the pasture and away from the clutch of the terrible wolves. Over the years, the shepherdess worked long and hard at this duty. Despite all her efforts, some sheep occasionally fell victim to the wolves.

One day, however, the shepherdess thought it better to come to an agreement with the wolves. The hard work of keeping the wolves and sheep separate was simply too much for her. It would be much better and easier for all concerned if the wolves could mix peaceably and coexist with the sheep. Mind you, she would keep a careful watch on the wolves to ensure that no sheep was attacked. However, as long as the wolves did not attack the sheep, they would be left free to wander about the pasture mingling with the flock. She would even tie up the sheepdog to avoid misunderstandings.

The wolves thought the arrangement superb and for a while, everything seemed to work out fine with only a few minor incidents here and there. However, the first wolves soon invited other more hostile wolves to join them, and these started to take over the pasture and harass the sheep. The shepherdess redoubled her watch upon the growing number of wolves in the hopes of avoiding a crisis.

One day when the defenseless sheep were resting, a wolf, who had never hurt any of the sheep before, rushed to the scene and brutally killed some of them. The shepherdess let loose the sheepdog who killed the offending wolf. The whole pasture was shocked. Many had seen the wolf in past days acting completely normal. They could not understand what had caused the wolf to act in such a manner. The sheep upbraided the shepherdess for failing to read the signs of crisis inside the soul of the dead wolf. Others searched for evidence that the wolf had been mistreated by the sheep, causing it to become bitter and resentful. Still others claimed this incident was merely the action of a lone wolf and hardly represented the sentiments of the others.

In the end, the shepherdess visited the site of the incident and urged all, wolves and sheep alike, to unite together to denounce such random acts of violence. She promised to be more careful in the future when allowing new wolves in. She said she would redouble her watch on the wolves to avoid this terrible tragedy from ever reoccurring.

The story does not end happily ever after. The sequence of events repeated itself continually until life for the sheep became unbearable and the wolves had installed a reign of savagery and terror.

One cannot help but feel a similarity between the story above and the recent spate of terrorist attacks in London and other places. Healthy societies take measures to keep out bad elements who subvert the general peace and endanger the safety of their citizens.

But the West has abandoned this policy of exclusion for one of inclusion, that welcomes those that have declared their intent to destroy the remnants of Judeo-Christian order.  It takes no mysterious process to identify these rogue elements. Radical Islamists mock the West by openly admitting their hatred in publications, websites and social media. In addition, they invite even more radical elements to come from outside the country to swell their ranks.

The preferred government policy is to monitor the behavior of the radicals. Indeed, many of the attackers are “known” by the police to be security threats before they attack innocent civilians in the streets. There are many more “known” suspects that even now live undisturbed in many cities, and their number is growing. As this is allowed to develop, it must inevitably reach a point where no police force in the world will have the resources to monitor all the dangerous individuals. At this point, they will strike and kill.

Something must be done to denounce and stop this policy of appeasement. It must be based on the premise that there are sheep and there are wolves. Wolves can always be counted upon to act like wolves if given the opportunity to strike.

Those in government who are remiss in their duty to eradicate the wolves and content themselves with just monitoring them become partially responsible for their crimes. Their complicit hands become stained with the blood of the sheep. They should at least be honest and admit that they have now become shepherdesses of wolves, not sheep.

John Horvat II is a scholar, researcher, educator, international speaker, and author of the book Return to Order, as well as the author of hundreds of published articles. He lives in Spring Grove, Pennsylvania where he is the vice president of the American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property.

Once upon a time, there was a shepherdess who was charged with keeping her sheep in the pasture and away from the clutch of the terrible wolves. Over the years, the shepherdess worked long and hard at this duty. Despite all her efforts, some sheep occasionally fell victim to the wolves.

One day, however, the shepherdess thought it better to come to an agreement with the wolves. The hard work of keeping the wolves and sheep separate was simply too much for her. It would be much better and easier for all concerned if the wolves could mix peaceably and coexist with the sheep. Mind you, she would keep a careful watch on the wolves to ensure that no sheep was attacked. However, as long as the wolves did not attack the sheep, they would be left free to wander about the pasture mingling with the flock. She would even tie up the sheepdog to avoid misunderstandings.

The wolves thought the arrangement superb and for a while, everything seemed to work out fine with only a few minor incidents here and there. However, the first wolves soon invited other more hostile wolves to join them, and these started to take over the pasture and harass the sheep. The shepherdess redoubled her watch upon the growing number of wolves in the hopes of avoiding a crisis.

One day when the defenseless sheep were resting, a wolf, who had never hurt any of the sheep before, rushed to the scene and brutally killed some of them. The shepherdess let loose the sheepdog who killed the offending wolf. The whole pasture was shocked. Many had seen the wolf in past days acting completely normal. They could not understand what had caused the wolf to act in such a manner. The sheep upbraided the shepherdess for failing to read the signs of crisis inside the soul of the dead wolf. Others searched for evidence that the wolf had been mistreated by the sheep, causing it to become bitter and resentful. Still others claimed this incident was merely the action of a lone wolf and hardly represented the sentiments of the others.

In the end, the shepherdess visited the site of the incident and urged all, wolves and sheep alike, to unite together to denounce such random acts of violence. She promised to be more careful in the future when allowing new wolves in. She said she would redouble her watch on the wolves to avoid this terrible tragedy from ever reoccurring.

The story does not end happily ever after. The sequence of events repeated itself continually until life for the sheep became unbearable and the wolves had installed a reign of savagery and terror.

One cannot help but feel a similarity between the story above and the recent spate of terrorist attacks in London and other places. Healthy societies take measures to keep out bad elements who subvert the general peace and endanger the safety of their citizens.

But the West has abandoned this policy of exclusion for one of inclusion, that welcomes those that have declared their intent to destroy the remnants of Judeo-Christian order.  It takes no mysterious process to identify these rogue elements. Radical Islamists mock the West by openly admitting their hatred in publications, websites and social media. In addition, they invite even more radical elements to come from outside the country to swell their ranks.

The preferred government policy is to monitor the behavior of the radicals. Indeed, many of the attackers are “known” by the police to be security threats before they attack innocent civilians in the streets. There are many more “known” suspects that even now live undisturbed in many cities, and their number is growing. As this is allowed to develop, it must inevitably reach a point where no police force in the world will have the resources to monitor all the dangerous individuals. At this point, they will strike and kill.

Something must be done to denounce and stop this policy of appeasement. It must be based on the premise that there are sheep and there are wolves. Wolves can always be counted upon to act like wolves if given the opportunity to strike.

Those in government who are remiss in their duty to eradicate the wolves and content themselves with just monitoring them become partially responsible for their crimes. Their complicit hands become stained with the blood of the sheep. They should at least be honest and admit that they have now become shepherdesses of wolves, not sheep.

John Horvat II is a scholar, researcher, educator, international speaker, and author of the book Return to Order, as well as the author of hundreds of published articles. He lives in Spring Grove, Pennsylvania where he is the vice president of the American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property.



Source link

1499445317927.jpg

Get set for ‘hyper chariots’


Need to travel 400 miles in eight minutes? Just hop in a Hyper Chariot pod, which uses roller coaster–type technology akin to Elon Musk’s proposed Hyperloop train and will be able to travel up to 4,000 miles per hour.

The car–sized pods (which can hold up to six people) would travel through airless “ultra high performance” concrete tubes using high–grade vacuum technology to travel at five times the speed of sound. The tubes will be lined with solar panels and would use cryogenically-chilled superconductors to create quantum levitation.

Of course, you’ll have to wait over twenty years to ride one. The company claims its pods will be fully operational by 2040 and there are currently plans for a “proof of concept” demonstrator, called “The Velocitator,” costing between $75 million and $100 million, to be unveiled in 2021.

The announcement comes a few years after Elon Musk announced the similar Hyperloop concept. According to Hyper Chariot, their train will be lighter, faster and more efficient than the Hyperloop. The Hyper Chariot would use smaller, 400–pound pods for transport, while the Hyperloop weighs 20 tons and is more like a bus. Hyper Chariots pods would travel through concrete tubes and will interchange like cars on a freeway network, while the Hyperloop would travel through a steel tube on a single track. Hyper Chariot also plans for their tubes to be smaller at about five feet wide, whereas Hyperloop’s tubes are the width of a street.

The company also isn’t nervous if the Hyperloop rolls out first.

“Who sends something in a tube first isn’t necessarily the winner here,” Hyper Chariot co–founder Joanna Garzilli told Fox News. “It’s about who can best commercialize evacuated tube transport in a way that is personalized, cheap and useful for your average blue-collar worker. We want to be the first to make our investors money back off of real revenue.”

Based in Santa Monica, the company plans on operating world–wide. They are currently scouting locations for their three–mile, 400mph Velocitator demonstration in various places around the country (including Las Vegas and Medley, Florida) and hope to have a transport system in the States.

“The goal here is to build in every country and every state to the same diameter tube and use the same patented maglev [magnetic levitation] interchange system so we can connect the whole world at much higher speeds at a later date,” Garzilli said.

Engineer and USC professor James Moore isn’t so sure such a transport system could work in the U.S. due to the high cost, which Hyper Chariot estimates to be $25 million per mile. By comparison, Musk’s Hyperloop cost is $64 million per mile.

“I like science as much as the next engineer, and emotionally I want maglev trains to be relevant,” Dr. Moore told Fox News. “However, they are not relevant in North America because conventional passenger trains are not all that relevant, largely because of the cost of the infrastructure per seat mile. Conventional high–speed rail is even worse in this respect, and the increase in travel demand from a higher level of service won’t recover the cost of the resources needed to offer conventional high speed service.”

Moore was also dubious that a terrestrial transportation system offering speeds of 4,000 miles per hour will exist 22 years from now. He also believes such a system would offer no survivability if something were to go wrong, and would effectively have to be error proof.

“An accident involving a vehicle moving at 4000 mph would not leave much behind to repair, but focusing on a 4000 mph accident is overkill,” he said. “We can’t afford to build high volume evacuated tube systems reliable enough to accommodate terrestrial speeds of [even] 400mph, [and] I don’t expect we will be able to 22 years from now.”

Hyper Chariot stated that human error would be eliminated because everything would be automated via computer. The company also plans on only using the pods to transport cargo for at least a year until people are allowed on.

“We’re focused on hiring the top engineers in the world and recognize that no customers will be entering 1,000mph+ tube lines before everything has been rigorously tested and insured for use,” Garzilli explained. “Our technology eliminates close to 99% of the reasons that we have accidents today. There are no moving parts so we’re dramatically reducing chance of mechanical failure.”

And as to whether or not the Hyper Chariot transports will be rolling out 22 years from now, Garzilli said “You don’t get there unless you set the goal.”



Source link

An Integrated Healthcare Strategy


What’s missing from the healthcare efforts undertaken by the Trump administration is a political strategy aimed at defeating leftist efforts to implement a national socialized healthcare scheme like those in England and Canada. Absent such a strategy, present efforts to repeal and replace ObamaCare simply play into the left’s long-term plan to force national healthcare by discrediting all alternatives.

There is a strategy that has a good chance of working — but there’s a risk: adopting only the parts the GOPe will easily accept hands the ballgame to the democrats.

The strategy has five elements:

  1. Take legislative action in the house to completely defund all actions authorized under both ObamaCare and Dodds-Frank. Pass single paragraph, full repeal legislation on both in the House and force the Democrats to campaign for 25 senate seats on 2018 on their opposition to doing what the public wants.
  2. Put a full court press on legislation, much of which Congress is currently working on, covering ancillary issues including tort reform; deregulating interstate commerce; and, equalizing tax treatment for group and private health benefits plans.
  3. Fully privatize the VA by shifting service responsibilities to privately run, for profit benefit plans. Ensure that beneficiaries have financial incentives to minimize usage and can annually choose both carriers and benefit packages.
  4. Have the secretary of Health and Human services develop for congressional review and approval a plan to place Medicaid and Medicare entirely under state control, dissolve the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and eliminate to the maximum extent possible federal legislation and/or regulation impeding state operation of these programs.
  5. Pass a new national healthcare reinsurance act limiting losses incurred by privately owned reinsurance providers on health catastrophe coverage provided by nongovernment health insurers.

Congress would decide, both as part of the initial legislation and periodically thereafter, what constitutes qualifying coverage, what the limits are, how risks are shared between government and the reinsurance industry, and what steps, if any, may be necessary to deal with states seeking to reduce their Medicaid/Medicare costs by means such as enrolling people with private health care insurance providers operating under the reinsurance umbrella.

The three most important effects this strategy will have are:

1. Politically, this strategy has Republicans doing something that seems even more unlikely than Trump’s election: honoring their commitments to the voter as the voters understand them.

If this were to happen, the Democrats and their media colleagues would be expected to gnash teeth, wail loudly, glorify victims, increase their commitment to violence, riots, and the invocation of various isms; file multiple lawsuits with their colleagues in the judiciary; mislead the public about their own positions, and be utterly wiped out in the 2018 midterms.

2. Politics would also dominate what happens to state and federal budgets. It seems reasonable to hope that the transfer of most Medicare and Medicaid monies and decision-making to the states would trigger significant experimentation with service delivery and management — and, if so, you’d expect to see some states driving toward fully socialized health care; others following the VA privatization model; most just muddling along with no clear direction; and an eventual resolution after the 2024 elections decide the political issues surrounding the leading options.

That differentiation among the states is critical because those states choosing to manage Medicare and Medicaid monies down the Democrat route to health care can be expected to reclaim VA and similar facilities while implementing increasingly bureaucratic rules for all of healthcare. That, as Canada, the U.K. and every other country from Cuba to Holland adopting nationalized healthcare have shown, will be followed by institutionalized mediocrity, the development of long waiting lists, huge annual deficits, removal of quality indicators from public review, and wildly enthusiastic claims that all will be well if only a politician promising to root out fraud and waste in the system is elected.

In contrast, those states opting for the capitalist approach along the lines of the VA privatization will thereby create incentives for medical investment, medical training, and the in-migration of patients and health care professionals from other states. As a result, these states will develop lively markets in which health care quality improves as costs go down.

Trigger this process in 2017, and by 2020 people in those states that are essentially just muddling along waiting for the politics to settle will start to see both significant contrasts between the cost and care available in states representing the two extremes and the effect of socialist state attempts to cut costs by freezing out people who aren’t legal, permanent, state residents. More importantly, those differences will become both more obvious and more dramatic as long as democrats in interventionist states stick to their policies – by 2024, therefore, most Americans will understand the differences well enough to more or less permanently reject leftist dreams of bringing Canadian or British style nationalized health care to the United States.

3. A federal reinsurance program budgeted in the $140 billion range should drop the cost of a basic individual policy for a 30-something with no known health problems and a $500 annual deductible to perhaps $35 a month — and this will require very little in federal administrative effort because there simply aren’t many reinsurers in the business.

The expected result, as long as Congress prevents the reinsurance carriers from laying off all their risks on the federal government, is that retailers will move rapidly down market and then start to compete by strategies like sliding downslope to benefits management for smaller groups or building consumer value through policy linkage to financial products like permanent life.

Note in this, that insurance companies dealing with people with pre-existing conditions have their risks limited by the reinsurance carrier which, in turn, passes costs in excess of the limit set by congress to the federal government. This program therefore greatly reduces the retail cost of coverage for people with no pre-existing conditions, and caps the cost essentially at the reinsurance limit for those facing known or imminent catastrophic health care costs.

Thus the net on this strategy is that it provides exactly what Trump promised and most conservatives want: essentially universal health care coverage in a free health care services market, while practically forcing the Democrats to destroy themselves in states where their majorities give them the ability to grow Medicare/Medicaid into fully socialized systems. 

What’s missing from the healthcare efforts undertaken by the Trump administration is a political strategy aimed at defeating leftist efforts to implement a national socialized healthcare scheme like those in England and Canada. Absent such a strategy, present efforts to repeal and replace ObamaCare simply play into the left’s long-term plan to force national healthcare by discrediting all alternatives.

There is a strategy that has a good chance of working — but there’s a risk: adopting only the parts the GOPe will easily accept hands the ballgame to the democrats.

The strategy has five elements:

  1. Take legislative action in the house to completely defund all actions authorized under both ObamaCare and Dodds-Frank. Pass single paragraph, full repeal legislation on both in the House and force the Democrats to campaign for 25 senate seats on 2018 on their opposition to doing what the public wants.
  2. Put a full court press on legislation, much of which Congress is currently working on, covering ancillary issues including tort reform; deregulating interstate commerce; and, equalizing tax treatment for group and private health benefits plans.
  3. Fully privatize the VA by shifting service responsibilities to privately run, for profit benefit plans. Ensure that beneficiaries have financial incentives to minimize usage and can annually choose both carriers and benefit packages.
  4. Have the secretary of Health and Human services develop for congressional review and approval a plan to place Medicaid and Medicare entirely under state control, dissolve the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and eliminate to the maximum extent possible federal legislation and/or regulation impeding state operation of these programs.
  5. Pass a new national healthcare reinsurance act limiting losses incurred by privately owned reinsurance providers on health catastrophe coverage provided by nongovernment health insurers.

Congress would decide, both as part of the initial legislation and periodically thereafter, what constitutes qualifying coverage, what the limits are, how risks are shared between government and the reinsurance industry, and what steps, if any, may be necessary to deal with states seeking to reduce their Medicaid/Medicare costs by means such as enrolling people with private health care insurance providers operating under the reinsurance umbrella.

The three most important effects this strategy will have are:

1. Politically, this strategy has Republicans doing something that seems even more unlikely than Trump’s election: honoring their commitments to the voter as the voters understand them.

If this were to happen, the Democrats and their media colleagues would be expected to gnash teeth, wail loudly, glorify victims, increase their commitment to violence, riots, and the invocation of various isms; file multiple lawsuits with their colleagues in the judiciary; mislead the public about their own positions, and be utterly wiped out in the 2018 midterms.

2. Politics would also dominate what happens to state and federal budgets. It seems reasonable to hope that the transfer of most Medicare and Medicaid monies and decision-making to the states would trigger significant experimentation with service delivery and management — and, if so, you’d expect to see some states driving toward fully socialized health care; others following the VA privatization model; most just muddling along with no clear direction; and an eventual resolution after the 2024 elections decide the political issues surrounding the leading options.

That differentiation among the states is critical because those states choosing to manage Medicare and Medicaid monies down the Democrat route to health care can be expected to reclaim VA and similar facilities while implementing increasingly bureaucratic rules for all of healthcare. That, as Canada, the U.K. and every other country from Cuba to Holland adopting nationalized healthcare have shown, will be followed by institutionalized mediocrity, the development of long waiting lists, huge annual deficits, removal of quality indicators from public review, and wildly enthusiastic claims that all will be well if only a politician promising to root out fraud and waste in the system is elected.

In contrast, those states opting for the capitalist approach along the lines of the VA privatization will thereby create incentives for medical investment, medical training, and the in-migration of patients and health care professionals from other states. As a result, these states will develop lively markets in which health care quality improves as costs go down.

Trigger this process in 2017, and by 2020 people in those states that are essentially just muddling along waiting for the politics to settle will start to see both significant contrasts between the cost and care available in states representing the two extremes and the effect of socialist state attempts to cut costs by freezing out people who aren’t legal, permanent, state residents. More importantly, those differences will become both more obvious and more dramatic as long as democrats in interventionist states stick to their policies – by 2024, therefore, most Americans will understand the differences well enough to more or less permanently reject leftist dreams of bringing Canadian or British style nationalized health care to the United States.

3. A federal reinsurance program budgeted in the $140 billion range should drop the cost of a basic individual policy for a 30-something with no known health problems and a $500 annual deductible to perhaps $35 a month — and this will require very little in federal administrative effort because there simply aren’t many reinsurers in the business.

The expected result, as long as Congress prevents the reinsurance carriers from laying off all their risks on the federal government, is that retailers will move rapidly down market and then start to compete by strategies like sliding downslope to benefits management for smaller groups or building consumer value through policy linkage to financial products like permanent life.

Note in this, that insurance companies dealing with people with pre-existing conditions have their risks limited by the reinsurance carrier which, in turn, passes costs in excess of the limit set by congress to the federal government. This program therefore greatly reduces the retail cost of coverage for people with no pre-existing conditions, and caps the cost essentially at the reinsurance limit for those facing known or imminent catastrophic health care costs.

Thus the net on this strategy is that it provides exactly what Trump promised and most conservatives want: essentially universal health care coverage in a free health care services market, while practically forcing the Democrats to destroy themselves in states where their majorities give them the ability to grow Medicare/Medicaid into fully socialized systems. 



Source link

10rutenberg1-facebookJumbo.jpg

News Outlets to Seek Bargaining Rights Against GOOGLEFACEBOOK…


So what we used to call “the newspaper industry” — but which now includes outlets with robust online existences — is coming together to make its biggest push so far to change the balance of power.

This week, a group of news organizations will begin an effort to win the right to negotiate collectively with the big online platforms and will ask for a limited antitrust exemption from Congress in order to do so.

It’s an extreme measure with long odds. But the industry considers it worth a shot, given its view that Google and Facebook, regardless of their intentions, are posing a bigger threat economically than President Trump is (so far) with his rhetoric.

That’s how David Chavern, the chief executive of the News Media Alliance, put it in an opinion piece published online by The Wall Street Journal on Sunday evening.

The Alliance, the main newspaper industry trade group, is leading the effort to bargain as a group. But it has buy-in across the spectrum of its membership, bringing together competitors like The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post, as well as scores of regional papers like The Star Tribune of Minneapolis, which face the gravest threats.

Capturing the current mood, News Corporation — which oversees The Journal, The New York Post and Dow Jones — said in a statement that it supported the effort to “focus the public and Congress on the anticompetitive behavior of the digital duopoly, especially as it adversely affects the news and information businesses.”

Mark Thompson, the chief executive of The New York Times Company, told me that “the temperature is rising in terms of concern, and in some cases anger, about what seems like a very asymmetric, disadvantageous relationship between the publishers and the very big digital platforms.”

The thinking is that publishers need the option of operating as a group — and the leverage that would come from any collective action — should they determine that it’s the only way to win meaningful accommodations.

The maneuvering is about more than the fight for digital territory. It’s about the endurance of quality journalism — expensive to produce, and under economic pressure as never before — at a time when false, cost-free “reportage” about things like “millions of illegal votes” can gain enough prominence to drive federal initiatives.

“If you want a free news model, you will get news,” Mr. Chavern told me last week. “But it will be garbage news — it will be ‘Pope Endorses Trump.’”

(That article was widely shared on Facebook during the election; Pope Francis did not endorse Mr. Trump.)

The timing also seems ripe considering the murmuring in the United States about the possibility of regulation for the tech giants, and more direct action against them in Britain and across Europe, where regulators recently socked Google with a huge antitrust fine.

In the tumultuous news climate, Google and Facebook don’t want to be seen as undermining real journalism. And executives with both companies told me it was in their interests to have ample, reliable news content.

“We’re committed to helping quality journalism thrive on Facebook,” Campbell Brown, Facebook’s head of news partnerships, said. “We’re making progress through our work with news publishers and have more work to do.”

This week, Facebook executives will meet with publishers to introduce new ways for them to sell subscriptions on the site. It will be the latest of several moves over the past few months to improve exposure for local news in the site’s news feed and make it easier for news sites to run their own ads in Facebook’s Instant Articles program.

Google has made similar efforts through its News Lab. It says it has made changes to its algorithm to show quality news more prominently in search results. And it is working to help newsrooms take advantage of new technology to innovate and increase online revenue.

“We want to help publishers succeed as they transition to digital,” Google said in a statement, calling the effort “a priority.”

Publishers say they appreciate how Google and Facebook put their news content in front of many millions of users they couldn’t reach on their own. And they acknowledge the efforts the platforms are making to help.

But as Mike Klingensmith, the publisher of The Star Tribune and the chairman of the News Media Alliance, told me in an interview, “they’re talking to us, but there hasn’t been a lot of action yet.”

Even if more help comes as promised, the economic imbalance leaves the industry at the mercy of the platforms’ generosity or immediate public relations imperatives: Facebook and Google are on the way to holding nearly 60 percent of the online advertising market, according to eMarketer.

Mr. Klingensmith said that for midsize dailies, which have been hit particularly hard by the shift in ad spending, “it is impossible for us to go as a one-off company and negotiate or even get an appointment with these companies.”

The Times is backing the move for what is called an anticompetitive safe haven, in part, Mr. Thompson said, “because we care about the whole of journalism as well as about The New York Times.”

He said The Times would consider joining a collective negotiation should its own talks fail to yield satisfactory results, which, he noted, they have yet to do.

In seeking the right to negotiate together, the news providers are trying to avoid the trouble that major book publishing houses got into when they worked with Apple to develop an online book rival to Amazon. Without any government clearance, they ran afoul of antitrust laws.

The Alliance acknowledges that its bid requires legislation giving them specific clearance to negotiate as a group, which is not commonly granted. It’s an especially big ask from a Congress that hasn’t had a great legislative batting average and whose controlling party, the Republicans, is not in a very press-friendly mood these days.

Then again, News Corporation’s founder and executive chairman is Rupert Murdoch, whose sway with the Trump administration and Republicans in Congress is without parallel in the media world.

Press representatives for the Senate and House Judiciary Committees — led by Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Representative Bob Goodlatte of Virginia — said they couldn’t comment without hearing directly from the Alliance.

The Alliance’s outside counsel, Jonathan Kanter, said he was hopeful that one argument in particular could sway them: “The product at issue is important from a public policy perspective — we’re not just talking about widgets, we’re talking about news, and news is crucial for a democratic society.”

Whatever the outcome, that should be a starting point everyone can agree upon.

Continue reading the main story



Source link

gutfeld_37.jpg

Gutfeld: CNN is a 'sad spinster who can't take a joke'


Pirro: De Blasio More Interested in Int’l ‘Street Cred’ Than Leading NYC


CNN’s response to President Trump’s tweet last Sunday of a GIF showing him tackling a fake CNN reminded Greg Gutfeld of a “sad spinster who can’t take a joke.”

“Once again CNN fell for fake news,” Gutfeld said on his show on Saturday.

The network “didn’t just step in it. They jumped head first into a sewage treatment plant and did the breaststroke.”

CNN slammed the president’s tweet and went after the Reddit user who created the meme, saying they would not reveal his identity if he did not do it again.

The meme creator has since apologized on Reddit saying he does not advocate violence against journalists.

CNN said they reserve the right to expose his identity, but are not doing so “because he said he is not going to repeat this ugly behavior on social media.”

“When a giant corporation threatens to expose a nobody in order to silence him … it’s like swatting a fly with a nuke,” Gutfeld said.

The host remarked that conservatives and liberals have switched places over the years.

“Conservatives were always painted as humorless. We were the shrill, tight-ass scolds,” Gutfeld said. “But now we’ve changed, and so has the Left.”

“By embracing identity politics and victimhood they became the tattletales and we became by default the troublemakers,” he said.


Hillary Hunts For Role in Midterm Elections

Sanctuary Cities Promise to Make 1 Million Immigrants Citizens in 2017

David Bossie: ‘Feminists in Name Only’ Are Attacking Ivanka



Source link

Trump and the Canary Trap


A lot of (electronic) ink is being used regarding anonymous leaks from the Trump White House, some of which have disclosed classified information, and, in at least one case, undermined a critical intelligence relationship with a key ally. There appears to be little question that the Trump White House is far leakier than any in recent history. This is due in large part no doubt to the number of Obama administration holdovers waging an ideological guerrilla war against their new boss. These are the “anonymous sources” that the Washington Post, the New York Times, and CNN cite as they conduct their ongoing agitprop campaign against the President.

This has led to an interesting situation. First of all, the Trump team has decided to actually do something about these leaks — many of which are federal felonies. More on this later. Second, many of these leaks have been inaccurate, misleading, or flat out wrong. The most recent, promulgated by CNN and based on a single anonymous source, predicted that President Trump would not address Russian meddling in our election, with President Putin. It turns out that according to Secretary of State Tillerson, who was in the room, that was the first thing Trump brought up with Putin. This, just another in a long series of mainstream media self-inflicted wounds damaging their credibility with the American public. These leaks, meant to undermine President Trump and his agenda, have instead showcased his seemingly effortless ability to quickly turn the tables on the media at will. 

However, Trump expertly playing the media is not the only thing going on here. Which brings me back to my first (and main) issue, White House leaks and leakers. As I mentioned above, the Trump administration has decided to go hard after leakers, especially those leaking classified information, some of which has already compromised sources and methods. 

Trumps leaks crackdown send chills through security world appeared in Politico on July 7, 2017: 

One U.S. official voiced concern over even talking to superiors about a benign call from a reporter. The agency this official works for had started limiting staff access to information, they said, and it would make it far easier to figure out who was talking to people in the media.


There was suspicion, the official said, that the agency was even tracking what they printed, to keep tabs on what information they were accessing.

Any “official” who has been leaking should be concerned, and here’s why. One method the Trump administration is likely using to identify these leakers is called “the canary trap,” a term coined by Tom Clancy in his novel Patriot Games. The canary trap is a method for organizations (including many intelligence agencies and private businesses) to determine who is improperly providing information to those not eligible to receive it. They do this by “leaking” certain information, often false, and then following it to see who ends up with it and how they did so. 

The method cited in Patriot Games applies to documents. Each copy of a sensitive document is printed with slightly different punctuation, word usage, etc. to make it unique. If a reporter quoted certain parts of the document, that uniqueness would identify the document and the one person who had given it to the reporter. This process can be partly automated now by use of computer synonym generators. 

Although coined by Tom Clancy, the technique has a long history in intelligence circles. When U.S. forces were attempting to determine when and where the next Japanese attack would take place in the Pacific, a group of Navy codebreakers under Captain James Rochefort who in turn worked for Admiral Chester Nimitz used a different version of the technique to determine that the Japanese Navy’s next target was Midway. 

Rochefort’s team had broken a significant part of the Japanese Naval Code leading them to believe the Japanese had an upcoming operation against “AF.” However, the team wasn’t sure what “AF” stood for. Hoping the Japanese would intercept it and react, Rochefort got permission to have the U.S. forces on Midway Island send a false message over an unencrypted administrative channel, that Midway’s water purification plant was broken. Later, the U.S. crypto element intercepted a Japanese encrypted message stating that the water purifier on AF was broken, thus identifying “AF” as Midway.

President Donald Trump has recruited some serious and accomplished professionals to be part of his team. Tillerson at State, Mattis at Defense, Pompeo at CIA, and Sessions at Justice — this team is going to do more, much, much more than embarrass some press organizations and show them for the inept, corrupt organizations they are. Trump’s team will (likely already has) use techniques like the canary trap to identify the leakers — and do so in a manner that will stand up in criminal court. There will be arrests. Look for the Trump team to identify several felony violators. Once they have rock-solid cases, there will be multiple arrests in a single day, in multiple organizations, and there will be perp walks. The ones who committed felonies are going do time — serious time. And they should.

Mike Ford is a former Infantry Colonel. He has served in Europe, Central America and in Southwest Asia, Commanding at the Detachment, Company, Battalion and Brigade Levels. 

A lot of (electronic) ink is being used regarding anonymous leaks from the Trump White House, some of which have disclosed classified information, and, in at least one case, undermined a critical intelligence relationship with a key ally. There appears to be little question that the Trump White House is far leakier than any in recent history. This is due in large part no doubt to the number of Obama administration holdovers waging an ideological guerrilla war against their new boss. These are the “anonymous sources” that the Washington Post, the New York Times, and CNN cite as they conduct their ongoing agitprop campaign against the President.

This has led to an interesting situation. First of all, the Trump team has decided to actually do something about these leaks — many of which are federal felonies. More on this later. Second, many of these leaks have been inaccurate, misleading, or flat out wrong. The most recent, promulgated by CNN and based on a single anonymous source, predicted that President Trump would not address Russian meddling in our election, with President Putin. It turns out that according to Secretary of State Tillerson, who was in the room, that was the first thing Trump brought up with Putin. This, just another in a long series of mainstream media self-inflicted wounds damaging their credibility with the American public. These leaks, meant to undermine President Trump and his agenda, have instead showcased his seemingly effortless ability to quickly turn the tables on the media at will. 

However, Trump expertly playing the media is not the only thing going on here. Which brings me back to my first (and main) issue, White House leaks and leakers. As I mentioned above, the Trump administration has decided to go hard after leakers, especially those leaking classified information, some of which has already compromised sources and methods. 

Trumps leaks crackdown send chills through security world appeared in Politico on July 7, 2017: 

One U.S. official voiced concern over even talking to superiors about a benign call from a reporter. The agency this official works for had started limiting staff access to information, they said, and it would make it far easier to figure out who was talking to people in the media.


There was suspicion, the official said, that the agency was even tracking what they printed, to keep tabs on what information they were accessing.

Any “official” who has been leaking should be concerned, and here’s why. One method the Trump administration is likely using to identify these leakers is called “the canary trap,” a term coined by Tom Clancy in his novel Patriot Games. The canary trap is a method for organizations (including many intelligence agencies and private businesses) to determine who is improperly providing information to those not eligible to receive it. They do this by “leaking” certain information, often false, and then following it to see who ends up with it and how they did so. 

The method cited in Patriot Games applies to documents. Each copy of a sensitive document is printed with slightly different punctuation, word usage, etc. to make it unique. If a reporter quoted certain parts of the document, that uniqueness would identify the document and the one person who had given it to the reporter. This process can be partly automated now by use of computer synonym generators. 

Although coined by Tom Clancy, the technique has a long history in intelligence circles. When U.S. forces were attempting to determine when and where the next Japanese attack would take place in the Pacific, a group of Navy codebreakers under Captain James Rochefort who in turn worked for Admiral Chester Nimitz used a different version of the technique to determine that the Japanese Navy’s next target was Midway. 

Rochefort’s team had broken a significant part of the Japanese Naval Code leading them to believe the Japanese had an upcoming operation against “AF.” However, the team wasn’t sure what “AF” stood for. Hoping the Japanese would intercept it and react, Rochefort got permission to have the U.S. forces on Midway Island send a false message over an unencrypted administrative channel, that Midway’s water purification plant was broken. Later, the U.S. crypto element intercepted a Japanese encrypted message stating that the water purifier on AF was broken, thus identifying “AF” as Midway.

President Donald Trump has recruited some serious and accomplished professionals to be part of his team. Tillerson at State, Mattis at Defense, Pompeo at CIA, and Sessions at Justice — this team is going to do more, much, much more than embarrass some press organizations and show them for the inept, corrupt organizations they are. Trump’s team will (likely already has) use techniques like the canary trap to identify the leakers — and do so in a manner that will stand up in criminal court. There will be arrests. Look for the Trump team to identify several felony violators. Once they have rock-solid cases, there will be multiple arrests in a single day, in multiple organizations, and there will be perp walks. The ones who committed felonies are going do time — serious time. And they should.

Mike Ford is a former Infantry Colonel. He has served in Europe, Central America and in Southwest Asia, Commanding at the Detachment, Company, Battalion and Brigade Levels. 



Source link

1498460069_at-painter-og-image.png

Have You Heard? All Republican Presidents Are Stupid


That the “mainstream media” is liberally-biased in matters of daily news reporting and the wildly uneven manner in which they handle parallel Republican-Democrat personal/political circumstances is not in question. When Republicans commit what the liberal media deem a nation-threatening transgression, it’s treated as a “Stop the Presses!” moment. Conversely, a mirror-imaged action by Democrats is dismissed as a temporary minor misstep, when it’s even reported at all. Even the liberal media seem to acknowledge that this is the case, complete with a “That’s just how it is — get over it” attitude.

However, the day-to-day liberal reporting bias and inaccuracies are not as lasting and significant as the decades of legacy liberal reporting and documentation. The resulting permanent impression of American history that has come from years of uncorrected reporting is marked by a decidedly liberal slant, giving a structurally-inaccurate view of the country to students/analysts/researchers of our history.

Nowhere is this more obvious than in the popular view of U.S. presidents since World War II. That era that can legitimately be considered the “modern era” of U.S. history, the era in which the press and reporting styles are most relevant to this discussion. Let’s look at the media-generated popular, general impressions of each president, by party, in ascending chronological order, then compare them and see if there are any common themes.

Democrats

Franklin Delano Roosevelt, 1933-1945

The man who rescued America from the Great Depression. Astonishing personal courage and determination in the face of incredible individual hardship and pain. Brilliant war strategist and master negotiator with Stalin and Churchill, he assured America’s rightful place in a post-WWII world order. Unquestionably one of our greatest presidents.

Harry Truman, 1945-1953

The down-to-earth, tough, “Show me, I’m from Missouri” president. Finished the war effort in fine style, including the impossibly-difficult decision regarding the atomic bombs.

John F Kennedy, 1961-1963

The handsome, charismatic visionary America was counting on to lead us—and the world—into the next phase of life after WWII. He would’ve won the Cold War, having brilliantly thwarted the Russians in Cuba in 1962. His Moon Landing initiative had the country reaching for the stars. Anything was possible for America, with Kennedy and his beautiful family leading he way.

Lyndon Baines Johnson, 1963-1969

Our most compassionate president ever with regard to the plight of minorities caught in the destructive inner city cycle of poverty, crime and lack of rightful opportunity. He crafted the sweeping plan for a Great Society, including the establishment of Welfare and the War on Poverty. A cunning and brilliant politician who knew the ins and outs of DC maneuvering better than anyone, his ambitious plan for a utopian American culture was unfairly short-circuited by Communist aggressive expansionism in SE Asia, the American response to which proved more distracting, entangling and complicated than Johnson anticipated.

Jimmy Carter, 1977-1981

Intellectually brilliant and personally compassionate, but detail-oriented and schedule-controlling to a fault. He tried to do too much. He also had the misfortune of being victimized by outside events not of his making, like the Iranian revolution and their seizing of 52 American hostages, events that caused an energy crisis in this country and long lines at the gas stations. These developments tarnished his image and led to his loss to Ronald Reagan in the 1980 Presidential Election, but no one questions Carter’s intrinsic intelligence or laudable intentions.

William Clinton, 1993-2001

Oxford scholar, Southern charm, worldly sophistication, everyman touch. The ideal blend of complete mastery of complicated economic/domestic policy/foreign policy issues, articulate and emotional speechmaking and sharp-elbowed politicking. A politician above politicians, able to reach across the isle and work with the opposition party to get important things accomplished for the good of the country. Set the standard for job creation. Unfairly tarred by a baseless, desperate, Republican-fabricated “moral” scandal, but completely vindicated by the perspective of history.

Barack Obama, 2009-2017

Equally as brilliant as Clinton and even cooler, if that’s possible. Sets the all-time high bar for articulate, inspiring speeches and is revered globally even more than Kennedy and Clinton. Singlehandedly reversed America’s unsophisticated “cowboy” image. Dealt the worst economic, social justice, environmental and foreign policy hands ever handed off from one president to another, but he calmly handled everything with understated grace and expertise, leaving America an immeasurably better place than he found it—perhaps better than it’s ever been.

That is how the popular mainstream media see these Democratic presidents. That’s the overall impression that is given to the masses about these presidents. It varies a bit from source to source, plus or minus of course, but this is essentially an accurate representation of the prevailing popular media historical opinion of these Democratic presidents.

Now for the Republicans

Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1953-1961

A retired 4-star WWII General who commanded Allied forces in Europe through the D-Day invasion to the final victory over Germany, Eisenhower was a trusted, authoritative, fatherly figure with whom Americans felt comfortable and secure. America in the 1950’s was on autopilot, headed straight into the realm of world economic dominance, backed by the world’s strongest military. The challenges and requirements for a president were not as demanding and extreme as they’d been during the Depression/WWII years. All we really needed was someone with some military understanding to keep the Soviets in check, and after that, you could go play golf. That’s pretty much everything Eisenhower is remembered for.

Richard Nixon, 1969-1974

His reasonably high level of intelligence was undermined by an overwhelmingly debilitating insecurity, which led to his masterminding the senseless, unnecessary Watergate break-in of Democratic headquarters during the 1972 Presidential Election campaign, a race where he was so far ahead, he ended up winning 49 of 50 states. He was evil and insecure and fully deserving of his nickname “Tricky Dick.  Few remember anything he actually did as president, other than opening relations with China. But the dominant memory of Nixon is his having to resign in disgrace.

Gerald Ford, 1974-1977

A little-known, undistinguished Congressman from Michigan, Ford was appointed to the vice-presidency following the resignation of Republican V.P. Spiro Agnew on corruption charges in 1973. When Nixon (also a Republican) resigned in August 1974, Ford became president, completing his highly unlikely, unelected and undeserved path to the Oval Office. He quickly established a reputation for bumbling clumsiness, to the point that Chevy Chase of Saturday Night Live became famous for his imitation of Ford falling down the stairs. In his Presidential debate against Jimmy Carter in the fall of 1976, Ford revealed his ignorance of the USSR’s dominance of Eastern Europe. Carter and the press quickly pounced and Ford was rightfully tagged with an asterisk and relegated to history’s dustbin with his loss to Carter in the 1976 election.

Ronald Reagan, 1981-1989

An unqualified actor-turned-politician who was the beneficiary of random outside circumstances (the Arab oil embargo and Iranian hostage situation) that unfairly hamstrung the Carter administration. Reagan was able to parlay his glib actor’s presentation skills advantage over Carter into a 1980 election win. But he quickly showed an indifference to women and minorities, a favoritism to big business to the detriment of the average working person (he fired all the Air Traffic Controllers, who were exercising their right to strike), a frustrating inattention to detail and he confirmed his critics’ suspicions of his trigger-happy proclivities with his pointless adventurisms in Granada and Libya. His second term was dominated by the Iran-Contra scandal and his ever-increasing senility, rendering him totally ineffectual his last two years in office. Of all our presidents, Reagan is unquestionably the most over-rated.

George H.W, Bush, 1989-1993

While not an unintelligent man, Bush the Elder is regarded as a bland, uninspiring, milquetoast personality, someone who famously checked his watch during the debate with Governor Clinton (giving the impression that he wanted to get the heck out of there), who was admonished by Margaret Thatcher before the 1991 Gulf War (“George, don’t go wobbly on me now!”), and is remembered as the president who gave up four runs in the bottom of the 9th against Saddam Hussein by not chasing him from power when he had the easy chance, thus turning a beautiful 6-0 American gem into a 6-4 stinker of a win. He would say vaguely positive things like, “A thousand points of light,” but no one knew exactly what he meant, so its inspirational value was nil. His most memorable phrase — “Read my lips” — lives on as ignominious testimony to a broken promise, the result of his being suckered by the Democrats, like Charlie Brown was always suckered by Lucy. He’s not thought of as evil, senile, lazy or unqualified. He’s thought of more like a Mister Rogers: unremarkable and nondescript.

George W. Bush, 2001-2008

“Dubbya” is the quintessential liberal target-rich environment. A solid man who restored the values of honesty and personal morality to the office following Clinton, the younger Bush is remembered not for his job-expanding tax cuts, not for his steady leadership after 9/11, nor for the vanishingly low unemployment through the first 6 years of his presidency. Instead, “W” is unfairly linked with Hurricane Katrina (despite the abject failures of local Democratic politicians to act promptly, which was easily within their grasp), unfairly tarred with the Abu Ghriab prison torture scandal, which was not his doing in the slightest, and he is blamed for the financial/housing crisis of 2007/2008, when thousands of sub-prime home loans defaulted, sending the U.S. economy crashing into what has become known as the Great Recession.  In fact, the “fault” for that crash was years — if not decades — in the making, with Democratic-sponsored programs that eliminated time-proven loan requirements in favor of social engineering and politically-correct outcomes being at least as responsible, if not more so, than anything President Bush did.

But with his “unsophisticated” Southern drawl (hated by the oh-so-erudite liberal media intelligentsia), his propensity for mispronunciation (“nucular” and “strategery”), and his hard-edged America-first foreign policy (leading to his derogatory “cowboy” label), President Bush has been the most liberally-vilified President in the last 80 years, responsible for an incredible array of ills and damage to the country.

Donald Trump, 2017-

The jury is obviously still out on the actual accomplishments or actual failures of his 4- (or 😎 year tenure, but the verdict of the liberal media was delivered well before his inauguration. Keeping in lockstep tradition of the liberal mainstream media to cast every Republican president as unintelligent, incapable of interpreting or acting upon subtle details, inarticulate, embarrassing to the country on the world stage and uncaring about the plights—real or imagined—of women and minorities, their book on Trump is already written, the story already mailed.

Beyond these individual Republican presidents’ summaries, another concrete piece of evidence revealing the liberal media’s distain for Republican intelligence is the fact that only Republican presidents are said to have had a “real” president behind the scenes. Dick Cheney was the so-called real president behind George W. Bush, as Steve Bannon is the real president behind Donald Trump. It’s obvious that Republicans lack the intelligence or qualifications to be president and when a Republican does somehow manage to win the Presidency, it’s under highly questionable circumstances that understandably cast serious doubt on their legitimacy.

Conclusion

The preceding is a reasonably accurate summation of how the popular mainstream media regard American presidents since Roosevelt. The common thread is that Democrats are intelligent, articulate, compassionate and visionary. Republicans are uniformly far less intelligent (certainly, none are thought to be brilliant), less articulate, somewhat lazy, clumsy or sloppy, less sophisticated and “worldly,” more apt to embarrass America on the world stage and less compassionate and concerned for the “little guy.”

People can argue all they want about media bias with regard to current events coverage. Few on either side of that dispute will ever be persuaded to see the opposing viewpoint, regardless of what “evidence” is presented. But the fact that only former Democratic presidents are seen as truly brilliant, compassionate and visionary and the only lazy, evil, dimwitted or senile former presidents are all Republicans tells us everything we need to know about how deeply-entrenched liberal media bias still is.

The media are famously accused of being liberally biased. Whether it’s the traditional network TV nightly newscasts on ABC-CBS-NBC, the few surviving major newspapers like the New York Times and Washington Post, popular TV “infotainment” shows like Good Morning America, Today and The View, tax-funded NPR and PBS, cable shows like Comedy Central’s The Daily Show, late night venues like Stephen Colbert, Jimmy Fallon and Jimmy Kimmel, and cable outlets like CNN and MSNBC, the media tilt left.  (Yes, Fox News tilts right. They’re outnumbered, oh, 15 or 20-1.) Even social media powerhouses like Facebook and Instagram have been shown to be liberal-leaning, as has the supposedly neutral “fact checking” site Snopes.

The bias these media outlets display in favor of liberal/Democratic causes and politicians is long-standing and well-documented. Among others, the media watchdog group Media Research Center provides an on-going and accurate accounting of all the specific incidents, times and percentages of liberal reporting in the news and popular culture.

That the “mainstream media” is liberally-biased in matters of daily news reporting and the wildly uneven manner in which they handle parallel Republican-Democrat personal/political circumstances is not in question. When Republicans commit what the liberal media deem a nation-threatening transgression, it’s treated as a “Stop the Presses!” moment. Conversely, a mirror-imaged action by Democrats is dismissed as a temporary minor misstep, when it’s even reported at all. Even the liberal media seem to acknowledge that this is the case, complete with a “That’s just how it is — get over it” attitude.

However, the day-to-day liberal reporting bias and inaccuracies are not as lasting and significant as the decades of legacy liberal reporting and documentation. The resulting permanent impression of American history that has come from years of uncorrected reporting is marked by a decidedly liberal slant, giving a structurally-inaccurate view of the country to students/analysts/researchers of our history.

Nowhere is this more obvious than in the popular view of U.S. presidents since World War II. That era that can legitimately be considered the “modern era” of U.S. history, the era in which the press and reporting styles are most relevant to this discussion. Let’s look at the media-generated popular, general impressions of each president, by party, in ascending chronological order, then compare them and see if there are any common themes.

Democrats

Franklin Delano Roosevelt, 1933-1945

The man who rescued America from the Great Depression. Astonishing personal courage and determination in the face of incredible individual hardship and pain. Brilliant war strategist and master negotiator with Stalin and Churchill, he assured America’s rightful place in a post-WWII world order. Unquestionably one of our greatest presidents.

Harry Truman, 1945-1953

The down-to-earth, tough, “Show me, I’m from Missouri” president. Finished the war effort in fine style, including the impossibly-difficult decision regarding the atomic bombs.

John F Kennedy, 1961-1963

The handsome, charismatic visionary America was counting on to lead us—and the world—into the next phase of life after WWII. He would’ve won the Cold War, having brilliantly thwarted the Russians in Cuba in 1962. His Moon Landing initiative had the country reaching for the stars. Anything was possible for America, with Kennedy and his beautiful family leading he way.

Lyndon Baines Johnson, 1963-1969

Our most compassionate president ever with regard to the plight of minorities caught in the destructive inner city cycle of poverty, crime and lack of rightful opportunity. He crafted the sweeping plan for a Great Society, including the establishment of Welfare and the War on Poverty. A cunning and brilliant politician who knew the ins and outs of DC maneuvering better than anyone, his ambitious plan for a utopian American culture was unfairly short-circuited by Communist aggressive expansionism in SE Asia, the American response to which proved more distracting, entangling and complicated than Johnson anticipated.

Jimmy Carter, 1977-1981

Intellectually brilliant and personally compassionate, but detail-oriented and schedule-controlling to a fault. He tried to do too much. He also had the misfortune of being victimized by outside events not of his making, like the Iranian revolution and their seizing of 52 American hostages, events that caused an energy crisis in this country and long lines at the gas stations. These developments tarnished his image and led to his loss to Ronald Reagan in the 1980 Presidential Election, but no one questions Carter’s intrinsic intelligence or laudable intentions.

William Clinton, 1993-2001

Oxford scholar, Southern charm, worldly sophistication, everyman touch. The ideal blend of complete mastery of complicated economic/domestic policy/foreign policy issues, articulate and emotional speechmaking and sharp-elbowed politicking. A politician above politicians, able to reach across the isle and work with the opposition party to get important things accomplished for the good of the country. Set the standard for job creation. Unfairly tarred by a baseless, desperate, Republican-fabricated “moral” scandal, but completely vindicated by the perspective of history.

Barack Obama, 2009-2017

Equally as brilliant as Clinton and even cooler, if that’s possible. Sets the all-time high bar for articulate, inspiring speeches and is revered globally even more than Kennedy and Clinton. Singlehandedly reversed America’s unsophisticated “cowboy” image. Dealt the worst economic, social justice, environmental and foreign policy hands ever handed off from one president to another, but he calmly handled everything with understated grace and expertise, leaving America an immeasurably better place than he found it—perhaps better than it’s ever been.

That is how the popular mainstream media see these Democratic presidents. That’s the overall impression that is given to the masses about these presidents. It varies a bit from source to source, plus or minus of course, but this is essentially an accurate representation of the prevailing popular media historical opinion of these Democratic presidents.

Now for the Republicans

Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1953-1961

A retired 4-star WWII General who commanded Allied forces in Europe through the D-Day invasion to the final victory over Germany, Eisenhower was a trusted, authoritative, fatherly figure with whom Americans felt comfortable and secure. America in the 1950’s was on autopilot, headed straight into the realm of world economic dominance, backed by the world’s strongest military. The challenges and requirements for a president were not as demanding and extreme as they’d been during the Depression/WWII years. All we really needed was someone with some military understanding to keep the Soviets in check, and after that, you could go play golf. That’s pretty much everything Eisenhower is remembered for.

Richard Nixon, 1969-1974

His reasonably high level of intelligence was undermined by an overwhelmingly debilitating insecurity, which led to his masterminding the senseless, unnecessary Watergate break-in of Democratic headquarters during the 1972 Presidential Election campaign, a race where he was so far ahead, he ended up winning 49 of 50 states. He was evil and insecure and fully deserving of his nickname “Tricky Dick.  Few remember anything he actually did as president, other than opening relations with China. But the dominant memory of Nixon is his having to resign in disgrace.

Gerald Ford, 1974-1977

A little-known, undistinguished Congressman from Michigan, Ford was appointed to the vice-presidency following the resignation of Republican V.P. Spiro Agnew on corruption charges in 1973. When Nixon (also a Republican) resigned in August 1974, Ford became president, completing his highly unlikely, unelected and undeserved path to the Oval Office. He quickly established a reputation for bumbling clumsiness, to the point that Chevy Chase of Saturday Night Live became famous for his imitation of Ford falling down the stairs. In his Presidential debate against Jimmy Carter in the fall of 1976, Ford revealed his ignorance of the USSR’s dominance of Eastern Europe. Carter and the press quickly pounced and Ford was rightfully tagged with an asterisk and relegated to history’s dustbin with his loss to Carter in the 1976 election.

Ronald Reagan, 1981-1989

An unqualified actor-turned-politician who was the beneficiary of random outside circumstances (the Arab oil embargo and Iranian hostage situation) that unfairly hamstrung the Carter administration. Reagan was able to parlay his glib actor’s presentation skills advantage over Carter into a 1980 election win. But he quickly showed an indifference to women and minorities, a favoritism to big business to the detriment of the average working person (he fired all the Air Traffic Controllers, who were exercising their right to strike), a frustrating inattention to detail and he confirmed his critics’ suspicions of his trigger-happy proclivities with his pointless adventurisms in Granada and Libya. His second term was dominated by the Iran-Contra scandal and his ever-increasing senility, rendering him totally ineffectual his last two years in office. Of all our presidents, Reagan is unquestionably the most over-rated.

George H.W, Bush, 1989-1993

While not an unintelligent man, Bush the Elder is regarded as a bland, uninspiring, milquetoast personality, someone who famously checked his watch during the debate with Governor Clinton (giving the impression that he wanted to get the heck out of there), who was admonished by Margaret Thatcher before the 1991 Gulf War (“George, don’t go wobbly on me now!”), and is remembered as the president who gave up four runs in the bottom of the 9th against Saddam Hussein by not chasing him from power when he had the easy chance, thus turning a beautiful 6-0 American gem into a 6-4 stinker of a win. He would say vaguely positive things like, “A thousand points of light,” but no one knew exactly what he meant, so its inspirational value was nil. His most memorable phrase — “Read my lips” — lives on as ignominious testimony to a broken promise, the result of his being suckered by the Democrats, like Charlie Brown was always suckered by Lucy. He’s not thought of as evil, senile, lazy or unqualified. He’s thought of more like a Mister Rogers: unremarkable and nondescript.

George W. Bush, 2001-2008

“Dubbya” is the quintessential liberal target-rich environment. A solid man who restored the values of honesty and personal morality to the office following Clinton, the younger Bush is remembered not for his job-expanding tax cuts, not for his steady leadership after 9/11, nor for the vanishingly low unemployment through the first 6 years of his presidency. Instead, “W” is unfairly linked with Hurricane Katrina (despite the abject failures of local Democratic politicians to act promptly, which was easily within their grasp), unfairly tarred with the Abu Ghriab prison torture scandal, which was not his doing in the slightest, and he is blamed for the financial/housing crisis of 2007/2008, when thousands of sub-prime home loans defaulted, sending the U.S. economy crashing into what has become known as the Great Recession.  In fact, the “fault” for that crash was years — if not decades — in the making, with Democratic-sponsored programs that eliminated time-proven loan requirements in favor of social engineering and politically-correct outcomes being at least as responsible, if not more so, than anything President Bush did.

But with his “unsophisticated” Southern drawl (hated by the oh-so-erudite liberal media intelligentsia), his propensity for mispronunciation (“nucular” and “strategery”), and his hard-edged America-first foreign policy (leading to his derogatory “cowboy” label), President Bush has been the most liberally-vilified President in the last 80 years, responsible for an incredible array of ills and damage to the country.

Donald Trump, 2017-

The jury is obviously still out on the actual accomplishments or actual failures of his 4- (or 😎 year tenure, but the verdict of the liberal media was delivered well before his inauguration. Keeping in lockstep tradition of the liberal mainstream media to cast every Republican president as unintelligent, incapable of interpreting or acting upon subtle details, inarticulate, embarrassing to the country on the world stage and uncaring about the plights—real or imagined—of women and minorities, their book on Trump is already written, the story already mailed.

Beyond these individual Republican presidents’ summaries, another concrete piece of evidence revealing the liberal media’s distain for Republican intelligence is the fact that only Republican presidents are said to have had a “real” president behind the scenes. Dick Cheney was the so-called real president behind George W. Bush, as Steve Bannon is the real president behind Donald Trump. It’s obvious that Republicans lack the intelligence or qualifications to be president and when a Republican does somehow manage to win the Presidency, it’s under highly questionable circumstances that understandably cast serious doubt on their legitimacy.

Conclusion

The preceding is a reasonably accurate summation of how the popular mainstream media regard American presidents since Roosevelt. The common thread is that Democrats are intelligent, articulate, compassionate and visionary. Republicans are uniformly far less intelligent (certainly, none are thought to be brilliant), less articulate, somewhat lazy, clumsy or sloppy, less sophisticated and “worldly,” more apt to embarrass America on the world stage and less compassionate and concerned for the “little guy.”

People can argue all they want about media bias with regard to current events coverage. Few on either side of that dispute will ever be persuaded to see the opposing viewpoint, regardless of what “evidence” is presented. But the fact that only former Democratic presidents are seen as truly brilliant, compassionate and visionary and the only lazy, evil, dimwitted or senile former presidents are all Republicans tells us everything we need to know about how deeply-entrenched liberal media bias still is.



Source link

Sorry, Son, You’re Not a Girl


I recently engaged in a back-and-forth discussion on another website, concerning the issue of GID (Gender Identity Disorder) with a person who supports transgender issues. More precisely, he (I will presume it’s a he) advocates societal changes and surgical methods to “transition” gender-confused boys into being girls (and vice versa).

My aim was not to persuade the other person, because he seems emotionally invested at a very deep level. At most, I hoped to soberly present a side of the story that social liberals seem never to encounter, and perhaps to plant the seed of reflection that may take years to mature.

One of the primary arguments that I made, and one to which the other person could not adequately reply, was the comparison of GID, Gender Identity Disorder (he calls it Dysphoria) to a disorder called BIID (Body Integrity Identity Disorder). They are related, probably very closely. Those who suffer from BIID have an overwhelming perception that a specific part of their body, say an arm or leg, does not belong there, somewhat the feeling you and I might get if a large, abnormal growth appeared on our face. We would wish it to be removed. The BIID sufferer urgently wishes to remove the arm or leg, even though it is fully functional and healthy.

The point of this comparison, as I stated it, is that the problem for the BIID patient is not the arm. It is something in the brain.

I then pointed out that we do not celebrate BIID. We do not advocate the amputation of healthy limbs, even though this may relieve the suffering of the BIID patient. Instead, we do research to find other possible remedies. We should take the same approach to helping sufferers of GID.

My correspondent in this back-and-forth, seemed to carry into the debate the usual liberal assumption that we conservatives are heartless, cruel, and insensitive ideologues who wish to impose our beliefs on others. I made it clear that I, for one, have great sympathy for sufferers of GID. It must be just awful to sincerely believe that you are a man trapped in a woman’s body, or vice versa. It must be terrible for the parents to discover that their son wishes to be surgically altered to become a woman. I have tried to imagine myself in their place, both the son and the parents. I cannot, of course, but just trying to do it demonstrates some of the great difficulty that they must experience.

This, then, is the single-minded focus of the liberal advocate. He adequately senses the suffering of the patient, but fails to see any issue beyond that. His attitude seems to be, and I speak metaphorically here, just cut off the offending part, and everything else will be okay — well, that is, it will be okay, after we reeducate society to accept the liberal position.

But reeducation would be at the expense of the First Amendment, and other basic rights. If GID is a correctly understood condition, and if the recommended alterations to the body are medically proper, then anyone who opposes the agenda, including laws with civil and criminal penalties for dissidents — is a bigot, and should be neutralized. That is the liberal position.

One problem with all that, is that GID is poorly understood, and the supposed remedies are not only superficial, they risk grave harm to the patients, especially to little boys and girls who oftentimes pass through a temporary phase of what we might call, gender experimentation, such as for example, cross dressing for play. Giving these children hormone injections and other drugs, could cause irreparable damage.

At present, there seems to be no cure for GID, but that does not mean that we should embark on harmful therapies, not even if they make the patient more comfortable. There is great harm in accepting the liberal position, not only harm for some of the patients, but harm for society at large.

For example, there are now laws on the books, in some jurisdictions, which give men a right to walk into gymnasium showers for women, including showers for high school girls. In California, when parents objected to this rule, they were horrified to be told, by the government, that their daughter should become comfortable showering with boys. There was no mention of the transgender student becoming comfortable showering with members of his own biological sex. They have rights, and you do not.

There are also other complications that arise. Murders have been committed when a man discovered that his “girlfriend” was born as a boy. Would liberals ever countenance a law requiring full disclosure about one’s transgenderism? Or would that be a privacy right that outweighs those of high school girls?

It’s not so simple as amputating the offending part. At present, many liberals even denounce referring to GID as a disorder. They demand that it be accepted as simply an uncomfortable feeling, one which can be remedied with surgery, and with draconian laws to punish dissidents.

Therefore, at the risk of sounding brutal and cruel, here is my message to transgender people, as if I were speaking to my son.

I’m sorry to have to be the one to tell you this, but you are not a girl. It pains me to say so, but you are a boy who thinks you are a girl. It’s not your fault, no more so than it is the fault of sufferers of BIID or other uncured disorders. But you have never been /a girl, and will never become one, no matter how extreme is the pretense. Not even surgery will change that fact.

If simple surgery would solve the issue, without creating a greater harm, then perhaps I might reconsider. But that is not the case. What good is the surgery if society does not accept you as a woman? Or is it that, you think you can force society to accept your pretense — and it would be just that, a pretense.

There are already laws that punish people for refusing to accept as normal, abnormal gender roles. You already know that courts have ruled against bakers, photographers and others who decline to participate in same-sex wedding ceremonies. They did not discriminate against gays, but they do discriminate against a celebration of something that violates their deeply held moral beliefs.

If you would reorder society according to your desires, then why not advocate for research that would heal the brain? That, after all, is where the disorder is.

Your suffering is my suffering. I am inadequate to cure that. All I can do is to steadfastly love you, and to refrain from doing more harm to you on top of the malady you already have.

I recently engaged in a back-and-forth discussion on another website, concerning the issue of GID (Gender Identity Disorder) with a person who supports transgender issues. More precisely, he (I will presume it’s a he) advocates societal changes and surgical methods to “transition” gender-confused boys into being girls (and vice versa).

My aim was not to persuade the other person, because he seems emotionally invested at a very deep level. At most, I hoped to soberly present a side of the story that social liberals seem never to encounter, and perhaps to plant the seed of reflection that may take years to mature.

One of the primary arguments that I made, and one to which the other person could not adequately reply, was the comparison of GID, Gender Identity Disorder (he calls it Dysphoria) to a disorder called BIID (Body Integrity Identity Disorder). They are related, probably very closely. Those who suffer from BIID have an overwhelming perception that a specific part of their body, say an arm or leg, does not belong there, somewhat the feeling you and I might get if a large, abnormal growth appeared on our face. We would wish it to be removed. The BIID sufferer urgently wishes to remove the arm or leg, even though it is fully functional and healthy.

The point of this comparison, as I stated it, is that the problem for the BIID patient is not the arm. It is something in the brain.

I then pointed out that we do not celebrate BIID. We do not advocate the amputation of healthy limbs, even though this may relieve the suffering of the BIID patient. Instead, we do research to find other possible remedies. We should take the same approach to helping sufferers of GID.

My correspondent in this back-and-forth, seemed to carry into the debate the usual liberal assumption that we conservatives are heartless, cruel, and insensitive ideologues who wish to impose our beliefs on others. I made it clear that I, for one, have great sympathy for sufferers of GID. It must be just awful to sincerely believe that you are a man trapped in a woman’s body, or vice versa. It must be terrible for the parents to discover that their son wishes to be surgically altered to become a woman. I have tried to imagine myself in their place, both the son and the parents. I cannot, of course, but just trying to do it demonstrates some of the great difficulty that they must experience.

This, then, is the single-minded focus of the liberal advocate. He adequately senses the suffering of the patient, but fails to see any issue beyond that. His attitude seems to be, and I speak metaphorically here, just cut off the offending part, and everything else will be okay — well, that is, it will be okay, after we reeducate society to accept the liberal position.

But reeducation would be at the expense of the First Amendment, and other basic rights. If GID is a correctly understood condition, and if the recommended alterations to the body are medically proper, then anyone who opposes the agenda, including laws with civil and criminal penalties for dissidents — is a bigot, and should be neutralized. That is the liberal position.

One problem with all that, is that GID is poorly understood, and the supposed remedies are not only superficial, they risk grave harm to the patients, especially to little boys and girls who oftentimes pass through a temporary phase of what we might call, gender experimentation, such as for example, cross dressing for play. Giving these children hormone injections and other drugs, could cause irreparable damage.

At present, there seems to be no cure for GID, but that does not mean that we should embark on harmful therapies, not even if they make the patient more comfortable. There is great harm in accepting the liberal position, not only harm for some of the patients, but harm for society at large.

For example, there are now laws on the books, in some jurisdictions, which give men a right to walk into gymnasium showers for women, including showers for high school girls. In California, when parents objected to this rule, they were horrified to be told, by the government, that their daughter should become comfortable showering with boys. There was no mention of the transgender student becoming comfortable showering with members of his own biological sex. They have rights, and you do not.

There are also other complications that arise. Murders have been committed when a man discovered that his “girlfriend” was born as a boy. Would liberals ever countenance a law requiring full disclosure about one’s transgenderism? Or would that be a privacy right that outweighs those of high school girls?

It’s not so simple as amputating the offending part. At present, many liberals even denounce referring to GID as a disorder. They demand that it be accepted as simply an uncomfortable feeling, one which can be remedied with surgery, and with draconian laws to punish dissidents.

Therefore, at the risk of sounding brutal and cruel, here is my message to transgender people, as if I were speaking to my son.

I’m sorry to have to be the one to tell you this, but you are not a girl. It pains me to say so, but you are a boy who thinks you are a girl. It’s not your fault, no more so than it is the fault of sufferers of BIID or other uncured disorders. But you have never been /a girl, and will never become one, no matter how extreme is the pretense. Not even surgery will change that fact.

If simple surgery would solve the issue, without creating a greater harm, then perhaps I might reconsider. But that is not the case. What good is the surgery if society does not accept you as a woman? Or is it that, you think you can force society to accept your pretense — and it would be just that, a pretense.

There are already laws that punish people for refusing to accept as normal, abnormal gender roles. You already know that courts have ruled against bakers, photographers and others who decline to participate in same-sex wedding ceremonies. They did not discriminate against gays, but they do discriminate against a celebration of something that violates their deeply held moral beliefs.

If you would reorder society according to your desires, then why not advocate for research that would heal the brain? That, after all, is where the disorder is.

Your suffering is my suffering. I am inadequate to cure that. All I can do is to steadfastly love you, and to refrain from doing more harm to you on top of the malady you already have.



Source link