Archive for the ‘American History’ Category

THE DEMISE OF JOURNALISTIC STANDARDS AND THE 2016 ELECTION

Monday, February 5th, 2018

 

IMPRIMIS

The 2016 Election and the Demise of Journalistic Standards

May/June 2017 • Volume 46, Number 5/6

Michael Goodwin
The New York Post


Michael GoodwinMichael Goodwin is the chief political columnist for The New York Post. He has a B.A. in English literature from Columbia College and has taught at the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism. Before joining the Post in 2009, he was the political columnist for The New York Daily News, where he served as executive editor and editorial page editor and led its editorial board to a Pulitzer Prize. Prior to that, he worked for 16 years at The New York Times, beginning as a clerk and rising to City Hall Bureau Chief. He is the co-author of I, Koch and editor of New York Comes Back.


The following is adapted from a speech delivered on April 20, 2017, in Atlanta, Georgia, at a Hillsdale College National Leadership Seminar.

I’ve been a journalist for a long time. Long enough to know that it wasn’t always like this. There was a time not so long ago when journalists were trusted and admired. We were generally seen as trying to report the news in a fair and straightforward manner. Today, all that has changed. For that, we can blame the 2016 election or, more accurately, how some news organizations chose to cover it. Among the many firsts, last year’s election gave us the gobsmacking revelation that most of the mainstream media puts both thumbs on the scale—that most of what you read, watch, and listen to is distorted by intentional bias and hostility. I have never seen anything like it. Not even close.

It’s not exactly breaking news that most journalists lean left. I used to do that myself. I grew up at The New York Times, so I’m familiar with the species. For most of the media, bias grew out of the social revolution of the 1960s and ’70s. Fueled by the civil rights and anti-Vietnam War movements, the media jumped on the anti-authority bandwagon writ large. The deal was sealed with Watergate, when journalism was viewed as more trusted than government—and far more exciting and glamorous. Think Robert Redford in All the President’s Men. Ever since, young people became journalists because they wanted to be the next Woodward and Bernstein, find a Deep Throat, and bring down a president. Of course, most of them only wanted to bring down a Republican president. That’s because liberalism is baked into the journalism cake.

(more…)

Share

A RECKONING FOR THE FBI

Saturday, February 3rd, 2018

 

 

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

A Reckoning for the FBI

The House memo reveals disturbing facts about the misuse of FISA.

EXCERPT FROM THIS ARTICLE:   We also know the FBI wasn’t straight with Congress, as it hid most of these facts from investigators in a briefing on the dossier in January 2017. The FBI did not tell Congress about Mr. Steele’s connection to the Clinton campaign, and the House had to issue subpoenas for Fusion bank records to discover the truth. Nor did the FBI tell investigators that it continued receiving information from Mr. Steele and Fusion even after it had terminated him. The memo says the bureau’s intermediary was Justice Department official Bruce Ohr, whose wife, incredibly, worked for Fusion.

Now we know why the FBI tried so hard to block release of the House Intelligence Committee memo. And why Democrats and the media want to change the subject to Republican motivations. The four-page memo released Friday reports disturbing facts about how the FBI and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court appear to have been used to influence the 2016 election and its aftermath.

The White House declassified the memo Friday, and you don’t have to be a civil libertarian to be shocked by the details. The memo confirms that the FBI and Justice Department on Oct. 21, 2016 obtained a FISA order to surveil Carter Page, an American citizen who was a relatively minor volunteer adviser to the Trump presidential campaign.

The memo says an “essential” part of the FISA application was the “dossier” assembled by former British spy Christopher Steele and the research firm Fusion GPS that was hired by a law firm attached to the Clinton campaign. The memo adds that former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe told the committee in December 2017 that “no surveillance warrant would have been sought” without the dossier.

(more…)

Share

THE MEMO – WHAT IT SAYS AND FULL TEXT

Friday, February 2nd, 2018

 

THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
Share

VIDEO – GREATEST SCANDAL IN AMERICAN HISTORY

Friday, February 2nd, 2018

 

 

VIDEO 

 A riveting  interview done by Ginny Thomas of former federal prosecutor Joe deGenova concerning the  whole sordid story behind the FBI and Justice Department involvement in the Russian Collusion investigation, the manufactured dossier and coverup of the Uranium One Scandal.   Absolutely fascinating !  Thanks to Steve Bishop for sharing.   Nancy:

Share

DON’T ANSWER HIS QUESTIONS, MR PRESIDENT

Sunday, January 28th, 2018

 

THE AMERICAN SPECTATOR
DON’T ANSWER HIS QUESTIONS, MR. PRESIDENT
by Ben Stein
January 25, 2018

In September of 1967, I was a first year at Yale Law School, returning from a year recovering from acute colitis. My then gf, soon to be my wifey, and I went to a demonstration in the Graduate Student Commons in support of striking cafeteria workers. We were milling around, probably shouting slogans, and a hulking campus cop came up to my classmate, an extremely self-confident, smart fellow named Walter D. Waggoner. The cop said, “What’s your name, boy?”

Walter looked him dead in the eye and said, “I don’t have to answer your f–king questions.”

The cop stared and then walked away.

This all came rushing into my antique brain as I watched the news tonight that our President, Donald J. Trump, had been asked to answer Special Vishinsky Prosecutor Mueller’s questions about “collusion” between the Trump campaign and Putin’s Russia in the 2016 Presidential Campaign.

Incredibly, Trump, racing off to a conference of economic and finance bigwigs at Davos, Switzerland, said something like, “I’ll be glad to answer his questions.” Then he added, even more amazingly, “Under oath.”

Now, Donald R. Trump is a successful man. He has a jet plane. He’s President. He’s nobody’s idea of Abraham Lincoln or Thomas Jefferson, but he’s a smart guy.

Yet he has just done something foolish.

Let me tell you a few reasons why I say so:

(more…)

Share

HILLARY- OBAMA EMAILS: WHY HILLARY WASN’T INDICTED

Thursday, January 25th, 2018

 

Andrew McCarthy makes a very good case as to why Hillary wasn’t indicted.  Obama’s secret  emails, with him using a pseudonymous email account  to Hillary,  saved her.   All would of been forgotten if Hillary had won the presidency as had been assumed.  No wonder Hillary threw a fit when she lost because she knew the truth would eventually come out.  The chants of “lock her up”   when she appeared at Trump’s inauguration (I was there in the audience and it made me cringe too) must of made her blood run cold !   Nancy
Clinton–Obama Emails: The Key to Understanding Why Hillary Wasn’t Indicted

New FBI texts highlight a motive to conceal the president’s involvement.

By Andrew C. McCarthy — Andrew C. McCarthy is a senior fellow at the National Review Institute and a contributing editor of National Review.    — January 23, 2018

EXCERPT FROM THIS ARTICLE:  If Clinton had been charged, Obama’s culpable involvement would have been patent. In any prosecution of Clinton, the Clinton–Obama emails would have been in the spotlight. For the prosecution, they would be more proof of willful (or, if you prefer, grossly negligent) mishandling of intelligence. More significantly, for Clinton’s defense, they would show that Obama was complicit in Clinton’s conduct yet faced no criminal charges.

That is why such an indictment of Hillary Clinton was never going to happen. The latest jaw-dropping disclosures of text messages between FBI agent Peter Strzok and his paramour, FBI lawyer Lisa Page, illustrate this point.

 

From the first, these columns have argued that the whitewash of the Hillary Clinton–emails caper was President Barack Obama’s call — not the FBI’s, and not the Justice Department’s. (See, e.g., herehere, and here.) The decision was inevitable. Obama, using a pseudonymous email account, had repeatedly communicated with Secretary Clinton over her private, non-secure email account.
Share

CLINTON-OBAMA EMAILS: WHY HILLARY WASN’T INDICTED

Thursday, January 25th, 2018

 

Andrew McCarthy makes a very good case as to why Hillary wasn’t indicted.  Obama’s secret  emails, with him using a pseudonymous email account  to Hillary,  saved her.   All would of been forgotten if Hillary had won the presidency as had been assumed.  No wonder Hillary threw a fit when she lost because she knew the truth would eventually come out.  The chants of “lock her up”   when she appeared at Trump’s inauguration (I was there in the audience and it made me cringe too) must of made her blood run cold !   Nancy
Clinton–Obama Emails: The Key to Understanding Why Hillary Wasn’t Indicted

New FBI texts highlight a motive to conceal the president’s involvement.

By Andrew C. McCarthy — Andrew C. McCarthy is a senior fellow at the National Review Institute and a contributing editor of National Review.    — January 23, 2018
EXCERPT FROM THIS ARTICLE:  If Clinton had been charged, Obama’s culpable involvement would have been patent. In any prosecution of Clinton, the Clinton–Obama emails would have been in the spotlight. For the prosecution, they would be more proof of willful (or, if you prefer, grossly negligent) mishandling of intelligence. More significantly, for Clinton’s defense, they would show that Obama was complicit in Clinton’s conduct yet faced no criminal charges.

That is why such an indictment of Hillary Clinton was never going to happen. The latest jaw-dropping disclosures of text messages between FBI agent Peter Strzok and his paramour, FBI lawyer Lisa Page, illustrate this point.

 

From the first, these columns have argued that the whitewash of the Hillary Clinton–emails caper was President Barack Obama’s call — not the FBI’s, and not the Justice Department’s. (See, e.g., herehere, and here.) The decision was inevitable. Obama, using a pseudonymous email account, had repeatedly communicated with Secretary Clinton over her private, non-secure email account.
Share

PRESIDENT NOBAMA – VICTOR DAVIS HANSON

Thursday, January 18th, 2018

 

NATIONAL REVIEW
President Nobama
BY Victor Davis Hanson     January 16, 2018
Trump is commonsensically undoing, piece by piece, the main components of Obama’s legacy.
Donald Trump continues to baffle. Never Trump Republicans still struggle to square the circle of quietly agreeing so far with most of his policies, as they loudly insist that his record is already nullified by its supposedly odious author. Or surely it soon will be discredited by the next Trumpian outrage. Or his successes belong to congressional and Cabinet members, while his failures are all his own. Rarely do they seriously reflect on what otherwise over the last year might have been the trajectory of a Clinton administration.
Contrary to popular supposition, the Left loathes Trump not just for what he has done. (It is often too consumed with fury to calibrate carefully the particulars of the Trump agenda.) Rather, it despises him mostly for what he superficially represents.
To many progressives and indeed elites of all persuasions, Trump is also the Prince of Anti-culture: mindlessly naïve American boosterism; conspicuous, 1950s-style unapologetic consumption; repetitive and limited vocabulary; fast-food culinary tastes; Queens accent; herky-jerky mannerisms; ostentatious dress; bulging appearance; poorly disguised facial expressions; embracing rather than sneering at middle-class appetites; a lack of subtlety, nuance, and ambiguity.
In short Trump’s very essence wars with everything that long ago was proven to be noble, just, and correct by Vanity Fair, NPR, The New Yorker, Google, the Upper West Side, and The Daily Show. There is not even a smidgeon of a concession that some of Trump’s policies might offer tens of thousands of forgotten inner-city youth good jobs or revitalize a dead and written-off town in the Midwest, or make the petroleum of the war-torn Persian Gulf strategically irrelevant to an oil-rich United States.

(more…)

Share

VIDEO DINESH D’SOUZA – SNOWFLAKES

Monday, January 15th, 2018

Share

HOW OBAMA MANIPULATED SECRET INTELLIGENCE FOR POLITICAL GAIN

Wednesday, January 10th, 2018

 

THE WASHINGTON TIMES

How Obama manipulated sensitive secret intelligence for political gain

Insiders reveal how secret data manipulated for political gain
By Guy Taylor and Dan Boylan
December 21, 2017

They wanted him dead.

For years, a clandestine U.S. intelligence team had tracked a man they knew was high in the leadership of al Qaeda — an operative some believed had a hand in plotting the gruesome 2009 suicide attack in Afghanistan that killed seven CIA officers.

Their pursuit was personal, and by early 2014, according to a source directly involved in the operation, the agency had the target under tight drone surveillance. “We literally had a bead on this guy’s head and just needed authorization from Washington to pull the trigger,” said the source.

Then something unexpected happened. While agents waited for the green light, the al Qaedaoperative’s name, as well as information about the CIA’s classified surveillance and plan to kill him in Pakistan, suddenly appeared in the U.S. press.

Abdullah al-Shami, it turned out, was an American citizen, and President Obama and his national security advisers were torn over whether the benefits of killing him would outweigh the political and civil liberties backlash that was sure to follow.

In interviews with several current and former officials, the al-Shami case was cited as an example of what critics say was the Obama White House’s troublesome tendency to mishandle some of the nation’s most delicate intelligence — especially regarding the Middle East — by leaking classified information in an attempt to sway public opinion on sensitive matters.

By the end of Mr. Obama’s second term, according to sources who spoke anonymously with The Washington Times, the practices of leaking, ignoring and twisting intelligence for political gain were ingrained in how the administration conducted national security policy.

Those criticisms have resurfaced in the debate over whether overall intelligence fumbling by the Obama White House in its final months may have amplified the damage wrought by suspected Russian meddling in the U.S. presidential election last year.

On repeated occasions during the Obama era, high-level sources and some lawmakers lamented to The Washington Times, the president’s inner circle ignored classified briefings and twisted intelligence to fit political goals. Long before Donald Trump appeared on the White House campaign scene, many pointed to an incident during the 2012 election cycle as the most dramatic evidence of how that approach affected the handling of national security threats.

PLEASE CLICK ON THE ABOVE LINK TO READ THE ENTIRE ARTICLE

 

Share
Search All Posts
Categories