The Long Version

Retired broadcast journalist. Blogging helps scratch the itch. Recovering exRepublican – Sober and still Conservative.

Ukraine Official Refutes Key Impeachment Testimony

leave a comment »

BOMBSHELLWe see the word “BOMBSHELL” used in news media a lot these days and most of the time it’s nothing more than click bait.

This story, however, may actually fit the term.

This is from TIME magazine at TIME.com so my Left of center friends shouldn’t use the source as a fallback position to ignore it.

A top Ukraine official who is mentioned dozens of times in the impeachment report released last week and has been called a critical figure “at the center” of the impeachment inquiry, is now disputing testimony by the Democrat witnesses upon which the entire impeachment process rests.

In a recent interview with TIME, Andriy Yermak is questioning the recollections of crucial witnesses in the impeachment inquiry.

“Listen, I want to tell you straight,” Yermak told TIME in the interview on Dec. 4, “Of course, now, when I watch these [hearings] on television, my name often comes up, and I see people there whom I recognize, whom I met and know,” he says, referring to the witness testimony. “That is their personal opinion, especially the positions they expressed while under oath. I have my own truth. I know what I know.”

Where this really gets dicey is with regard to Gordon Sondland’s testimony. As you may recall, Mr. Sondland, the U.S. Ambassador to the EU, had previously testified that there was no quid pro quo but then later revised that statement and testified the opposite in a written statement and again during the hearings. That is important to remember and consider when listening to Yermak’s recollection of his “meeting” with Sondland.

The key testimony that allowed the Democrats to move forward with impeachment came from Sondland, the ONLY witness to say he believed there was a quid pro quo in place. NO OTHER WITNESS made this direct allegation.

That testimony hinges on a meeting between Vice President Pence and Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky in Warsaw on September 1.

Sondland testified that he pulled Yermak aside after the Warsaw meeting and told him U.S. aid to Ukraine would probably not resume until Zelensky’s government announced two investigations that could implicate President Trump’s political rivals.

From the TIME.com article –

“Based on the testimony from Sondland and other witnesses, the final report from the House Intelligence Committee concluded last week that Sondland made this offer of a quid pro quo clear to Yermak that day in Warsaw.”

Yermak disputes this. “Gordon and I were never alone together,” he said when TIME asked about the Warsaw meeting. “We bumped into each other in the hallway next to the escalator, as I was walking out.” He recalls that several members of the American and Ukrainian delegations were also nearby, as well as bodyguards and hotel staff, though he was not sure whether any of them heard his brief conversation with Sondland. “And I remember – everything is fine with my memory – we talked about how well the meeting went. That’s all we talked about,” Yermak says.

KABOOM! Is that bombshell enough?

In his initial testimony to the impeachment inquiry in October, Sondland said he never knew the U.S. aid to Ukraine was conditional on the investigations Trump wanted.

But then the following month, Sondland amended his testimony with a new sworn statement, in which he described the conversation with Yermak in Warsaw and identifying it as a quid pro quo on behalf of the president.

“I now recall speaking individually with Mr. Yermak, where I said that resumption of U.S. aid would likely not occur until Ukraine provided the public anti-corruption statement that we had been discussing for many weeks,” Sondland wrote in the amended testimony.

Yermak, a central figure in this entire process, says that never happened.

Mr. Schiff? Mr. Nadler? Houston?
We have a problem…

Written by DCL

December 12, 2019 at 7:21 am

Dear Adam Schiff, What is Quid Pro Quo?

leave a comment »

Dear Mr. Schiff,

How exactly do you define Quid Pro Quo?

Is it simply “Get dirt on my opponents or else!” as you and the Democrats have decided? If that is indeed where you are planting your flag then President Trump is right, there is no quid pro quo.

If we look at the entire conversation in question it goes pretty much like this:

Mr. Ukrainian President, you’re newly elected and it looks like you’re taking your country in the right direction, but you need to know something up front. Your country lost 7 Billion dollars of our taxpayers money. Your country convicted two officials, one of which was the head of the anti-corruption bureau, for interfering in the 2016 presidential election by colluding with the DNC and Hillary Clinton campaign.

Now two of your Investigator Generals have been blocked by our State Department after they provided evidence to our Department of Justice regarding this collusion along with evidence of corruption surrounding oil and gas contracts that involved out former Vice President. You should look into that. We also have reason to believe the people who did all of that and made this corruption possible are still in your inner circle. So as a matter of national interest, I can’t give you any more money unless you can demonstrate you’re not part of this corruption but rather are dedicated to cleaning it up.

If that’s how you define quid pro quo Mr. Schiff then yes, that’s all on the tape of the phone call. That’s all in the transcript. IF THAT’S the definition then guilty as charged…

But that’s not your definition is it? Because that wouldn’t fly in a kangaroo court. Not even one run by you and Nancy Pelosi. In your tunnel vision world all you heard in that phone call was “get dirt on my opponent.” Fortunately a majority of Americans heard something quite different.

The conversation with the Ukrainian president which he confirmed, when taken in full context of the full conversation, is not “get dirt on my opponent.” Mr. Schiff believes cherry picking, paraphrasing, and redefining what was said equates what was actually said. It doesn’t.

The other problem is how the Democrats have convinced many Americans that quid pro quo is some new law that’s been broken… It isn’t. In fact the Obama administration was chided by the media for the same thing on numerous occasions leading one US newspaper to label Obama the King of Quid Pro Quo.  

The ignorance displayed in this country regarding anything to do with civics is an indictment on our public school system and an advantage to the Democrats.

Written by DCL

November 8, 2019 at 7:19 pm

Same Destination, Multiple Paths?

leave a comment »

Same Destination, Many Paths

A blog post by John Pavlovitz popped up on my social media. The headline grabbed my attention so I clicked.

It’s a nice, flowery, feel good post. It says the kind of things that make our brains produce a good dose of endorphins, serotonin, dopamine, and oxytocin. The neurochemicals that make us happy and feel good.

So what’s wrong with that you ask?

Nothing, unless the flowers are covering the weeds. I’m not saying the article is an overt attempt to mislead or misinform. I’m sure the author earnestly believes in everything he wrote and how and why he came to his positions and opinions. But I don’t think he truly resides in the “Humane Middle” as he calls it. I don’t think he owns that real estate. I think he sits in the section of the bell curve the majority of us populate, if not more toward one side than the middle.

I believe Mr. Pavlovitz is an ideological leftist. I believe he is doing what ideological leftists do. He’s making a case to convince us and probably more importantly, those who share his worldview, their position IS the middle, the perfect balance, the ultimate destination, and if you aren’t just like them you’re simply “indoctrinated into a white nationalistic religion of malice.” Those are his words.

I don’t have a problem with people whose ideology is on the left side of the spectrum. If I was to pass one on the street I’d consider them with kindness and respect just like any other person walking that street. When I see people out and about I don’t see them as ideologues or members of a political party.

They’re just people. Like me.

I was taught to “Love my neighbor as myself” and I try to live that way. What I find problematic with folks of that ideological persuasion is they don’t seem to be satisfied just having their own ideas, opinions, and beliefs and simply expressing them. In my experience, those on the left, and more often the activist left, aren’t happy until you accept and adopt their ideas, opinions, and beliefs as your own and they won’t hesitate to apply social pressure, even force, to get you there. Because, from my experience and interaction with political liberals, they’re right and you need to come to grips with that and change.

They are so convinced they know better than you how to live your life, they are going to do everything they can to live it for you and it’s all wrapped in the name of compassion, love, and humanity. They’re kind and tolerant until you refute their doctrine. Do that and you’ll see another side and no smiles.

Mr. Pavlovitz took an inventory of his positions. It’s a nice list that resembles what one might think Utopia is made of. He believes his list is “the list” everyone should have because, again, he’s in the middle. If your list isn’t like his, you’re the problem.

So, I decided to go ahead and do the same inventory to see how extreme I am, but I’m going to explain the what and why of each point, how I got there and what makes me believe the way I do. That’s something Mr. Pavlovitz doesn’t do and I wish he did. But I believe if he got into the nuts and bolts of each item on his list he’d soon find himself well beyond the middle and it would ruin the entire thesis. How do I come to this conclusion? Read his other writings…

So let’s compare Mr. Pavlovitz’ “extremism screening list” with mine.

John: I believe in full LGBTQ rights.
Me: I believe in basic human rights. I don’t subscribe to the idea that different groups of people have different rights or more rights or less rights than any other. I believe every human being has a right to life, liberty (freedom to choose their life path), and the pursuit of personal happiness under the rule of law. I believe in equality of opportunity, not outcomes.

John: I believe we should protect the planet.
Me: I believe we should be responsible stewards of the planet and all it provides. I’m certain we have very different ideas about what that means and how that can and should be achieved. We probably agree that people have and do exploit this planet’s resources and far too much is wasted and misused.

John: I believe everyone deserves healthcare.
Me: I believe everyone should have access to healthcare. I do not subscribe to government run healthcare. There are better and far more efficient alternatives and they must be made available in the marketplace preferably at the community level. Health-share programs are providing a glimpse into how that might work. A public safety net for those who are truly unable to afford or provide for their own healthcare is a must but not how we currently fund and operate it. For any system like this to work it requires a high level of integrity and honesty amongst the populace. That’s just one reason our current system is broken. 

John: I believe all religions are equally valid.
Me: Valid is an interesting term to use here. Validity doesn’t necessarily equate goodness for humanity. I believe any religion that teaches love and respect for all people, service to others, self-restraint, self-reliance, chastity, temperance, charity, humility, kindness, patience, diligence, et al, brings good to all humanity and has value. Religions that violate free agency and seek to control adherents have no value in my opinion.

John: I believe the world is bigger than America.
Me: Yep, the world is big. But at this point in our development as human beings, national borders are still a reality and necessity. Until we stop dividing ourselves into tribes with hard ideological segments that’s not going to change. The wide spectrum of ideological differences in this big world require them. I am an American. I love my country. I will protect and defend my country from any who would harm it or the way of life we enjoy. I do not have ill will toward any other nation or people. I will make my country the best I can within my sphere of influence. I believe our constitution is an inspired document containing principles that, when followed, lead to greater happiness and prosperity as a nation. We, as a nation and a people, aren’t doing that right now which has lead to the place John is feeling squeezed.

John: I believe “pro-life” means to treasure all of it.
Me: I believe in the sanctity of human life at any and all stages of development. While I believe life is sacred, I believe the choices of those who willingly and knowingly take a life should have grave consequences up to and including paying for their crime with their own. I believe life begins in the womb. Once that life is created I believe we have a moral obligation to assure that human being has all the rights available to any of us and should be protected. I believe there are exceptions with regard to abortion, which John appears to be couching in this item, but they should be rare and few. 

John: I believe whiteness isn’t superior and it is not a baseline of humanity.
Me: This one tells me how far to one end of the spectrum John really is. I don’t know ANYONE, nor can I say I have ever met ANYONE who believes “whiteness” is superior. Those with John’s political and ideological views would have you believe white supremacy is a massive problem by scale. It’s not. But they have convinced themselves that the election of Donald Trump is proof that half the people in this nation are white supremacists. Hence the need to make that statement in his list. NO SKIN COLOR is supreme. Such a radical view is a tiny minority in this country. See point one.

John: I believe we are all one interdependent community.
Me: Yes. But language barriers, cultural differences, religious beliefs, and our propensity to judge each other makes harmony on a large scale difficult, but not impossible.

John: I believe people and places are made better by diversity.
Me: I believe if we lived by the golden rule, it wouldn’t matter what mix of ethnicity, ideology, lifestyle, et al in our communities, places of employment, cities, states, or countries. We can and should be able to get along and work for the common good of everyone. Live and let live. However, diversity for diversity’s sake is a mistake and is counter productive. It creates an environment of preferential treatment which goes against human nature and the concept of fairness. This conclusion comes from people with much higher credentials, more academic placards, and greater influence than I.

John: I believe people shouldn’t be forced to abide by anyone else’s religion.
Me: No one should be forced to believe or live any religious tenet. I don’t believe anyone is. I believe this is an extreme Left view and is patently false. Just because religion and religious belief is around you and you are exposed to it doesn’t mean you are being forced to abide by any religion. In fact, we are seeing converse examples of this extreme view as the Left attempts to force people of faith to abandon their religious beliefs so as not to “impose” upon those who don’t share them. They tend to twist the concept of separation of church and state into something none of the framers of our constitution ever said or imagined. Numerous court cases in recent memory validate this trend in secular society.

John: I believe non-American human beings have as much value as American ones.
Me: I absolutely agree. Until they come to America, break our laws, and/or threaten American lives in any way. Then they, by choice, devalue themselves and we must uphold and sustain our laws to protect our rights as citizens and the privileges citizenship has in our country. Others are welcome to come and enjoy the fruits of this nation. All I ask is that they do it legally, contribute while here, and be inclusive and welcoming to those unfamiliar with their unique cultures and ways and vice versa. I’ve lived in another country for an extended period of time. The non-Americans seem to understand this better than most Americans and expect the same behavior from us while living in their countries.

John: I believe generosity is greater than greed, compassion better than contempt, and kindness superior to derision.
Me: All true. Now how do we get worldwide adoption and practice?

John: I believe there is enough in this world for everyone: enough food, enough money, enough room, enough care – if we unleash our creativity and unclench our fists.
Me: I believe there is tooI see this every day. I see people helping people, sharing their abundance, teaching principles of self-reliance which creates a “can do” attitude and magnifies self-confidence, but that’s not what gets the headlines. The headlines scream the opposite incessantly which leads many people to think that’s the norm. It’s not. But that’s how people tend to see it and for Liberals it seems to really spike the emotions. They seem to see the world only as reported on TV or Twitter. With emotions revved to maximum capacity the finger pointing begins and since they see themselves as “knowing better than you” they blame you, the ones who see the world differently and believe differently (more diversely), than they do. That almost seems contradictory to what they publicly say though doesn’t it? We agree on this point, but he seems to not see the forest for the trees.

Bottom line: Anyone can create a list of platitudes without explanation or detail to provide context or reveal intent and make it sound amazing, wonderful, and woke. But doing so doesn’t place you in a position of neutrality to say “see, I’m the middle. I’m in the place where everyone should strive to go.” I’m sorry but you don’t get to determine where the center is. Neither do I. That, in and of itself, is a journey of discovery.

Frankly I’ve always seen those in the middle, the centrists, the moderates, to be little more than fence sitters. People with their finger in the air waiting for the popular winds of change push them toward a decision, or to take a position, or make a stand. If that is where you plant your flag, I see you as wishy washy and indecisive. Besides, walking or sitting in the middle of the road tends to get one run over.

When we dig down to find that bottom line, I believe Mr. Pavlovitz is trying to get to a place we all want to exist. One that is full of kindness, love, abundance, and void of envy, hatred, and poverty. The perceived difference for me and conservatives like me, is Mr. Pavlovitz and liberals like him think their way of getting there is the only way and if you’re not doing it their way, well, you’re a lesser being by comparison. In fact, you may be relegated to something white and undesirable measured only by how you vote or don’t…

Mr. Pavlovitz appears sanctimonious to some extent. But to him and those who share his views, I’m certain I’m the sanctimonious one. Or just a “bitter, ignorant cretin, Trump-asslicking loser” as articulated by singer/songwriter Richard Marx on Twitter when I disagreed with one of his angry hostile profanity laced political tweets about the president. In fairness I started the feud. I’m not proud of the tweet that started it and in hindsight wish I hadn’t reacted the way I did. See what happens when we assume “we’re” right and “they’re” wrong?

I really do believe I want what Mr. Pavlovitz wants and what Mr. Marx (the singer not Karl) wants and what everyone in the middle of that bell curve probably wants too.

I sincerely do.

If our political, social, and ideological positions didn’t get in the way, we’d likely be a lot closer than we are.

Written by DCL

October 23, 2019 at 3:31 pm

Posted in Uncategorized

An Open Letter to the U.S. House of Representatives

leave a comment »

By Jeff Minick

Dear Members of the House of Representatives,

I hope this letter finds you in fine fettle.

This is a first for me. I’ve never written an open letter. Usually celebrities, politicians, and academics compose and deliver these missives, often brickbats of denunciation and self-defense, to be printed in the media. For an ordinary guy like me, writing an “open letter” seems a bit pretentious. It makes me want to slip into a silk bathrobe, pop an American Spirit Light into a long-stemmed holder, dandle a glass of Korbel Brut in the other hand, and stroll about a rose garden dictating my words to a secretary who looks like Juliette Binoche.

Instead, here I sit in a McDonald’s six hours from home, sipping coffee, listening to tunes on the sound system from the fifties and sixties, and glancing now and then at a table of five old-timers nibbling their Egg McMuffins and discussing aircraft and the Wright Brothers.

Well, enough about me. Let’s talk about you.

Since Donald Trump’s election to the presidency, a number of you, some Democrats, some Republicans, some socialists, some independents, have talked and talked about impeaching the president. I can certainly understand why. His election was a stunner, wasn’t it? I’ve heard some folks were so upset they actually entered therapy. Others are still so unhappy they light themselves on fire or stab themselves. (When my candidates lose, I just toss back an extra gin-and-tonic, hit the sack, and go to work in the morning. Different strokes for different folks.)

The Mueller Report, two years in the making, exonerated President Trump of any collusion with Russia. That our president didn’t conspire with Boris and Natasha to subvert the United States is surely cause to break out the champagne, yet it brought sackcloth and ashes in certain quarters.

Now some of you are demanding that Attorney General William Barr break the law by giving you an unredacted copy of the report. Others accuse President Trump of mental illness. (The Soviets notoriously used this tactic as a way to put dissidents behind bars.) Some of you call for impeachment for no reason other than to appease your more rabid constituents.

You’ve stuck to this subject like a tick on a dog, but polls reveal most Americans are tired of the circus. You seem to forget that many of them voted for Trump and will be more than a little unhappy if you impeach him. Others, even many who didn’t vote for him, believe you are engaged in a vendetta, not a quest for justice.

Anyway, I have a suggestion for you.

Why not try solving some of our nation’s problems?

Let’s look at just two issues.

Our nation is 22 trillion dollars in debt. (I can’t even imagine how a million dollars stacks up, much less a trillion.) The Washington Post reports we are on track to a trillion dollar deficit in the 2020 budget alone. I have four children and a platoon of grandchildren, and don’t really like to imagine them living as paupers because our Congress lacked the guts to look a few years into the future and slash the budget.

And yet you seem to have your personal finances in order. Your current annual salary is $174,000. (The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports the salary of the average American is about $45,000.) You are, as I write, considering giving yourselves a raise. (How many employees anywhere get to vote to give themselves a raise? And yes, ladies and gentlemen, you are employees, something you tend to forget.) In fact, some of you leave Congress as millionaires. How about performing this same magic on the federal deficit?

You see, what’s frustrating to those of us outside the Beltway is that so many of you seem irresponsible with everyone else’s money other than your own.

Then there’s illegal immigration. The New York Times, CNN, and other media have recently acknowledged a crisis on our southern border. The place is falling apart. Hundreds of thousands of people are entering our country, some slipping across the border, others being caught and then released inside the United States. Most recently, we have reports that hundreds of illegal immigrants from the Ebola-stricken Congo – the Congo, for heaven’s sake! – were caught wading across the Rio Grande.

Were they turned back? Nope. They were dumped in the streets of San Antonio.

So what are you doing about this invasion? Any plans?

In the last twenty years or so, Congress has had a hand in our failing education system, a health care program that baffles many and brings ever greater costs, a military second to none but with boatloads of wasted dollars, and a government with lots of “non-essential” jobs.

Were you not elected to represent your constituents and to defend American interests?

How about giving it a shot? How about doing your job?

As for impeachment, which will likely backfire big-time if you go through with it, let me conclude with the words of the young woman pressed to get an abortion by her companion in Ernest Hemingway’s short story “Hills Like White Elephants”:

“Would you please please please please please please please stop talking?”

Encouraging you to do so, and to do your duty to the rest of us,

Jeff Minick

[Image Credit: Architect of the Capitol, Public Domain]

This post An Open Letter to the U.S. House of Representatives was originally published on Intellectual Takeout by Jeff Minick. Reposted by permission.

https://www.intellectualtakeout.org/sites/all/themes/ito/js/ito-repub.js

The Case For the Electoral College

leave a comment »

Damn that antiquated constitution and it’s old fashioned rules regarding how we elect our leaders!

The political Left appears to be in all out war against the constitution, the Founders of our nation, and our history. They wish to pick and choose which parts they will adhere to and which parts they won’t depending on the political advantage or disadvantage said parts provide them…

Now they are after the Electoral College.Electoral College

Apparently the election of Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton so riled the Leftists that they are now convinced, after 230+ years of use, the Electoral College is no longer useful. They are convinced abolishing the Electoral College will solve all of their election woes (and put them solidly back in eternal power).

But in their rush to get rid of one of the oldest institutions in our political system, they are overlooking some significant consequences should they be able to do so. You see, the pendulum always swings back.

Tara Ross is a historical scholar on our Republican form of government, the constitution, and our Founders. This was taken from a Twitter thread by Ross. I encourage you to follow her on social media. You will learn much about America and its form of government.

The Founders created the Electoral College because they knew several things we seem to have forgotten:

  1. Simple democracies are dangerous.
  2. Bare or emotional majorities can tyrannize even large minority groups.
  3. Two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner is not a good system.

They understood that humans are fallible. Power corrupts. Ambition, selfishness, and greed are dangers to freedom. Some claim Founders were elitists who didn’t trust the people. NO. They didn’t trust ANYONE. Not the people, not elected officials, not states or feds. Checks & balances on EVERYONE.

Carol Berkin states this wonderfully, noting that delegates to the Constitutional Convention were the most likely men to be elected to the first Senate or as the first President, yet they still sat and debated how to put checks and balances on those offices because THEY DIDN’T TRUST THEMSELVES either.

The Electoral College serves us well. It has several benefits that go unrecognized. First it makes it harder to steal elections. You can’t steal an election unless you can steal votes in right state at the right time and during a close national election.

With a National Popular Vote system, any vote stolen anywhere affects national outcome. This is true even if the vote is easily stolen in a very safe blue or red state. This is a dangerous situation that the Electoral College protects us from today.

Second, the Electoral College rewards coalition-building. Perhaps that sounds weird after 2016? But NO ONE really focused on coalition building that year. The result? A close election. One party lost. The other mostly avoided losing. But, yes, there was a coalition and it won.

The coalition that won in 2016 consisted of a group of voters who grew tired of being ruled by DC elites. They felt ignored, unheard. They saw DC insiders living by one set of rules while they were forced to live by another. They were tired of being told what to think and tired of being called names simply because they didn’t agree with those elites.

Some of this coalition voted for Trump enthusiastically. Some held their noses and voted for him. But the coalition all agreed he was most likely to upset the status quo in D.C. and that gave Trump the White House. Right now, Democrats are very focused on eliminating the Electoral College they believe caused them to lose. But they’d be better off focusing on why they lost in first place. They should consider how they might reach out to the millions of voters who feel ignored. They should be searching for middle ground. They should focus on things that bring us together instead of things that drive us apart. They should figure out why they lost the trust of so many voters within their own ranks who crossed over.

They need to run a campaign more like FDR. If Democrats can find that nominee, they will win in a landslide in 2020 WITH the Electoral College firmly in place. Similarly, Republicans don’t have to be stuck in world where they barely win by the skin of their teeth each election. They too should find middle ground. How can they build coalitions? Earn trust? Figure that out and their will start winning again in Reagan-like landslides.

We need to stop going off in our partisan corners. Quit pointing fingers at the other side. Quit blaming the Electoral College for the party’s own failures. Instead focus on what your own party did wrong or right in 2016.

The first party to take hard look inward and fix its own flaws will start winning again. In landslides. Electoral College and all. We’ve been here before. After the Civil War, the country was sharply divided between North and South. But due to the Electoral College, both political parties were forced to move past that division or suffer massive defeat politically.

Pretty much whether they wanted to or not, Democrats in South simply couldn’t win without reaching a hand across the aisle. Republicans could win by relying on their safe areas, but just barely. Both sides had incentives to look at their own mistakes and figure out how to build better coalitions.

By the 1930s, of course, Democrats were winning in repeated landslides. The lesson? Remember that we live in a big, diverse country! Don’t force people into one-size-fits-all thinking. THAT is the lesson the Electoral College has taught over and over again, throughout our history.

Getting rid of the system now, when we are so angry and divided…. Well, it’s the worst possible solution. We’ll be stuck in this angry place forever. We are better off trying to remember why we have the Electoral College in first place.

Interestingly, there have been only five occasions in which a closely divided popular vote for the presidency and the Electoral College vote have failed to point in the same direction. 5 times in 235 years.

The Electoral College was designed by the framers deliberately, like the rest of the Constitution, to counteract the worst human impulses and protect the nation from the dangers inherent in democracy. The Electoral College is neither antiquated nor toxic; it is an under-appreciated institution that helps preserve our constitutional system, and it deserves a full-throated defense.

 

Written by DCL

May 21, 2019 at 3:59 pm

Posted in Politics

Tagged with ,

CBS News Reporter Confirms: News Media Has Leftwing Bias

leave a comment »

Lara Logan CBS NewsLara Logan may not be a household name in the world of journalism, but she has been a part of some well-known international news stories over the past decade.

Logan, who is from South Africa, began her news career there in Durban in 1990 and has worked for Reuters, ABC, NBC, and CBS as a freelance reporter internationally. In 2002 Logan was offered a correspondent position with CBS News where she spent most of her time on battlefields reporting in war zones around the world. Logan also made regular appearances on CBS 60 Minutes.

But Logan is perhaps best known for what happened to her off camera than on. In 2011 she was in Egypt covering the Egyptian revolution when she and her camera crew were arrested and detained by Egyptian police. They were later released but as they moved back into the streets a large group of Egyptian males encountered them and began to make lurid comments about Logan. Soon the crowd became aggressive and Logan was taken by the mob and sexually assaulted. She would later say she believed she was going to be killed. She spent several days in a US hospital upon her arrival from Egypt.

With nearly 30 years of journalistic experience at major news networks around the world, Logan is a prime candidate to speak on the subject of bias in the news industry. She sat down with retired Navy Seal Mike Ritland and was interviewed for Mike’s podcast “Mike Drop.” Logan had interviewed Ritland 6 years earlier for a segment on 60 Minutes. Now Logan was on the side being questioned.

Ritland has been a harsh critic of the American news media, calling it “absurdly left-leaning” and that “Democrat biases were a huge —-ing problem” and a disaster for the country. “I agree with that. That’s true,” Logan replied. She also implied it wasn’t just an American problem. “The media everywhere is mostly liberal, not just the U.S.,” she said. In the U.S., Logan says there are only a small number of news organizations that don’t march to the Leftist drumbeat. She cited Fox News and Breitbart as two examples.

In the podcast with Ritland, Logan talks about her experience in newsrooms.

“Visually, anyone who’s ever been to Israel and been to the Wailing Wall has seen that the women have this tiny little spot in front of the wall to pray, and the rest of the wall is for the men. To me, that’s a great representation of the American media, is that in this tiny little corner where the women pray you’ve got Breitbart and Fox News and a few others, and from there on, you have CBS, ABC, NBC, Huffington Post, Politico, whatever, right? All of them. And that’s a problem for me, because even if it was reversed, if it was vastly mostly on the right, that would also be a problem for me.”

“My experience has been that the more opinions you have, the more ways that you look at everything in life — everything in life is complicated, everything is gray, right? Nothing is black and white.”

“This is the problem that I have. There’s one Fox, and there’s many, many, many more organizations on the left. … The problem is the weight of all these organizations on one side of the political spectrum. When you turn on your computer, or you walk past the TV, or you see a newspaper headline in the grocery store If they’re all saying the same thing, the weight of that convinces you that it’s true. You don’t question it, because everyone is saying it. Unless you seek out Breitbart on your computer, you’re probably not even going to know what the other side is saying.”

She wonders how people can know what’s accurate and what’s not when so many news outlets are saying the exact same thing, in many cases word for word.

“How do you know you’re being lied to? How do you know you’re being manipulated? How do you know there’s something not right with the coverage?” she asked.

“When they simplify it all, there’s no gray. It’s all one way. Well, life isn’t like that. If it doesn’t match real life, it’s probably not. Something’s wrong. For example, all the coverage on Trump all the time is negative. … That’s a distortion of the way things go in real life.”

Logan continued, “Although the media has historically always been left-leaning, we’ve abandoned our pretense, or at least the effort, to be objective today. We’ve become political activists, and some could argue propagandists, and there’s some merit to that.”

Another major problem she sees is the use of anonymous sources, particularly in the government. “That’s not journalism, it’s horse shit,” she said. “Responsibility for fake news begins with us.”

At the end of the three hour and forty-nine minute interview, Logan said something that in itself is very revealing of the state of our free press in America. She said, “This interview is professional suicide for me.” A sad, but likely all too true, sentiment in the era of Trump and the news media.

Here is the full video of the interview from the Mike Drop podcast.

Written by DCL

February 19, 2019 at 10:45 am

Climate Changes… It’s Called Weather.

leave a comment »

We're all gonna die!I was born more than half a century ago.

Since that time major newspapers and news organizations along with numerous climate, environmental, and scientific groups have made claims and predictions that when viewed today are laughable, but when reported were considered very serious and in need of immediate attention and action.

During the past 50+ years of living on this planet the media has reported the following:

  • Global cooling. A new ice age was approaching. In fact scientists wrote Richard Nixon to warn him of the coming cold and ask for help reversing the impending frigid world. It was even suggested that soot be spread across the poles to melt the ice and slow down the process.
  • The Ozone Layer would soon disappear.
  • The oceans would be dead with no life left in them.
  • Acid rain would destroy all the forests.
  • Ecologist Kenneth Watt said, “By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil.”
  • Harvard biologist George Wald estimated that “civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”
  • “It is already too late to avoid mass starvation,” declared Denis Hayes, the chief organizer for Earth Day, in the Spring 1970 issue of The Living Wilderness.
  • The polar ice caps would completely melt causing the oceans to rise and swallow up places like Manhattan and huge chunks of the East and West Coasts.
  • In January 1970, Life reported, “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”
  • Kenneth Watt told Time that, “At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.”
  • Harrison Brown, a scientist at the National Academy of Sciences, published a chart in Scientific American that looked at metal reserves and estimated the humanity would totally run out of copper shortly after 2000. Lead, zinc, tin, gold, and silver would be gone before 1990.
  • In the 1970s Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, said he believed that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals would be extinct.
  • Decaying organic pollutants would use up all the oxygen in the rivers killing all fresh water fish.
  • Stanford University professor Paul Ehrlich, who is perhaps best known for his 1968 book The Population Bomb, predicted by the year 2000 the United Kingdom would be simply a small group of impoverished islands. He said, “England will not exist in the year 2000 and I give ten to one that the life of the average Briton would be of distinctly lower quality than it is today.” Today Ehrlich has latched on the to global warming hysteria claiming “humans may soon be forced to resort to cannibalism.”
  • The U.N. claimed by 2010 50 million refugees would be fleeing the sinking islands of the Caribbean, low-lying Pacific Islands, and coastal regions.
  • The North Pole was supposed to be “ice free” by 2013 according to Al Gore.
  • Polar bear numbers would dwindle to near extinction levels. They are currently at record level populations.

The list goes on.

But now, this time, 2018, we MUST listen to the climate alarmists. This is it. If Donald Trump doesn’t listen this time and do everything the climate changers say, we’re all doomed.

This is our last chance! (if you don’t count the 2015 Paris Summit when they said that was our last chance, or any of the last chances in this video)

If nothing else, these ridiculously dire and horribly wrong predictions tell us one thing, we’re not as smart as we think we are when it comes to this planet and the natural forces that make it what it is. Let’s consider every climate prediction with a healthy dose of skepticism and a willingness to search for information that can either corroborate or debunk such claims. In the meantime, try not to fall for the hype, hysteria, and spectacularly wrong apocalyptic predictions that are bound to continue, promoted by “environmental grievance hustlers” like the news media, Al Gore, and pretty much every Democrat in power.

 

 

Written by DCL

November 28, 2018 at 11:07 am