The Front Page Cover
~ Featuring ~
This Is Not the Time to Circle the Wagons
by Bernard Goldberg
.
. Trump's Budget Positives
By James Shott: President Donald Trump released his first budget proposal last week, while Trump was on his first overseas trip visiting Saudi Arabia, Israel, the Vatican and NATO. Trump's $4.1 trillion budget plan is titled "A New Foundation for American Greatness."
Predictably, upon its release Democrats burst forth to condemn the budget. A couple of congressional Democrats eagerly, and with as much flourish as they could muster, termed the proposal "dead on arrival" which, like so much of what they say, is much ado about nothing. Every budget proposal from every president is "dead on arrival," the word "proposal" being the operative word. A president's proposal is merely his desired starting point.
Since you can't change the channel without seeing the negative coverage of everything Trump says or does, this article will summarize the positive elements of the proposal.
First, House Speaker Paul Ryan said in support of the budget plan, "We can finally turn the page on the liar-nObama era of bloated budgets that never balance." Furthermore, he said, "President Trump has proven his commitment to fiscal responsibility with a budget that ... prioritizes American taxpayers over bureaucrats in Washington."
Regarding budgeted income redistribution, White House budget Director Mick Mulvaney notes, "There's not a single thing [cut] from Social Security or Medicare. Why? Because that's what [President Trump] promised." However, other programs such as Medicaid and food stamps will see cuts — which, of course, has leftists screaming about Trump supposedly robbing the poor.
"We look at spending differently," Mulvaney explained. "We are not going to measure compassion by the number of programs or [the number of] people on them." How refreshing after eight years of being told the only good thing in the world is a government handout.
Trump's proposal focuses on national defense areas by boosting spending on the military and border security. Focusing on national defense through restoring the military and tightening our borders are badly needed corrections to critical failures and strategic objectives of Barack liar-nObama's administration. The last eight years saw serious weakening of the military and policies that encouraged illegal entry into the country.
While liar-nObama foolishly reduced the size and strength of all military forces, the Heritage Foundation's James Carafano wrote two years ago, "[The] most neglected of all U.S. national security elements are our strategic forces. Here, President liar-nObama has reined in development and deployment of ballistic missile defenses," and "cut all advanced missile defense programs designed to keep the United States ahead of the ballistic missile threat in the future." And, "to curry favor with Russia, he pulled the plug on planned missile defense installations in Poland and the Czech Republic, simultaneously alienating those allies while displaying weakness to Moscow."
The plan addresses the dangerously high national debt of nearly $20 trillion. It takes a fiscally responsible approach aimed at beginning the process of reducing the large annual deficits to zero in 10 years, and perhaps produce a relatively small surplus by 2027.
While this year's deficit will be a little higher than last year's, the initiatives contained in the plan will turn the habit of annual deficits around, if they are successful. Trump depends upon producing growth in our economy. Although many economists say his goals are too optimistic, that doesn't mean his proposals won't free the economy to grow more than it did over the last eight years.
Trump's budget depends on major modifications to the tax system. His plans include reducing individual income tax brackets from seven to three with rates of 10%, 25% and 35%, and eliminating many tax breaks to balance the loss of income to the Treasury from lower tax rates. His corporate tax rate cuts likewise would lay a foundation for growth.
Lower rates are a good thing; they leave taxpayers with more spendable dollars, which increases consumer spending and spurs economic activity that produces jobs. New jobs produce additional taxpayers and increase tax collections. It's so simple it's no wonder leftists have such a hard time understanding it.
Big-government types believe cuts in federal spending are always a bad thing. But cuts can be made without hurting people who truly need the government payments they receive.
The Trump proposal cuts almost $3.6 trillion from an array of benefit programs, domestic agencies and war spending over the coming decade, including Medicaid, student loan subsidies, food stamps, and the highway formula for the states. And yet, "We are not kicking anybody off any program who needs it," said Mulvaney, who explained that the proposal doesn't cut Medicaid, just grows it more slowly over 10 years.
Cutting "waste, fraud and abuse" is a favorite trope of politicians from both sides of the political aisle. But that doesn't much such waste is a fantasy. Rather, it accounts for billions of dollars of federal spending annually that accomplish nothing.
GovTechWorks.com reports on federal estimates: "Improper payments account for about 5 cents of every Medicaid dollar ... or about $29.1 billion of the $547.7 billion program in 2015 alone," through intentional deception or misrepresentation; inappropriate use of services and resources; and practices inconsistent with sound fiscal, business or medical practices.
And that's just one federal program. Ending or reducing those problems will go a long way to counter spending cuts.
Those who believe the federal government cannot spend less and accomplish just as much good are living in Fantasy Land. Too many people automatically believe the scare mongering of those who profit politically from supporting high levels of spending. While Trump's budget is far from perfect, it does lay out some steps that would get the nation going in the right direction. The ball is now in Congress's court. ~The Patriot Post
.
.
Dobbs, Shaffer – Trump Needs Someone
To Navigate Deep State Swamp To Drain It
by Rick Wells
{rickwells.us} ~ Lou Dobbs starts of his interview with Lt Col Tony Shaffer, noting that it is “fascinating and frightening, frankly, the power of the deep state right now, and their ability to blunt the power of the President of the United States... with leaks, with disinformation, it’s extraordinary. We were told that three leakers had been identified, at least three, and there would be consequences, presumably firing, and we have heard nothing since. What do you make of it?” Shaffer replies, “Well, two things. First, I’d like to believe this is going to be diligent, but detailed. And Lou, you’ve got to get all the scoop. You’ve got to be very thorough. I’d like to believe that they’re going to make this stick. You’ve got to make examples of these folks and frankly, this relates directly to the unmasking and some very horrific things.”... http://rickwells.us/dobbs-shaffer-trump-needs-navigate-deep-state-swamp-drain/
Mike Flynn agrees to hand over some documents to Senate Intelligence Committee
by Anna Giaritelli
{washingtonexaminer.com} ~Former White House national security adviser Mike Flynn has agreed to share some documents with the Senate Intelligence Committee, according to multiple reports Tuesday evening... Flynn invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination last week after the Senate panel subpoenaed him for documents related to its investigation into Russian interference in last year's presidential election. The committee then issued two subpoenas to Flynn's businesses, which lack the same Fifth Amendment rights that a person has. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/mike-flynn-agrees-to-hand-over-some-documents-to-senate-intelligence-committee/article/2624496
VIDEO: http://launch.newsinc.com/embed.html?trackingGroup=91212&siteSection=91212_pp&videoId=32458356
.
liar-Clinton CIA Director:
Illegal Leaks ‘The Real Scandal Here’
by Peter Hasson
{dailycaller.com} ~ The real scandal stemming from reports that Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner suggested setting up a backchannel with Russian officials is the leaking of classified information that led to Kushner’s alleged request becoming public... according to James Woolsey, the former CIA director under Bill Clinton. “There are a lot of things I think have been disclosed too much and I think that is the real scandal here,” Woolsey said on CNN Tuesday night. “So much disclosed, it makes it hard for the secrecy that’s essential to the operation of the U.S. government in these areas to continue, and I think the people who have broken these tacit and formal agreements and taken classified information and turned it loose are basically traitors to the country.” Earlier in the interview, Woolsey, who advised the Trump transition team after the election, also dismissed claims that there is anything inherently suspicious about setting up a backchannel... http://dailycaller.com/2017/05/30/clinton-cia-director-illegal-leaks-the-real-scandal-here/.
Fleeing Tyranny or Bringing it with Them?
Linda Sarsour
by Khadija Khan
{gatestoneinstitute.org} ~ Terror attacks and other offshoots of Islamic extremism have created an atmosphere of mistrust between Europe's natives and thousands of those who entered European countries to seek shelter... The situation is turning the Europeans against their own governments and against those advocating help for the war-torn migrants who have been arriving. Europeans are turning hostile towards the idea of freedom and peaceful coexistence; they have apparently been seeing newcomers as seeking exceptions to the rules and culture of West... https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/10356/immigrants-tyrannyLinda Sarsour
by Khadija Khan
.
Portland Mayor’s Push to Curb
Free Speech Wrong Response to Murders
by Katrina Trinko
{dailysignal.com} ~In response to the terrible violence on Friday, Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler wants to make the city a safe space, urging the federal government to block two controversial events slated to be held in the liberal enclave in early June... But curbing free speech isn’t the right response—and Wheeler’s decision to do so now suggests someone who takes seriously Rahm Emanuel’s famous adage to “never let a serious crisis go to waste.” In a Facebook message announcing he wanted “the federal government to IMMEDIATELY REVOKE the permits they have issued for the June 4th event and to not issue a permit for June 10th,” Wheeler made it clear he was going to fight to prevent the “Trump Free Speech Rally” scheduled for June 4 and the “March Against Sharia” June 10 from going forward...Not only he is wrong but he is also blaming the President on what happen. That is wrong. http://dailysignal.com/2017/05/30/portland-mayors-push-curb-free-speech-wrong-response-murders/?utm_source=TDS_Email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=MorningBell&mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiTURreE0yTTJNamswT1RjeiIsInQiOiJpTm9hU1lRUFFWOEZLNTlPanBuWWQzaHc4ZW45TE9DcGJnSU5rSlpDNXFLeHFtVHZrQVV1TXd2QVFyNDRCOWYwamg5eVI5cFBpT0tyVlBXVTNmZm9XNWl2OVwvVU1maVJTcHJCWE80RExcL1lyNU1YSkJxbGlVcEJMQ3ZpSjJqcDZDIn0%3D
{dailysignal.com} ~In response to the terrible violence on Friday, Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler wants to make the city a safe space, urging the federal government to block two controversial events slated to be held in the liberal enclave in early June... But curbing free speech isn’t the right response—and Wheeler’s decision to do so now suggests someone who takes seriously Rahm Emanuel’s famous adage to “never let a serious crisis go to waste.” In a Facebook message announcing he wanted “the federal government to IMMEDIATELY REVOKE the permits they have issued for the June 4th event and to not issue a permit for June 10th,” Wheeler made it clear he was going to fight to prevent the “Trump Free Speech Rally” scheduled for June 4 and the “March Against Sharia” June 10 from going forward...Not only he is wrong but he is also blaming the President on what happen. That is wrong. http://dailysignal.com/2017/05/30/portland-mayors-push-curb-free-speech-wrong-response-murders/?utm_source=TDS_Email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=MorningBell&mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiTURreE0yTTJNamswT1RjeiIsInQiOiJpTm9hU1lRUFFWOEZLNTlPanBuWWQzaHc4ZW45TE9DcGJnSU5rSlpDNXFLeHFtVHZrQVV1TXd2QVFyNDRCOWYwamg5eVI5cFBpT0tyVlBXVTNmZm9XNWl2OVwvVU1maVJTcHJCWE80RExcL1lyNU1YSkJxbGlVcEJMQ3ZpSjJqcDZDIn0%3D
.
.
by Bernard Goldberg
{jewishworldreview.com} ~ It's been my experience, having covered the news at CBS for nearly 30 years, that when the media elites come in for criticism, they're not very good at introspection. They're much better at circling the wagons.
Dan Rather, the former CBS News anchor, is Exhibit A. On February 8, 1995 he told Tom Snyder on his late-night TV show that, "It's one of the great political myths about press bias. Most reporters don't know whether they're Republican or Democrat and vote every which way."
On May 30, 2012, he told Jon Stewart the same thing. When Stewart asked, "In your experience, haven’t most journalists, haven’t their politics been somewhat more liberal?" Rather replied, "No, it hasn’t been my experience. ... This is a sham."
This is nonsense — breathtakingly untrue nonsense. Most reporters do know whether they're Republican or Democrat and they don't vote every which way. Studies have shown that there are far more liberals in America's newsrooms than conservatives - and they vote Democratic far more than Republican.
After George W. Bush was elected in 2000, I got a phone call from a network news correspondent who said he thought he was the only person in his shop who voted for Bush and said his colleagues took to calling him a Nazi because of it.
In my 28 years at CBS News, I don't recall running into a conservative - not one who would admit it publicly anyway.
What is a sham, to use my former colleague's word, is the refusal of many liberal journalists - not only Dan Rather — to acknowledge the obvious: That journalism attracts more liberals than conservatives and that too many reporters let their personal views infect their coverage of the news.
Which brings us to an important new study from researchers at Harvard University that shows that coverage of Donald Trump in his first 100 days of office was overwhelmingly negative. Overwhelmingly!
The researchers analyzed the tone of coverage at CNN, NBC, CBS, Fox News, the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal. Here's some of what they found:
Coverage at CNN and NBC was 93 percent negative. At CBS, the tone was 92 percent negative; at the New York Times it was 87 percent negative; at the Washington Post, the negative tone was 83 percent; at the Wall Street Journal it was 70 percent negative; and at Fox News the coverage was 52 percent negative.
The numbers look like bias. But negative coverage is not necessarily biased coverage.
You can't blame journalists for simply reporting the news, which in President Trump's case is often filled with controversial statements and actions and so, understandably, would produce stories with a negative tone.
But when the negative numbers are so astronomically high, mainstream journalists would be better off employing some introspection instead of ignoring the study, which is what many did, and which is only a more nuanced way of circling the wagons.
The Harvard team also broke down the coverage by topic and found that on immigration 96 percent of the coverage was negative; on healthcare 87 percent was negative; and on fitness for office, 81 percent of the news was negative.
Here's a theory: So much news coverage about the president has been negative because journalists don't agree with Mr. Trump's policies - and a lot of them just plain don't like him.
For example, a lot of liberal journalists are at odds with the president's immigration policies - whether it's about building a wall on the southern border or rounding up and deporting some illegal immigrants. Is that why so much of the coverage has been negative and why journalists didn't spend more time finding sources that agree with the president, and putting them in their stories?
A lot of liberal journalists, who adored Barack liar-nObama, don't like the president's plan to repeal and replace liar-nObamacare. Is that why so much coverage on healthcare has been negative?
And it's no secret that a lot of liberal journalists believe the president is unfit for office. Maybe that's why more than 8 out of 10 stories on the president's fitness were negative.
By the way, the same Harvard researchers found that Barack liar-nObama got 41 percent negative coverage and 59 percent positive. George W. Bush got 57 percent negative, 43 percent positive. Donald Trump's overall numbers: 80 percent negative, 20 percent positive.
I stumbled across an interesting essay by Washington journalist Robert W. Merry in which he says, "When a man as uncouth and reckless as Trump becomes president by running against the nation's elites, it's a strong signal that the elites are the problem."
Memo to America's elites: Millions of Americans think you're the ones who are deplorable. They don't want to be called bigots because they worry about the effects of illegal immigration on America's schools and hospitals and more broadly on the nation's sovereignty and culture.
They don't want to be seen as heartless because they believe that not everybody getting food stamps deserves them.
They don't want to be viewed as Muslim-hating bigots because they, like the president, believe that a temporary ban on travel from a few countries — countries that harbor terrorism — is a good idea.
And they're sick of being portrayed as unsophisticated dolts because they don't abide by politically correct ideas that are so popular among the elites at some of our most prestigious universities.
This is not the time to circle the wagons. It's a time for introspection by America's elites, starting with the ones who set the agenda for the culture, who decide what the national conversation will be about ... the media elites.
This Is Not the Time to Circle the Wagons
{jewishworldreview.com} ~ It's been my experience, having covered the news at CBS for nearly 30 years, that when the media elites come in for criticism, they're not very good at introspection. They're much better at circling the wagons.
Dan Rather, the former CBS News anchor, is Exhibit A. On February 8, 1995 he told Tom Snyder on his late-night TV show that, "It's one of the great political myths about press bias. Most reporters don't know whether they're Republican or Democrat and vote every which way."
On May 30, 2012, he told Jon Stewart the same thing. When Stewart asked, "In your experience, haven’t most journalists, haven’t their politics been somewhat more liberal?" Rather replied, "No, it hasn’t been my experience. ... This is a sham."
This is nonsense — breathtakingly untrue nonsense. Most reporters do know whether they're Republican or Democrat and they don't vote every which way. Studies have shown that there are far more liberals in America's newsrooms than conservatives - and they vote Democratic far more than Republican.
After George W. Bush was elected in 2000, I got a phone call from a network news correspondent who said he thought he was the only person in his shop who voted for Bush and said his colleagues took to calling him a Nazi because of it.
In my 28 years at CBS News, I don't recall running into a conservative - not one who would admit it publicly anyway.
What is a sham, to use my former colleague's word, is the refusal of many liberal journalists - not only Dan Rather — to acknowledge the obvious: That journalism attracts more liberals than conservatives and that too many reporters let their personal views infect their coverage of the news.
Which brings us to an important new study from researchers at Harvard University that shows that coverage of Donald Trump in his first 100 days of office was overwhelmingly negative. Overwhelmingly!
The researchers analyzed the tone of coverage at CNN, NBC, CBS, Fox News, the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal. Here's some of what they found:
Coverage at CNN and NBC was 93 percent negative. At CBS, the tone was 92 percent negative; at the New York Times it was 87 percent negative; at the Washington Post, the negative tone was 83 percent; at the Wall Street Journal it was 70 percent negative; and at Fox News the coverage was 52 percent negative.
The numbers look like bias. But negative coverage is not necessarily biased coverage.
You can't blame journalists for simply reporting the news, which in President Trump's case is often filled with controversial statements and actions and so, understandably, would produce stories with a negative tone.
But when the negative numbers are so astronomically high, mainstream journalists would be better off employing some introspection instead of ignoring the study, which is what many did, and which is only a more nuanced way of circling the wagons.
The Harvard team also broke down the coverage by topic and found that on immigration 96 percent of the coverage was negative; on healthcare 87 percent was negative; and on fitness for office, 81 percent of the news was negative.
Here's a theory: So much news coverage about the president has been negative because journalists don't agree with Mr. Trump's policies - and a lot of them just plain don't like him.
For example, a lot of liberal journalists are at odds with the president's immigration policies - whether it's about building a wall on the southern border or rounding up and deporting some illegal immigrants. Is that why so much of the coverage has been negative and why journalists didn't spend more time finding sources that agree with the president, and putting them in their stories?
A lot of liberal journalists, who adored Barack liar-nObama, don't like the president's plan to repeal and replace liar-nObamacare. Is that why so much coverage on healthcare has been negative?
And it's no secret that a lot of liberal journalists believe the president is unfit for office. Maybe that's why more than 8 out of 10 stories on the president's fitness were negative.
By the way, the same Harvard researchers found that Barack liar-nObama got 41 percent negative coverage and 59 percent positive. George W. Bush got 57 percent negative, 43 percent positive. Donald Trump's overall numbers: 80 percent negative, 20 percent positive.
I stumbled across an interesting essay by Washington journalist Robert W. Merry in which he says, "When a man as uncouth and reckless as Trump becomes president by running against the nation's elites, it's a strong signal that the elites are the problem."
Memo to America's elites: Millions of Americans think you're the ones who are deplorable. They don't want to be called bigots because they worry about the effects of illegal immigration on America's schools and hospitals and more broadly on the nation's sovereignty and culture.
They don't want to be seen as heartless because they believe that not everybody getting food stamps deserves them.
They don't want to be viewed as Muslim-hating bigots because they, like the president, believe that a temporary ban on travel from a few countries — countries that harbor terrorism — is a good idea.
And they're sick of being portrayed as unsophisticated dolts because they don't abide by politically correct ideas that are so popular among the elites at some of our most prestigious universities.
This is not the time to circle the wagons. It's a time for introspection by America's elites, starting with the ones who set the agenda for the culture, who decide what the national conversation will be about ... the media elites.
Comments