trump oval office

Press Basks in Self-Pity as President Skips Media Event to Engage with America

President Trump has a busy schedule this week. On Friday, he becomes the first sitting president since Ronald Reagan in 1983 to address the members of the National Rifle Association during our Annual Meeting and Exhibits in Atlanta, GA. The next day he will hold a rally at the PA Farm Show Complex and Expo Center in Harrisburg to mark the 100th day of his presidency.

One event he will not be attending is the 103rd Annual White House Correspondents’ Association (WHCA) Dinner in Washington, D.C.  Here, too, he shares a parallel with Ronald Reagan, who was the last president to skip the event in 1981 (albeit because he was still recovering from a recent assassination attempt). Before Reagan, both Presidents Jimmy Carter (1978 and 1980) and Richard Nixon (1972 and 1974) skipped the dinner of their own volition.

The mainstream media have made no secret of their opposition to President Trump. Articles have openly questioned the “legitimacy” of his presidency, and some within the media have even admitted they do not believe ordinary journalistic ethics or practices apply to him. As a writer for the New York Times acknowledged during the election: “[L]et’s face it: Balance has been on vacation since Mr. Trump stepped onto his golden Trump Tower escalator last year to announce his candidacy.”

Meanwhile, the American people who voted the president into office have made no secret of their disgust with the media. During the election, an annual Gallup poll showed Americans’ trust and confidence in the mass media “to report the news fully, accurately and fairly” dropped to its lowest level since the organization first began asking the question in 1972. Nearly 70% of the poll’s respondents found the media untrustworthy.

It cannot be said often or emphatically enough: the media elite just don’t get it. First, they blew the biggest political story of the 21st Century by failing to recognize the momentum of Trump’s presidential campaign. Then – rather than recognize and begin addressing their own colossal professional failure – they simply re-dedicated themselves to opposing his presidency. Even Poltico recently acknowledged that Trump’s election was “not just as an embarrassment for the press but … an indictment” and made clear “the national media just doesn’t get the nation it purportedly covers.”

The press’ reaction to Trump’s decision to skip the WHCA Dinner reinforces this negative view. Criticizing Trump for reaching out to the ordinary Americans who elected him, rather than the press figures who despise him, a former WHCA board member made clear in statements to The Hill that reporters really do continue to believe it’s all about themselves.

“I feel bad, because a lot of White House reporters are going to have to go and cover [Trump’s Pennsylvania rally] and not come to our own dinner,” she said. “It’s one thing for him to stay home, and that was fine. And he can just tweet about us and be mean, and that would be kind of funny, and it would feel right. But for him to stage a competing event — we just can’t even have our dinner? We just can’t even do that?”

This is a remarkable admission. They have to go to work “out there” in America, rather than gather in the Washington, D.C. Hilton with their like-minded colleagues and a bevy of like-minded Hollywood celebrities for a night of self-congratulation and mutual regard.

And as The Hill article noted, even for those who will attend, it won’t be like the good old days when Barack Obama was president and the real Tinseltown A-Listers flocked to bask in his presence. “That really mushroomed during the Obama years,” the WHCA board member told The Hill, “because celebrities love Democrats and big party-givers love celebrities.”

Most Americans probably have better things to do than to give the WHCA Dinner much thought at all.  And the press can at least look forward to the public re-emergence of Barack Obama, who a USA Today writer called “the ultimate media President” because he “made the media feel good.”

Obama reappeared on Monday to give a speech to a friendly crowd at the University of Chicago, where he used to teach in the law school.

The news also broke this week that Obama will follow in the footsteps of Hillary Clinton by accepting $400,000 to address a gathering of Wall Street investment bankers. In a shocking display of pay inequity, however, his fee will be nearly twice what Clinton charged private businesses for similar events. This follows on last month’s announcement that the former president and first lady landed a $65 million book deal – the largest ever – for the publication of their presidential memoirs.

Of course, it’s natural for people to gather with their friends and supporters. For Trump, that means the hardworking Americans who do the necessary but mostly unglamorous work of growing, building, moving, and fixing things the country relies on for our daily lives. For the media, it means each other. And for Barack Obama, it lately means “young people” and rich bankers at whom he sometimes wags his finger but from whom he always gladly accepts large sums of money.

Here at the NRA, we look forward to seeing the president in Atlanta.

As for the surly press corps that will begrudgingly covering the events while their colleagues feast in the Nation’s Capitol, consider it an opportunity to visit that part of America that you should at least know exists, even if you remain determined to misunderstand it.

marin le pen black and white

Marine Le Pen is the ‘France First’ candidate

Marion Anne Perrine “Marine” Le Pen is a French lawyer and politician. Ms. Le Pen stepped down as the president of the National Front to become the people’s candidate. “Tonight, I am no longer the president of the National Front. I am the presidential candidate,” she said on French public television news after winning in the first round of the election.

If elected Ms. Le Pen would become the first woman to lead the Gouvernement de la République française

Marion Anne Perrine “Marine” Le Pen and Emmanuel Macron (right)

 has described Le Pen’s opponent Emmanuel Macron as, “[T]he horrible crossbreeding of Obama and Soros and Justin Trudeau.”

Breibart’s Jack Montgomery reports:

Marine Le Pen, the presidential candidate for France’s populist National Front (FN), has pledged to put France first, hitting out at “financial globalisation”, “mass immigration”, and “Islamic fundamentalism” in a landmark speech.

The 48-year-old said that “financial globalisation and Islamist globalisation are helping each other out”, and “those two ideologies aim to bring France to its knees”.

According to Le Pen, globalisation can be summed up as “manufacturing with slaves to sell to the unemployed”. She pledged that an FN-led republic would be “will be all about the local, not the global”.

So what does Le Pen stand for? According to her campaign website here are some items from her platform:

  1. To regain our freedom and mastery of our destiny by restoring to the French people its sovereignty (monetary, legislative, territorial, economic).
  2. Guarantee freedom of expression and digital freedoms through their inclusion in fundamental freedoms protected by the Constitution, while strengthening the fight against cyber-jihadism and pedophilia.
  3. Defending women’s rights : fighting against Islamism, which undermines their fundamental freedoms; Put in place a national plan for equal pay for women and men and fight against job and social insecurity.
  4. Ensure the freedom of schooling of children according to their choices , while at the same time strictly controlling the compatibility with the values of the Republic of the education provided in private non-contractual institutions.
  5. Massive re-armament of the security forces  : personnel (recruitment plan of 15,000 police and gendarmes), equipment (modernization of equipment, police stations and barracks, adaptation of armaments to new threats), but also morally and (Including the presumption of self-defense). Guarantee the military status of gendarmes.
  6. Fight against juvenile delinquency by empowering parents by eliminating the payment of social assistance to parents of repeat offenders in the event of manifest educational deficiencies.
  7. Restore national borders and exit the Schengen area (a special arrangement for border workers will be put in place to facilitate border crossing). Replenish the number of staff removed from customs by the recruitment of 6,000 staff during the five-year period.
  8. Reducing legal immigration to an annual balance of 10 000. To put an end to automatic automatic family reunification and reconciliation and the automatic acquisition of French nationality by marriage. Remove the suction pumps from immigration.
  9. Putting in place a plan for re-industrialization in the framework of cooperation involving industry and the state-strategist to give priority to the real economy in the face of speculative finance.
  10. Supporting French companies in the face of unfair international competition through the establishment of intelligent protectionism and the restoration of a national currency adapted to our economy, which is the lever of our competitiveness.
  11. Establish a true economic patriotism by freeing itself from European constraints and by reserving public order to French companies if the price gap is reasonable. Reserve a part of the public order to SMEs.
  12. Reducing the administrative and fiscal complexity of small and medium-sized  enterprises (SMEs): dedicated one stop-shop (social, fiscal and administrative), generalization of the “emploi emploi service entreprise” New device based on a personalized evaluation thanks to an occupational medicine that will be reconstituted. The penalty will be offset by an increase in pension annuities.

Go here to read Ms. Le Pen’s entire platform.

The media is characterizing Ms. Le Pen as the “far right candidate” and her opponent Macron as a “moderate.”  reports that Macron is anything but a moderate. Lépante writes:

Macron is an ultra-leftist who viscerally hates France and the French people. He has said many times that “there is no French culture”, that “he has never seen French art” (meaning that French art doesn’t exist), therefore he denies the very existence of the French people (because all people has his own culture)! And he has accused France of crimes against humanity in Algeria, when in fact it’s the Algerians who are guilty of crimes against humanity, because they reduced into slavery more than 1 million of our ancestors and slaughtered more than 1 million French people from 8th to 19th century!

Macron has said time and again that he supports mass immigration into France from Africa ! That millions of immigrants will continue to invade our European countries and that it’s a good thing! And he has praised the traitor to the German people Angela Merkel for letting 1 million illegal Muslim immigrants invade Germany in 2015, resulting in thousands of German women raped and numerous terrorist attacks!

Macron has said that he wants to create an “French-Algerian Youth Office” to increase the entry of Algerians into France, these Algerians being predominantly racist scums who insult and rape our wives and daughters, who attack and kill our parents and children, who rob, maim, kill, commit terror attack after terror attack. As a reminder, Muslims represent more than 70% of the prisoners in our prisons.

France has a choice on Sunday, May 7th, 2017 between Marine Le Pen, the French patriot and Emmanuel Macron, the establishment’s choice.

Choose wisely!

RELATED ARTICLES:

‘France First’ – Marine Le Pen Hits out at Islamism and Financial Globalisation

Front-runner for French presidency against arresting and deporting “radical Islamists”

The Phoney and the Fascist

Le Séisme?

RELATED VIDEO: Mark Steyn on the French Election

New-OReilly-Allegations

Women have become political and social IED’s

I have been thinking a lot about Bill O’Reilly and his departure from Fox News. This is the first time that I have commented on it because I wanted to thoroughly think it through first, and this is the conclusion that I have arrived at.

I am not a big fan of Bill O’Reilly, and never have been, but that isn’t because of any allegations of womanizing. I just find him to be an obnoxious bore, but Mr. Bill has become the latest victim of liberalism, that’s all. Nothing to do with sex, or harassment, or anything of the sort…just liberalism and here’s why.

Woman have gone the way of every other minority in this country, namely blacks, in the respect that they have become abusers of the very system that has given them equality and justice. At one time, that pendulum of justice swung far to one side and treated women unfairly…same as it did for blacks, but then things changed and there was a correction, rightfully so, and that pendulum swung the other way, but instead of stopping it in the middle where truth and fairness for all is found, they, like blacks, kept on pushing it far to the opposite side to where now they are able to manipulate and abuse the very system that sought to correct the uneven balance.

Women have become political and social IED’s.

The slightest provocation, and even no provocation, could cause them to explode, and if you are in their path…..you are going to get hurt.

One word from a woman, and without one iota or scintilla of evidence or proof, and a man is immediately under the microscope by the social and legal communities and his entire life is at risk. Let’s take a couple of scenarios that are going on right now and that I am personally familiar with:

The first, a young couple living together. He bought the house, and she is the “live in” girlfriend with three kids. They get into a fight, she calls the cops and accuses him of hitting her. He is arrested and cannot return to his house. This has become an old story. It is now almost commonplace for a woman to file a “protection from abuse” when couples seek divorce, just to get him out of the house, and if she files it, she automatically gets it. No proof of abuse, she just gets the order.

Next, did you know that it is a sad fact that many young fathers will not bathe their daughters? It’s a fact. Why? Because of the ever increasing accusations of sexual abuse if the couple becomes estranged. One accusation from a woman immediately puts a man under the microscope of the legal authorities. Yes, I know of such a case right now……and it never happened. The playwright, William Congreve said it best, “…Heaven has no rage like love to hatred turn’d, Nor hell a fury like a woman scorned.”

These are not isolated cases or situations. This has become the norm across the Nation. The American Woman has proudly taken her place alongside Black Lives Matter. Unless you have your head buried in the sand, you’ll have noticed that there is a war against whites, there is a war against boys and there is a war against men.

So if you’re a white boy who has grown to be a man? Well, you’re pretty much screwed.

RELATED ARTICLE: The Shadowy Extremist Group Behind the Anti-Trump Riots | LifeZette

very fake news

How do you get your news?

If you had any doubt the news system was rigged, this might remove that doubt:

ABC News executive producer Ian Cameron is married to Susan Rice, former National Security Adviser.

CBS President David Rhodes is the brother of Ben Rhodes, Obama’s former Deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communications.

ABC News correspondent Claire Shipman is married to former White House Press Secretary Jay Carney.

ABC News and Univision reporter Matthew Jaffe is married to Katie Hogan, Obama’s former Deputy Press Secretary.

ABC President Ben Sherwood is the brother of Obama’s former Special Adviser Elizabeth Sherwood.

CNN President Virginia Moseley is married to Clinton’s former Deputy Secretary Tom Nides.

And if that didn’t throw the final turd into the punch-bowl, the ultra-liberal New York Times is owned by Carlos Slim, the richest citizen of MEXICO! What a great big happy family!

Before you believe everything you read in the newspapers or see on TV — think about what these billionaire “insiders” have at stake when they lose their crooked “providers” in government.

news organizations

RELATED ARTICLE: Even as horrors exposed, AP news agency kept secret pact with Nazis | The Times of Israel

liberal anarchists

Media fails to report that Antifa woman taken down by Marine was throwing IEDs

antifa anarchist with bomb

Nathan Damigo, a Marine veteran, wrestling to the ground a woman with an IED (red circle).

There’s been media coverage of a woman Louise Rosealma being wrestled to the ground by a man. Rosealma was part of the Antifa group in Berkeley, California that attacked pro-Trump marchers.

Nathan Damigo, a Marine veteran who was there saw that Rosealma was putting M80 explosive devices inside glass bottles and throwing them at the pro-Trump rally marchers.

So Louise Rosealma was literally making IED’s. This makes her no better than the Boston Marathon bombers.

According to Wikipedia:

M-80s are an American class of large powerful firecrackers, sometimes called salutes. M-80s were originally made in the early 20th century by the U.S. military to simulate explosives or artillery fire; later, M-80s were manufactured as fireworks.

You can see in the picture (above right) that she has her weapon, a glass bottle with an M80 in it, in her hand as Damigo hits her in the face to subdue the bomb threat.

Marines are trained to run towards the fight not away from it, to put their lives on the line so others won’t get hurt. Perfect example of that here.

According to CBS Los Angeles, “The 20-year-old [Louise Rosealma] drove to the Bay Area with friends to march against the alt-right organized event. Rosealma, a member of the anti-fascist movement, says she had only been at the protest for about 20 minutes when a smoke bomb went off. At that point, she says, she and her boyfriend were charged.”

She was being charged by Damigo because she was a threat to the safety of others.

It seems the fakestream media never reports the truth anymore.

pbs logo

DEFUND: The Dazzlingly Bad Idea of Government-Funded Media

There are bad ideas, and then there are really bad ideas.

Government-funded national media resides in the realm of really bad ideas. Make no mistake, this is precisely what NPR and PBS are — government-funded media, an idea totally inimical to the founders’ concept in the First Amendment of a free and unfettered media.

President Trump is dead-on in wanting to defund this, as are many conservatives.

The Corporation for Public Broadcasting was formed in 1967, embedded in the Great Society years that have proven so disastrous on so many levels — from locking in generational poverty to facilitating the disintegration of the family to diminishing labor participation rates.

A side note to the terrible Great Society ideas was the creation of public radio and television. Because in addition to the federal government becoming a nanny to every American’s needs and desires, government also decided they knew best what types of media were essential for Americans to consume. No, Americans could not possibly choose this appropriately on their own.

Who knows what sort of disdainful, low-brow choices they would make? Elvis Presley and the The Beatles? Paintings that don’t look like something a five-year-old spilled? National Review? Rush Limbaugh? No thank you. The federal government could not possibly allow that to be their only intake. They would ensure that all Americans could listen to — and be forced to pay for — classical and jazz music, plus the endless ultra progressive prattling of the news side.

Public media thinks very highly of themselves

As befitting the high-brows they are, the CPB see themselves as essential to the betterment of every American. Here is how the organization describes their mission:

“Public media creates and distributes content that is for, by and about Americans of all diverse backgrounds; and services that foster dialogue between the American people and the stations that serve them. In addition to providing free high-quality, educational programming for children, arts, and award winning current affairs programming, public media stations provide life-saving emergency alert services.”

There are so many problems with that single paragraph, and they all point to the operational blinders on the CPB.

  • “…for, by and about Americans of all diverse backgrounds;” This is not true, but it does mimic the mainstream media and progressive penchant for thinking that people who look different create diversity even if they all think alike. I’ve never met a public broadcast news person who was not liberal. Oh sure progressives consider a black liberal, a white liberal, an Hispanic liberal, a gay liberal and a female liberal a rainbow of diversity. But when one is producing news content, the outcome is essentially no difference among them.
  • “…services that foster dialogue between the American people and the stations that serve them.” Not true again. I know few conservatives who interact with public broadcast, for reasons ranging from philosophic opposition to government-funded media to frustration with their worldview being under constant fire with their own tax dollars. The dialogue, such as there is, is among the center to left who imbibe the doctrine and like music not popular in the broader culture.
  • “In addition to providing free high-quality, educational programming for children, arts, and award winning current affairs programming…” I think we’ve already established it is not “free.” It is just befuddling how the liberal mind thinks that if government provides something, it is magically free. To understand how “award-winning” journalism works to only benefit the liberal progressive worldview, please read this.
  • “…public media stations provide life-saving emergency alert services.” Okay, so technology has just passed this one by. It’s like saying they provide buggy whips. Not a strong selling point.

This government-funded media reaches more than 98 percent of the U.S. population. That means it has far more reach than any independent news organizations, and maybe as much as all of them put together. Not good.

But, but Big Bird! The arts!

A common misunderstanding used in defense of this bad idea is that it provides such popular programs as Sesame Street. This has long been just a silly argument as Sesame Street is hugely popular — so much so that it actually is first-run now on the HBO premium channel before being re-run on PBS.

But the truth of the matter is that the loss of public funding will not kill any of these PBS stations. In fact, it’s probably totally unnecessary in the age of high-speed internet and unlimited data plans on smart phones.

Most of the federal funding for these entities supports the distribution network of 1,400 radio and television stations and only a small — and now superfluous — amount goes to support programming.

Actual public programming, such as Sesame Street, Frontline, Fresh Air, All Things Considered and others would in no way be affected by cutting federal funding because they are popular. They would continue on and be profitable — as evidenced by HBO buying first-run rights to Sesame Street.

So when you see hashtags such as #SaveBigBird, you’re seeing a display either of ignorance or a dishonest appeal to emotions. Big Bird, Elmo and the rest will thrive without any federal money. In fact, it is likely driving a ton of cash into PBS.

During an ABC panel I was on, a consistent argument for saving taxpayer-funding of public radio and television is that it supports “the arts” and provides at least audio arts opportunities that would not otherwise be available in rural areas with small, spread-out populations.

You could make that argument before — although the government doing it would still be a huge obstacle — but not now. I held up my iPhone and said all those options and many, many more, are available through Spotify, Pandora and other apps via streaming.

If proponents really wanted to give rural and poor people a wider variety of musical arts opportunities, they should probably argue for grants to Spotify and others where listeners can be exposed to literally hundreds of times more options than whatever is playing on NPR that afternoon. I would oppose such funding, but at least it makes more sense than the 1960s model now being used.

A media love affair

In briefly researching Trump’s proposal to eliminate government funding of one media source, every media outlet I saw opined on the “need” for public broadcasting: The Washington Post, Newsweek, CBS News, The Hill, Vox, and so on. Those just showed up near the top of a Google search.

It is a universal truth in the mainstream media — which is to say that it is a universal truth of modern American liberalism — that government-funded media is essential to the welfare of Americans. It’s hard to get past the “government knows best” specter of this.

But then, that goes to a core of the liberal progressive mindset: government can and should do more and more things to improve our personal lives.

Vox does yeoman’s work trying to portray how mean Trump is by playing the rural card and the now common canard that Trump keeps doing things that hurt his own voters.

The digital media outlet wrote that Trump’s “proposed defunding of CPB is yet another way that a policy proposed by Trump seems as if it will have the most adverse effect on those who voted for him.” That’s because a lot of federal funding goes to pay for PBS and NPR programming in rural areas. While major metro areas may make up lost tax revenues through donations and grants from foundations, rural areas may lose their “beloved” government-funded stations.

But is that because they are poorer and donate less? Remember, the costs of running the stations in uncongested low-cost rural areas is also considerably cheaper than in major metro areas. Or is it because the high-brow snobbery generated on a lot of the stations just isn’t that popular in rural America and those people have no interest in supporting it — or the adjoining liberalism of the news side?

PBS and NPR are not going anywhere as entities. They have enough programming that enough people like that they are viable without federal funds. But without taxpayer funds is exactly what they should be, because there is no place for government-funded media in the United States.

Ever.

We cannot defund this bad idea soon enough.

RELATED ARTICLE: PBS Lesson Plan Teaches Kids to Sympathize with Muslim Suicide Bombers

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on The Revolutionary Act.

countable_

America’s Top Civic App, Countable

countable iphoneSAN FRANCISCO, California /PRNewswire/ — Since the inauguration of Donald Trump, America’s top civic app, Countable (www.countable.us), has seen a boom in growth, even attracting the attention and use of a celebrity following, the company is announcing, today.

Countable exists to update users on key political developments with the issues they care about with nonpartisan summaries of legislation and complex news events, and to empower them to take action by holding their elected lawmakers accountable. Users can send video messages, text messages or call their reps from the app – including force touch on the home screen icon to quick access their reps.

Members of the House and the Senate are even mentioning Countable, in their replies to constituents’ messages.

In the app’s most up-to-date numbers, released today, Countable has:

  • Sent 8 million messages to Congress from voters all around the country
  • Delivered 3 million messages sent since the election alone
  • Seen huge growth in millennials and women since the election, and over 2000% growth overall

Among these engaged Americans are celebrities who have sung the praises of Countable on their social media feeds.

George Takei tweeted, “Want to stay on top of Congress? And an easy way to call/write your representatives? I’m trying out the “Countable” App. Just downloaded it.”

“Yes. I have it. Love,” Alyssa Milano responded to a follower asking if she was using Countable.

And Sophia Bush told her Twitter followers, “Want quick action items at your fingertips to be an active constituent? Know when to call Congress? Here ya go!”

Reviews in the App Store are even more enthusiastic.  With hundreds of thousands of installs, the app has maintained a 4-star rating.

“This app is amazing!! I’m so glad that someone finally came up with a simple, user friendly, and mobile way to check up on what your government is doing and then let them know what you think. And from what I can tell this far it seems fair and unbiased in its content. This could be one of the most powerful platforms for nurturing and informed public that can force change,” said one review.

“I’ve been using Countable for several weeks now, and I’ve got to say that it is the best political app I’ve ever seen,” another reviewer wrote.

Another added, “This app is fantastic. I love the civility in forums. It is a breath of fresh air to hear divergent opinions without all the hair pulling and meanie-pantness.”

About Countable

Founded in 2014, Countable (www.countable.us) presents users with easy-to-understand summaries of bills and issues in the news, and a means to immediately, quickly, and easily tell their lawmakers where they stand. Users can choose to have their opinion delivered via email, phone call, or video message. Countable’s advisory board includes former Senator Evan Bayh, former Congressman Jon Runyan, former Howard Dean campaign manager, political consultant Joe Trippi, political consultant Amanda Crumley and legendary news chief Rick Kaplan.

darfur jihad

Journalists Kidnapped, Imprisoned and Tortured in Darfur

Former  Chadian  General Abakar M. Abdullah , a native of the Zagawa Tribe in Darfur, this writer and Deborah Martin have published a series of articles  on the lies behind the Genocidal Jihad  perpetrated by the  regime of indicted war criminal, President Omar al-Bashir against  the indigenous people of  Sudan.

We published the details of  the regime’s agenda of the secret Arab Coalition Plan that Abdallah recovered in 2015 in the cab of a captured  pickup truck  of the Janjaweed Rapid Support  Force (RSF) renamed by  Bashir, as the Peace Force.  That plan has been implemented with the objective of completing the ethnic cleansing on or before 2020. We reported on the RSF peace force and the recruitment, equipping, training and of a veritable Jihad Army of an estimated 150,000 Arab tribal fighters from the Sahel region, terrorist groups from Africa and the Middle East. That included fighters from the Islamic State deployed in 16 training camps around the capital of Khartoum. It is furtherance of the Bashir plan to create a regional Caliphate in Africa.

We reported on the evidence of the eradication campaign of the regime’s peace force in Darfur and the Nuba Mountains and the deliberate provocations against Internally Displaced Persons camps aimed at intimidating  indigenous tribal people to flee into neighboring countries or urban areas.

We recently reported on the billions of dollars of funded Sudan mineral extraction, water ,infrastructure and agricultural development projects by the Saudi Kingdom and Emeriti governments of the Gulf Cooperation Council.  Saudia  Arabia has also funded over $5 billion for support of Sudanese military in the War in Yemen. Those billions of dollars of projects announced at the recent Amman Arab League Summit were directed at creating  a veritable bread basket for the Sunni Arab Middle East in the lands being cleansed of Sudan indigenous  people replaced by Arab settlers  . These billions of dollar began flowing to Sudan after President al-Bashir ended in 2014 his long term alliance with world’s global supporter of terrorism, the Shiite Islamic Republic of Iran.

We noted the folly of the Obama Administration at the end of its eight year term partially lifting long term economic sanctions against the Bashir regime in the face of evidence that Genocide has actually accelerated.

UK Channel 4 Documentary Team, Phil Cox and Daoud Hari, Chad Dafuri Refugee Camp, December 2016. Source:  The Guardian

UK Channel 4 Documentary of Journalists Kidnapping, Imprisonment and Torture in Sudan Police State

You can write about this, but only video documentaries have the power to move concerned governments and activists to undertake take actions to end Jihad Genocide in Sudan.  Such is the case of a recent episode involving UK freelance journalist/documentarian Phil Cox and his US Sudanese émigré producer, Daoud  Hari, who had last reported on the plight of the Darfuri people in 2005. Cox  induced Hari, who was a cab driver in Brooklyn, New York to return with him as producer/translator to pursue reports of the use of  chemical weapons by the Bashir regime in the Darfur mountain redoubt of Jebel Marra.  They  crossed over into  Darfur illegally  in December 2016 from neighboring Chad after visiting a Dafuri refugee camp where they  connected with Sudanese Liberation Army fighters as security and guides.  They were tracked by Sudanese helicopters using  signals from their cell phone sim cards, and eventually, kidnapped  by Janjaweed Rapid Support Force (RSF) militia, chained and kept for four days in the desert while the  kidnapped while they negotiated  a Sudanese  National Intelligence Security Service commander.

Cox  was ultimately blind folded and flown to the capital of Khartoum for imprisonment and torture until he was released under a Presidential Pardon at the end of 70 days. It was during Cox’s imprisonment in the notorious Kober Prison that he met opponents of the Bashir regime; academics, students, businessmen, some of whom were caught using cell text message and  social media. His American Sudanese producer Daoud Hari was initially abandoned by the Janjaweed RSF militia in the desert, allegedly released, but then retaken and like Cox shipped off by air to Kober Prison where he also received the same treatment. Daoud Hari was ultimately released through the intervention of both US and UK governments.

Cox, wrote about the 70 days of their kidnapping, imprisonment and torture in an April 5, 2017 Guardian article  graphically illustrated in a companion UK Channel 4 documentary report released on April 7th.   Read the Guardian report by journalist Cox and view the YouTube video of his and Daoud Hari’s experience inside what can only be termed Sudan’s equivalent of  Iran’s  notorious Evin prison in the police state of Sudan’s al-Bashir Regime.

Note this excerpt from Cox’s  Guardian report of his and Daoud Hari’s experience in Bashir’s police state:

In the early morning of 24 December 2016, my friend Daoud and I lay side by side on a blanket, our legs chained at the ankles, secured with heavy padlocks. The sun beat down on the desert. We pleaded with our captors to be moved to the shade, but they ignored us. It was not how I had imagined spending Christmas Eve.

Sixteen days earlier, Daoud Hari, my local producer and translator, had crossed with me from Chad into Sudan. We had planned to make a film in the war-ravaged Darfur region, where no independent journalist had entered for years. We had come to investigate what was happening on the ground, and to follow up allegations that chemical weapons were being used by the Sudanese government against its own citizens. Instead we had been tracked by the Sudanese military and captured by a local militia. At this point, we had no idea what would happen to us.

It is hard to describe being chained up beneath the desert sun. Your face and hands slowly burn. Your tongue starts to swell and the blood inside your head pounds like a hammer. Our two guards were responsive to us (although they would not give us their names) and when their commander had gone, they were even friendly. Desperate to call London to confirm we were alive, I formulated a plan to persuade our captors to let us use their phone. I had a passport-sized photo of my seven-year-old son, Romeo, in my breast pocket – I called one of the guards over and showed it to him. I let my tears run and explained that I needed to tell my son I was alive. It was Christmas, I pleaded, and he would be all alone.

The man looked at the photograph and patted me on the shoulder – he would try, he said. Daoud suggested that I refuse any water or food to show how miserable I was. After I had turned down food and drink for a whole day, the guards became worried.

The following morning, one of the guards brought sweet tea. Daoud told them I was still refusing to drink. The two guards conferred – then, after a long while, they brought me their satellite phone – on the condition we would not tell their commander. Phone in hand, I realized I could not remember the number of my house in London, or that of Giovanna Stopponi, my producer. But by a stroke of luck, Daoud had his contact list on scraps of paper in a back pocket. He found the right one and we dialed. Giovanna answered the phone but she couldn’t hear me. The handset was falling apart, so I squeezed it together as hard as I could. I could hear Giovanna saying, “Hello? hello?” There was panic in her voice now.

“It’s Phil, we are captured by the Rapid Security Force militia, we are fine, kidnappers are from the Rizeigat tribe, we are 2km from where I last pressed the tracker alarm, we are probably going to be sold to the government.” I breathed out. The information had got through. “Happy Christmas,” I said.

(READ MORE)

Watch the YouTube video, Kidnapped, held hostage and tortured in Sudanese prison: the Channel 4 team who went through “hell”:


Jerry Gordon is a Senior Editor at the New English Review.

Lt. Gen. Abakar M. Abdallah is Chairman of the Sudan United Movement. He is a 23 year vetrean of the Chadian Army. He is a graduate of the US Army War College, the US Army Intrelligence School, Fort Huachuca, Arizona  and the counterterrorism program of the National Defense University at Fort McNair, Washington, DC.

Deborah Martin is a 35 year Sudan linguist and cultural expert and consultant.

hufpo al jazzera logos

The Islamist nexus between the Huffington Post and Al Jazeera

The Huffington Post has former Al Jazeera journalists writing articles.  Huffington Post Arabic is led by hard line Islamists from Al Jazeera.  The Islamist nexus between the Huffington Post and Al Jazeera is one of the top reasons why Florida Family Association is encouraging Corporate America to stop supporting the Huffington Post with their advertising dollars.

The Huffington Post published an article written by Ben Piven on January 12, 2017 titled“Why Al Jazeera America Failed, And Why We Need It More Than Ever.”  The subtitle stated “America desperately needs something similar to pioneer this new era of uncertainty and misinformation.”  Ben Piven “was at Al Jazeera for over 5 years, including several years at AJAM in New York City and also in Doha at AJE during the height of the Arab Spring.”

The Huffington Post Arabic edition is run by two hardline Islamists according to a report published by Breitbart.

Breitbart:  The Huffington Post Arabic venture is led by hardline Islamists

The two men leading Huffington Post’s new Arabic-language site have in the past been accused of having direct involvement with the Muslim Brotherhood and radical clerics; and one has openly expressed conspiratorial views that have been interpreted as having an anti-Semitic connotation.

Anas Fouda, an Egyptian native now living in Muslim Brotherhood-friendly Turkey, is the new editor-in-chief of HuffPost Arabi. He was arrested by UAE authorities in 2013 after being charged with being a leader in the Islamist group, according to a NOW Lebanon, which linked to an article in which Fouda allegedly admitted that he has been a member of the Brotherhood since 1988. Prior to becoming the Huffington Post Arabic editor, Fouda was an executive producer at Al Jazeera Arabic, a network accused of having rabidly pro-Brotherhood biases.

After examining his past statements, NOW Lebanon writer Alex Rowell described Fouda as “bread and butter MB; recommending for instance, articles praising” Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who is considered the spiritual leader of the Islamist group. Qaradawi has in the past praised Nazi leader Adolf Hitler as someone “sent by Allah” to “punish” the Jews. The Muslim Brotherhood kingpin’s arrest is now being sought by INTERPOL, the international counter-terror organization.

The Huffington Post’s Arabic venture was created after the left-wing news network teamed up with Integral Media Strategies, an organization led by Wadah Khanfar, who was previously employed as Al Jazeera Arabic’s managing director. Khanfar, like Fouda, has been arrested by an Arab government (Jordan) on suspicion that he was a leader in the Muslim Brotherhood terror group. Additionally, Zvi Mazel, the former Israeli Ambassador to Egypt, has in the past noted with certainty that “Wadah Khanfar is a Muslim Brother,” and that the former Al Jazeera chief turned the network into a “weapon in the service of” the Muslim Brotherhood.

Khanfar was known to “work closely” with al-Qaradawi and the Qatari government, the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs has reported. Under Khanfar’s control, Al Jazeera Arabic’s coverage shifted towards “encouraging opposition and promoting incitement against Arab regimes, exposing the corruption of their leaders and their entourage, while holding to an extreme Arab nationalist attitude against the US and Israel and extolling the values of conservative – and sometimes extremist – Islam,” the research institute found.

The Islamist nexus between the Huffington Post and Al Jazeera is one of the top reasons why Florida Family Association is encouraging Corporate America to stop supporting the Huffington Post with their advertising dollars.

islam wilders quote

WATCHDOG WATCH: The Media’s Smiley Face Islam

ISLAM SMILEY FACE

Islam smiley face Imogen.

Smiley face Islam.

That seems to be how the media is determined to depict the face of Islam. The media has unacknowledged, and at times unknown agendas on multiple fronts. It’s the perfectly natural outcome when a large group of people have essentially the same worldview and their check and balance on that worldview is each other.

There is not going to be much of a check or balance. In a word, bias.

The bias in Muslim coverage seems to be ensuring that all Muslims are painted as exactly like every other American, and that Islam as a religion is depicted the same as any other religion. The truth is that Islam is a mixed bag in 2017 unlike any other religion. There are many productive, pro-American, peaceable Muslims in the United States. We probably have the most moderate Muslim population in the world, on a whole, and a majority fit into the American culture.

But while polls show that American Muslims are some of the least radicalized in the world, they also show that Islam worldwide does not fit the media narrative and hundreds of millions believe Sharia law, for instance, a legal system antithetical to American beliefs. And that raises questions of immigration.

Yet the media persists in describing Islam as an overtly peaceful religion that preaches tolerance, and the thousands of adherents to Islam that participate in atrocities are not really Muslims. No real reporting on the millions that support atrocious behavior, but do not participate directly.

So the truth is there really exists a smiley face Islam. But there also really exists a hateful, murderous Islam. Both are true, but the media highlights one.

The happy face example

An example that beautifully illustrates this bias was published a little over a year ago in a well-regarded Florida daily newspaper. In fact, this particular Pulitzer Prize winning newspaper helpfully directed readers with the headline, “The Face of Islam in Southwest Florida.”

Here is the lead:

“Imam Yousuf Memon is the face of Islam in Sarasota and Bradenton — and it’s a face that smiles constantly and is quick to laugh.

“Memon, only 24, shatters the stereotype of a Muslim cleric.

“Before services Friday, he was dressed in a trendy Abercrombie & Fitch hoodie, jeans and flip-flops.

“He admits he’s much younger than most Islamic clergy, but in the eight months since he became Imam of Sarasota’s diverse Muslim community, his efforts have drawn wide acclaim.”

The brave Imam — truly a brave young man — condemns violence in the name of Islam and says if he got wind of radicalized Muslims in his community, the first thing he would do is report them to the authorities. Here here! That is precisely the type of leadership many Americans hope for from Muslim clerics. So that’s all great and may God protect him.

What is missing journalistically

But as to the journalism…this story is one big promotional puff piece for smiley face Islam on Page 1 of a newspaper. Paid advertising is only mildly more overt. There are verrrrrrry long quotes (which you rarely see) by the Imam explaining that his view is true Islam and not the violent views of others around the world and occasionally in the United States. That’s legitimate, except that there is zero balance in the story.

What is missing? No normal journalistic push back. No context. No actual tough questions or topics, which are abundant with the Muslim issue. As a former journalist, I would ask some basics such as:

  • Do you believe in Sharia law?
  • Do you think it is safe to let in Syrians?
  • How have ISIS and others gained such huge followings in your religion, particularly when no other religion has anything like this going on?
  • Why do such large percentages of Muslims around the world support Sharia and even support terrorism and terror organizations in many instances?

That used to be basic journalism. But none of those were asked — or were not reported if they were asked, which seems unlikely. Instead, we got a happy face Islam promotional piece ignoring all the tough questions.

This type of coverage played out recently in President Trump’s 90-day ban on people traveling to the United States from seven predominantly Muslim countries. The first day of the ban, 109 people were detained because of it, out of 325,000 who entered the country that day. All were released within 48 hours. But the media reported chaos at the airports (which was caused in part by a major computer outage at Delta) and referred for a while to the “Muslim ban” (an absurd characterization) while endlessly quoting people about the inhumanity and civil rights violations and un-Americanism of it all.

This is a constant within media coverage, and driven by a monolithic worldview that sees Islam as peaceful, violence as not Islamic, and Christian extremists are an equal threat as Islamic extremists. This is done in two ways: One, equating maybe half a dozen terrorist acts attributed to Christians in the past 30 years, to literally thousands of acts attributed to Muslims in the past 10 years. The false equivalence muddies the waters and makes way for the second way, smiley face Islam the reality.

There are obviously Americans like Imam Yousuf Memon who is an important and productive part of his communities. If all Islam were like him, obviously there would be no conversation. But the data overwhelmingly demonstrates that is not the case.

You just won’t get that in most media reporting.

RELATED ARTICLE: 100% of Christians Face Persecution in These 21 Countries

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Revolutionary Act.

sebastian-gorka-defeating-jihad

White House Aide Dr. Sebastian Gorka smeared with fake news report

The Forward has stooped to a new low smearing the good name of Dr. Sebastian Gorka and his late father Paul who was both an anti-Fascist and anti-Communist courageous member of resistance who was imprisoned, tortured and released from prison during the 1956 Hungarian Revolt.

We wrote about his family background following the publication of his best selling book, “Defeating Jhad: the winnable war” in April 2026. We were fortunate to have been among the first to interview Dr. Gorka on the former Lisa Benson Show.

You read our interview with Dr. Sebastian Gorka that Mike Bates and this writer did on 1330 AM WEBY published on March 1, 2017. You may have seen the picture of my colleague Mike Bates with Dr. Gorka during a visit to the White House Press Room.

Our interview with Gorka revealed his support for Israel, America’s trusted ally in the Middle East. That was corroborated by similar reports from David P. Goldman, Michael Rubin, David Reaboi.

Mort Klein of the Zionist of America has been a relentless fighter for Emet – the truth in this savage piece of real “fake news” perpetrated by the hate driven editors and writers at the “progressive” national Jewish weeky, The Forward.

Read this ZoA dossier on what can only be considered as an artless act of character defamation using selective editing of videos in a patent act of character assasination.

Kol hakavod for Mort Klein of the Zionists of America for standing by and through investigation defending Dr. Sebastian Gorka, a great friend of Israel and the Jewish people, as well as a proud American immigrant.

ZOA: The Forward Smears WH Aide Gorka with Spliced…

The Forward newspaper has again wrongly smeared counter terrorism and radical terrorism expert, Deputy Assistant to President Trump, and Strategic Initiatives…

MILITARY-TECHNOLOGIES.NET

RELATED ARTICLE: 

‘Explanatory Memorandum’ Detractors Ignore Evidence about Muslim Brotherhood in America

A Muslim Woman’s Fight Against Radical Islam

Liban Mohamed assault

Somali refugee sentenced to 3 years for attempted sexual assault of mentally disabled woman

When we first reported this case, it was learned through an apparent miscommunication by lawyers for the defendant that he had only arrived in the country the week before the incident occurred in July of last year. Now we learn he was a wandering Somali who had first been resettled in Idaho three years ago and had drifted from state to state ever since.

Before this case hit the news we had heard about the mayor there supporting the proposed opening of a direct resettlement site in Aberdeen and that citizens were upset. Click here for our first story on Aberdeen.  I then visited the city during my travels throughout the Midwest and West last summer where I was mostly interested in seeing meatpacking towns that were being changed with the influx of refugee laborers.

mike-levsen-mayor

Aberdeen Mayor Mike Levsen

Here is what happened in an Aberdeen court yesterday, from Leo Hohmann at World Net Daily:

Liban Mohamed, a 39-year-old Somali refugee living in Aberdeen, South Dakota, was sentenced Monday to three years for attempting to sexually assault a severely mentally handicapped woman at a group home.

Speaking through an interpreter, Mohamed said he didn’t know English. Yet, he was seen communicating with his lawyer in English.

Judge Richard Summers sentenced Mohamed to five years, with two years suspended for a total of three years and gave him credit for time served of 228 days. Mohamed is not a U.S. citizen, but he has been living in the United States on a green card.  [I assume there was no order for deportation after he finishes his sentence, will he be wandering to your state in three short years?—ed]

The incident happened July 30, 2016, just three days after Mohamed had arrived in Aberdeen to work at the Demkota Ranch beef-processing plant. He’d been in the country for about three years at that point, having been first resettled in Idaho. He then moved to Missouri, Kansas and on to South Dakota.

It’s not the only case recently of a Somali refugee running afoul of the law. Another man from Somalia, 24-year-old Abdirhman Noor, was charged with the attempted murder of two men on July 8, 2016, outside the Foxridge Apartments in Aberdeen. Noor jumped bail, failing to show up for a pretrial hearing in February. He has been missing ever since.

Still, the mayor of the small city, Mike Levsen, supports the continued arrival of refugees, many of whom are put to work in the local meatpacking plant and at a molded fiberglass plant.

The Liban Mohamed case was also notable for the way it was handled by the local media in and around Aberdeen.

Despite the facts – that a helpless woman was preyed upon by a refugee who had arrived in town just days earlier – coverage by the local newspaper, the Aberdeen News American, and local TV was non-existent until WND brought it to light.

When it did finally report the story, the News American refused to tell its readers that the perpetrator, Mohamed, was a refugee and buried the story on page 3.

The Brown County Sheriff’s Office refused to give WND a mugshot of Mohamed.

There are many more details.  Continue reading here.

I wonder what his arrest, his legal counsel, his interpreters and his incarceration is costing the taxpayers of South Dakota? So much for refugees adding to local economies!

Aberdeen citizens might wish to review the ‘Rutland model’ regarding mayors.

Mayor Levsen gave a state of the city address last month. Note: “immigrants” adding to Aberdeen population.

ACA-Health-Care-Reform

HEALTHCARE REFORM: Freedom Is Its Own Indispensable Goal

The healthcare debate in D.C. is following predictable form: Miles off track with the media hyperfocused on the politics, rather than the substance. The coverage focuses heavily on the daily ins and outs of the political struggle, the D.C. winners and losers.

Will Republicans be able to placate the Freedom Caucus and still keep moderates? Will they put together something that can get through the House and have any life in the Senate? Is Ryan back-peddling? Is Trump? Will McConnell detonate the nuclear option? Is it Trumpcare or Ryancare?

The thing is, most Americans outside of political junkies don’t really care about that.

They do care about whether they will be able to afford health insurance. They do care about whether our country will drowned itself in unsustainable debt. They do care about their children’s future. But those are rarely the story. Because the truth is that in Washington, D.C., Americans are basically pawns to be played in the furtherance of personal agendas.

On the rare occasions when the substance of the proposal is actually explored, it is mostly along the lines of how many people are covered, will be covered, won’t be covered, how much it will cost, how the changes will play out politically for each party, etc. Those are fine in their place, and should be regularly reported on. They are not.

What Washington and the media never, ever talk about is the principle of American freedoms, which is at the heart of this. Virtually no one wants to talk about it.

So, status quo in the swamp. And for Americans.

The Old Liberties for Security Trade

But here is the whittled down nub of the issue: How much personal freedom are we willing to give away to get a little healthcare security? Because the reality of the human condition always and forever is that some people will be irresponsible with their life decisions — from relationships to finances to health.

So there will always be a percentage of Americans who do not want to purchase, or simply will not purchase, health insurance. Here’s the thing: They should be free to not and that point of freedom should be argued strenuously.

Because the only way to stop that dynamic is to give government total authority to force every single person to have health insurance. That was what Obamacare attempted to do, require every American to either buy a product — health insurance — or be fined increasing amounts by the government to financially force them to to buy it.

In an enormously tragic precedence, the Supreme Court made a political calculation and approved the forcible purchase requirements under Obamacare by calling it what it was not, what is authors including President Obama argued it was not, so as the court could rule it “constitutional.” Truly, a constitutional travesty.

Among the many things wrong with Obamacare, this was perhaps the most egregious because it went to undermining fundamental freedoms. It wasn’t just bad policy, or inefficient, or expensive — which are all true. It was a denial of basic liberty, the concept upon which our nation was founded and thrived to be what she is today.

Benjamin Franklin said, “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” Franklin was looking at the real physical and economic threat of a distant tyrant.

And so are we, though not so distant.

The Real Cost

Obamacare undoubtedly reduced the percentage of uninsured Americans, or more accurately, uncovered Americans. This was accomplished by expanding Medicaid — direct welfare — subsidizing plans in the state exchanges — indirect welfare — and forcing every American to participate — coercion. Even then, the total number of Americans not covered in some fashion, only declined a few percentage points.

Trillions of dollars, catastrophic rises in premiums and deductibles, loss of health care insurance options — often down to one in an entire state — all to pick up a few percentage points. About 9 percent of Americans remain without health insurance.

If Republicans did nothing more than simply repeal the Obamacare mandate, at least 10 million people would no longer have coverage, according to the Office of Management and Budget estimate of the repeal measure. The media reports this as Americans who will “lose” their coverage, but this particular 10 million will actually choose not to have coverage.

Whether that is a good idea or not is debatable. What is not debatable is what it represents: Freedom.

Because unless the government forces people by law to have health insurance, some will not. Freedom calls us to allow them to not and accept the consequences. Otherwise, with this precedent in place, the government could also make the case for regulating what we eat (because eating healthy is good for us) and forcing us to exercise (because exercising is good for us.) It could also require us to buy, say, solar panels and electric cars, because it deems those to be a good thing like health care insurance is a good thing.

You see the problem here. There is really no end to it, which is why it was a line that should never have been crossed.

So yes, Obamacare is costing hundreds of billions of dollars and would continue to until its complete failure. But it’s real cost is the loss of American liberty. And precious few seem to care.

Alas, Republicans fighting on Democrat ground

Republicans however, will not fight this on the grounds of freedom, the high ground and the right ground. They allow Democrats and the media to define the terms and put Republicans on the defensive on bad ground.

Republicans are doing what they always do, and part of it is the swampy D.C. mentality. Republicans end up abandoning conservative principles and going with Democrat-lite. They are willing to expand government, just less so. They are willing to raise taxes, just not as high. They are willing to trade rights for securities, just not as fast. But inexorably this moves in the same direction: More government control, more “free” giveaways, fewer American freedoms.

The health care coverage debate is a perfect example.

Democrats built it on the Democrat ground of heavy-handed government control and giveaways, and dared Republicans to come after it. To boil it down, in Obamacare, Democrats gave more Americans more free stuff that was not their’s and that we cannot afford — at the cost of lost freedoms — and Republicans now want to take some of that free stuff and restore those freedoms.

Meanies.

This of course is rough politics for Republicans, as so many Americans have lost the sense of liberty, self-reliance and personal responsibility. Too many are willing to trade a lot of liberties for a little security. But part of the reason for that is that no one is making the case for this and other issues on the grounds of freedom.

But in reality, Republicans aren’t even making the freedom case — or do so rarely. They want to make sure enough Americans get enough free stuff so they can be re-elected.

Taking away an entitlement once in place is just never done, and Democrats knew that in 2010. A big part of Obamacare is the entitlement portion. But that is only a problem if Republicans fight this on the grounds of coverage and giveaways, and not on the grounds of essential liberties.

Republicans hold every nationally elected office of power and there is one window for fixing the Obamacare debacle. If it does not happen now, Obamacare will be a permanent fixture of our health care system until it totally fails, and sucks the healthcare system into its death swirl.

The final step will be nationalized healthcare.

And the result will be an even greater loss of freedoms, and precious little in the way of securities. The worst of trade-offs.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

GOP leaders unveil changes to healthcare bill

Nearly 200 State Lawmakers Are Pushing for Changes to GOP Obamacare Repeal Plan

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Revolutionary Act.

american health care act read the bill

Citizens can actually read the ‘American Health Care Act’ bill Online! Refreshing

Remember this:

Speaker Paul Ryan in an email to all Americans wrote:

I want you to be the first to know: we just introduced our bill to repeal and replace Obamacare. It is called the American Health Care Act, and it is a plan to drive down costs, encourage competition, and give every American access to quality, affordable health insurance. It protects young adults, patients with pre-existing conditions, and provides a stable transition so that no one has the rug pulled out from under them.

Unlike the Democrats, we are not going to pass legislation to find out what is in it. The American Health Care Act will proceed through a transparent process of regular order in full view of the public.

Visit www.ReadTheBill.gop to download and read the bill.

How refreshing.

Michael A. Needham, Chief Executive Officer Heritage Action for America, in an email writes:

For seven years, Republican lawmakers have campaigned on the promise of full repeal. The American people elected a Republican House, Senate, and White House to ensure this promise was kept. For most people in the individual market, there would be no significant difference between the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) and the new American Health Care Act proposed by Republicans.

This is bad politics and, more importantly, bad policy.

If Republicans move forward with this bill, they will be accepting the flawed premises of Obamacare. Instead, they should fully repeal the failed law and begin a genuine effort to follow through on their seven year promises to create a free market health care system.

Let the negotiations on the proposed American Health Care Act begin.

RELATED INFOGRAPHIC:

RELATED ARTICLES:

Conservative Lawmakers to Use Their ‘Enormous Power’ to Fight Obamacare Replacement Bill

House Republican Health Care Bill Misses the Mark

What if there’s no affordable insurance to buy?

House Republicans Release Text of Obamacare Repeal, Conservatives Call for Action ‘Now’

GOP Unveils Obamacare Replacement Legislation

Trump’s Historic Chance to Dismantle the Administrative State

What Will GOPcare Change?

RELATED VIDEOS:

Sen. Rand Paul: “They can’t keep ‘Obamacare Lite’ and expect conservatives to vote for it.” – 3/2/17

Rep. Mike Kelly discusses American Health Care Act with Neil Cavuto.

media madness

The media’s descent into partisan madness

The media failed in its constitutional mission by not covering Obama’s administration critically, and continues to fail as it behaves like an opposition party against Trump.

The press has been having a field day with Donald Trump since before his inauguration, magnifying every misstep, exploiting every controversy, and packaging its indignation as straight news in the apparent belief that its job is to delegitimize his presidency.  Granted, Mr. Trump’s unfiltered use of twitter, penchant for audacious statements, and tendency to discredit rather than dialogue have provided his critics with plenty of ammunition; but the one constant seems to be the media’s refusal to forgive any miscues or consider reasonable interpretations for any of his statements or policies.  Its relentless treatment of Trump contrasts with the fawning sycophancy it displayed during the administration of his predecessor, who was spared from any probing scrutiny or objective criticism.

Even before Mr. Trump’s inauguration, mainstream reporters strained to brand his incoming administration as bigoted and racist.  They attempted, for example, to characterize his Chief White House Strategist, Steve Bannon, as an anti-Semite – despite Bannon’s public record of support for Israel and opposition to anti-Jewish boycotts.  Though some progressive Jewish organizations initially echoed these sentiments, they retracted their comments after prominent liberals like Alan Dershowitz stated there was nothing in Bannon’s background to suggest he bore any animosity towards Jews or Israel

If mainstream journalists and commentators were honestly troubled by the scourge of anti-Semitism after Trump’s election, one must wonder why they expressed no concern during Mr. Obama’s eight years in office.  Why did they ignore Obama’s longstanding relationships with Israel bashers and progressive anti-Semites?  Where was their outrage over the Jew-hatred on display in the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (“BDS”) and Israel Apartheid Week movements?  Or the left’s use of repugnant stereotypes to demonize Israel and her supporters?  Or the anti-Jewish rhetoric and intimidation that have become commonplace on North American college campuses?

The media’s faux indignation over allegations of anti-Semitism was matched only by its fatuous efforts to characterize Trump as a fascist by rewriting history.  More than a few liberal pundits have likened Trump and his supporters to Nazis, claiming that just like Hitler, Trump was elected by a radical and extreme electorate.  Such comparisons show profound ignorance, however, in that (a) Hitler was never elected to office (he was appointed chancellor after losing the only election he ever ran), and (b) many of Trump’s views are not so different from the mainstream, as indicated by a number public opinion polls.

Ironically, it was American progressives who viewed fascism favorably in the 1930s because of their shared affinity for secular statism and social engineering.

The press represents itself as the innocent victim of a Trump vendetta and counts on his outrageousness to validate the narrative of its victimhood.  Though he might be combative, it does not mean his distrust of the media is unwarranted – particularly given its role in fomenting hysteria against him and blurring the line between editorial and fact.  The coverage regarding his first executive order imposing a temporary travel ban was indicative of reporters who engage in political activism instead of objective reportage.

On January 27, 2017, Trump signed Executive Order 13769, entitled “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States” (since blocked in court), which would have imposed a ninety-day ban on travel from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen, seven high-terror nations as identified by the Obama administration.  Hysterical media critics dubbed it a “Muslim ban” and proclaimed it unlawful, though the President has both constitutional and statutory authority to promulgate such orders, and extraterritorial foreign nationals have no rights under the U.S. Constitution.

The executive order could not have effectuated a Muslim ban as media reports claimed, however, because it applied to only seven out of fifty-seven Muslim nations.  The litmus test for its application was not religion or ethnicity, but origination from any of the seven nations identified.  Nevertheless, opponents claimed the ban’s intent was to target Islam, with some scaremongers characterizing it as the first step toward confining Muslims to internment camps.  Such claims were outrageous, particularly considering the Obama administration imposed a six-month travel ban with the approval of Congressional Democrats in 2011.  Where were the protests then?

Though the rollout of Executive Order 13769 was flawed and its scope too broad (it would have included resident aliens with green cards), its purpose was to prevent terrorism and protect the homeland – priorities that are clearly within the president’s purview.  However, Trump’s naysayers engaged in disinformation when they said he had no authority to sign the order or that no other president had ever done so.

Taking a page from Obama’s playbook, some opponents of the travel ban attempted to obfuscate the connection between terrorism and radical Islam and minimized the impact of terrorist attacks on American soil.  Although Press Secretary Sean Spicer was excoriated for claiming that terrorism in the U.S. has been underreported, he had a valid point considering the media’s history of calling it workplace violence, domestic assault, or generic extremism.

Over the past few years, journalists have described the Orlando massacre as an anti-gay hate crime and the San Bernardino and Fort Hood shootings as workplace violence.  They labeled beheadings and murders of Coptic Christians, apostate Muslims, and Jews in Oklahoma, New Jersey, Texas and Massachusetts as criminal assaults, workplace violence, or violent extremism; and they continue to describe honor killings of Muslim women as domestic crimes.  Though Obama’s policy of apologetics is fading in the rearview, the media continues to call terrorism anything but what it is.

Establishment reporters are upset over Mr. Trump’s treatment of the White House media corps and his refusal to follow traditional press conference protocol, and they claim he threatens free speech with his confrontational demeanor and preoccupation with fake news.  However, Trump is not the first president to have a contentious relationship with the media; Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln were as combative with the press in their time as Trump is today.

And a president’s challenge to media credibility is not the same as government restraint of speech.  Regardless of how Trump questions the media’s excesses or impugns its veracity, he is not restricting reporters from writing what they want.  Consequently, he is trampling nobody’s First Amendment rights.

Those who claim otherwise sounded no alarm when Obama marginalized conservative outlets, especially Fox News, or when his Justice Department threatened reporters with prosecution.  The use of government offices during his administration to monitor and intimidate the press really did implicate the First Amendment.

None of this should be surprising given the evolution of journalism since the 1960s, when reporters began to inject personal sensibilities into the news and infuse their reporting with a political point of view.  The truth is that journalism was never completely objective because writers have always had opinions.  Still, reporters traditionally strove to suspend their own subjectivity.  With the advent of the “New Journalism,” however, it became acceptable to displace objectivity with literary artifice.  Though this trend was soon jettisoned as an acceptable journalistic standard, it left behind a legacy of editorial tolerance for writers whose reporting reflected their political views – particularly when they promoted liberal politicians, advocated progressive policies, or disparaged Israel.

Through the First Amendment, America’s founding fathers envisioned a free citizen press that would be independent of government.  They did not anticipate a factional media that would actively promote some administrations and undermine others.  The media’s embarrassingly soft coverage of the Obama White House and adversarial treatment of Trump’s administration show the polar extremes of its partisan dysfunction.

There’s nothing wrong with criticizing the president and reporting his gaffes, or with publishing opinion and commentary on the editorial page.  Straight news, however, should be reported without venom or spleen.  The media failed in its constitutional mission by not covering Obama’s administration critically, and continues to fail as it behaves like an opposition party against Trump.

Reporters should never seek to placate their subjects, but neither should they present tendentious advocacy as hard news or neutral analysis.  When public opinion surveys show that many people find Mr. Trump’s tweets more credible sources of information than traditional news outlets, the media should realize it has a problem and correct its behavior accordingly – for the proper functioning of society if not for the sake of its own integrity.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in Israel National News.