Posted tagged ‘Media and Donald Trump’

« WarSclerotic home page
Newer Entries »

Witnessing the Final Demise of “Mainstream” Media

October 1, 2016

Witnessing the Final Demise of “Mainstream” Media, Power Line, John Hinderaker, October 1, 2016

If this year’s presidential election has a silver lining, it is the final demise of “mainstream media.” Which is not to say that liberal media are going away; they aren’t, of course. But liberal media’s claim to being mainstream–reliable, objective, fair, unlike fringe or partisan news sources–is gone forever. That is a good thing.

No one could follow this year’s campaign without understanding that the media formerly known as mainstream (sorry, Prince) have jettisoned any pretense of neutrality, or even of journalistic integrity, in their desperation to preserve the status quo by electing Hillary Clinton president. Fair enough. We know where they stand.

One of the last vestiges of liberal media’s pretense to authority is its legion of “fact checkers.” “Fact checkers” like PolitiFact, the Washington Post’s Glenn Kessler and others purport to rule judiciously on claims made by candidates of both parties. In fact, as those who pay attention have long known, “fact checking,” in pretty much all cases, is just liberal activism under another name.

All of which is preface to this: Rasmussen Reports finds that voters are no longer fooled, if they ever were, by newspapers’ fact checkers:

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that just 29% of all Likely U.S. Voters trust media fact-checking of candidates’ comments. Sixty-two percent (62%) believe instead that news organizations skew the facts to help candidates they support. …

Eighty-eight percent (88%) of voters who support Trump in the presidential race believe news organizations skew the facts, while most Clinton backers (59%) trust media fact-checking. Among the supporters of Libertarian Gary Johnson and Green Party candidate Jill Stein, sizable majorities also don’t trust media fact-checking.

It stands to reason that a slim majority of Democrats trust media fact-checkers. Why not trust those who are in the business of agreeing with you? What could be more objective than that?

A college friend of mine once said, “Objective is what I think. Subjective is what you think.” That sums up the fact-checker mentality very well, and after all these years, no one–not even the Democrats who purport to trust the fact-checkers–is fooled. Breitbart.com is a sort-of-conservative news source, while the New York Times is a massively liberal news source. Neither is impartial or has any inherent authority. Which one is more reliable is a case-by-case, day-by-day evaluation that is left up to the reader, and as to which there will be nothing like consensus.

If just about everyone now understands this, it is a good thing.

Categories: 2016 elections, mainstream media, Media and Donald Trump, Media and Hillary Clinton
Tags: , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

NY Times opinion | Hillary Clinton’s Everywoman Moment

September 28, 2016

Hillary Clinton’s Everywoman Moment, NY Times Editorial Board, September 27, 2016

(Trump has even said that has said women don’t deserve equal pay unless they do as good a job as men. Dear me! Please see also, Hillary’s ‘Body-Shamed’ Beauty Queen Accused of Being Accomplice to Attempted Murder and Threatening Judge. — DM)

The direct confrontation between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton over Mr. Trump’s treatment of women didn’t come until the final moments ofMonday night’s debate. But in many ways, the entire event played out as a big-screen version of what women encounter every day.

There were plenty of aha moments for any woman who is the sole female member of her company’s management team, a female sportscaster, bartender, cop, construction worker, law partner or, yes, a beauty queen. And maybe for the sole female presidential candidate, too.

Mrs. Clinton leads Mr. Trump by double digits among women and minorities. But non-college-educated white women are one of the biggest groups of undecided voters, and her campaign has been wooing them for months, toggling between portraying her as a tough potential commander in chief and a champion of women and girls.

hilltrumpedCredit Damon Winter/The New York Times

On Monday night, those women got to see Mrs. Clinton stand up to that common hazard of working while female: the sexist blowhard, the harasser.

When Mr. Trump began by addressing Mrs. Clinton as “Secretary Clinton,” saying, “yes, is that O.K.?,” Mrs. Clinton laughed off the condescension. But she wasn’t playing along — she was awaiting her moment. After nearly 90 minutes, it came.

Lester Holt, the NBC News anchor who moderated the debate, asked what Mr. Trump meant when he had said in a rally that Mrs. Clinton doesn’t have a “presidential look.”

“She doesn’t have the look,” he said. “She doesn’t have the stamina.”

Mrs. Clinton’s response: “Well, as soon as he travels to 112 countries and negotiates a peace deal, a cease-fire, a release of dissidents, an opening of new opportunities in nations around the world or even spends 11 hours testifying in front of a congressional committee, he can talk to me about stamina.”

When Mrs. Clinton finally got to unload what felt like the pent-up frustration of Everywoman, it was powerful. “This is a man who has called women pigs, slobs and dogs, and someone who has said pregnancy is an inconvenience to employers, who has said women don’t deserve equal pay unless they do as good a job as men,” she said. “And one of the worst things he said was about a woman in a beauty contest. He loves beauty contests, supporting them and hanging around them. And he called this woman ‘Miss Piggy.’ Then he called her ‘Miss Housekeeping,’ because she was Latina. Donald, she has a name. Her name is Alicia Machado.”

Mr. Trump blustered, but didn’t deny any of it. Instead, he dug himself in deeper by saying that Rosie O’Donnell, the comedian who was the target of some of those epithets, “deserves it.”

Mr. Trump’s misogyny is unlikely to turn off his core supporters. And his bullying of Mrs. Clinton — as well as his critique of her reversal on the Trans-Pacific Partnership and his remarks on the effect of globalization on jobs — may play well with white men reeling from technological change, job losses and addiction. Amid this upheaval, some have come to believe that when minorities, immigrants and women make gains, it pushes them further behind.

The debate’s clash over gender was telling for both candidates, and it may have helped establish Mrs. Clinton as a standard-bearer for more than Democrats.

Categories: Donald Trump misogynist, Hillary Clinton - "Feminist", Media and Donald Trump, Media and Hillary Clinton, NY Times
Tags: , , ,

Comments: 1 Comment

After First Debate, ‘Nobody Knows Anything’

September 27, 2016

After First Debate, ‘Nobody Knows Anything’ PJ Media, Roger L Simon, September 26, 2016

I can’t say I’m surprised, as others have noted (okay I took a few peaks), that moderator Lester Holt asked no questions about Hillary’s emails, Benghazi, or the Clinton Foundation. That’s what the mainstream media are paid for — to be silent and practice omertà concerning anything embarrassing to Democrats. (Ironically, this leaves a big opening for one person — Julian Assange. And don’t think he doesn’t know it.)

***********************

In his Adventures in the Screen Trade, screenwriter William Goldman famously wrote of Hollywood that “Nobody knows anything.”

He was mostly right about the movie business, except that sequels of Star Warsdo tend to make a lot of money (until they don’t).

But applied to politics, his words are one hundred percent correct. Nobody does know anything. Nevertheless, as in Hollywood, a lot of people are paid big bucks to pretend they do.

Goldman’s was the first phrase that came to my mind after watching the Greatest Debate That Ever Lived or whatever anyone wants to call the extravaganza Monday night that turned out not to be nearly as dramatic as some were expecting.

Who won? Beats me. Does it matter? Also beats me. (Well, I do have a suspicion, but I’ll get to that in a minute.)

I do notice that as of this moment (8:20PM PT) the Drudge Report is showing Donald up 90% to 10% in its online poll.  That’s basically meaningless considering the source.  If Drudge’s poll had shown Trump winning by less that 80% it would have spelled disaster.

As for the pundits, I can’t stand watching them. They make my head explode.  And they’re basically useless. No one is more disconnected from the American public than a television pundit. When have you ever heard one say something you haven’t thought of a hundred times before? Well, maybe once in a blue moon. (You’re free to dial off me now.  I’m no better.)

But, being a good pundit, I will say the painfully obvious. Both candidates basically got what they wanted.  Hillary didn’t have a coughing fit or fall over. Donald seemed plausibly presidential. He didn’t assault Clinton or bite her head off (not that she didn’t deserve it). In the end, he may have gotten more.  (As I said, more of that in a moment)

I can’t say I’m surprised, as others have noted (okay I took a few peaks), that moderator Lester Holt asked no questions about Hillary’s emails, Benghazi, or the Clinton Foundation. That’s what the mainstream media are paid for — to be silent and practice omertà concerning anything embarrassing to Democrats. (Ironically, this leaves a big opening for one person — Julian Assange. And don’t think he doesn’t know it.)

What did surprise me is that Trump barely brought much of this up himself. He had a huge opportunity when the subject of cyber security came up but didn’t take it.  Was this deliberate or an oversight?  If the former,  and I suspect it largely is, it’s a clever strategy. Everyone knows about Hillary’s email/Foundation veracity issues. Trump didn’t have to make a big deal about them, especially if his goal was to appear presidential, to not seem crazy or mean to those few remaining independent voters who are not attracted to Hillary but want to be reassured about Trump. And we have to remember, the polls at this moment show him practically even or ahead and surging, a great position.

Interestingly, as I continue to write, Drudge has abandoned his own poll and is linking to another online poll being run by Time magazine. It is currently showing Trump ahead 60-40 with well over 540,000 votes cast. That’s a significant number with a big spread and, unlike Drudge, Time is no conservative icon.

What does this mean? Well, there was a link from Drudge and it may be his fans coming over. As I said, “Nobody knows anything.” Another round of polls will be coming out in a few days and we will be told what to think.

Meanwhile there’s this: Trump concentrated his fire on Hilary actually having done nothing of substance in her 30 (later corrected to 26) years of public service — just talk talk talk. That approach may ultimately prove more lethal than the more obvious “Crooked Hillary.” I wonder if it was poll-tested. We’ll have to ask Kellyanne.

But before I sign off, I have to comment on what I think was the most significant moment of the debate and it came at the end. Hillary had just gone after Donald on the sexism issue — the beauty contest nonsense, etc. — and it seemed for a moment that Trump was going to come back at her on her dreadful family life the whole world knows about.  But then he stopped himself.  He didn’t turn into the mean Donald and turn off a whole bunch of people.

On Fox, immediately after the debate, Trump explained his decision to Sean Hannity. The candidate saw Chelsea in the audience and decided it was the wrong thing to do. Well done, Donald.  This is the moment that may resonate in the weeks to come.

So now I have one last online poll to report.  It’s from the ultra-liberal Slate and shows Trump in the lead by 9% with 42,000 votes cast. I assumed there were no Drudge links, but I checked anyway. There weren’t.

So did Trump win?  Possibly. He seems not to have lost anyway, which was all he needed.

But remember, in 2012, after the first debate, the pundits (mostly the same ones) were pronouncing Obama dead. All together now, “Nobody knows anything.”

Categories: 2016 elections, 2016 presidential debates, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Lester Holt, Media and Donald Trump, Media and Hillary Clinton
Tags: , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Hillary Calls NYC Explosion ‘Bombings,’ Slams Trump for ‘Bomb’

September 18, 2016

Hillary Calls NYC Explosion ‘Bombings,’ Slams Trump for ‘Bomb’, Breitbart,  Joel B. Pollak, September 17, 2016

(Here’s a video of Hillary’s press conference. 

Trump’s remarks are at the end of the video.– DM)


hillbombsLiz Kreutz / Twitter / Screen shot

Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton referred to the explosions in New York City as “bombings,” then attacked her Republican rival, Donald Trump, for using the word “bomb” before authorities had publicly confirmed the facts of the attack.

Clinton was speaking with reporters on her campaign airplane, reacting to an explosion inside a dumpster in the Chelsea neighborhood in Manhattan that injured nearly 30 people. Another explosive device was reportedly found elsewhere in the city. A pipe bomb had exploded earlier in the day in New Jersey, and a mass stabbing attack had taken place in Minnesota.

Trump told a campaign rally in Colorado Springs, Colorado: “Just before I got off the plane, a bomb went off in New York and nobody knows exactly what’s going on.” Journalists pounced on the statement:

(Video, apparently of the NY City Mayor at the link. I could not get it to load. — DM)

CNN commented (in a news story): “Typically, national political figures use caution when describing unfolding situations and law enforcement actions.”

The following exchange, tweeted by ABC News’ Liz Kreutz, then occurred between Clinton and campaign reporters:

Clinton: I’ve breen briefed about the bombings in New York and New Jersey, and the attack in Minnesota. Obviously, we need to do everything we can to support our first responders, also to pray for the victims. We have to let this investigation unfold. We’ve been in touch with various officials, including the mayor’s office in New York, to learn what they are discovering as they conduct this investigation. And I’ll have more to say about it when we actually know the facts?

Reporter: Secretary Clinton, Do you have any reaction to the fact that Donald Trump, immediately upon taking the stage tonight, called the explosion in New York a “bomb” … ?

Clinton: Well, I think it’s important to know the facts about any incident like this. That’s why it’s critical to support the first responders, the investigators who are looking into it, trying to determine what did happen.

She then added: “I think it’s always wiser to wait until you have information before making conclusions because we are just in the beginning stages of trying to determine what happened.”

However, as Politico (to its credit) noted: “… the Democrat used similar words in her initial public remarks about Saturday night’s explosion in Manhattan.”

The New York explosions appear to have been caused by improvised explosive devices. The second device found in Manhattan was reportedly a pressure cooker, apparently similar to the type used in the Boston Marathon bombing in 2013.

Categories: 2016 elections, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Media and Donald Trump, Media and Hillary Clinton, NY City bombs
Tags: , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Are Hillary’s Henchmen Trying to Take Out a Trump Advisor with Fake Antisemitism Charges?

August 23, 2016

Are Hillary’s Henchmen Trying to Take Out a Trump Advisor with Fake Antisemitism Charges? PJ Media, Liz Sheld, August 23, 2016

JoeSchmitz.sized-770x415x0x156x800x431

The media continues its role as propagandist for the Democratic 2016 presidential ticket with astory showcasing “allegations of antisemitism” that “have surfaced” about presidential candidate Donald Trump advisor Joe Schmitz. But those who know him best say the allegations are “laughable, ugly and profoundly false” and that Schmitz exhibits “the highest character qualities.”

The article highlighting these allegations explains that “the revelations feed two themes that his opponent Hillary Clinton has used to erode Trump’s credibility: That he is a foreign policy neophyte, and that his campaign, at times, has offended Jews and other minorities.” In other words, the allegations that have “surfaced” are convenient if you have an interest in pushing either one of those Clinton campaign narratives.

Schmitz is a Naval Academy distinguished graduate, has a law degree from Stanford, and was formerly the Senate-confirmed inspector general of the Department of Defense. He is currently in private practice in Washington, D.C. Most recently, Schmitz has been advocating for and advising Donald Trump.

The allegations that have “surfaced” originate from a report filed by Dan Meyer, executive director of the intelligence community whistleblowing and source protection program.

Meyer, whose job it is to deal with whistleblowers, filed his own whistleblower complaint after he found himself punished for disclosing possible public corruption. The public corruption in question was the editing of an inspector general’s report that accused former Secretary of Defense and Clinton family pal Leon Panetta of leaking classified information to the makers of the film “Zero Dark Thirty.”  Meyer says in his complaint that his DoD bosses had manipulated “a final report to curry favor” with Defense Secretary Panetta.  The final report contained no such claims about Panetta leaking classified information. Meyer also alleges that he was targeted by the department because he was gay.

The details and circumstances of Meyer’s complaint are described in a McClatchy story from last month titled “Official who oversees whistleblower complaints files one of his own” which makes no reference to either Joe Schmitz or to the alleged anti-Semitism that is the subject of their latest story about the very same complaint.  The story written last week now advances the political narrative that Trump offends “Jews and other minorities,” using Meyer’s complaint as a springboard to smear Schmitz.

Schmitz hired the openly gay Meyer in January of 2004, and left the Department of Defense towards the end of 2005, so the men worked together a little under two years. Meyer’s office told PJ Media “Mr. Meyer never filed any complaints against Mr. Schmitz.”

So where does this sensational statement written by McClatchy about Schmitz come from?

“His summary of his tenure’s achievement reported as ‘…I fired the Jews,’ ” wrote Meyer, a former official in the Pentagon inspector general’s office whose grievance was obtained by McClatchy.

This statement is not from Meyer, it is a description of an allegation made by someone else that Meyer is summarizing. It’s deceptively presented to look like it is an assertion from Meyer and that Meyer’s complaint involves Schmitz.

The Meyer complaint says that former Pentagon official John Crane was a “source and witness” to these remarks. So the allegations of antisemitism come from third-party Crane.

Crane also alleges that Schmitz downplayed the Holocaust. Meyer further summarizes Crane’s allegations, according to the McClatchy piece: “In his final days, he allegedly lectured Mr. Crane on the details of concentration camps and how the ovens were too small to kill 6 million Jews.”

To be clear, these are not proven or verified facts. They have not been examined by the appropriate officials. The statements are claims by a former employee who has not seen fit to file his own formal complaint about the very things he alleges. Were there other statements in the Meyer report claiming Schmitz made anti-Semitic remarks that support Crane’s allegations? McClatchy has the Meyer complaint (PJ Media does not) and they did not offer up any such corroboration (and I have to believe they would if it was in there). One has to wonder who leaked a confidential whistleblower complaint and why.

According to McClatchy, Crane would not comment on his allegations, saying: “If, when, I am required to testify under oath in a [Merit Systems Protection Board] MSPB hearing, I would then comment on the statement attributed to me by Mr. Meyer.”

“Statements made under oath at the request of a judge in a formal proceeding would also remove my vulnerability to any potential civil litigation by any party involved in the filings by Mr. Meyer,” he added.

The McClatchy piece subsequently piles on Schmitz with another case that deals with antisemitism in the Department of Defense, but one that has nothing to do with Schmitz at all.

The Tenenbaum case is “decades old” and Mr. Tenenbaum’s original complaint focused on Inspector General General Counsel Henry Shelley, who worked on Tenenbaum’s discrimination case eight years ago, after Schmitz had left the DoD. In 2008, the Pentagon’s inspector general found in Tenenbaum’s favor that religious discrimination was a factor in the accusation that Tenenbaum was an Israeli spy.

McClatchy describes:

David Tenenbaum, an Army engineer at the Tank Automotive Command (TACOM) in Warren, Michigan, is now citing the allegations in a letter this week to Acting Pentagon Inspector General Glenn Fine as new evidence that current and former Pentagon officials helped perpetrate an anti-Semitic culture within the military that left him vulnerable.“The anti-Semitic environment began under a prior Inspector General, Mr. Joseph Schmitz,” the letter from Tenenbaum’s lawyer Mayer Morganroth of Birmingham, Mich., states.

“The allegations”? The same allegations made about Schmitz by Crane? Not additional, different allegations from another person, but the same allegations by the person who made hearsay statements in the Meyer complaint. The article confirms as much:

 The letter from Tenenbaum’s lawyer Mayer Morganroth also alleges Schmitz made remarks about firing Jews and playing down the extent of the Holocaust, citing a “sworn statement” from an unnamed source with knowledge of the Tenenbaum case.A federal official with knowledge of the matter told McClatchy that Crane testified, under oath, about anti-Semitic remarks Schmitz made to him.

No word as to whether Crane’s allegations have been cross-examined or verified yet, or that there are corroborating witnesses to hearsay conjecture. Only that they were repeated as regards to a different situation.

Schmitz denied any accusations of antisemitism to McClatchy.

“The allegations are completely false and defamatory,” Schmitz said.

“I do not recall ever even hearing of any ‘allegations of anti-Semitism against [me],’ which would be preposterously false and defamatory because, among other reason(s), I am quite proud of the Jewish heritage of my wife of 38 years.”

Schmitz also denied any and all allegations of antisemitism to PJ Media and added that he has no familiarity with Tenenbaum at all.

PJ Media spoke with several associates of Schmitz, inquiring about the newly “surfaced” charges of antisemitism.

Professor Michael Halbig, retired vice academic dean at the U.S. Naval Academy and retired Naval Reserve captain, was a former Naval Academy professor of Schmitz. Halbig had this to say:

I’ve known Joe Schmitz since he was a youngster (a sophomore) in my German class at the Naval Academy.  I was then an officer instructor and ended up spending a 40 year career there, retiring in 2012.  My wife of 43 years is Jewish, our two sons have had bar mitzvahs, and I am in the process of converting to Judaism (next Friday, to be precise).   We have maintained a Jewish household for 43 years.  Joe and his wife Molly (and their son Nick, when he was a midshipman) have been to our home many times.  We have known Joe and Mollie since before they were married in 1978.  Joe was a close colleague in the Naval Reserve Intelligence Command, and was of particular assistance to me as inspector general when I was Chief of Staff in the years surrounding 9/11.   I disagree with many aspects of Joe’s politics, about which we usually don’t talk much, but I have never, ever witnessed a whiff of Anti-semitism in Joe or his family.  In fact, I cannot imagine it.

Bill Levin, Esq., was a co-clerk in the chambers of Hon. James L. Buckley, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, with Schmitz. Mr. Levin  told PJ Media:

Joe Schmitz has been a good friend going now on 30 years since we clerked together on the DC Circuit for Jim Buckley. In all that time, Joe has never exhibited even the slightest hint of antisemitism. To the contrary, we openly have shared our faith with great mutual respect. The allegation of antisemitism is laughable, ugly and profoundly false.

Consultant to the DoD Office of the Inspector General Roger Golden, Esq., said of Schmitz: “I’ve known Joe Schmitz personally and professionally for over 20 years.  Joe always has exhibited the highest character qualities.  The attribution of ‘antisemitic behavior’ to Joe is absurd and unimaginable based on my experience.  If anything, the opposite is true; Joe is strongly pro-Judaism.”

The media is selectively interested in cases of antisemitism. It’s a convenient slur to be directed at the proper political target, but ignored when it doesn’t serve the leftist narrative. Don’t buy into convenient stories the media tells you. Dave Reaboi over Red State said it well: “Let’s not allow ourselves to get into a lather, leading us to smear good people we don’t know simply because we want to score points against Donald Trump or any of our other political enemies.”

Categories: 2016 elections, Antisemitism, Media and Donald Trump, Media and Hillary Clinton, Trump campaign
Tags: , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Compromised: Justice Dept. Refused FBI Probe of Clinton Foundation

August 11, 2016

Compromised: Justice Dept. Refused FBI Probe of Clinton Foundation, Front Page Magazine, Matthew Vadum, August 11, 2016

(Please see also, Report: Justice Department declined FBI request to investigate Clinton Foundation. — DM)

gty_ap_loretta_lynch_hillary_clinton_jt_150726_16x9_992

The highly politicized Department of Justice swatted down pesky FBI requests to investigate the Clinton Foundation earlier this year, CNN reported yesterday.

CNN buried the lede, as it frequently does on news stories that make Democrats look bad. The online version bears the innocuous-sounding headline, “Newly released Clinton emails shed light on relationship between State Dept. and Clinton Foundation.”

It is not until the 25th paragraph that the article states that an unidentified law enforcement official gave CNN a heads-up earlier this year. As the probe of Clinton’s private email servers was ramping up “several FBI field offices approached the Justice Department asking to open a case regarding the relationship between the State Department and the Clinton Foundation.”

At that time, the article continues, the Justice Department “declined because it had looked into allegations surrounding the Clinton Foundation around a year earlier and found there wasn’t sufficient evidence to open a case.”

Not even enough evidence to look into the foundation’s affairs?

Not more than a year after the publication of Peter Schweizer’s blockbuster book, Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich, opened the floodgates for investigative reporters to dig into the matter.

As I’ve written before, various lawyers have told me there is already a strong legal case against Mrs. Clinton. The fact that she destroyed email evidence — evidence subject to a congressional subpoena, no less — is already evidence in itself that she obstructed justice through spoliation of evidence. Spoliation means you can take as evidence the fact that evidence has been destroyed. Courts are entitled to draw spoliation inferences and convict an accused person on that basis alone.

The only reason FBI Director James Comey didn’t recommend she be prosecuted is because, well, he lacks a spine and he’s corrupt. He said there was no evidence of Clinton’s “efforts to obstruct justice,” a requirement that does not actually appear in the Espionage Act.

Evidence of corruption at the Clinton Foundation is everywhere, yet CNN and much of the mainstream media are still doing everything they can to ignore, misrepresent, or downplay the questionable things Democrat presidential nominee Hillary Clinton did through the foundation.

The congenitally corrupt Clintons created their private email system to frustrate Freedom of Information Act (FoIA) requesters, shield Hillary’s correspondence from congressional oversight, and steer money to their corrupt foundation, which, amazingly enough, still enjoys tax-exempt status.

These illegal, insecure private email servers Clinton used while at the State Department are at the heart of the scandal over her mishandling of an Islamic terrorist attack in militant-infested Benghazi, Libya on the 11th anniversary of 9/11 that left four Americans, including U.S. ambassador Chris Stevens, dead. Even now, four years after the assault, the Obama administration has failed to provide an autopsy report about Stevens who was initially reported to have been ritualistically sodomized before being murdered by Muslim terrorists.

Every few days Judicial Watch has been releasing emails obtained under FoIA that may ultimately lead to evidence of political interference at the highest levels that provided cover for the anticipatory presidential bribe processing vehicle known as the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation.

“No wonder Hillary Clinton and Huma Abedin hid emails from the American people, the courts and Congress,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “They show the Clinton Foundation, Clinton donors, and operatives worked with Hillary Clinton in potential violation of the law.”

On Tuesday the watchdog group published emails sent to Abedin, Clinton’s longtime aide with generational ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, seeking favors. Abedin now vice-chairs Clinton’s presidential campaign. She also worked at the State Department with Clinton and with her at the Clinton Foundation.

“The new documents reveal that in April 2009 controversial Clinton Foundation official Doug Band pushed for a job for an associate,” according to a Judicial Watch summary. “In the email Band tells Hillary Clinton’s former aides at the State Department Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin that it is “important to take care of [Redacted]. Band is reassured by Abedin that “Personnel has been sending him options.” Band was co-founder of Teneo Strategy with Bill Clinton and a top official of the Clinton Foundation, including its Clinton Global Initiative.”

Emails also show Abedin left then-Secretary Clinton’s daily schedule, presumably a  sensitive document, on a bed in an unlocked hotel room.

“An email on April 18, 2009, during a conference in Trinidad and Tobago, from aide Melissa J. Lan to Huma Abedin asks for the Secretary’s “day book binders.” Abedin replies: “Yes. It’s on the bed in my room. U can take it. My door is open. I’m in the lobby. Thx.” Moreover, the emails show the annoyance of another Clinton aide that the schedule was sent to an authorized State Department email address and not to an unsecured non-state.gov account.”

Other emails show Clinton campaign adviser and pollster Mark Penn provided Clinton advice on NATO and piracy. Clinton fundraiser Lana Moresky asked Clinton to have the State Department hire someone. Clinton asked Abedin to follow up and “help” the applicant and asked Abedin to “let me know” about the job.

Meanwhile, the Left is trying to take the focus off the Clinton Foundation.

A high-profile watchdog group controlled by Hillary Clinton ally David Brock is demanding the IRS investigate Donald Trump’s personal foundation for allegedly aiding his presidential campaign.

The call by CREW, or Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, has to be the most obvious political hit job of this election cycle.

CREW is a member of what some in the conservative think tank community call the “Brocktopus,” that is, the network of groups the disgraced former journalist runs, which spends oodles of money defending all things Clinton. An admitted serial liar, Brock’s empire of sleaze also includes “conservative misinformation” watchdog Media Matters for America, pro-Hillary disaster-control spin site Correct the Record, and American Bridge 21st Century, a super PAC that promotes Hillary and attacks her critics.

CREW executive director Noah Bookbinder asked the IRS to investigate the Donald J. Trump Foundation, a tiny nonprofit founded by Trump decades ago to give away profits from his book, The Art of the Deal.

How the foundation, which ranked 4,347th in the FoundationSearch “Top Foundations by Assets for the state of New York” list would help the Trump campaign isn’t clear. “The Trump Foundation has no full-time staff, and gave away just $591,000 in 2014 — the last year for which records are available,” the Washington Post reports.

It’s possible the Trump Foundation has been helping the Trump campaign but the philanthropy is so anemic it is difficult to imagine it doing much to help its benefactor’s political career. Even if the IRS takes up this piddling little case not much is likely to come of it. It’s a political stunt by CREW, a nakedly partisan group under the boot of one of Hillary’s biggest backers.

It’s the wheeling and dealing Clinton Foundation with its involvement in billion-dollar transactions, its ties to shady figures, and the debt it owes to the unsavory governments of countries around the world that needs to be properly and thoroughly examined.

Categories: 2016 elections, Clinton Cash film, Clinton cover ups, Clinton Foundation, Clinton obstructions of justice, Clinton unsecured server, Corruption, Department of Justice, Department of State, Donald Trump, Media and Donald Trump, Media and Hillary Clinton
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: 2 Comments

The Press and Pollsters Are Putting Too Much Cornstarch in the Cherry Pie

August 7, 2016

The Press and Pollsters Are Putting Too Much Cornstarch in the Cherry Pie, American Thinker, Clarice Feldman, August 7, 2016

That’s the short take of my friend Thomas Lipscomb and I have to agree with him

Contrary to most of the media-sponsored polls (The LA Times stands alone now calling the race a tie at last view), I agree with this one: Trump will draw in millions of voters who didn’t show up to the polls before and he will beat Hillary Clinton.

I don’t pretend to be a polling expert but note others who claim to be have said much the same thing using different statistical methodologies, including Yale Professor Ray Fair (economic models) and Emory University President Alan Abramowitz (presidential approval ratings), Politik.com predicts a landslide, noting in recent years the number of people voting for Democrats has dipped while the number of those voting for Republicans has risen.

Conservative Treehouse has argued along the same lines and notes that the NYT buried its own key finding that American voters are whiter than “historic leftist presentations”.

It projects that 73,272,595 Republicans will vote this fall in the general election.

That jaw-dropping number, 7.2 million more potential votes than Barack Obama carried in 2008 and almost 13 million more than Mitt Romney carried in 2012, is the least result achievable when you turn out THE MONSTER VOTE.

[snip]

What the New York Times is statistically beginning to quantify is the existence of The Monster Vote. If you look closely at the data behind their newly discovered 10 million potential/predictable voters, you’ll notice the additional votes carry to exactly what we predicted in February.

Even if Republican projection turnout was off by 5 million votes, Trump still wins in a landslide. Heck, even if the projection turnout was off by a staggering 10 million votes, the republican nominee (Trump) would still get more votes than President Obama did in 2012 and it is highly doubtful Hillary could turn out that level of support.

♦ Even the fact the NYT would write such an article tells you there are interests (financial interests, globalists) who are looking closely and trying to quantify the challenge they have in front of them.

♦ Remember, even in honest scientific polling — the poll methodologies are based on “assumptions”, or inputs into the collected poll samples in order to make them representative of the anticipated turnout.

♦ Thanks to Donald Trump, historic turnout trends are obsolete. Additionally, historic demographics and party affiliations are also obsolete; And, more importantly, as a consequence…

…any poll data that is relying on obsolete sample methodology is going to be significantly inaccurate.

I don’t know about the methodologies or baselines used by nationally recognized polling companies this year, but I note that Democratic pollster Pat Caddell recently said Reuters midstream shift in its tracking polls comes as close as I have ever seen to cooking the results.”

There are methods for projecting and allocating undecided voters based on complex attitude structures, based on many questions that tell the pollster that this person is in movement to support someone, he said. “Sometimes, they are hiding. That happens. Particularly in the past, or in racially-sensitive cases.”

Caddell cited two examples to Breitbart News.

“On July 25, they originally reported: Trump 40.3 percent and Clinton 37.2 percent, which was a Trump margin of 2.8,” he said. “They have recalculated that now — which I have never heard of — they changed that data, to be: Clinton 40.9 and Trump 38.4, which is a 2.5 margin for Clinton.”

The July 25 Reuters poll now shows a result that reflects a 5.3 percentage point flip from the previously published results, he said.

“Now look at July 26,” he said. “On July 26 they had Trump at 41.5 percent and Hillary at 36.3. That was a 5.2 Trump margin. Then, in the new calculation, they claim that Clinton was 41.1 percent, Trump was 37.5, and the margin was 3.6 for Clinton. Same poll. Two different results. Recalculated, after you’ve announced the other results.”

“What you get is an 8.8 percentage point margin change, almost nine points swinging from one candidate, based on some phony, some bizarre allocation theory that you claim you know where these people are or you are just leaving them out,” he said. “I actually believe they are allocating them because they are claiming they are really Clinton voters and they are using something to move them to Clinton.”

As Mickey Kaus has long noted, many polls are “hamburger helper polls”, that is designed to advance a point of view of the press organs which engage the pollsters so they can promote as fact what is merely their opinion.

In any event, the recent coverage of the election by the major media suggest to me that they are panicking and throwing in as much as they can to make Hillary look as if she were a far better candidate — or at least Trump a far weaker one — than is the case. Obama’s unpresidential and unprecedented attack on Trump, the low turnout at her rallies (and cancellation of some of her appearances), the huge turnout everywhere for Trump, the promoting of the Khan phony baloney story, the Reuters polling change, the  daily press sleight of hand  all suggest to me panic  there is on the left.

The Khan Con

The media fairytale is that Trump dissed a Gold Star family. In fact, it was the other way around. The Democrats used the father of a military hero who died at the hands of Muslim enemies to argue that Trump was wrong in wanting us to suspend immigration from terrorist countries until we had better means to vet them.

How far overboard on this did the media go? This week a number of press and photographers just happened to show up at the same time as two families showed up to pay their respects, the Washington Post even had a shot of one wiping a dry eye. Thomas Sowell long pegged such people as the Khans as “mascots of the anointed”. My friend Janet Shagam has documented the coverage by press which thinks we are dumb enough not to realize this was a staged performance:

* Muslim Soldier’s Grave at Arlington National Cemetery Attracts Visitors After Trump’s Remarks About Parents

NBC Washington 4 —

* Humayun Khan’s grave becomes a shrine in the wake of his father’s speech

Washington Post —

* Strangers visit grave of Muslim US Army Capt. Khan at Arlington National Cemetery

ABC 7 News —

from the WaPo link – “Sally Schwartz, 65, and her mother, Harriet Schwartz, 85, stood before the grave. Harriet leaned on a black cane.

“We thought we’d pay our respects,” Sally Schwartz said as the women walked away. ”

From the NBC link – “D.C. resident Sally Schwartz visited Khan’s grave on Monday with her mother.”

The local ABC coverage — The story doesn’t quote Sally Schwartz but she is pictured in the video.

As for the Benghazi soldiers’ survivors there has been scant coverage — even though we know our government not only left them to die but also compounded the crime by lying to them about the motivations of their killers. In the words of another online friend “Iggy”, they were merely “unpeople from Jesusland”.

The same was true of Mary Ann Mendoza, Sabine Durden, and Jamiel Shaw, whose children were killed by illegal aliens, Spanish speakers watching Univision and Telemundo heard they were “anti-immigrant” and gave them only 55 seconds of air time.

Covering for Congenital Liar Hillary is Getting Harder and Harder

Hillary keeps lying about Comey’s report, which said clearly she lied about her private email server. While a number of papers challenged her on this the NYT steadfastly stuck by her story. It was so blatant even the Public Editor of that paper, Liz Spayd, called her newsroom out for covering up for Hillary. As Tom Maguire observes quoting the Spayd:

Waddya expect? The conventions are over and we are at the top of the backstretch, bracing to head for home.

“The Washington Post, NPR, USA Today and PolitiFact all challenged Clinton’s claims, saying they appeared to be based on a selective and misleading interpretation of Comey’s remarks. The Post awarded her ‘Four Pinocchios,’ the worst truth-telling rating it gives, for statements it classifies as ‘Whoppers.’ “

Yeah, whatever. The Times has suspended criticism of Hillary until after the election, due to the national emergency caused by Trump.

Topping off the week and indicative of the media panic is the news that the administration illegally transported $400 million in cash on pallets in an unmarked plane to Iran where it is being used to finance terrorists. The administration dissembled to Congress about the transaction.

The deal had to be kept secret because neither the voters nor the Congress would ever have approved it and it surely sent the wrong message — taking Americans hostage is a money-making proposition, Two more, in fact, have been taken hostage since that covert exchange took place.

It’s a deal (The Iran scam as a whole, not the ransom deal?– DM) so bad that the administration lied and said Israel approved it — prompting the foreign minister to bitterly reject that claim and respond the deal is so bad it is like Chamberlain’s capitulation at Munich.

Trump criticized the hush hush deal and said correctly that Iran had made a video of the pallets of cash coming off the unmarked plane to further embarrass the U.S. This sent the partisan kiddos at the Washington Post into a tizzy, denying there was any such video, when in fact it was easily available to be viewed on YouTube, the BBC, or Memri.

In the meantime — as crowds pour into Trump rallies throughout the country, waiting in long lines for a chance to hear and cheer him, Hillary made a rare appearance before unquestioning Hispanic and Black news reporters where she looked a wreck, almost called Trump her “husb–” and then said her earlier interview lies about Comey’s report were the result of a “short circuit.” It’s a long time between now and the election. Her staff cannot continue to keep her bottled up and appearing only before small, sympathetic audiences and interviewers and I expect so much “short circuiting” from her even the low information voters will have to take notice.

Categories: 2016 elections, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Media and Democrats, Media and Donald Trump, Media and Hillary Clinton, Polls
Tags: , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Khizr Khan, Servant of the Global Umma

August 1, 2016

Khizr Khan, Servant of the Global Umma, Front Page Magazine, Robert Spencer, August 1, 2016

(Please see also, The Disingenuous Outrage Over Khan-Gate. — DM)

kahn

The mainstream media is wild with enthusiasm these days over Khizr Khan, the father of a Muslim soldier, Humayun Khan, who was killed fighting in Iraq in 2004. Khizr Khan, brimming with self-righteous anger, spoke at the Democratic National Convention, where he delivered what the Washington Post dubbed a “brutal repudiation of Donald Trump.” Trump responded, elevating Khizr Khan to the status of full-fledged flavor-of-the-moment media celebrity. There’s just one catch: Khizr is using his son’s memory not to advance the cause of the United States, as his son apparently died trying to do, but to advance a quite different cause: that of the global umma.

The well-heeled and powerful backers of the global jihad – those who have enabled the Islamic State (ISIS), al-Qaeda, and other jihad groups to grow as powerful as they have today — are enraged at Donald Trump. They are deeply worried by his call for a temporary moratorium on Muslim immigration into the United States, as that will make it much more difficult for jihadis to get into this country. They are anxious to stigmatize any and all resistance to jihad terror – and so, happily enough for them, is the Democratic Party, which has eagerly signed on to the longtime strategy employed by Islamic supremacist advocacy groups in the U.S., to demonize all effective measures against jihad terror as “bigoted” and “Islamophobic.”

So it was that Khizr Khan, in the full fury of his indignation at the DNC, trotted out a straw man, falsely claiming that Trump wanted to “ban us from this country.” Trump has said nothing about banning Muslim citizens of the U.S. from the country, only about a temporary moratorium on immigration from terror states. Even worse, all the effusive praise being showered on Khizr Khan in the last few days overlooks one central point: he is one man. His family is one family. There are no doubt many others like his, but this fact does not mean that there is no jihad, or that all Muslims in the U.S. are loyal citizens.

Khizr Khan is enraged at Donald Trump, but is Trump really the cause of his problem? Jihad terrorists, not Donald Trump or “Islamophobes,” killed his son in Iraq. And if Donald Trump or anyone else looks upon Muslims in the U.S. military with suspicion, it is with good reason: does any other demographic have as high a rate of treason as Muslims in the U.S. military? In 2003, a convert to Islam, Sgt. Hasan Akbar, murdered two of his commanding officers in Kuwait. In 2009, Major Nidal Malik Hasan murdered 13 Americans at Fort Hood.

Other than those attacks, a Muslim in the U.S. Navy discussed sniper attacks on military personnel. A Muslim U.S. naval engineer allegedly gave an Egyptian agent information on how to sink a U.S. carrier. In 2015, a Muslim National Guard soldier in Illinois planned an Islamic State jihad attack against a U.S. military base. Last February, a U.S. Army enlistee who vowed to “bring the Islamic State straight to your doorstep” pleaded guilty to attempting to detonate a car bomb at Fort Riley military base in Kansas. Just days ago, a U.S. Air Force veteran was convicted of trying to join the Islamic State.

Then there is the U.S. Muslim who gave the Islamic State U.S. military uniforms, combat boots, tactical gear, firearms accessories, and thousands in cash. Where are those uniforms now?

It is good that there are Muslims in the U.S. military who are loyal. But can we have a discussion about those who aren’t, and why they aren’t, and what can be done about it? Such a discussion is vitally necessary, but it wouldn’t serve the classic objective of the global umma, to increase the dar al-Islam (house of Islam) at the dar al-harb (house of war). Nor would an open discussion of Khan’s Sunday morning assertion on Meet the Press that terrorists “have nothing to do with Islam.”

We constantly are told this, but the repetition doesn’t make it true. In the first place, jihadis repeatedly make clear that they think what they’re doing has everything to do with Islam:

“Jihad was a way of life for the Pious Predecessors (Salaf-us-Salih), and the Prophet (SAWS) was a master of the Mujahideen and a model for fortunate inexperienced people. The total number of military excursions which he (SAWS) accompanied was 27. He himself fought in nine of these; namely Badr; Uhud, Al-Muraysi, The Trench, Qurayzah, Khaybar, The Conquest of Makkah, Hunayn and Taif . . . This means that the Messenger of Allah (SAWS) used to go out on military expeditions or send out an army at least every two months.” — Abdullah Azzam, co-founder of al-Qaeda, Join the Caravan, p. 30

“If we follow the rules of interpretation developed from the classical science of Koranic interpretation, it is not possible to condemn terrorism in religious terms. It remains completely true to the classical rules in its evolution of sanctity for its own justification. This is where the secret of its theological strength lies.” — Egyptian scholar Nasr Hamid Abu Zayd

“Many thanks to God, for his kind gesture, and choosing us to perform the act of Jihad for his cause and to defend Islam and Muslims. Therefore, killing you and fighting you, destroying you and terrorizing you, responding back to your attacks, are all considered to be great legitimate duty in our religion.” — Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his fellow 9/11 defendants

“Allah on 480 occasions in the Holy Koran extols Muslims to wage jihad. We only fulfil God’s orders. Only jihad can bring peace to the world.” — Taliban terrorist Baitullah Mehsud

“Jihad, holy fighting in Allah’s course, with full force of numbers and weaponry, is given the utmost importance in Islam….By jihad, Islam is established….By abandoning jihad, may Allah protect us from that, Islam is destroyed, and Muslims go into inferior position, their honor is lost, their lands are stolen, their rule and authority vanish. Jihad is an obligation and duty in Islam on every Muslim.” — Times Square car bomb terrorist Faisal Shahzad

“So step by step I became a religiously devout Muslim, Mujahid — meaning one who participates in jihad.” — Little Rock, Arkansas terrorist murderer Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad

“And now, after mastering the English language, learning how to build explosives, and continuous planning to target the infidel Americans, it is time for Jihad.” — Texas terrorist bomber Khalid Aldawsari

All of these, of course, may be dismissed as “extremists,” although they were also all devout Muslims who were determined to follow their religion properly. And then there are the many passages of the Qur’an exhorting Muslims to commit acts of violence:

2:191-193: “And slay them wherever you come upon them, and expel them from where they expelled you; persecution is more grievous than slaying. But fight them not by the Holy Mosque until they should fight you there; then, if they fight you, slay them — such is the recompense of unbelievers, but if they give over, surely Allah is All-forgiving, All-compassionate. Fight them, till there is no persecution and the religion is Allah’s; then if they give over, there shall be no enmity save for evildoers.”

4:89: “They wish that you should disbelieve as they disbelieve, and then you would be equal; therefore take not to yourselves friends of them, until they emigrate in the way of Allah; then, if they turn their backs, take them, and slay them wherever you find them; take not to yourselves any one of them as friend or helper.”

5:33: “This is the recompense of those who fight against Allah and His Messenger, and hasten about the earth, to do corruption there: they shall be slaughtered, or crucified, or their hands and feet shall alternately be struck off; or they shall be banished from the land. That is a degradation for them in this world; and in the world to come awaits them a mighty chastisement.”

5:38: “And the thief, male and female: cut off the hands of both, as a recompense for what they have earned, and a punishment exemplary from Allah; Allah is All-mighty, All-wise.”

8:12: “When thy Lord was revealing to the angels, ‘I am with you; so confirm the believers. I shall cast into the unbelievers’ hearts terror; so smite above the necks, and smite every finger of them!”

8:39: “Fight them, till there is no persecution and the religion is Allah’s entirely; then if they give over, surely Allah sees the things they do.”

8:60: “Make ready for them whatever force and strings of horses you can, to terrify thereby the enemy of Allah and your enemy, and others besides them that you know not; Allah knows them. And whatsoever you expend in the way of Allah shall be repaid you in full; you will not be wronged.”

9:5: “Then, when the sacred months are drawn away, slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them, and confine them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they repent, and perform the prayer, and pay the alms, then let them go their way; Allah is All-forgiving, All-compassionate.”

9:29: “Fight those who believe not in Allah and the Last Day and do not forbid what Allah and His Messenger have forbidden — such men as practise not the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book — until they pay the tribute out of hand and have been humbled.”

9:111: “Allah has bought from the believers their selves and their possessions against the gift of Paradise; they fight in the way of Allah; they kill, and are killed; that is a promise binding upon Allah in the Torah, and the Gospel, and the Koran; and who fulfils his covenant truer than Allah? So rejoice in the bargain you have made with Him; that is the mighty triumph.”

9:123: “O believers, fight the unbelievers who are near to you; and let them find in you a harshness; and know that Allah is with the godfearing.”

47:4: “When you meet the unbelievers, smite their necks, then, when you have made wide slaughter among them, tie fast the bonds; then set them free, either by grace or ransom, till the war lays down its loads. So it shall be; and if Allah had willed, He would have avenged Himself upon them; but that He may try some of you by means of others. And those who are slain in the way of Allah, He will not send their works astray.”

To be sure, there are some tolerant verses in the Qur’an as well — see, for example, sura 109. But then in Islamic tradition there are authorities who say that violent passages take precedence over these verses. Muhammad’s earliest biographer, an eighth-century Muslim named Ibn Ishaq, explains the progression of Qur’anic revelation about warfare. First, he explains, Allah allowed Muslims to wage defensive warfare. But that was not Allah’s last word on the circumstances in which Muslims should fight. Ibn Ishaq explains offensive jihad by invoking a Qur’anic verse: “Then God sent down to him: ‘Fight them so that there be no more seduction,’ i.e. until no believer is seduced from his religion. ‘And the religion is God’s’, i.e. Until God alone is worshipped.”

The Qur’an verse Ibn Ishaq quotes here (2:193) commands much more than defensive warfare: Muslims must fight until “the religion is God’s” — that is, until Allah alone is worshipped. Ibn Ishaq gives no hint that that command died with the seventh century.

The great medieval scholar Ibn Qayyim (1292-1350) also outlines the stages of the Muhammad’s prophetic career: “For thirteen years after the beginning of his Messengership, he called people to God through preaching, without fighting or Jizyah, and was commanded to restrain himself and to practice patience and forbearance. Then he was commanded to migrate, and later permission was given to fight. Then he was commanded to fight those who fought him, and to restrain himself from those who did not make war with him. Later he was commanded to fight the polytheists until God’s religion was fully established.”

In other words, he initially could fight only defensively — only “those who fought him” — but later he could fight the polytheists until Islam was “fully established.” He could fight them even if they didn’t fight him first, and solely because they were not Muslim.

Nor do all contemporary Islamic thinkers believe that that command is a relic of history.

According to a 20th century Chief Justice of Saudi Arabia, Sheikh Abdullah bin Muhammad bin Humaid, “at first ‘the fighting’ was forbidden, then it was permitted and after that it was made obligatory.” He also distinguishes two groups Muslims must fight: “(1) against them who start ‘the fighting’ against you (Muslims) . . . (2) and against all those who worship others along with Allah . . . as mentioned in Surat Al-Baqarah (II), Al-Imran (III) and At-Taubah (IX) . . . and other Surahs (Chapters of the Qur’an).” (The Roman numerals after the names of the chapters of the Qur’an are the numbers of the suras: Sheikh ‘Abdullah is referring to Qur’anic verses such as 2:216, 3:157-158, 9:5, and 9:29.)

How does Khizr Khan explain all that? He doesn’t — and he knows that no one in the mainstream media will ask him to. All this disinformation and obfuscation he is perpetrating serves the interests of the global umma – but not in any sense those of the United States.

Categories: 2016 elections, Caliphate, Democrat National Convention, Democrat Party and media, Donald Trump, Islamic hatred of others, Islamic immigration, Islamic terrorism, Media and Donald Trump, Media and Hillary Clinton, Media and Islam, Quran
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

The Disingenuous Outrage Over Khan-Gate

August 1, 2016

The Disingenuous Outrage Over Khan-Gate, Daily Caller, Scott Greer, July 31, 2016

While claiming that Khan is above any criticism due to his loss, they had spent the prior week attacking Pat Smith — the mother of a Benghazi victim — for being exploited by the Republican National Convention. Her crime? Sharing the story of how she believes Hillary Clinton is responsible for her son’s death, which clearly has more basis in fact than Trump being responsible for Khan’s death.

***********************

Our incredibly objective media has moved on from declaring Donald Trump an agent of the Kremlin and gushing over every moment of the Democratic National Convention to fixating itself on another unbiased story.

Namely, Trump hates the families of dead veterans.

On the final night of the DNC, Khizir Khan — a Muslim father who lost his son, Captain Humayun Khan in Iraq 12 years ago — took the stage with his wife in Philadelphia and delivered arguably the most notable speech of the entire convention. Khan condemned Trump for being un-American and sacrificing nothing for the country. It was a powerful speech, and it fully won over America’s chattering class — both in its conservative and liberal elements.

While obviously heartfelt and genuine, the reason the Democrats put Khan on stage and the media celebrated him was, in part, to bait Trump into responding. Trump did just that in an interview with ABC host and former Bill Clinton aide George Stephanopoulos.

As far as Trump putdowns go, The Donald’s response was relatively mild. For one, he said he expressed condolences for the family’s loss and their son’s service. On the negative side, he wondered why Mrs. Khan didn’t speak at the convention, which gave the impression he was implying it was due to her faith. The New York businessman also said in his characteristically humble fashion that he has made sacrifices in developing successful companies.

The comments were inartful, yet they were hardly the stuff of vicious denigration. Trump did not attack the service of the Khans’ son and the issue, as later campaign statements pointed out, dealt with the father’s criticism of the Republican nominee’s policies.

Apparently, that’s “inhuman” and “barbaric,” according to the Washington consensus. Thus, we’re in the midst of the most disingenuous Trump outrage story yet.

Here’s a few things to take away from this scandal.

One, Trump and his proposals have zero responsibility for Captain Khan’s death. The same cannot be said of Hillary Clinton, who authorized the Iraq war and continue supporting it long after it was abundantly clear it was a major disaster. Moreover, her hawkish foreign policy would lead to more unnecessary interventions into the Middle East and other parts of the world and sadly create more Gold Star families like the Khans.

To criticize Trump for his lack of sacrifice, but overlook Hillary’s lack of sacrifice and tacitly endorse her policies forcing more American families to lose their children on behalf of fuzzy ideological objectives is ridiculous.

Two, Khizr Khan is draping himself in his son’s death to attack Trump on an issue unrelated to his son’s death. A moratorium on countries where radical Islamists (whom, by the way, killed Capt. Khan) are abundant is about national security. Same goes for the proposal to secure the U.S.-Mexico border. The elder Khan claims it is unconstitutional and un-American to do both, when, in fact, legal scholars argue the measures fit very much within the precedents of American immigration law. (RELATED: Law Professors: Trump’s Muslim Moratorium Is Constitutional)

To denigrate or undermine the Khan family for their sacrifice is wrong and we should honor their son’s service. However, that does not mean the father is immune from criticism on political issues after he decided to take them up in the public arena. Upholding the standard that the families of fallen soldiers should not be criticized for anything is illogical and asinine. We certainly didn’t apply the same standard to Cindy Sheehan and her crusade against George W. Bush — a leader who was actually responsible for her son’s death.

Three, the impression given by the media that Captain Khan is reflective of all Muslims who may want to enter in the United States is just as faulty as claiming all Muslims are terrorists. It is true that 14 Muslims have lost their lives in service to this country since 9/11. It is also true that over 5000 Muslims are currently serving in our armed services. Various outlets love to report these facts with the hope it transmits the notion that Muslims are incredibly patriotic and are indispensable to our national security. While these individuals are unquestionably devoted to America, as a community, Muslims are very underrepresented in the military.

Muslims constitute one percent of the U.S. population, yet comprise a little under .3 percent of the armed forces. In contrast, whites are 62 percent of the population, yet make up 71 percent of the present military. Moreover, whites comprise over 83 percent of those who have died in the line of duty since 9/11, while Muslims constitute .2 percent of the fatalities.

With that in mind, declaring Trump’s policies on Middle Eastern migration as a barrier to the military getting the personnel they need to protect this country is not at all accurate.

Finally, it’s 100 percent certain the mainstream media is an unofficial arm of the Clinton campaign. After a whole week of trying to downplay the Wikileaks DNC scandal and cheering on every moment of the convention, they created a top-down outrage story for the sole purpose of shaming Trump and his supporters.

(Several social media posts, which I could not copy, are here in the linked article — DM)

While claiming that Khan is above any criticism due to his loss, they had spent the prior week attacking Pat Smith — the mother of a Benghazi victim — for being exploited by the Republican National Convention. Her crime? Sharing the story of how she believes Hillary Clinton is responsible for her son’s death, which clearly has more basis in fact than Trump being responsible for Khan’s death.

Additionally, the media entirely ignored the stories of the families at the Republican convention who lost loved ones to illegal immigrants. Their children died as a direct result of policies supported by the Democratic Party, but the media plays by a double standard when it comes to who gets to use their tragedy to highlight a policy issue.

The Khan affair is another demonstration that the media is deadset against Trump and will blow any story out of proportion in order to gin up resistance to his candidacy. The journalists hyperventilating over Trump’s response to Khan don’t care about Gold Star families or veterans — they just see it as a good opportunity to derail The Donald.

It’s barely August, and we already have papers of record insinuating Trump is Vladimir Putin’s Manchurian Candidate. We can only imagine what they’ll come up with next as he continues to compete with Hillary in the polls and the public forgets about the Khan fracas.

 

Categories: 2016 elections, Democrat National Convention, Donald Trump, Khan-Gate, Media and Donald Trump, Media and Hillary Clinton
Tags: , , , ,

Comments: 2 Comments

Newer Entries »