Truth in Journalism: Media Bias, the Demise of Journalistic Integrity, and Protecting Freedom of Speech

Truth in Journalism:

Media Bias, the Demise of Journalistic Integrity, and Protecting Freedom of Speech

Journalistic Integrity, Journalistic Standards, and How to Protect Truth in Journalism

Hillsdale Imprimis Part 2:

Michael Goodwin

The New York Post

Part 2: Sinking of the Flagship of American Journalism

As we know now, most of the media totally missed Trump’s appeal to millions upon millions of Americans. The prejudice against him blinded those news organizations to what was happening in the country. Even more incredibly, I believe the bias and hostility directed at Trump backfired. The feeling that the election was, in part, a referendum on the media, gave some voters an extra incentive to vote for Trump. A vote for him was a vote against the media and against Washington. Not incidentally, Trump used that sentiment to his advantage, often revving up his crowds with attacks on reporters. He still does.

If I haven’t made it clear, let me do so now. The behavior of much of the media, but especially The New York Times, was a disgrace. I don’t believe it ever will recover the public trust it squandered.

The Times’ previous reputation for having the highest standards was legitimate. Those standards were developed over decades to force reporters and editors to be fair and to gain public trust. The commitment to fairness made The New York Times the flagship of American journalism. But standards are like laws in the sense that they are designed to guide your behavior in good times and in bad. Consistent adherence to them was the source of the Times’ credibility. And eliminating them has made the paper less than ordinary. Its only standards now are double standards.

New York Times Once Had Integrity

Alas, it was a different newspaper then. Abe Rosenthal was the editor in those days, and long before we’d ever heard the phrase “zero tolerance,” that’s what Abe practiced toward conflicts of interest and reporters’ opinions. He set the rules and everybody knew it.

Here is a true story about how Abe Rosenthal resolved a conflict of interest. A young woman was hired by the Times from one of the Philadelphia newspapers. But soon after she arrived in New York, a story broke in Philly that she had had a romantic affair with a political figure she had covered, and that she had accepted a fur coat and other expensive gifts from him. When he saw the story, Abe called the woman into his office and asked her if it were true. When she said yes, he told her to clean out her desk—that she was finished at the Times and would never work there again. As word spread through the newsroom, some reporters took the woman’s side and rushed in to tell Abe that firing her was too harsh. He listened for about 30 seconds, raised his hand for silence, and said (this is slightly bowdlerized): “I don’t care if you have a romantic affair with an elephant on your personal time, but then you can’t cover the circus for the paper.” Case closed. The conflict of interest policy was clear, absolute, and unforgettable.

As for reporters’ opinions, Abe had a similar approach. He didn’t want them in the news pages. And if you put them in, he took them out. They belonged in the opinion pages only, which were managed separately. Abe said he knew reporters tended to lean left and would find ways to sneak their views into the stories. So he saw his job as steering the paper slightly to the right. “That way,” he said, “the paper would end up in the middle.” He was well known for this attitude, which he summed up as “keeping the paper straight.” He even said he wanted his epitaph to read, “He kept the paper straight.” Like most people, I thought this was a joke. But after I related all this in a column last year, his widow contacted me and said it wasn’t a joke—that, in fact, Abe’s tombstone reads, “He kept the paper straight.” She sent me a picture to prove it. I published that picture of his tombstone alongside a column where I excoriated the Times for its election coverage. Sadly, the Times’ high standards were buried with Abe Rosenthal.

Can Media Be fixed?

Which brings us to the crucial questions. Can the American media be fixed? And is there anything that we as individuals can do to make a difference? The short answer to the first question is, “No, it can’t be fixed.” The 2016 election was the media’s Humpty Dumpty moment. It fell off the wall, shattered into a million pieces, and can’t be put back together again. In case there is any doubt, 2017 is confirming that the standards are still dead. The orgy of visceral Trump-bashing continues unabated.

The mismatch between the mainstream media and the public’s sensibilities means there is a vast untapped market for news and views that are not now represented. To realize that potential, we only need three ingredients, and we already have them: first, free speech; second, capitalism and free markets; and the third ingredient is you, the consumers of news.

Free Speech is Under Assault

Free speech is under assault, most obviously on many college campuses, but also in the news media, which presents a conformist view to its audience and gets a politically segregated audience in return. Look at the letters section in The New York Times—virtually every reader who writes in agrees with the opinions of the paper. This isn’t a miracle; it’s a bubble. Liberals used to love to say, “I don’t agree with your opinion, but I would fight to the death for your right to express it.” You don’t hear that anymore from the Left. Now they want to shut you up if you don’t agree. And they are having some success.

Truth a Powerful Weapon

But there is a countervailing force. Look at what happened this winter when the Left organized boycotts of department stores that carried Ivanka Trump’s clothing and jewelry. Nordstrom folded like a cheap suit, but Trump’s supporters rallied on social media and Ivanka’s company had its best month ever. This is the model I have in mind for the media. It is similar to how FOX News got started. Rupert Murdoch thought there was an untapped market for a more fair and balanced news channel, and he recruited Roger Ailes to start it more than 20 years ago. Ailes found a niche market alright—half the country!

Incredible advances in technology are also on the side of free speech. The explosion of choices makes it almost impossible to silence all dissent and gain a monopoly, though certainly Facebook and Google are trying.

Nations Without Capitalism Have Little Dissent

As for the necessity of preserving capitalism, look around the world. Nations without economic liberty usually have little or no dissent. That’s not a coincidence. In this, I’m reminded of an enduring image from the Occupy Wall Street movement. That movement was a pestilence, egged on by President Obama and others who view other people’s wealth as a crime against the common good. This attitude was on vivid display as the protesters held up their iPhones to demand the end of capitalism. As I wrote at the time, did they believe Steve Jobs made each and every Apple product one at a time in his garage? Did they not have a clue about how capital markets make life better for more people than any other system known to man? They had no clue. And neither do many government officials, who think they can kill the golden goose and still get golden eggs.

Support Media You Like and Trust

Which brings me to the third necessary ingredient in determining where we go from here. It’s you. I urge you to support the media you like. As the great writer and thinker Midge Decter once put it, “You have to join the side you’re on.” It’s no secret that newspapers and magazines are losing readers and money and shedding staff. Some of them are good newspapers. Some of them are good magazines. There are also many wonderful, thoughtful, small publications and websites that exist on a shoestring. Don’t let them die. Subscribe or contribute to those you enjoy. Give subscriptions to friends. Put your money where your heart and mind are. An expanded media landscape that better reflects the diversity of public preferences would, in time, help create a more level political and cultural arena.

Advertisements

Truth in Journalism: Truth about Charlottesville, Alt-right, and Antifa Violence

Truth in Journalism:

Truth about Charlottesville, Alt-right, and Antifa Violence

Update:

Antifa Protestors Appear at Funeral of Heather Hayer, Show up With Bats and Shield

At a press conference a day earlier Trump made reference to a “beautiful statement” Heyer’s mother, Susan Bro, had sent him. Bro had written, “Thank you, President Trump, for those words of comfort and for denouncing those who promote violence and hatred.”

Following the violence in Charlottesville, Trump condemned what he described as the “egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence” saying it has no place in America. He specifically condemned the KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, but has also said that the alt-left was in part to blame for the violence.

At the memorial service, Hayer’s mother said she hoped that people can talk about their differences instead of resorting to violence.

“The truth is, we are going to have our differences. We are going to be angry with each other, but let’s channel that anger, not into hate, not into violence. Not into fear, but channel that difference, that anger, into righteous action,” she said.

7 Things You Need To Know About Antifa

ByMichael Qazvini

August 14, 2017

Over the weekend, Charlottesville erupted into chaos. White supremacists and neo-Nazis brawled with masked left-wing Antifa rioters in what could only be described as a battle between Satan and Lucifer.

While the mainstream Left has attempted to frame this weekend’s insanity as a one-sided issue, video evidence clearly demonstrates that members of Antifa, or anti-fascists, heavily contributed to the violence.

Here are seven things you need to know about Antifa:

  1. Antifa uses fascist tactics to achieve its goals. Antifa is to anti-fascism what Stalin was to freedom. Antifa is fascism personified. Despite calling themselves “anti-fascist,” members of Antifa routinely deploy fascist tactics to shut down, intimidate, harass, and bloody their political opponents.
  2. The Department of Homeland Security labeled Antifa’s actions as “domestic terrorism.” “Shortly after Trump’s election, anarchist and far-left protesters rioted in Portland, bringing at least a million dollars’ worth of damage — and resulting, in the eyes of the Department of Homeland Security, in ‘domestic terrorism,’” explains Politico.
  3. Antifa uses “black bloc” attacks to promote violence, sow chaos, and evade law enforcement. Like their counterparts in Europe, American leftist activists often promote violence and reap chaos through time-tested tactics such as black bloc assaults, which feature thousands of black-clad and masked self-professed anarchists destroying everything in sight with hockey sticks, baseball bats, metal poles, trash cans, and virtually anything they can get their hands on.
  4. Antifa’s garbled ideology is grounded in Marxism. All Antifa members seem to share an aversion to capitalism. Beyond that, Antifa’s political aim cannot be pinned down to one issue or cause.
  5. The mainstream Left is praising Antifa. Paranoid and conspiracy minded, the mainstream Left has abandoned all sense of political decorum to embrace vigilantism. And even liberals who aren’t explicitly praising Antifa are refusing to condemn their behavior.
  6. The vast majority of Antifa members are pitiable losers. As The Daily Wire’s Aaron Bandler reported, While Antifa claims to support “diversity,” the group’s rank-and-file is comprised mostly of single, unemployed young white males (far-left Antifa meet “alt-right” neo-Nazis and white supremacists). 7. Antifa conflates speech with violence, believing that “offensive” rhetoric, “hate” speech, and micro-aggressions should be counteracted with macro-aggressions, or physical violence.

http://www.dailywire.com/news/19717/7-things-you-need-know-about-antifa-michael-qazvini#

Truth About Neo-Nazis or ‘Alt-Right’

Rush Limbaugh

Not enough Neo-Nazis and KKK to elect Anybody—They have No Power

And here’s the real irony. This bunch of people down in Charlottesville, this ragtag bunch of Nazis and Klan members and white supremacists? There’s not enough of those people to affect any kind of change whatsoever. Not systemic change. Not enough of those people to elect enough people to matter. There aren’t enough of those people to matter, period.

They are not the problem. They don’t have power in America today. They don’t have any, compared to the people opposing them. How many people show up at a Klan rally these days if they have one? The media doesn’t show you because it’s so tiny. The media wants you to think the Klan elected Donald Trump. The media wants you to think the Klan, the Nazis, and the white supremacists elected Donald Trump and that Steve Bannon put ’em all together and grew them. There aren’t enough of those people to elect a member of Congress, much less a president.

They are not the problem. The problem is on the other side. The problem comes from people who do have power — and what power they have! They have the power to shut down free speech on campus. They have the power to totally corrupt the movie, the book, the music and TV industries. They have real power! The anarchists, the anti-Americans, the Antifa, the Occupy Wall Street, the Black Lives Matter, the United States mainstream media, the Democrat Party, they have power.

These little hapless people marching around wearing white hoods couldn’t stop diddly-squat. They don’t have any power. They’ve been shamed into practically nonexistence. Yet they are hoisted up. They are portrayed as the people running this country — or the people who used to run this country and they ran it for all these years, and now they are losing it, justifiably, and they are panicked and causing trouble. They don’t have any power compared to the people that I’m talking about. You think the Klan can compare to the mainstream media?

You think the Nazis, however many of them there are — or few — can compare to the media and academia and Hollywood? It’s a joke! The same thing with the Nazis and the same thing with the white supremacists. But when you talk Black Lives Matter, when you talk Occupy Wall Street or any of these other left-wing groups that end up rioting and protesting, they are the military wing of the people with power in this country. These people run the Washington establishment. You don’t find in you Klansmen there, and you don’t find any Nazis there, because there aren’t enough of those people to matter a hill of beans.

Neo-Nazis have no Power on the Internet, But Facebook Has Power to Shut Down Free Speech

Do you say, “Well, Rush, I gotta side with ’em. I don’t think the storm troopers ought to have a website, and I don’t think the supremacists ought to…” Okay, fine. Remember, they don’t have any power to do diddly-squat. All they can do is offend you and make you mad. They don’t have any power to do anything.

But do you think that three people — Zuckerberg and whoever the other two are that run PayPal and Facebook, Twitter, whatever. Do you think they ought to be able to wake up one day and just decide? But they’re doing it — under the guise, by the way, of cleansing and pursuing and sanctifying.

That’s not what they’re doing. They are limiting speech.

 

https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2017/08/18/america-is-under-attack-from-within/

 

 

History Facts: Media Bias, the Demise of Journalistic Integrity; Rise of the Smear Campaign

History Facts:

Media Bias, the Demise of Journalistic Integrity; Rise of the Smear Campaign

The 2016 Election and the Demise of Journalistic Standards

Hillsdale Imprimis Part 1

Michael Goodwin
The New York Post

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

It’s not exactly breaking news that most journalists lean left. I used to do that myself. I grew up at The New York Times, so I’m familiar with the species.

History of Media Bias

For most of the media, bias grew out of the social revolution of the 1960s and ’70s. Fueled by the civil rights and anti-Vietnam War movements, the media jumped on the anti-authority bandwagon writ large. The deal was sealed with Watergate, when journalism was viewed as more trusted than government—and far more exciting and glamorous. Think Robert Redford in All the President’s Men. Ever since, young people became journalists because they wanted to be the next Woodward and Bernstein, find a Deep Throat, and bring down a president. Of course, most of them only wanted to bring down a Republican president. That’s because liberalism is baked into the journalism cake.

Promote Big Government, Not Report Truth

During the years I spent teaching at the Columbia University School of Journalism, I often found myself telling my students that the job of the reporter was “to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.” I’m not even sure where I first heard that line, but it still captures the way most journalists think about what they do.

Habit of thinking: Create Victim Groups

Translate the first part of that compassionate-sounding idea into the daily decisions about what makes news, and it is easy to fall into the habit of thinking that every person afflicted by something is entitled to help. Or, as liberals like to say, “Government is what we do together.” From there, it’s a short drive to the conclusion that every problem has a government solution.

The rest of that journalistic ethos—“afflict the comfortable”—leads to the knee-jerk support of endless taxation. Somebody has to pay for that government intervention the media loves to demand. In the same vein, and for the same reason, the average reporter will support every conceivable regulation as a way to equalize conditions for the poor. He will also give sympathetic coverage to groups like Occupy Wall Street and Black Lives Matter.

A New Dimension

I knew all of this about the media mindset going into the 2016 presidential campaign. But I was still shocked at what happened. This was not naïve liberalism run amok. This was a whole new approach to politics.

 In the beginning, Donald Trump’s candidacy was treated as an outlandish publicity stunt, as though he wasn’t a serious candidate and should be treated as a circus act. But television executives quickly made a surprising discovery: the more they put Trump on the air, the higher their ratings climbed. Ratings are money. So news shows started devoting hours and hours simply to pointing the cameras at Trump and letting them run.

As his rallies grew, the coverage grew, which made for an odd dynamic. The candidate nobody in the media took seriously was attracting the most people to his events and getting the most news coverage. Newspapers got in on the game too. Trump, unlike most of his opponents, was always available to the press, and could be counted on to say something outrageous or controversial that made a headline. He made news by being a spectacle.

Despite the mockery of journalists and late-night comics, something extraordinary was happening. Trump was dominating a campaign none of the smart money thought he could win. And then, suddenly, he was winning. Only when the crowded Republican field began to thin and Trump kept racking up primary and caucus victories did the media’s tone grow more serious.

One study estimated that Trump had received so much free airtime that if he had had to buy it, the price would have been $2 billion.

The realization that they had helped Trump’s rise seemed to make many executives, producers, and journalists furious. By the time he secured the nomination and the general election rolled around, they were gunning for him. Only two people now had a chance to be president, and the overwhelming media consensus was that it could not be Donald Trump. They would make sure of that.

The coverage of him grew so vicious and one-sided that last August I wrote a column on the unprecedented bias. Under the headline “American Journalism Is Collapsing Before Our Eyes,” I wrote that the so-called cream of the media crop was “engaged in a naked display of partisanship” designed to bury Trump and elect Hillary Clinton.

Historic Smear Campaign of a Presidential Candidate

The evidence was on the front page, the back page, the culture pages, even the sports pages. It was at the top of the broadcast and at the bottom of the broadcast. Day in, day out, in every media market in America, Trump was savaged like no other candidate in memory. We were watching the total collapse of standards, with fairness and balance tossed overboard. Every story was an opinion masquerading as news, and every opinion ran in the same direction—toward Clinton and away from Trump.

For the most part, I blame The New York Times and The Washington Post for causing this breakdown. The two leading liberal newspapers were trying to top each other in their demonization of Trump and his supporters. They set the tone, and most of the rest of the media followed like lemmings.

The Presidency as a First Job for an Outsider?

On one level, tougher scrutiny of Trump was clearly defensible. He had a controversial career and lifestyle, and he was seeking the presidency as his first job in government. He also provided lots of fuel with some of his outrageous words and deeds during the campaign.

But from the beginning there was also a second element to the lopsided coverage. The New York Times has not endorsed a Republican for president since Dwight Eisenhower in 1956, meaning it would back a dead raccoon if it had a “D” after its name. Think of it—George McGovern over Richard Nixon? Jimmy Carter over Ronald Reagan? Walter Mondale over Reagan? Any Democrat would do. And The Washington Post, which only started making editorial endorsements in the 1970s, has never once endorsed a Republican for president.

All Pretense of Fairness Dropped

But again, I want to emphasize that 2016 had those predictable elements plus a whole new dimension. This time, the papers dropped the pretense of fairness and jumped headlong into the tank for one candidate over the other. The Times media reporter began a story this way:

If you’re a working journalist and you believe that Donald J. Trump is a demagogue playing to the nation’s worst racist and nationalist tendencies, that he cozies up to anti-American dictators and that he would be dangerous with control of the United States nuclear codes, how the heck are you supposed to cover him? [But it was A-OK for Obama to cozy up to anti-American dictators? ~C.D.]

If you can’t be fair, you shouldn’t cover the candidate—Cover Sports or Entertainment

I read that paragraph and I thought to myself, well, that’s actually an easy question. If you feel that way about Trump, normal journalistic ethics would dictate that you shouldn’t cover him. You cannot be fair. And you shouldn’t be covering Hillary Clinton either, because you’ve already decided who should be president. Go cover sports or entertainment. Yet the Times media reporter rationalized the obvious bias he had just acknowledged, citing the view that Clinton was “normal” and Trump was not.

What happened to fairness? What happened to Journalistic Standards? New York Times Eliminated Them

I found the whole concept appalling. What happened to fairness? What happened to standards? I’ll tell you what happened to them. The Times top editor, Dean Baquet, eliminated them. In an interview last October with the Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard, Baquet admitted that the piece by his media reporter had nailed his own thinking. Trump “challenged our language,” he said, and Trump “will have changed journalism.” Of the daily struggle for fairness, Baquet had this to say: “I think that Trump has ended that struggle. . . . We now say stuff. We fact check him. We write it more powerfully that [what he says is] false.”

Baquet was being too modest. Trump was challenging, sure, but it was Baquet who changed journalism. He’s the one who decided that the standards of fairness and nonpartisanship could be abandoned without consequence.

New Formula: Who, What, When, Where, and Why + OPINION

With that decision, Baquet also changed the basic news story formula. To the age-old elements of who, what, when, where, and why, he added the reporter’s opinion. Now the floodgates were open, and virtually every so-called news article reflected a clear bias against Trump. Stories, photos, headlines, placement in the paper—all the tools that writers and editors have—were summoned to the battle. The goal was to pick the next president.

Liberal Lies Never Exposed

Thus began the spate of stories, which continues today, in which the Times routinely calls Trump a liar in its news pages and headlines. Again, the contrast with the past is striking. The Times never called Barack Obama a liar, despite such obvious opportunities as “you can keep your doctor” and “the Benghazi attack was caused by an internet video.”

From Journalistic Integrity to Cheerleading

Indeed, the Times and The Washington Post, along with most of the White House press corps, spent eight years cheerleading the Obama administration, seeing not a smidgen of corruption or dishonesty. They have been tougher on Hillary Clinton during her long career. But they still never called her a liar, despite such doozies as “I set up my own computer server so I would only need one device,” “I turned over all the government emails,” and “I never sent or received classified emails.” All those were lies, but not to the national media. Only statements by Trump were fair game.

 

Truth in Journalism: Socialized Medicine in UK vs. Baby Charlie Gard; Illegal Alien Crime Victims given a voice; Protection from Islamic Invasion; CNN Fake News and Nazi Propaganda

Truth in Journalism:

Socialized Medicine in UK vs. Baby Charlie Gard; Illegal Alien Crime Victims given a voice; Protection from Islamic Invasion; CNN Fake News and Nazi Propaganda

This is the first of more Truth in Journalism posts to come from now on, because so much truth is blacked out by mainstream Media Bias. There is so much that goes unreported; please read more information on the various topics. ~C.D.

 

1. Socialized Medicine in UK vs. Baby Charlie Gard

It takes a socialist village to kill a child

The single-payer socialist bureaucrats holding baby Charlie Gard hostage in the U.K. still seem intent on making sure he dies instead of receiving the free care he’s being offered in the U.S.

This despite it imposing no cost on the U.K., and despite other children having beaten this ultra-rare illness with treatment.

Now a prominent journalist who isn’t afraid to call evil, EVIL, is weighing in …

‘Common sense’ gone in denial of medical care to baby

All Charlie Gard’s parents seek is permission to leave U.K. with sick son

WASHINGTON – Very soon, Charlie Gard will die.

Barring intervention from senior officials in the British government, 11-month-old Charlie Gard, who suffers from a rare genetic disease, will have his life support withdrawn soon by officials at Great Ormond Street Hospital, where Charlie now is hospitalized, although they have not yet named a time.

Charlie’s fight for life has drawn massive sympathy from around the world, with statements of support from figures as influential as Pope Francis and President Donald Trump. But so far, the British National Health Service has given no indication that its bureaucrats will allow Charlie to live.

http://www.wnd.com/2017/07/common-sense-gone-in-denial-of-medical-care-to-baby/

Charlie Gard: How Govt, Courts Usurp Parental Rights

2. Liberty comes from God

“Since the signing of the Declaration of Independence 241 years ago, America always affirmed that liberty comes from our creator,” Trump declared. “Our rights are given to us by God and no earthly force can ever take those rights away. That is why my administration is returning that power back to where it belongs — to the people.”

Trump: Since Signing the Declaration of Independence, ‘America Always Affirmed that Liberty Comes from Our Creator’

 

3. Illegal Alien Crime Victims given a Voice

WASHINGTON, D.C. — A diverse group of Americans whose loved ones are dead by the hands of illegal alien criminals had the opportunity to tell their stories in front of cameras from inside the White House just days ago when President Donald Trump honored them at a roundtable event.

Kate’s Law and the No Sanctuary for Criminals Act passed the U.S. House last week with the full Davis-Oliver Act still waiting for a vote. Davis-Oliver would enhance the ability of the federal government and immigration authorities to enforce immigration law and crack down on sanctuary cities. Kate’s Law and No Sanctuary for Criminals are portions of Davis-Oliver. These bills were discussed at the White House meeting but got scarce coverage in the mainstream media, a phenomena these “Angel” families have experienced for years.

Trump dedicated his most recent weekly address to these families. The President pointed out that many of those responsible for killing these Americans have extensive criminal records and had been repeatedly deported, yet were in the U.S. at the time of taking an American life.

 Illegal Alien Crime Victims Given a Voice: ‘Every One of Our Children’s Deaths Preventable’

4. Protection from Islamic Invasion

Trump seated near portrait of Polish King who defeated Islam during Turkish invasion of Europe

A majority of likely voters say President Donald Trump’s curbs on travel to the United States from Islamic countries are intended to exclude terrorists, not just Islamic believers, according to a Rasmussen poll.

Fifty-two percent of 1,000 likely voters agreed that “resident Trump’s order seeking to impose this temporary travel ban is aimed at … Keeping terrorists out.”

Update — Poll: Voters Back Trump’s Safeguards on Islamic Arrivals

5. Media Smear Campaign

Sharyl Attkisson

THE BIRTH OF FAKE NEWS: THE CLINTONS AND THE NEW YORK TIMES

If you ask people to identify a coming of age for the modern-day smear, it’s amazing how many political insiders—both Democrats and Republicans—consider it to be the Clinton era. It’s impossible for any outsiders to know exactly how the Clintons became adept at engineering smears to deflect from their controversies

One of the earliest smear campaigns perpetrated by the Clintons began even before Bill announced he was running for president, when Hillary was busy devising a preemptive strike against women rumored to be involved with her husband. According to journalist Carl Bernstein in his biography A Woman in Charge, Hillary reportedly sought to get sworn statements from women Bill was rumored to have slept with. It was said that she wanted to convince the women to swear they had no relationship with him. She was correct to anticipate trouble.

That’s in the real world.

In the distorted world of the smear artist, things are very different. Up becomes down and down is up. It’s Alice in Wonderland and somewhere down the rabbit hole there’s a tea-sipping Mad Hatter stirring the pot.

Excerpt – Sharyl Attkisson’s ‘The Smear: How Shady Political Operatives and Fake News Control What You See, What You Think, and How You Vote’

6. CNN Fake News’ Nazi Propaganda connection

These are the people who accuse patriots of being Nazis all the time. ~C.D.

Tony Elliott

The bottom line is, CNN simply is not capable of legitimately interviewing anyone that has opposing views and uses every tactic in the book to make sure their own views ultimately prevail.

No matter how you look at it, this is not journalism and has nothing to do with reporting news to inform people. What it is, is old time propaganda as was seen during WW II and the Cold War era, just redesigned to fit today’s modern mindset.

The main media in general and CNN in particular, care nothing about informing the public of news and events that may affect their lives, but are only interested in using old Communist and Nazi propaganda tactics to influence the minds of their viewers. CNN is not interested in being a source of news, their only goal is to promote a political agenda which requires slanting information, talking over or cutting off those who have opposing views, and broadcasting false information to further their own political agenda.

All this comes as no surprise since CNN’s President Jeff Zucker actually studied Nazi and Communist propaganda tactics in college. He even stated that CNN doesn’t report real news and only gives people what they want to hear.

CNN: Now the Central Nazi Network Thanks to Company President Jeff Zucker

 

Delingpole: Climate Mafia Caught Tampering With Evidence — Again

 

Truth in Journalism: Liberal Lies, Intimidation Game, War on Free Speech

Truth in Journalism:

Liberal Lies, Intimidation Game, War on Free Speech

The Left’s War on Free Speech, Part 2

Kimberley Strassel
Author, The Intimidation Game: How the Left Is Silencing Free Speech

In the weeks following the Citizens United ruling, the Left settled on a new strategy. If it could no longer use speech laws against its opponents, it would do the next best thing—it would threaten, harass, and intimidate its opponents out of participation.

Intimidation Game: Strategies for Abuse of Power

We’ve seen this strategy unfold, in a coordinated fashion and using a variety of tactics, since 2010.

***

1)  Intimidation by Bureaucracies

One tactic is the unleashing of federal and state bureaucracies on political opponents. The best example of this is the IRS targeting of conservative non-profits. To this day, Obama acolytes and Senate Democrats characterize that targeting as a mistake by a few minor IRS employees in Cincinnati who didn’t understand the law. That is a lie.

Congress held several investigations of this targeting, and the truth is clear. In the months following the Citizens United ruling, President Obama delivered speech after speech on behalf of Democratic midterm candidates, repeating the same grave warning at each stop—thanks to Citizens United, he would say, shadowy and scary organizations are flooding into our elections. He suggested these organizations might be operating illegally and might be funded by foreign players. He noted that somebody should do something about it.

These speeches acted as a dog whistle to an IRS bureaucracy that was already primed to act. Former IRS official Lois Lerner was well aware of Democratic demands that the agency go after conservative Tea Party and non-profit groups.

Senate Democrats and left-wing interest groups had been sending letters to the agency for months, demanding it go after the very groups it ultimately went after. And Ms. Lerner had her own biases—we know this from her recoverable emails—that put her politically and substantively in the anti-free speech camp. The result is that the IRS deliberately put some 400 conservative organizations, representing tens of thousands of Americans, on political ice for the 2010 and 2012 elections.

It is hard not to believe that this was designed to help Democrats in those elections. We know that senior members of the Treasury Department were aware of the targeting abuse in early 2012, and took steps to try to slow it. Yet those officials did not inform Congress this was happening, and chose not to divulge the abuse until well after that year’s election.

2) Intimidation by Prosecutors

Another intimidation tactic is for prosecutors to abuse their awesome powers in order to hound and frighten political opponents.

The most terrifying example of this was the John Doe probe in Wisconsin. Democratic prosecutors in Milwaukee launched a bogus criminal campaign finance investigation into some 30 conservative groups that supported the public-sector union reforms championed by Governor Scott Walker. Wisconsin’s John Doe law gave these prosecutors the right to conduct this investigation in secret and to subject their individual targets to gag orders. Prosecutors secretly looked through these individuals’ financial records, bank accounts, and emails.

Intimidation of Innocent Young Boy

Prosecutors also conducted pre-dawn raids on some of their targets’ homes. In one horrifying instance, the target of such a raid was on an out-of-town trip with his wife, and their teenage son was home alone. Law enforcement came into the house and sequestered the boy, refusing to allow him to call a lawyer or even his grandparents, who lived down the road. They hauled items out of the house, and as they left they told the boy that he too was subject to the gag order—that if he told anyone what had happened to him, he could go to jail.

We only learned of this because one brave target of the probe, Eric O’Keefe, told The Wall Street Journal what was going on. We broke that story, and it became national headline news. But it ultimately took a lawsuit and the Wisconsin Supreme Court to shut down the probe. In its ruling, the Court made clear its view that the probe’s purpose had been intimidation. The prosecutors had been sending the message: if you dare to speak, we will turn your lives into a living hell and potentially put you in prison.

Support Climate Change Hoax Or Else!

More recently we have seen this tactic in the joint action of 17 state attorneys general, who launched a probe into Exxon and some 100 different groups that have worked with Exxon over the years. The implicit prosecutorial threat: get on board with our climate change agenda or we might bring racketeering charges against you.

3) Intimidation, Blackmail by Activists

A third intimidation tactic is for activist groups to use blackmail against corporations and non-profits in order to silence them.

One subject of such attacks was the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a group that works to promote free-market policies at the state level. As a non-profit, it is largely funded by corporate donations. Because it is so successful, it has long been despised by left-wing activist groups.

These groups focused their efforts on ALEC in 2012, in the wake of the tragic shooting of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin in Florida. ALEC had played a tangential role in crafting the popular stand-your-ground laws that the Left attacked after the shooting. On that basis, left-wing activists branded ALEC a racist organization and threatened to run ad campaigns against its corporate donors, branding them as racists too—unless they stopped funding ALEC. In a coordinated action, Democratic U.S. Senator Dick Durbin sent letters to a thousand organizations across the country, demanding to know if they supported ALEC and suggesting they’d get hauled in front of Congress if they did. ALEC lost nearly half of its donors in the space of a few months.

We’ve also seen this tactic employed against private individuals. One such person was Idaho businessman Frank VanderSloot, who Barack Obama’s reelection campaign singled out in 2012, following a VanderSloot donation to Mitt Romney. The campaign publicly branded him a disreputable person, painting a target on his back. Not long after that, VanderSloot was audited by the IRS and visited by other federal agencies.

California Proposition 8

Out in California, left-wing activists targeted donors to the state’s Prop 8 ballot initiative, which supported traditional marriage. They combed through campaign finance records, and put the names and addresses of Prop 8’s donors on a searchable map. Citizens on this list had their cars keyed, their windows broken, their small businesses flash-mobbed, and their voicemails and emails flooded with threats and insults. Some of them even lost their jobs—most notably Brendan Eich, the founder and CEO of Mozilla. In later depositions, many of these targets told lawyers that they wouldn’t donate to future ballot initiatives.

 So the attacks were successful in silencing them.

Note the use of disclosure in these attacks. We have come to associate transparency and disclosure with good government.

But unfortunately, our system of disclosure has been turned on its head. Disclosure was supposed to enable citizens to keep track of politicians; but if you followed Hillary Clinton’s server scandal, you know that politicians have now become expert at hiding their business. Instead, disclosure is increasingly becoming a tool by which government and political thugs identify people and organizations who oppose them.

Sadly, our federal judiciary has refused to honor important precedents that protect anonymity in politics—most notably the famous 1958 case, NAACP v. Alabama. In that case, a unanimous Supreme Court ruled against the Alabama attorney general, who had demanded a list of the state’s NAACP members. The civil rights group knew this was tantamount to making targets of its members in a state that was riven at the time with race-related violence. The Court held that some level of anonymity is sometimes required to protect the rights of free speech and free assembly. The Court expanded on this precedent until the Watergate scandal, when it too got caught up in the disclosure fad. Political privacy rights have been eroding ever since.

What Is to Be Done? Awareness Is Key

What is to be done? For starters, we need to be aware that this is happening, and that it is not random. The intimidation game is very real.

It is the work of left-wing groups and politicians, it is coordinated, and it is well-honed. Many of the targets of intimidation who I interviewed for my recent book weren’t aware of what was happening to them, and that allowed the intimidation to go on for too long.

Awareness is key.

Strip Powers from Unaccountable Agencies

We need to think hard about ways to limit the powers of the administrative state, to stop rogue agents at the IRS and other agencies from trampling on free speech rights. We can make great progress simply by cutting the size of federal and state bureaucracies. But beyond that, we need to conduct systematic reviews of agency powers and strip from unaccountable bureaucracies any discretion over the political activities of Americans. The IRS should be doing what it was created to do—making sure taxpayers fill out their forms correctly. Period.

We need to push corporations to grow backbones and to defend more aggressively their free speech interests—rather than leaving that defense to others.

Put the Onus of Disclosure on Government Rather Than Citizens

We need to overhaul our disclosure laws, and once again put the onus of disclosure on government rather than citizens. At the moment, every American who donates $200 or more to a federal politician goes into a database. Without meaning to sound cynical, no politician in Washington is capable of being bought off for a mere $200.

We need to raise that donation threshold. And we need to think hard about whether there is good reason to force disclosure of any donations to ballot initiatives or to the production and broadcast of issue ads—ads designed to educate the public rather than to promote or oppose candidates.

Expose Bullies

Most important, we need to call out intimidation in any form and manner we see it—and do so instantly. Bullies don’t like to be exposed. They’d rather practice their ugliness in the dark. And one lesson that emerged from all my interviews on this topic is that speaking out works. Those who rolled over merely set themselves up for future attacks. Those who called out the intimidators maintained their rights and won the day.

More Voices, More Vigorous Debate

Finally, conservatives need to tamp down any impulse to practice such intimidation themselves. Our country is best when it is engaging in vigorous debate. The Framers of the Constitution envisioned a multiplicity of interests that would argue their way to a common good. We succeed with more voices, not fewer, and we should have enough confidence in our arguments to hear out our opponents.

 

War on Free Speech, Part 1

 

Truth in Journalism: Rescue Dying Baby in UK from Socialized Medicine in United Kingdom

Truth in Journalism about Moral Support:

Rescue Dying Baby in UK from Socialized Medicine in United Kingdom

(Newsmax)

Trump Offers to Help Dying British Baby

President Donald Trump on Monday offered the nation’s help to Charlie Gard, the terminally ill British baby with a rare genetic disease and brain damage.

In a tweet, the commander in chief said:

If we can help little #CharlieGard, as per our friends in the U.K. and the Pope, we would be delighted to do so.

Last week, his parents Connie Yates and Chris Gard lost a heart-wrenching legal battle to jet him to the United States for experimental therapy that British courts concluded will not work.

The Great Ormond Street Hospital in London was set to turn off Charlie’s life support Friday. But the hospital later decided to give the parents more time with him.

And on Sunday, Pope Francis called for the parents to be allowed to do everything possible to treat the 10-month-old tot, reversing a previous Vatican position after a swell of complaints.

Charlie’s parents raised nearly $1.7 million to pay for his treatment in the U.S. Twitter users have decried the British single-payer healthcare system for its refusal to let their son get treatment.

Charlie is unable to breathe on his own and relies on assistance from an oxygen machine.

If Trump does choose to intervene, it wouldn’t be the first time he’s sent help for a critically ill little boy.

Chelsea Schilling

(WorldNet Daily)

In 1988, Trump reportedly sent his private 727 to Los Angeles to medically transport 3-year-old Andrew Ten, an Orthodox Jewish boy who had a rare and undiagnosed breathing illness, to New York for treatment. Commercial airlines had refused to transport the child.

On July 20, 1988, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency’s Daily News Bulletin reported:

Trump made his plane available for the special trip to New York after the boy’s parents, Judy and Harold Ten, called Trump and told him of their plight.

Commercial airlines refused to fly the child because he could not travel without an elaborate life-support system, which includes a portable oxygen tank, a suction machine, a breathing bag and an adrenaline syringe.

“Mr. Trump did not hesitate when we called him up. He said ‘yes, I’ll send my plane out,’” 29-year-old Harold Ten recalled shortly after he landed here Tuesday morning.

Asked why he thought Trump made his private jet available, Ten replied, “Because he is a good man. He has three children of his own and he knows what being a parent is all about.”

Major Networks Censor the Story

In the current case, major broadcast networks have censored news about Baby Gard, according to NewsBusters.org. Despite public outcry over the story, ABC and CBS have yet to report on Gard’s case.

The Daily Caller reported Monday that NBC reporter Matt Bradley accused President Trump of exploiting Baby Gard.

Truth Zone: No Liberal Journalists Found Here

Truth Zone: No Liberal Journalists Found Here

Drive-Bys Show Us Trump’s Huge Crowd

Rush Limbaugh

Trump_Crowd_BHe was in Lowell, Massachusetts, five miles south of the New Hampshire border at a big arena rally last night and it holds 8,000 people.  It was at the Tsongas Center arena, named after Paul Tsongas, well-known Massachusetts politician, Democrat candidate for president.  Eight thousand people is capacity.  It was overflowing.  People lined up unable to get in, 20 degrees.  There was a picture of the crowd.

And these crowds are nothing new.  Trump’s been drawing these crowds for months now but to the Drive-Bys they’re all of a sudden noticing it.

And you know what else they’re noticingHillary doesn’t come anywhere near crowds this size, nor the crowds that show up for Hillary have anywhere near, not even half as much of the enthusiasm as Trump’s crowds.  Bernie Sanders attracts bigger crowds than Hillary does.  Bernie Sanders’ people are more enthusiastic.  Some Drive-Bys, by the way, I saw it today in doing show prep, some Drive-Bys are now thinking that Bernie Sanders may actually do better in Iowa than the polls indicate.  They’re really starting to get worried about Hillary.  And you know something else that’s worrying about Hillary?  Bill yesterday in New Hampshire was a bomb.  Exactly as I thought.  He was rambling.  It was almost incoherent. 

And there are stories today about how women in the audience were rolling their eyes as though they couldn’t believe what they were hearing. There were looks of boredom all around on the faces of women. At the first event, Bill Clinton shows up solo to campaign for Hillary, and they make the point that Bill is afraid to attack Trump because that’s a nonstarter.  When he was asked questions about Trump going after his peccadillos with women, Clinton’s answer was, again, incoherent and off subject. 

Meanwhile, here’s Trump at the rally in Lowell, Massachusetts, last night.

Trump-Make-America-Great-MAPTRUMP:  I’ve never seen so many cameras in my life.  We have a lot.  Look at all the cameras here tonight, and all live television.  You’re all on live.  Wave.  Hi, folks!

AUDIENCE: (cheers and applause)

TRUMP: And I wish… You know, I always do this.  I wish they’d turn the cameras and show the audience.

AUDIENCE: (jeering the media)

TRUMP: But they tend not to do it.

AUDIENCE: (applause)

TRUMP:  They tend not to do it.  We won’t do it too much tonight. But —

AUDIENCE: (cheers)

TRUMP:  — but I said —

AUDIENCE: (wild cheering and applause)

TRUMP: Wow! They’re doing it!  Wow!  That is so amazing. They did it!  They turned the cameras.

 

Trump’s “Silenced” – Not “Silent” — Majority

Silent-majority-TrumpetteCaller: My Republican Friends and Relatives Won’t Vote for Trump

She said her friends and family don’t like Trump’s morals and they don’t like that he’s rough around the edges. They don’t like the way he talks.  And so, if he gets the nomination, they’re gonna take it out on the Republican Party by not voting.  They’re not saying… Look, I know these people.  They’re not saying that they prefer Hillary’s morals.  They want to punish the Republican Party.  It’s like the four million that didn’t vote in 2012.  And, by the way, the Republican Party and the Drive-Bys are engaging in push-back now.

“He’s rough around the edges. I don’t like the way he talks and he’s not a conservative, and if he’s the nominee, I’m not voting,” it’s another way to say, “Notice me! Hey, I’m important out here. I’m important. I don’t like Trump — and if I don’t like Trump, then you’re not gonna get what you want, and if that means you get the Clintons, then deal with it.”  It’s not that they think the Clintons are more moral Trump.  I mean, I don’t think anybody would make that claim. If we’re talking about morality, there’s nobody on the Democrat side, folks, that’s gonna trump anybody on the Republican side here.

Don’t think anybody’s preferring Clinton’s morals.  This is more like, “If I don’t get what I want, I’m gonna punish you by making sure you don’t get what you want.”  And she said something about how she didn’t like… Not her. Not her.  Not her.  Very important.  It wasn’t her; it was her family that didn’t like the Trump’s presentation.  Which is another way of saying they don’t like the way Trump insults people and he calls people losers and third-rate and all that.  You know why I don’t mind it?

Because for the most part, I happen to agree with what he’s saying about the people he’s describing when he’s talking about the Democrats and Obama and all these others. I don’t think there’s any mystery why Trump is doing what… You know, I’ll tell you a couple of very, very interesting things that I have seen over the break, and this one is fascinating.  And, again, it’s the Drive-By Media pointing it out.  I don’t know how much of it you can believe, but the nuts and bolts of this are that a lot of Trump’s supporters have no plans to vote.

It’s in the New York Times.  Their number cruncher ran the statistics on Trump’s supporters, at least as they’re able to determine Trump supporters, and you know who the number one support group of Trump is according to the New York Times?

Registered Democrats.

Now, I know many of you conservatives who don’t like Trump are going, “Yeah, yeah, yeah! See?  See?  I knew it! I knew it! It’s the Democrats! We’re getting sandbagged. We’re getting tricked. It’s the Democrats that like Trump, Rush. They’re running the Reverse Operation Chaos! I’m telling you what they’re doing and you’re falling for it.” I heard it all, folks.  I understand.  Don’t… A, I’m not falling for anything. B, I remain wary of all this. But let me just tell you what they say here.  Nate Cohn is the number cruncher here, the statistician New York Times.

Anyway, for those of you who are conservative who say, “I’m never voting for Trump,” you better keep one thing in mind: That’s exactly what the Republican Party wants.  Do you understand the Republican Party wants to rid themselves of you?  The Republican Party… Jeb Bush. Jeb Bush made it plain as day. Jeb Bush’s objective was to win the Republican nomination despite the base.  Remember this original plan? He had so much money. He was going to have so much money.

reagan-quote-govt-is-problemMy point is that Donald Trump has come along and has put together a coalition of people that the Republican Party claims it wants.  He’s running strong with Hispanics and men. He’s running strong with women.  His number one support group is disaffected Democrats, the old Reagan Democrats! 

These are the people that Republicans tell us are the reason they need to support amnesty. They’re the reason they’ve gotta support the Obama agenda, ’cause they’ve gotta go out and they’ve gotta show people that they are capable of working with Democrats and “getting things done.”  I mean, Trump’s coalition is almost exactly what the Republican Party claims it wants, and yet they’re out there doing everything they can to destroy it.

Trump hammers Hillary on husband, Cosby, ‘Carlos Danger’

A new Donald Trump campaign video uses Bill Clinton, Bill Cosby and Anthony “Carlos Danger” Weiner to challenge Hillary Clinton’s claim as a champion of women’s rights.

“Hillary and her friends!” Trump said Thursday on Instagram when the ad went live.
The video against the Democrat front-runner includes:

  • Newspaper covers related to Bill Clinton’s affair with Monica Lewinsky.
  • Disgraced New York Rep. Anthony Weiner, who sent pictures of his genitals to women. He often went by the pseudonym “Carlos Danger” while online. Weiner is the husband of long-time Clinton aide Huma Abedin.
  • Bill Cosby, the Clinton Foundation donor who is accused of drugging and raping dozens of women. The 78-year-old was arraigned in a Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, courtroom Dec. 30 on charges he sexually assaulted Andrea Constand in 2004.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2016/01/trump-hammers-hillary-on-husband-cosby-carlos-danger/#9Amxsgfs8s6qd4qZ.99

 

Truth in Journalism, Red State vs. Blue State Facts

Truth in Journalism, Red State vs. Blue State Facts

Welcome to Truth in Journalism! This is what journalists are supposed to do—investigative reporting and report the truth. ~C.D.

The name for her show, “Full Measure,” comes from President Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, and refers to soldiers who gave their all—their “full measure.” It’s how she approaches reporting, she says.

Sharyl Attkisson Takes on Sunday News Shows With ‘Full Measure’

Madeline Donnelly

journalism-accountability-attkissonFormer CBS News investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson arrived at Washington’s Newseum on Wednesday night for a party celebrating the launch of her new Sunday show “Full Measure.”

When she stepped to the podium after being introduced by Sinclair Broadcast Group’s Vice President of News Scott Livingston—who called the broadcast “dedicated to the fearless reporting”—a clear vision, free of doubt, shone through.

That resoluteness appears characteristic of Attkisson, a senior independent contributor to The Daily Signal [Heritage Foundation] and a steady journalist who claims impartiality. Attkisson is not known for shying away from either her personal convictions or the direction in which her work commitments take her, controversial as they may be.

So it’s perhaps fitting that when her half-hour show, dedicated to covering topics she says other news outlets won’t, debuts this weekend on 170 ABC, NBC, Fox, and The CW affiliates in 38 percent of the country, Donald Trump will make an appearance.

truth-media-ratingsSharyl Attkisson says she’s dedicated to “Accountability Reporting”

Throughout her career, Attkisson has been critical of both Republicans and Democrats.

Attkisson’s agenda, she says, lies in the best interests of her viewers.

The name for Attkisson’s show, “Full Measure,” comes from Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address.

The name for her show, “Full Measure,” comes from President Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, and refers to soldiers who gave their all—their “full measure.” It’s how she approaches reporting, she says.

Attkisson says her stories will focus on whistleblowers; government waste, fraud, and abuse; and taxpayer waste, among other things. She plans to tell stories, she says, without “trying to steer [them] in a direction just to prove a point.”

 

Nearly 1,000 People Move From Blue States to Red States Every Day. Here’s Why.

Stephen Moore

cartoon-redstate-heritageThe so-called “progressives” love to talk about how their policies will create a worker’s paradise, but then why is it that day after day, month after month, year after year, people are fleeing liberal blue states for conservative red states?

The new Census data on where we live and where we moved to in 2014 shows that the top seven states with the biggest percentage increase in in-migration from other states are in order: North Dakota, Nevada, South Carolina, Colorado, Florida, Arizona, and Texas. All of these states are red, except Colorado, which is purple.

Meanwhile, the leading exodus states of the continental states in percentage terms were Alaska, New York, Illinois, Connecticut, New Mexico, New Jersey, and Kansas. All of these states are blue, except Alaska and Kansas.

In 2013, Florida gained $8.2 billion in adjusted gross income from out-of-staters. Texas gained $5.9 billion—in one year. Five of the seven states with the biggest gains in income have no income tax at all: Florida, Texas, Arizona, Washington, and Nevada. New York was again the big loser, with another 112,236 tax filers leaving and taking $5.2 billion with them. (So much for those TV ads trying to lure businesses into America’s 2nd highest taxed state with temporary tax breaks.) Illinois lost nearly 67,000 tax filers and $3.7 billion of income it can no longer tax.

I’ve never met a Democrat who could come up with even a semi-plausible explanation for why families and businesses are hightailing it out of blue states. They are leaving states with high minimum wages, pro-union work rules, high taxes on the rich, generous welfare benefits, expansive regulations to “help” workers, green energy policies, etc. People are voting with their feet against these liberal policies.

When I debated Paul Krugman this summer, I confronted him with this reality. His lame explanation for the steady migration from liberal North to conservative South was that “air conditioning” has made the South more livable. Americans are evidently moving because of the weather.

red-state-welcomeThere are two glaring problems with this theory: California and North Dakota. In the last decade ending in 2013, 1.4 million more Americans left California than moved into the once-Golden State. It’s a good bet these California refugees didn’t leave for more sunshine or better weather.

By the way, California is one of the oil- and gas-richest states in the nation, but its “green” politicians are regulating that industry out of businesses. So much for caring about working-class Americans.

But the underlying trend is unmistakable: Liberal blue states are economic dinosaurs. Will they change their ways before they go the way of Detroit and become extinct?