The media run cover for Biden, even lie for him, yet you think I’m reading to much into it.
Here come the lies, to cover for the Biden admin’s ineptitude. The same kind of never bad press the WaPo and their no big deal attitude give him. They aren’t the worst on this particular story, but there’s a definite history there. Now my opinion of them may be colored by their past lies, but I’m not taking these people at their word on anything.
The media has trashed their credibility, heck they gave themselves awards and even Pulitzers for the false Russia, Russia, Russia scam and have never retracted any of these false stories. Sorry, they have no credibility left, so they no longer get the benefit of the doubt.
What follows are numerous examples yet again where they just push the Dem narrative, the truth be damned.
Why is ABC’s Karl lying about his “unnamed” sources when it’s so easily refuted? Yet CYA mode is engaged across the press landscape.
Here is former Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe, telling @MariaBartiromo the Trump-era Chinese balloon incursions claimed by an unnamed Biden administration official did not happen: https://t.co/741fPoaZ9A
Ask yourself why @jonkarl would quote an anonymous official when every senior national security official in the Trump Administration is on the record saying Jon Karl is wrong. @abc has a serious credibility problem with Karl.
I'm sorry, but the idea that this happened multiple times during Trump and no one leaked it until just now is plainly ridiculous https://t.co/rSDHcZ0Nlq
“John Bolton, former Trump White House national security adviser, told Fox News Digital that he never heard of anything like this under his tenure.
“I don’t know of any balloon flights by any power over the United States during my tenure, and I’d never heard of any of that occurring before I joined in 2018,” Bolton said. “I haven’t heard of anything that occurred after I left either.”
Bolton said that if the Biden administration has “specific examples, they need to tell Congress.”
He added, “I can say with 100% certainty, not during my tenure.””
—-
This below is what’s known as “water carrying.”
“It’s actually good we let the spy mission complete instead of protecting national security.”
The media has earned my distrust. They did that. They’ve lied, cheated, slandered and libeled, yet never a retraction, or a mea culpa, never any reflection on why people like me think they’re trash.
The industry should police it’s own, yet they don’t. Ever.
“The media’s road to ruin its own credibility in war on Trump”
“Nearly seven years after most media abandoned standards of fairness in a stampede to defeat Donald Trump, it is widely accepted that those outlets can not be trusted to deliver accurate reports. Rather than perform the journalists’ duty of informing the public of news, many of today’s reporters and editors concoct narratives about events that consistently align with the agenda of the Democratic Party.
This overt embrace of partisanship is a major factor in two developments roiling the nation. The first is a hardening of polarization that deeply divides voters and leaves government unable to agree on solutions to even basic problems.
The second is that mistrust of the media is proving contagious, with Americans losing faith in most institutions, including those in the private sector as well as government.
Even the military, which long stood above the political fray, suffers from declining public trust, adding to fears that America is headed toward a second civil war and is more vulnerable to foreign adversaries.
Understanding this moment of peril is essential to appreciating the importance of a new work about how the media veered off track in its war against Trump. The author, veteran investigative journalist Jeff Gerth, follows the admonition to show readers what happened instead of merely telling them.
His exhaustive dissection in the Columbia Journalism Review is a case study that demonstrates in detail exactly where Big Media, especially The New York Times and Washington Post, made critical errors in their coverage of the Russian collusion story.
Naturally, all the key mistakes ran in the same direction. Most, including suggestions Trump and others committed treason, have never been corrected despite being proven to be false.
Times’ stubborn resolve
Gerth writes that even now, the Gray Lady brushes off his repeated questions about obvious inaccuracies with sweeping statements to the effect that “we stand by our reporting.”
In fact, the mountain of mistakes and exaggerations Gerth cites is so enormous that it had me thinking of “Scoop,” Evelyn Waugh’s satirical novel about shoddy journalism.
As in the 1938 book, fierce competition for the big story again resulted in sensational claims and assertions that were unrestrained by facts.
Thus, it is not incidental, as Gerth told me in an interview, that some people inside the Times early on “thought this was another Watergate and the paper was again getting beaten by The Washington Post.”
His subject is not virgin territory, of course, and many of us have written extensively about the disgraceful media performance that started during the 2016 campaign and continues. We now know that rupture with tradition was not a one-off, and the freedom from facts and fairness that marked the first Trump campaign coverage unleashed an unquenchable thirst for ideological combat.
Nearly every story in many outlets these days revolves around race, climate, transgenders or some other -ism that demands instant conformity with the far- left’s latest hobby horse. Meanwhile, the media act as battering rams against American history and culture, with law enforcement, the First Amendment and the nuclear family under assault.
Gerth’s work stands out as the definitive account of the origin of this modern nightmare and is uniquely valuable because he builds a brick-by-brick case. Reading the 26,000-word, multi-part project requires a commitment, but the payoff is total clarity.”
“Joe Biden Lawyers Likely Conducting Cleansing Operation Of Hunter-Related Material When Stumbled On Classified Docs
My interview on the Tony Katz Show: “this was a cleansing operation” to make it harder for Republicans to subpoena documents regarding Biden’s China and Ukraine dealings for his son. “And in the course of that cleansing operation, the Biden lawyers were like, oh crap, we’ve got classified documents in here. What do we do now? … I’d like to know what were in the documents that weren’t classified that .. are the real scandal here.”
“The segment on CRT is at the start, and the segment on classified documents starts at the 10:30 mark. Key takeaway on Biden is that the classified documents are a distraction, something I wrote about in The Unclassified Docs Biden’s Lawyers Were Searching May Be The Key To The Real Scandal
From the interview:
…. I’ve always argued, or at least argued for weeks, that I think the classified documents at the various Biden locations are the tail on the dog here.
I don’t think that when the lawyers originally discovered that there were classified documents at the UPenn satellite office in Washington, DC, I don’t think they were actually looking for classified documents. I think they were looking for things regarding Hunter Biden’s business dealings, Joe Biden’s dealings with foreign governments on behalf of Hunter Biden, that were in his vice presidential papers that were kept at UPenn.
I think they were looking for other things because they knew that Republicans were going to be taking over the Congress and would have subpoena power, and Republicans could subpoena UPenn to turn over all those documents and all those records. If the records are not physically at UPenn, Republicans in the House can’t [subpeona UPenn). They’d have to subpoena Biden, which raises all sorts of issues.
So I think that this was a cleansing operation conducted by Biden’s lawyers. Why else would lawyers be doing this rather than just hire a moving company and move the boxes? I think this was a cleansing operation. And in the course of that cleansing operation, the Biden lawyers were like, oh crap, we’ve got classified documents in here. What do we do now?
Well, they’re smart enough lawyers, they knew they couldn’t just throw them out. They knew they couldn’t. So they, they called their buddies, people they knew at DOJ and worked out turning them over.
So I don’t think this is really about Joe Biden having classified documents. I’d like to know what were in the documents that weren’t classified that have to do with his vice presidential dealings that could be extremely embarrassing and are the real scandal here. The real scandal here is that Joe Biden sold access to himself and maybe worse than access in order to benefit his family, particularly his son as the conduit ….
… it’s clear they are running scared. There is stuff out there that we don’t know about that probably will get Joe Biden impeached. As much as Republicans are hesitant to do it, I think his conduct was probably a lot worse and a lot more involved than we currently know. So the fact that Hunter Biden is trying to get people criminally charged, as I understand it from news reports, he’s saying, anyone who shares the information should be criminally charged. So this is another way they’re trying to spike the story. They’re trying to put reporters and conservatives and everybody that – look, you’re gonna be criminally prosecuted if you write about this, if you disclose it, if you tell people about it.
So this is another shutdown operation, and I think they are hiding something massive, more massive than we even know right now that is a complete scandal and really shows that Joe Biden breached his duty of loyalty to the United States. We don’t have that information yet, but you don’t act this way unless you’re hiding something”
—–
And where’s the media?
Running cover for Joe and staring at their feet. As usual.
“Officials in New York City finally managed to clear the mob of illegal migrants who had been protesting inside and in front of the Watson Hotel in Manhattan this week. Encouraged by liberal activists, the migrants were fighting the plan to move them to a new shelter that was established in Brooklyn. The protest was taking place in and around the formerly luxurious hotel that they had completely trashed. Some of the aforementioned activists were cheering the migrants on, but as the New York Post editorial board pointed out yesterday, a very different effect was being observed among members of the local community. The city has been emptying its coffers to give these illegal aliens free meals and fancy hotel rooms that previously cost upwards of $300 per night, and the migrants responded by trashing the neighborhood and refusing to clear out once new housing was arranged. Many in the community are rightly “fuming” over this and growing fed up with the situation.
Until Wednesday, everyone outside of the political and activist class was dumbfounded by both City Hall’s major largesse and activists’ extremism in fueling the migrants’ demands.
“Ingrates,” we heard New-Yorkers-in-the-street describe the migrants who refused transfer from the hotel to the Brooklyn center. These men (all single) enjoyed $300-a-night private rooms (with bath and shower) in the heart of Midtown, luxuries most taxpayers envy.
It’s “bulls—,” fumed Bonfilio Solis, a Mexican immigrant who owns a remodeling business. He told The Post that the migrants were being “very disrespectful.”
Mr. Bonfilio Solis (mentioned above) is an excellent example of the people who have had it with the migrants. He was recently interviewed by the newspaper and his story is noteworthy. Solis is an immigrant himself, but he and his family came into the country legally, worked toward gaining citizenship and built up a remodeling business in Manhattan. Now he is watching his neighborhood being trashed by a bunch of people he sees as freeloaders.
This is a mistake that liberal Democrats (like the ones encouraging the migrants to protest) seem to make over and over again. They simply assume that if a Hispanic person comes into the country they will automatically become a Democrat and support any form of immigration. But the people who come here and work hard to build up the community do not appreciate seeing it torn down in this fashion.
Imagine all of the people who had to scrape and save to get by after arriving in America. In the past few months, they have seen the migrants being showered with “free stuff.” And we’re not just talking about free meals and rooms. As the Post points out, many of them have been getting free “health care, haircuts, cellphones, ping-pong tables and Xboxes.”
The message has been sinking in. A recent poll from Quinnipiac found that 70 percent (!) of voters in New York City agree the wave of migrants is a “crisis” and that the city does not have the resources to deal with them. They also agree with a proposal by Mayor Adams to begin shipping the migrants to the upstate region. Speaking as a resident of upstate myself, you need to come up with a different plan. We don’t want them either and we have even fewer resources to care for them.
There is still no end in sight when it comes to these problems and there won’t be until the border is secured and the flood of migrants slows back down. In the meantime, judging by the latest polling numbers, all that these open border policies are doing is creating a lot more Republicans and conservatives in a city that’s traditionally been ruled entirely by liberal Democrats.”
“It’s a sign of just how awful a president Joe Biden has been: despite a substantial part of the country hating Trump with a rage usually reserved for serial killers, he might still beat Biden at the polls in 2024.
We all know Trump’s strengths and weaknesses, with each being extraordinary to find in politicians. He is to liberals what Hillary Clinton is to conservatives, which is why so many conservatives would prefer a different candidate.
But the latest ABC News poll may help Trump assuage the fears of some conservatives that Trump is just too…Trump…to win in 2024. Were that to come to pass, he could thank Joe Biden’s incompetence for the opportunity.
Four in 10 Americans say they’ve gotten worse off financially since Joe Biden became president, the most in ABC News/Washington Post polls dating back 37 years. Political fallout includes poor performance ratings for Biden and a tight hypothetical Biden/Trump rematch next year.
Given disaffection with both leaders, a rerun of the 2020 presidential election is hardly enticing: Nearly six in 10 Democratic-aligned adults don’t want to see Biden nominated again for the job, and half on the Republican side would rather not see Donald Trump as their party’s nominee.
If those were the choices and the election were today, the poll suggests it could be close: Among all adults, 48 percent support Donald Trump and 44 percent are for Biden; it’s a similar 48-45 percent among registered voters. The differences are within the poll’s margin of sampling error.
It’s conventional wisdom, based upon decades of experience, that presidents rise and fall based on the economy. When people are doing well, they re-elect presidents. When people are worse off, they vote for the other guy.
With 41% of Americans saying they are worse off–the worst performance ever in the history of the poll–Biden is in trouble. Assuming that Republicans can get their act together when it comes to driving voters to the polls, or at least the mailbox.
The big hit on Biden is the economy: With inflation moderating but still high, 41 percent say they’re not as well off financially as they were when Biden took office, the most in nearly three dozen ABC/Post polls to ask the question since 1986, when Ronald Reagan, who popularized the “better off” phrase, held office. Just 16 percent in this poll, produced for ABC by Langer Research Associates, say they’re better off.
By contrast, nearly two years into Trump’s presidency, far fewer – 13 percent – said they’d gotten worse off; more, 25 percent, were in better shape financially.”
“On Tuesday, President Joe Biden will deliver his second State of the Union address, making the case that the economy has done well under his leadership. That will be a hard sell to most Americans because, as the latest I&I/TIPP Poll shows, a solid majority say they are worse off financially than they were two years ago.
The online I&I/TIPP Poll asked 1,358 Americans a simple question: “Are you better off today than you were two years ago, or not?” Possible responses were “Yes, better off,” “No, not better off,” and “Not sure.” The poll, which was taken from Feb. 1-3, has a margin of error of +/-2.8 percentage points.
By 61% to 33%, Americans overwhelmingly picked “No, not better off” over “Yes, better off.” Just 6% said they weren’t sure.
Not surprisingly, Republicans overwhelmingly say they are not better off (76% “not better off” vs. 21% “better off”). But so does a super majority of independents (71% to 20%). Even among Democrats, few are celebrating. The poll found that less than half (49%) said they are better off, while 45% say they are not better off.”
“Without much fanfare, earlier this week Jeff Gerth, a Pulitzer-Prize winning former New York Times investigative reporter, dropped a thorough and damning four-part article dissecting the media’s obsessive reporting on Donald Trump’s alleged collusion with Russia. Even more surprising, Gerth’s report, “The press versus the president,” appeared at the in-house organ of America’s most prestigious journalism school, Columbia Journalism Review, which has long been regarded as something of an unofficial ombudsman for the media industry.
If CJR is finally comfortable admitting that the media’s Russiagate reporting was so scandalously bad that it damns the entire industry, that seems like a remarkable admission.
On Twitter, Glenn Greenwald, a left-leaning reporter who made some significant career sacrifices for calling out the media’s bogus reporting on this topic, declared Gerth’s reporting “absolutely devastating on how casually, frequently, recklessly and eagerly the press lied on Russiagate.” Gerth lays out what happened so clearly that it’s hard to imagine fair-minded readers who make it through all 24,000 words of Gerth’s report would conclude any differently. Personally, I’m proud to say that the work of RealClearInvestigations – and my colleagues there, Tom Kuntz, Aaron Mate, and Paul Sperry – are all cited favorably by Gerth as one of the few media outlets that consistently got the story right.
However, as someone who spent much of his time during the Trump years engaged in substantive reporting that questioned and debunked the Russia collusion narrative, my reaction was, well, anger. It’s an emotion not directed at Gerth, who has done courageous work. But the fact that this piece is appearing two years after Trump left office and nearly five years after special prosecutor Robert Mueller failed to substantiate years of anonymously sourced speculation about Russia collusion is a searing indictment in itself.
To start, Gerth demonstrates the media still won’t grapple with the truth. His piece is peppered with big-name reporters and major publications refusing to comment on basic errors or dubious or unethical judgments. Gerth did manage to get Bob Woodward, the dashboard saint of journalism, on the record condemning the media’s failures here. While that’s a notable concession, if respected figures such as Woodward harbored doubts about the media’s conduct, they should have been a lot more vocal – and much earlier.
It’s also understandable why Gerth would want to keep his report narrowly focused on the facts of what transpired. But without any substantive discussion of the media’s motives it’s hard to draw any important lessons from this sorry saga. Gerth does point out that Russiagate has led to an erosion of trust in the media and offers a pallid warning that the media’s “failure will almost certainly shape the coverage of what lies ahead.”
But this is inadequate. Devoid of any broader context about the long history manipulations of America’s national security state or the corporate media’s evolution into ham-fisted left-wing ideologues, one can read Gerth’s dry reporting as a comedy of errors: A bunch of well-intentioned reporters, faced with the challenge of covering a problematic president – and disingenuous Democrats and partisan law enforcement officials – kept bungling the reporting, by getting key facts wrong and committing serious sins of omission.
However, the missing motive suggests something far more sinister. The media’s Russiagate coverage hinged on being extremely trusting of officials in national security and law enforcement agencies that have historically undermined the press and been hostile to civil rights. There’s a saying in traditional journalism – “If your mother says she loves you, check it out.” Yet, when “deep state” actors with an obvious animus for Donald Trump pushed the narrative that a sitting U.S. president was compromised by a foreign power, a story so explosive it demanded to be thoroughly vetted every step of the way, the mainstream media instead decided to become stenographers.
The blizzard of details necessary to explain the Russia collusion story might also make it seem like discerning the truth was more difficult than it was. If your willingness to believe that Trump was compromised by Russia started out as a political Rorschach test, it quickly became an IQ exam.
Starting before Trump was even inaugurated in January 2017, it was reported that the Logan Act was being used as a predicate to investigate Trump’s incoming national security adviser, Michael Flynn. The Logan Act is to national security laws what phrenology is to medical science – it’s a never-enforced 1799 statute that says it’s illegal for private citizens to negotiate with foreign governments. Laughed at by constitutional scholars, it’s routinely violated and invariably ignored.
Except that several major media outlets credulously reported on Flynn’s alleged Logan Act violations as if they were a potentially serious transgressions, when it should have been obvious that invoking this ancient and discredited statute was a desperate attempt to justify a politically motivated investigation. What happened to Flynn is just one example out of many where the press inexcusably disregarded glaring truths.
Gerth, to his credit, does a fine job unpacking the story of how Flynn was railroaded by the Justice Department, as well as the absurd credulity of the press regarding the so-called “dossier” on Trump, an obviously untrustworthy document produced by partisan political enemies of the president. Nonetheless, most of Gerth’s examples of questionable interactions between the press and government sources require reading between the lines to assess just how willfully blind the press was to the possibility of law enforcement officials abusing their power.”
“When President Joe Biden stands before Congress and issues his State of the Union address Tuesday night, he will proclaim victory on the nation’s economy. Most Americans are going to wonder what country he’s talking about.
Yes, the jobs market is strong, and that’s good news. But sorry, Mr. President: The American economy is not strong. It isn’t even good.
The last two years have been pretty rotten on almost every metric: the squeeze on family finances, inflation, immigration, declining test scores in schools, the budget deficit and debt, out-of-control government.
Here are six fibs you’re very likely to hear the president recite Tuesday night. They should be tagged with the label of the left’s favorite word this year: “disinformation.”
1) Biden has reduced the budget deficit by $1.4 trillion.
Actually, no president in modern times even comes close to Biden in terms of fiscal recklessness. In his first two years, the national debt has risen by more than $4.2 trillion. That’s more than in any two-year period in American history.
The deficit shot into the fiscal stratosphere of $2.8 trillion in his first year in office, and in 2022 it was still at one of history’s highest levels, $1.4 trillion. Last year, our debt as a share of our gross domestic product hit an all-time high of 129%. Biden is like a schoolkid celebrating an improved report card because the first semester he got an F but the second semester a D-.
2) Biden inherited an economy in freefall.
Wrong. When COVID hit these shores in early 2020, the economy was shut down in the face of the once-in-a-half-century pandemic. But by 2020’s second half, the economy soared by more than 20%, and millions of Americans were moving back into their jobs. This was a historic recovery.
One week after the election, thanks to Operation Warp Speed, the COVID vaccine was announced, which set the table for an even stronger recovery. Instead, the economy has been limping forward with a weakling economic growth rate last year of 1.5%.
3) Inflation was high when Biden entered office.
Biden’s economic lies show he’s either a deluded narcissist or a total fraud
Huh? The average inflation rate during the Trump presidency was 2%, and in January 2021, the month Biden entered office, inflation was 1.4%. Eighteen months later, in summer 2022, inflation rose above 9% — the highest in 40 years. It ended the year at 6.5%. Food prices are still so high that CNBC just reported: “Amid food inflation, more shoppers turn to dollar stores for groceries.””
So did they not inform the president when it happened, which would be unheard of, or are they lying?
Every piece of bad news about the Trump administration immediately leaked to the press. Except 3 Chinese spy balloons. We only learned about that when the Biden administration embarrassed themselves by allowing one to fly over our country.
The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff admitted that he would warn China before Trump attacked and he’s the same guy who just advised Biden not to shoot down a Chinese spy balloon until it completed its mission.
The Chinese spy balloon incursion is already a very serious matter. But now there are new issues raised by the conduct of top Biden administration officials. When they sought political cover, the questions got more troubling. https://t.co/QzI7NUyV24
“Meanwhile, Biden administration defense officials, along with top military officers, began to tell the press that the balloon affair was nothing new, that it had in fact happened not one, not two, but three times during the Trump administration, and that President Donald Trump did not shoot down any of those balloons. “[Chinese] government surveillance balloons transited the continental United States briefly at least three times during the prior administration,” a senior defense official told reporters at an on-background briefing Saturday. A Pentagon publication, DOD News, reported the same thing, apparently quoting the same unnamed official.
Given that, three incursions during the Trump years that nobody got too worked up about, why are people so upset about this particular Chinese balloon taking the grand tour across the U.S., from the mountains of Montana to the beaches of South Carolina?
But a big question lingered: Was the Biden account actually true? Former Trump official after former Trump official quickly said wait a minute, this did not happen. In a phone conversation, Robert O’Brien, the national security adviser from 2019 to 2021, said, “I unequivocally can tell you I was not made aware of any flights over U.S. territory, nor was my staff, including those who were at the National Security Council all four years of the Trump administration.” Then, John Bolton, O’Brien’s predecessor, told Fox News, “I don’t know of any balloon flights by any power over the United States during my tenure, and I’d never heard of any of that occurring before I joined in 2018. I haven’t heard of anything that occurred after I left, either. I can say with 100% certainty, not during my tenure.”
Other top officials said the same thing. Former Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe said it did not happen. So did former acting DNI Richard Grenell. So did former CIA Director and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. So did former Defense Secretary Mark Esper. And former acting Defense Secretary Chris Miller. And former vice presidential national security adviser Keith Kellogg. And Trump himself.
Some of the former officials called each other to compare notes. “Am I missing something?” one asked another. “Do you remember anything like this?” Nobody had any knowledge of it happening.
It seemed amazing. After all, the Chinese spy balloon shot down on Saturday was very large. People saw it from the ground. Airline pilots noticed it. In fact, it first came to public knowledge when a member of the public spotted it over Montana, and the local paper published a photo. Did the Biden administration mean to say that had happened three times during the Trump years and nobody noticed?
As it turned out, yes. On Sunday, administration sources began to tell reporters that, yes, the Chinese incursions had happened during the Trump years but that nobody knew about them. And not just nobody in the sense of the public. Nobody in the government’s vast military intelligence and surveillance apparatus noticed them, either. They all missed the giant Chinese balloons.
“Those previous balloon flights were much shorter in duration, possibly explaining why some went undetected at the time,” the Wall Street Journal reported, citing “senior administration officials.” “One official said that much of the information on the flights was pieced together later.”
“They went undetected,” a senior administration official told Fox News. “This information was discovered after the [Trump] administration left.” Only then, the official said, did the Biden administration piece it all together and realize that the Chinese had been sending massive balloons over the U.S., and nobody, citizen or military intelligence, noticed.
A slightly different story emerged in the Washington Post, which reported that the Pentagon knew of “past Chinese surveillance balloons near Florida and Texas.” Wait a minute: Near Florida and Texas? What does near mean? Were the balloons over those states? Were they offshore but over U.S. territorial waters? The Washington Post suggested the Pentagon was not being entirely clear. “The Defense Department was not specific about where in each state the previous incursions occurred,” the paper reported, citing Rep. Michael Waltz, a Republican on the House Armed Services Committee. “[Waltz] added that officials did not say whether the balloons made it into U.S. airspace, which extends 12 nautical miles from the shore, or over U.S. territory, too.” That’s an important distinction, isn’t it? Were the previously undiscovered balloons over U.S. territory or not?
At this point, nothing is clear. In a text exchange, one Capitol Hill Republican, eager to question the administration on events, saw three possible explanations. One, the Defense Department is “conflating wildly different incidents, that is, balloons around Hawaii or Key West vs. crossing middle America,” a conflation he called “partisan spin.” Two, the Pentagon really did only figure out that the Chinese were flying over the continental U.S. after the fact, which he called “a huge military intelligence failure.” Or three, the military actually tracked the flights at the time but failed to inform civilian leadership of what was happening, which he called “a huge civilian-military scandal if so.”
The answers are urgently needed. Allowing a large, highly visible airship presumably packed with intelligence equipment from a foreign adversary to saunter across the U.S. is a big, big deal. It doesn’t matter that Biden’s State of the Union address is scheduled for Tuesday and the White House would like to downplay attention to the balloon matter. Answers are needed now.
For a deeper dive into many of the topics covered in the Daily Memo, please listen to my podcast, The Byron York Show — available on the Ricochet Audio Network and everywhere else podcasts can be found. You can use this link to subscribe.
“Those previous balloon flights were much shorter in duration, possibly explaining why some went undetected at the time,” the Wall Street Journal reported, citing “senior administration officials.” “One official said that much of the information on the flights was pieced together later.”
“They went undetected,” a senior administration official told Fox News. “This information was discovered after the [Trump] administration left.” Only then, the official said, did the Biden administration piece it all together and realize that the Chinese had been sending massive balloons over the U.S., and nobody, citizen or military intelligence, noticed.
A slightly different story emerged in the Washington Post, which reported that the Pentagon knew of “past Chinese surveillance balloons near Florida and Texas.” Wait a minute: Near Florida and Texas? What does near mean? Were the balloons over those states? Were they offshore but over U.S. territorial waters? The Washington Post suggested the Pentagon was not being entirely clear. “The Defense Department was not specific about where in each state the previous incursions occurred,” the paper reported, citing Rep. Michael Waltz, a Republican on the House Armed Services Committee. “[Waltz] added that officials did not say whether the balloons made it into U.S. airspace, which extends 12 nautical miles from the shore, or over U.S. territory, too.” That’s an important distinction, isn’t it? Were the previously undiscovered balloons over U.S. territory or not?
At this point, nothing is clear. In a text exchange, one Capitol Hill Republican, eager to question the administration on events, saw three possible explanations. One, the Defense Department is “conflating wildly different incidents, that is, balloons around Hawaii or Key West vs. crossing middle America,” a conflation he called “partisan spin.” Two, the Pentagon really did only figure out that the Chinese were flying over the continental U.S. after the fact, which he called “a huge military intelligence failure.” Or three, the military actually tracked the flights at the time but failed to inform civilian leadership of what was happening, which he called “a huge civilian-military scandal if so.”
——
So they’re lying, or grossly incompetent, neither being a good look.
Lol they are really running with the 'Trump did it too' narrative when they don't have even one photo, video from the ground, local media reports, etc of any balloons
Everyone would remember this had it happened
Great litmus test for who can spot propaganda and who guzzles it
“U.S. looked at a lot of countries where Khan might be transferred, factoring in locations that have a good relationship—and have the ability to support the individual, including any medical or security requirements.”
J6 political prisoners would like a word @SecBlinken
Chinese espionage is a very real threat. That’s why President Trump established a special initiative at the Department of Justice tasked with the sole mission of targeting Chinese espionage in the United States.
BREAKING: The Pentagon briefed Biden last Saturday that the Chinese had violated our airspace with a spy craft, but Biden waited until Wednesday to order the Pentagon to shoot it down, and the Pentagon waited until Saturday to follow his order
“Panel that awarded Pulitzers for Russiagate stories mum after scathing exposé on reporting failures
The “Russiagate” narrative, which permeated mainstream news coverage during the Trump years, was dismantled in an exhaustive four-part series in the Columbia Journalism Review by investigative reporter Jeff Gerth.”
“The panel that awarded Pulitzer Prizes to the New York Times and Washington Post for reporting related to the discredited Trump-Russia collusion narrative has gone mum as it faces new scrutiny following publication of a four-part series in the Columbia Journalism Review (CJR) documenting the establishment media pillars’ lapses from their claimed journalistic standards.
The 19-member Pulitzer Prize board for 2017-2018 was comprised of various journalists, professors and writers, including several current or former staff members of the New York Times or Washington Post.
Just The News reached out to 13 members of the panel to find out if the CJR exposé had prompted second thoughts about the Russiagate prizes. Neil Brown, president of the Poynter Institute had an auto reply set, saying he was out of the office, while Steve Coll, former dean of Columbia Journalism School, had an auto-reply saying he is on sabbatical. None of the other board members replied.
In response to a request for comment on the CJR series, Pulitzer Prize Administrator Majorie Miller wrote, “Due to pending litigation regarding these matters, I am not able to comment on the story.”
After the Pulitzer board initially stood by its Russigate awards, former President Donald Trump — the central target of the narrative, which grew out of opposition research commissioned by his 2016 opponent Hillary Clinton — filed a defamation lawsuit against them in December, following a request to reconsider the prizes.”
“And sometimes you don’t see it because it’s what you’re immersed in and surrounded by.
And yes, it is exhausting that you never seem to catch it.”
That was quite rude. Quite frankly, we see you being immersed in what seems to be mostly the far-right sources. You seem to see what you expect to see in various posts and comments, not always what is actually there.
For example, there have been several times when you have labeled and dismissed HRW as a “typical leftie” for a comment of his, but you completely missed what he was actually saying, merely assuming that he was taking the “typical leftie” view of a certain issue when he was in fact not doing so.
What is “exhausting” to some of us is that you make it seem like this is a place for discussion, but then beat down anyone who dares to have a different perspective. Perhaps that is why this thread rarely gets any comments besides your own? It is not a safe place to offer any different perspectives. And that is pretty sad.
I enjoy coming here occasionally to see a hearty “right” take on current events. HRW often provides a left leaning foil to the right leaning view. And he seems to be able to take the disagreement without becoming whiny. As a Canadian, I hope he knows his unique perspective is valued without having to tip a hat and take a formal bow to be acknowledged.
NancyJill @9:07 Interesting article. I would never have known about the ad campaign if you hadn’t posted, as I don’t watch the super bowl. But I can remember the ads being a big deal.
I think people around here have done similar ads on billboards.
Debra – I’m not sure if this – ” And he seems to be able to take the disagreement without becoming whiny. As a Canadian, I hope he knows his unique perspective is valued without having to tip a hat and take a formal bow to be acknowledged.” – was in any way a reference to my comment or if it was not related at all, but just in case it was, or someone else takes it to be that. . .
Yes, HRW is a class act in that he offers his comments intelligently and respectfully, despite his comments often being dismissed out of hand.
All DJ and I wanted was to be able to occasionally offer a differing perspective (even still within the realm of some conservative perspectives) without rude, dismissive replies. Disagreement? That’s fine. Respectful disagreement is possible. Ignore our comments? That’s fine, too. (“If you can’t say anything nice, don’t say anything at all.” 🙂 )
There are at least two people that I know of who have left the blog because of the tone on the news thread, and another that I suspect that this is true of. So this is not just a complaint of mine or DJ’s. But we have finally learned our lesson, and will be mostly staying away from this thread.
We’re just hoping this can be a place where other views will be freely shared and, if there is opposition (please, of course), that it’s respectful of the posters and not offered in a tone that clearly implies no other views are particularly welcome here and if you post them, well, you’re an idiot or a tool.
On a Christian site, that should not be a high bar to meet.
Is there tolerance for other views without name calling or an unduly harsh backlash? Are the issues debated logically or are people just ridiculed in what amount to weak (but hurtful at times) ad hominem attacks?
If the thread is meant for one particular viewpoint, the thread should be re-labeled as the host’s “views” and we’ll gladly stay clear. But I didn’t have that impression before (though now somewhat do).
The article I shared yesterday was not even addressed, there was nothing presented supporting the critique being made which was basically just a general side-swipe. Because there wasn’t anything there to base that criticism on. That’s not a reasonable debate. It’s not a debate at all, really.
And yes, it’s frustrating.
Most of us here are conservative. Some are much more to the right than others especially when it comes to the nuts and bolts of today’s over-heated political environment.
But some of us enjoy — and are not offended by — a mix of views. Christians do not walk in lock-step, politically. I wonder how the upcoming election will play out here, whether we can discuss it calmly or not?
As for issues (but also candidates, I suppose), there’s room for good faith disagreement on many fronts. Sometimes, some of us just like to post things that might be of interest to others and maybe thought-provoking; points of information, not opinion. It’s not meant to inflame, but it too often does.
We’ve tried to be respectful in what we’ve posted.
And, please, we are not whining.
We’re “just saying.”
I’m fine staying clear of this part of the blog if the host wants it to reflect the only social media-style, far-right views. That’s his prerogative, we’re guests. If this thread/room in the house is meant to be for restricted use only, I’m sure most of us will respect that.
We don’t wish to be disruptive or overly critical. But these issue have been brewing a while and, as Kizzie pointed out, even have led to some defection from the blog altogether.
I should add, of course, that we all appreciate what goes into putting this site together each day and we are all appreciative to AJ for that. We’re a community; sometimes things just need to get hashed out and worked out in the best of families.
I have occasionally stayed away even from sites or threads that I completely agreed with just because sometimes I simply don’t want to think that hard or seriously or even about depressing things. Sometimes I want to just think peaceful beautiful thoughts. Politics is not generally a peaceful or beautiful topic.
I am truly amazed at AJ’s ability to wade through all of this muck every single day. I couldn’t do it. My hat’s off to you AJ…(figuratively, I wear a head over at work.). 😄
Popping in for just a second as neighbors will be here for dinner but….,
Aj is passionate about falsehood being spewed by oh so many and I for one can relate! Off the charts with most news outlets … gotta scoot but had to put in my pennies worth🥴
NancyJill – DJ and I are not referring to that kind of thing. We are referring to him often being insulting to some of us here on the blog. And as Christians, we are supposed to rein in our passions, not give them full vent.
But here’s the question: How should honest differences of opinion here be treated?
Not all of us think in lockstep, it’s simply not the real world — nor is it expected that all Christians will have the same views on civic “politics,” the down-and-dirty end of it.
Issues? We probably mostly agree on, but not always there either. Is that acceptable? Or not?
Actually, “dispassionate” is one of my favorite terms these days, my pastor will use it often when speaking of the demeanor we should have in the face of disagreements or in debates (he’s a frequent and accomplished debater, always so gracious to his opponents — and that works wonders, keeps the focus on the issues, not on how much one guy hates another guy or who has the cleverest gotcha line).
Neighbors are all gone now and I am piping in again. Who says we as believers should reign in our passions? And is not one of the fruits of the spirit faithfulness? Faithful to truth rooted in knowing and discerning good over evil? Shall we then not speak truth? I think I am confused about the issue here .
NancyJill, Fervor is good and I think Jesus wants us passionate about our work and about our attachment to truth:
“I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other!
So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth.
” Rev 3:15-16
DJ and Kizzie
No one here is trying to offend anyone. It’s not healthy to search for reasons to be offended with each other. Neither is it Biblical or righteous. Iron sharpens iron. Iron doesn’t sharpen a reed, but cuts it down for the fire. We need to be more like iron and less like reeds blowing in the wind. Let’s allow ourselves to be sharpened. That means allowing the uncomfortable trimming away of small pieces of ourselves so that we can be the most fit and useful version of us for the Lord. I have experienced this myself on the news thread and in other places from time to time. It’s not particularly pleasant sometimes, but it’s useful.
Wandering Views 
This is what I see DJ, water carrying.
The media run cover for Biden, even lie for him, yet you think I’m reading to much into it.
Here come the lies, to cover for the Biden admin’s ineptitude. The same kind of never bad press the WaPo and their no big deal attitude give him. They aren’t the worst on this particular story, but there’s a definite history there. Now my opinion of them may be colored by their past lies, but I’m not taking these people at their word on anything.
The media has trashed their credibility, heck they gave themselves awards and even Pulitzers for the false Russia, Russia, Russia scam and have never retracted any of these false stories. Sorry, they have no credibility left, so they no longer get the benefit of the doubt.
What follows are numerous examples yet again where they just push the Dem narrative, the truth be damned.
Why is ABC’s Karl lying about his “unnamed” sources when it’s so easily refuted? Yet CYA mode is engaged across the press landscape.
And then when they’re called on it, they change the story.
Even Bolton, certainly no fan of Trump, denies this. But the media’s go to is always how can we blame Trump?
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-top-national-security-officials-refute-claim-chinese-spy-balloons-transited-us-under-last-admin
“John Bolton, former Trump White House national security adviser, told Fox News Digital that he never heard of anything like this under his tenure.
“I don’t know of any balloon flights by any power over the United States during my tenure, and I’d never heard of any of that occurring before I joined in 2018,” Bolton said. “I haven’t heard of anything that occurred after I left either.”
Bolton said that if the Biden administration has “specific examples, they need to tell Congress.”
He added, “I can say with 100% certainty, not during my tenure.””
—-
This below is what’s known as “water carrying.”
And another…
Seeing it yet? Again, WaPo wasn’t this obvious, but it was there to a lesser degree.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The media has earned my distrust. They did that. They’ve lied, cheated, slandered and libeled, yet never a retraction, or a mea culpa, never any reflection on why people like me think they’re trash.
The industry should police it’s own, yet they don’t. Ever.
“The media’s road to ruin its own credibility in war on Trump”
https://nypost.com/2023/02/04/the-medias-road-to-ruin-its-own-credibility-in-war-on-trump/
“Nearly seven years after most media abandoned standards of fairness in a stampede to defeat Donald Trump, it is widely accepted that those outlets can not be trusted to deliver accurate reports. Rather than perform the journalists’ duty of informing the public of news, many of today’s reporters and editors concoct narratives about events that consistently align with the agenda of the Democratic Party.
This overt embrace of partisanship is a major factor in two developments roiling the nation. The first is a hardening of polarization that deeply divides voters and leaves government unable to agree on solutions to even basic problems.
The second is that mistrust of the media is proving contagious, with Americans losing faith in most institutions, including those in the private sector as well as government.
Even the military, which long stood above the political fray, suffers from declining public trust, adding to fears that America is headed toward a second civil war and is more vulnerable to foreign adversaries.
Understanding this moment of peril is essential to appreciating the importance of a new work about how the media veered off track in its war against Trump. The author, veteran investigative journalist Jeff Gerth, follows the admonition to show readers what happened instead of merely telling them.
His exhaustive dissection in the Columbia Journalism Review is a case study that demonstrates in detail exactly where Big Media, especially The New York Times and Washington Post, made critical errors in their coverage of the Russian collusion story.
Naturally, all the key mistakes ran in the same direction. Most, including suggestions Trump and others committed treason, have never been corrected despite being proven to be false.
Times’ stubborn resolve
Gerth writes that even now, the Gray Lady brushes off his repeated questions about obvious inaccuracies with sweeping statements to the effect that “we stand by our reporting.”
In fact, the mountain of mistakes and exaggerations Gerth cites is so enormous that it had me thinking of “Scoop,” Evelyn Waugh’s satirical novel about shoddy journalism.
As in the 1938 book, fierce competition for the big story again resulted in sensational claims and assertions that were unrestrained by facts.
Thus, it is not incidental, as Gerth told me in an interview, that some people inside the Times early on “thought this was another Watergate and the paper was again getting beaten by The Washington Post.”
His subject is not virgin territory, of course, and many of us have written extensively about the disgraceful media performance that started during the 2016 campaign and continues. We now know that rupture with tradition was not a one-off, and the freedom from facts and fairness that marked the first Trump campaign coverage unleashed an unquenchable thirst for ideological combat.
Nearly every story in many outlets these days revolves around race, climate, transgenders or some other -ism that demands instant conformity with the far- left’s latest hobby horse. Meanwhile, the media act as battering rams against American history and culture, with law enforcement, the First Amendment and the nuclear family under assault.
Gerth’s work stands out as the definitive account of the origin of this modern nightmare and is uniquely valuable because he builds a brick-by-brick case. Reading the 26,000-word, multi-part project requires a commitment, but the payoff is total clarity.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Gee, ya’ think? 🙄
“Joe Biden Lawyers Likely Conducting Cleansing Operation Of Hunter-Related Material When Stumbled On Classified Docs
My interview on the Tony Katz Show: “this was a cleansing operation” to make it harder for Republicans to subpoena documents regarding Biden’s China and Ukraine dealings for his son. “And in the course of that cleansing operation, the Biden lawyers were like, oh crap, we’ve got classified documents in here. What do we do now? … I’d like to know what were in the documents that weren’t classified that .. are the real scandal here.”
https://legalinsurrection.com/2023/02/joe-biden-lawyers-likely-conducting-cleansing-operation-of-hunter-related-material-when-stumbled-on-classified-docs/
“The segment on CRT is at the start, and the segment on classified documents starts at the 10:30 mark. Key takeaway on Biden is that the classified documents are a distraction, something I wrote about in The Unclassified Docs Biden’s Lawyers Were Searching May Be The Key To The Real Scandal
From the interview:
…. I’ve always argued, or at least argued for weeks, that I think the classified documents at the various Biden locations are the tail on the dog here.
I don’t think that when the lawyers originally discovered that there were classified documents at the UPenn satellite office in Washington, DC, I don’t think they were actually looking for classified documents. I think they were looking for things regarding Hunter Biden’s business dealings, Joe Biden’s dealings with foreign governments on behalf of Hunter Biden, that were in his vice presidential papers that were kept at UPenn.
I think they were looking for other things because they knew that Republicans were going to be taking over the Congress and would have subpoena power, and Republicans could subpoena UPenn to turn over all those documents and all those records. If the records are not physically at UPenn, Republicans in the House can’t [subpeona UPenn). They’d have to subpoena Biden, which raises all sorts of issues.
So I think that this was a cleansing operation conducted by Biden’s lawyers. Why else would lawyers be doing this rather than just hire a moving company and move the boxes? I think this was a cleansing operation. And in the course of that cleansing operation, the Biden lawyers were like, oh crap, we’ve got classified documents in here. What do we do now?
Well, they’re smart enough lawyers, they knew they couldn’t just throw them out. They knew they couldn’t. So they, they called their buddies, people they knew at DOJ and worked out turning them over.
So I don’t think this is really about Joe Biden having classified documents. I’d like to know what were in the documents that weren’t classified that have to do with his vice presidential dealings that could be extremely embarrassing and are the real scandal here. The real scandal here is that Joe Biden sold access to himself and maybe worse than access in order to benefit his family, particularly his son as the conduit ….
… it’s clear they are running scared. There is stuff out there that we don’t know about that probably will get Joe Biden impeached. As much as Republicans are hesitant to do it, I think his conduct was probably a lot worse and a lot more involved than we currently know. So the fact that Hunter Biden is trying to get people criminally charged, as I understand it from news reports, he’s saying, anyone who shares the information should be criminally charged. So this is another way they’re trying to spike the story. They’re trying to put reporters and conservatives and everybody that – look, you’re gonna be criminally prosecuted if you write about this, if you disclose it, if you tell people about it.
So this is another shutdown operation, and I think they are hiding something massive, more massive than we even know right now that is a complete scandal and really shows that Joe Biden breached his duty of loyalty to the United States. We don’t have that information yet, but you don’t act this way unless you’re hiding something”
—–
And where’s the media?
Running cover for Joe and staring at their feet. As usual.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well you wanted to be a sanctuary city, so enjoy!
https://hotair.com/jazz-shaw/2023/02/04/nyc-residents-are-just-about-fed-up-with-the-migrants-n528362
“Officials in New York City finally managed to clear the mob of illegal migrants who had been protesting inside and in front of the Watson Hotel in Manhattan this week. Encouraged by liberal activists, the migrants were fighting the plan to move them to a new shelter that was established in Brooklyn. The protest was taking place in and around the formerly luxurious hotel that they had completely trashed. Some of the aforementioned activists were cheering the migrants on, but as the New York Post editorial board pointed out yesterday, a very different effect was being observed among members of the local community. The city has been emptying its coffers to give these illegal aliens free meals and fancy hotel rooms that previously cost upwards of $300 per night, and the migrants responded by trashing the neighborhood and refusing to clear out once new housing was arranged. Many in the community are rightly “fuming” over this and growing fed up with the situation.
Until Wednesday, everyone outside of the political and activist class was dumbfounded by both City Hall’s major largesse and activists’ extremism in fueling the migrants’ demands.
“Ingrates,” we heard New-Yorkers-in-the-street describe the migrants who refused transfer from the hotel to the Brooklyn center. These men (all single) enjoyed $300-a-night private rooms (with bath and shower) in the heart of Midtown, luxuries most taxpayers envy.
It’s “bulls—,” fumed Bonfilio Solis, a Mexican immigrant who owns a remodeling business. He told The Post that the migrants were being “very disrespectful.”
Mr. Bonfilio Solis (mentioned above) is an excellent example of the people who have had it with the migrants. He was recently interviewed by the newspaper and his story is noteworthy. Solis is an immigrant himself, but he and his family came into the country legally, worked toward gaining citizenship and built up a remodeling business in Manhattan. Now he is watching his neighborhood being trashed by a bunch of people he sees as freeloaders.
This is a mistake that liberal Democrats (like the ones encouraging the migrants to protest) seem to make over and over again. They simply assume that if a Hispanic person comes into the country they will automatically become a Democrat and support any form of immigration. But the people who come here and work hard to build up the community do not appreciate seeing it torn down in this fashion.
Imagine all of the people who had to scrape and save to get by after arriving in America. In the past few months, they have seen the migrants being showered with “free stuff.” And we’re not just talking about free meals and rooms. As the Post points out, many of them have been getting free “health care, haircuts, cellphones, ping-pong tables and Xboxes.”
The message has been sinking in. A recent poll from Quinnipiac found that 70 percent (!) of voters in New York City agree the wave of migrants is a “crisis” and that the city does not have the resources to deal with them. They also agree with a proposal by Mayor Adams to begin shipping the migrants to the upstate region. Speaking as a resident of upstate myself, you need to come up with a different plan. We don’t want them either and we have even fewer resources to care for them.
There is still no end in sight when it comes to these problems and there won’t be until the border is secured and the flood of migrants slows back down. In the meantime, judging by the latest polling numbers, all that these open border policies are doing is creating a lot more Republicans and conservatives in a city that’s traditionally been ruled entirely by liberal Democrats.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
I trust their polls even less than their news, but this will drive some people I know nuts. 🙂
“ABC/WaPo: Trump beats Biden in a hypothetical matchup”
https://hotair.com/david-strom/2023/02/06/abc-wapo-trump-beats-biden-in-a-hypothetical-matchup-n528592
“It’s a sign of just how awful a president Joe Biden has been: despite a substantial part of the country hating Trump with a rage usually reserved for serial killers, he might still beat Biden at the polls in 2024.
We all know Trump’s strengths and weaknesses, with each being extraordinary to find in politicians. He is to liberals what Hillary Clinton is to conservatives, which is why so many conservatives would prefer a different candidate.
But the latest ABC News poll may help Trump assuage the fears of some conservatives that Trump is just too…Trump…to win in 2024. Were that to come to pass, he could thank Joe Biden’s incompetence for the opportunity.
Four in 10 Americans say they’ve gotten worse off financially since Joe Biden became president, the most in ABC News/Washington Post polls dating back 37 years. Political fallout includes poor performance ratings for Biden and a tight hypothetical Biden/Trump rematch next year.
Given disaffection with both leaders, a rerun of the 2020 presidential election is hardly enticing: Nearly six in 10 Democratic-aligned adults don’t want to see Biden nominated again for the job, and half on the Republican side would rather not see Donald Trump as their party’s nominee.
If those were the choices and the election were today, the poll suggests it could be close: Among all adults, 48 percent support Donald Trump and 44 percent are for Biden; it’s a similar 48-45 percent among registered voters. The differences are within the poll’s margin of sampling error.
It’s conventional wisdom, based upon decades of experience, that presidents rise and fall based on the economy. When people are doing well, they re-elect presidents. When people are worse off, they vote for the other guy.
With 41% of Americans saying they are worse off–the worst performance ever in the history of the poll–Biden is in trouble. Assuming that Republicans can get their act together when it comes to driving voters to the polls, or at least the mailbox.
The big hit on Biden is the economy: With inflation moderating but still high, 41 percent say they’re not as well off financially as they were when Biden took office, the most in nearly three dozen ABC/Post polls to ask the question since 1986, when Ronald Reagan, who popularized the “better off” phrase, held office. Just 16 percent in this poll, produced for ABC by Langer Research Associates, say they’re better off.
By contrast, nearly two years into Trump’s presidency, far fewer – 13 percent – said they’d gotten worse off; more, 25 percent, were in better shape financially.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
This poll is even worse for Biden. 🙂
“Nearly Two-Thirds Say They’re Worse Off Than Two Years Ago: I&I/TIPP Poll”
https://issuesinsights.com/2023/02/06/nearly-two-thirds-say-theyre-worse-off-than-two-years-ago-ii-tipp-poll/
“On Tuesday, President Joe Biden will deliver his second State of the Union address, making the case that the economy has done well under his leadership. That will be a hard sell to most Americans because, as the latest I&I/TIPP Poll shows, a solid majority say they are worse off financially than they were two years ago.
The online I&I/TIPP Poll asked 1,358 Americans a simple question: “Are you better off today than you were two years ago, or not?” Possible responses were “Yes, better off,” “No, not better off,” and “Not sure.” The poll, which was taken from Feb. 1-3, has a margin of error of +/-2.8 percentage points.
By 61% to 33%, Americans overwhelmingly picked “No, not better off” over “Yes, better off.” Just 6% said they weren’t sure.
Not surprisingly, Republicans overwhelmingly say they are not better off (76% “not better off” vs. 21% “better off”). But so does a super majority of independents (71% to 20%). Even among Democrats, few are celebrating. The poll found that less than half (49%) said they are better off, while 45% say they are not better off.”
https://i0.wp.com/issuesinsights.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/image-2.png?resize=800%2C600&ssl=1
LikeLiked by 1 person
Exhibit A on why the clearly biased media sucks, and are not to be trusted.
“Columbia Journalism Review Russiagate Post-Mortem Is a Good Start”
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2023/02/06/columbia_journalism_review_russiagate_post-mortem_is_a_good_start_148821.html
“Without much fanfare, earlier this week Jeff Gerth, a Pulitzer-Prize winning former New York Times investigative reporter, dropped a thorough and damning four-part article dissecting the media’s obsessive reporting on Donald Trump’s alleged collusion with Russia. Even more surprising, Gerth’s report, “The press versus the president,” appeared at the in-house organ of America’s most prestigious journalism school, Columbia Journalism Review, which has long been regarded as something of an unofficial ombudsman for the media industry.
If CJR is finally comfortable admitting that the media’s Russiagate reporting was so scandalously bad that it damns the entire industry, that seems like a remarkable admission.
On Twitter, Glenn Greenwald, a left-leaning reporter who made some significant career sacrifices for calling out the media’s bogus reporting on this topic, declared Gerth’s reporting “absolutely devastating on how casually, frequently, recklessly and eagerly the press lied on Russiagate.” Gerth lays out what happened so clearly that it’s hard to imagine fair-minded readers who make it through all 24,000 words of Gerth’s report would conclude any differently. Personally, I’m proud to say that the work of RealClearInvestigations – and my colleagues there, Tom Kuntz, Aaron Mate, and Paul Sperry – are all cited favorably by Gerth as one of the few media outlets that consistently got the story right.
However, as someone who spent much of his time during the Trump years engaged in substantive reporting that questioned and debunked the Russia collusion narrative, my reaction was, well, anger. It’s an emotion not directed at Gerth, who has done courageous work. But the fact that this piece is appearing two years after Trump left office and nearly five years after special prosecutor Robert Mueller failed to substantiate years of anonymously sourced speculation about Russia collusion is a searing indictment in itself.
To start, Gerth demonstrates the media still won’t grapple with the truth. His piece is peppered with big-name reporters and major publications refusing to comment on basic errors or dubious or unethical judgments. Gerth did manage to get Bob Woodward, the dashboard saint of journalism, on the record condemning the media’s failures here. While that’s a notable concession, if respected figures such as Woodward harbored doubts about the media’s conduct, they should have been a lot more vocal – and much earlier.
It’s also understandable why Gerth would want to keep his report narrowly focused on the facts of what transpired. But without any substantive discussion of the media’s motives it’s hard to draw any important lessons from this sorry saga. Gerth does point out that Russiagate has led to an erosion of trust in the media and offers a pallid warning that the media’s “failure will almost certainly shape the coverage of what lies ahead.”
But this is inadequate. Devoid of any broader context about the long history manipulations of America’s national security state or the corporate media’s evolution into ham-fisted left-wing ideologues, one can read Gerth’s dry reporting as a comedy of errors: A bunch of well-intentioned reporters, faced with the challenge of covering a problematic president – and disingenuous Democrats and partisan law enforcement officials – kept bungling the reporting, by getting key facts wrong and committing serious sins of omission.
However, the missing motive suggests something far more sinister. The media’s Russiagate coverage hinged on being extremely trusting of officials in national security and law enforcement agencies that have historically undermined the press and been hostile to civil rights. There’s a saying in traditional journalism – “If your mother says she loves you, check it out.” Yet, when “deep state” actors with an obvious animus for Donald Trump pushed the narrative that a sitting U.S. president was compromised by a foreign power, a story so explosive it demanded to be thoroughly vetted every step of the way, the mainstream media instead decided to become stenographers.
The blizzard of details necessary to explain the Russia collusion story might also make it seem like discerning the truth was more difficult than it was. If your willingness to believe that Trump was compromised by Russia started out as a political Rorschach test, it quickly became an IQ exam.
Starting before Trump was even inaugurated in January 2017, it was reported that the Logan Act was being used as a predicate to investigate Trump’s incoming national security adviser, Michael Flynn. The Logan Act is to national security laws what phrenology is to medical science – it’s a never-enforced 1799 statute that says it’s illegal for private citizens to negotiate with foreign governments. Laughed at by constitutional scholars, it’s routinely violated and invariably ignored.
Except that several major media outlets credulously reported on Flynn’s alleged Logan Act violations as if they were a potentially serious transgressions, when it should have been obvious that invoking this ancient and discredited statute was a desperate attempt to justify a politically motivated investigation. What happened to Flynn is just one example out of many where the press inexcusably disregarded glaring truths.
Gerth, to his credit, does a fine job unpacking the story of how Flynn was railroaded by the Justice Department, as well as the absurd credulity of the press regarding the so-called “dossier” on Trump, an obviously untrustworthy document produced by partisan political enemies of the president. Nonetheless, most of Gerth’s examples of questionable interactions between the press and government sources require reading between the lines to assess just how willfully blind the press was to the possibility of law enforcement officials abusing their power.”
—-
The media did this to themselves.
LikeLiked by 1 person
6?
Please. He’ll have that many in by the time 5 minutes are up.
“Six lies Biden will tell in his State of the Union”
https://nypost.com/2023/02/05/six-lies-biden-will-tell-in-his-state-of-the-union/
“When President Joe Biden stands before Congress and issues his State of the Union address Tuesday night, he will proclaim victory on the nation’s economy. Most Americans are going to wonder what country he’s talking about.
Yes, the jobs market is strong, and that’s good news. But sorry, Mr. President: The American economy is not strong. It isn’t even good.
The last two years have been pretty rotten on almost every metric: the squeeze on family finances, inflation, immigration, declining test scores in schools, the budget deficit and debt, out-of-control government.
Here are six fibs you’re very likely to hear the president recite Tuesday night. They should be tagged with the label of the left’s favorite word this year: “disinformation.”
1) Biden has reduced the budget deficit by $1.4 trillion.
Actually, no president in modern times even comes close to Biden in terms of fiscal recklessness. In his first two years, the national debt has risen by more than $4.2 trillion. That’s more than in any two-year period in American history.
The deficit shot into the fiscal stratosphere of $2.8 trillion in his first year in office, and in 2022 it was still at one of history’s highest levels, $1.4 trillion. Last year, our debt as a share of our gross domestic product hit an all-time high of 129%. Biden is like a schoolkid celebrating an improved report card because the first semester he got an F but the second semester a D-.
2) Biden inherited an economy in freefall.
Wrong. When COVID hit these shores in early 2020, the economy was shut down in the face of the once-in-a-half-century pandemic. But by 2020’s second half, the economy soared by more than 20%, and millions of Americans were moving back into their jobs. This was a historic recovery.
One week after the election, thanks to Operation Warp Speed, the COVID vaccine was announced, which set the table for an even stronger recovery. Instead, the economy has been limping forward with a weakling economic growth rate last year of 1.5%.
3) Inflation was high when Biden entered office.
Biden’s economic lies show he’s either a deluded narcissist or a total fraud
Huh? The average inflation rate during the Trump presidency was 2%, and in January 2021, the month Biden entered office, inflation was 1.4%. Eighteen months later, in summer 2022, inflation rose above 9% — the highest in 40 years. It ended the year at 6.5%. Food prices are still so high that CNBC just reported: “Amid food inflation, more shoppers turn to dollar stores for groceries.””
LikeLike
So did they not inform the president when it happened, which would be unheard of, or are they lying?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well that’s interesting
https://christianitytoday.com/news/2023/february/he-gets-us-super-bowl-commercial-billion-jesus-christian.html
LikeLiked by 1 person
Suspicious even…
—–
From the Wash. Examiner…
“Meanwhile, Biden administration defense officials, along with top military officers, began to tell the press that the balloon affair was nothing new, that it had in fact happened not one, not two, but three times during the Trump administration, and that President Donald Trump did not shoot down any of those balloons. “[Chinese] government surveillance balloons transited the continental United States briefly at least three times during the prior administration,” a senior defense official told reporters at an on-background briefing Saturday. A Pentagon publication, DOD News, reported the same thing, apparently quoting the same unnamed official.
Given that, three incursions during the Trump years that nobody got too worked up about, why are people so upset about this particular Chinese balloon taking the grand tour across the U.S., from the mountains of Montana to the beaches of South Carolina?
But a big question lingered: Was the Biden account actually true? Former Trump official after former Trump official quickly said wait a minute, this did not happen. In a phone conversation, Robert O’Brien, the national security adviser from 2019 to 2021, said, “I unequivocally can tell you I was not made aware of any flights over U.S. territory, nor was my staff, including those who were at the National Security Council all four years of the Trump administration.” Then, John Bolton, O’Brien’s predecessor, told Fox News, “I don’t know of any balloon flights by any power over the United States during my tenure, and I’d never heard of any of that occurring before I joined in 2018. I haven’t heard of anything that occurred after I left, either. I can say with 100% certainty, not during my tenure.”
Other top officials said the same thing. Former Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe said it did not happen. So did former acting DNI Richard Grenell. So did former CIA Director and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. So did former Defense Secretary Mark Esper. And former acting Defense Secretary Chris Miller. And former vice presidential national security adviser Keith Kellogg. And Trump himself.
Some of the former officials called each other to compare notes. “Am I missing something?” one asked another. “Do you remember anything like this?” Nobody had any knowledge of it happening.
It seemed amazing. After all, the Chinese spy balloon shot down on Saturday was very large. People saw it from the ground. Airline pilots noticed it. In fact, it first came to public knowledge when a member of the public spotted it over Montana, and the local paper published a photo. Did the Biden administration mean to say that had happened three times during the Trump years and nobody noticed?
As it turned out, yes. On Sunday, administration sources began to tell reporters that, yes, the Chinese incursions had happened during the Trump years but that nobody knew about them. And not just nobody in the sense of the public. Nobody in the government’s vast military intelligence and surveillance apparatus noticed them, either. They all missed the giant Chinese balloons.
“Those previous balloon flights were much shorter in duration, possibly explaining why some went undetected at the time,” the Wall Street Journal reported, citing “senior administration officials.” “One official said that much of the information on the flights was pieced together later.”
“They went undetected,” a senior administration official told Fox News. “This information was discovered after the [Trump] administration left.” Only then, the official said, did the Biden administration piece it all together and realize that the Chinese had been sending massive balloons over the U.S., and nobody, citizen or military intelligence, noticed.
A slightly different story emerged in the Washington Post, which reported that the Pentagon knew of “past Chinese surveillance balloons near Florida and Texas.” Wait a minute: Near Florida and Texas? What does near mean? Were the balloons over those states? Were they offshore but over U.S. territorial waters? The Washington Post suggested the Pentagon was not being entirely clear. “The Defense Department was not specific about where in each state the previous incursions occurred,” the paper reported, citing Rep. Michael Waltz, a Republican on the House Armed Services Committee. “[Waltz] added that officials did not say whether the balloons made it into U.S. airspace, which extends 12 nautical miles from the shore, or over U.S. territory, too.” That’s an important distinction, isn’t it? Were the previously undiscovered balloons over U.S. territory or not?
At this point, nothing is clear. In a text exchange, one Capitol Hill Republican, eager to question the administration on events, saw three possible explanations. One, the Defense Department is “conflating wildly different incidents, that is, balloons around Hawaii or Key West vs. crossing middle America,” a conflation he called “partisan spin.” Two, the Pentagon really did only figure out that the Chinese were flying over the continental U.S. after the fact, which he called “a huge military intelligence failure.” Or three, the military actually tracked the flights at the time but failed to inform civilian leadership of what was happening, which he called “a huge civilian-military scandal if so.”
The answers are urgently needed. Allowing a large, highly visible airship presumably packed with intelligence equipment from a foreign adversary to saunter across the U.S. is a big, big deal. It doesn’t matter that Biden’s State of the Union address is scheduled for Tuesday and the White House would like to downplay attention to the balloon matter. Answers are needed now.
For a deeper dive into many of the topics covered in the Daily Memo, please listen to my podcast, The Byron York Show — available on the Ricochet Audio Network and everywhere else podcasts can be found. You can use this link to subscribe.
“Those previous balloon flights were much shorter in duration, possibly explaining why some went undetected at the time,” the Wall Street Journal reported, citing “senior administration officials.” “One official said that much of the information on the flights was pieced together later.”
“They went undetected,” a senior administration official told Fox News. “This information was discovered after the [Trump] administration left.” Only then, the official said, did the Biden administration piece it all together and realize that the Chinese had been sending massive balloons over the U.S., and nobody, citizen or military intelligence, noticed.
A slightly different story emerged in the Washington Post, which reported that the Pentagon knew of “past Chinese surveillance balloons near Florida and Texas.” Wait a minute: Near Florida and Texas? What does near mean? Were the balloons over those states? Were they offshore but over U.S. territorial waters? The Washington Post suggested the Pentagon was not being entirely clear. “The Defense Department was not specific about where in each state the previous incursions occurred,” the paper reported, citing Rep. Michael Waltz, a Republican on the House Armed Services Committee. “[Waltz] added that officials did not say whether the balloons made it into U.S. airspace, which extends 12 nautical miles from the shore, or over U.S. territory, too.” That’s an important distinction, isn’t it? Were the previously undiscovered balloons over U.S. territory or not?
At this point, nothing is clear. In a text exchange, one Capitol Hill Republican, eager to question the administration on events, saw three possible explanations. One, the Defense Department is “conflating wildly different incidents, that is, balloons around Hawaii or Key West vs. crossing middle America,” a conflation he called “partisan spin.” Two, the Pentagon really did only figure out that the Chinese were flying over the continental U.S. after the fact, which he called “a huge military intelligence failure.” Or three, the military actually tracked the flights at the time but failed to inform civilian leadership of what was happening, which he called “a huge civilian-military scandal if so.”
——
So they’re lying, or grossly incompetent, neither being a good look.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, it sounds like a WaPo headline, but it’s not. 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
Indeed.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Start digging.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Of course….
LikeLiked by 1 person
Not shocked at all.
LikeLiked by 1 person
LikeLiked by 1 person
Why does no one trust us, they ask…..
—
“Panel that awarded Pulitzers for Russiagate stories mum after scathing exposé on reporting failures
The “Russiagate” narrative, which permeated mainstream news coverage during the Trump years, was dismantled in an exhaustive four-part series in the Columbia Journalism Review by investigative reporter Jeff Gerth.”
https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/all-things-trump/media-slammed-bias-columbia-journalism-review-following-fallout
“The panel that awarded Pulitzer Prizes to the New York Times and Washington Post for reporting related to the discredited Trump-Russia collusion narrative has gone mum as it faces new scrutiny following publication of a four-part series in the Columbia Journalism Review (CJR) documenting the establishment media pillars’ lapses from their claimed journalistic standards.
The 19-member Pulitzer Prize board for 2017-2018 was comprised of various journalists, professors and writers, including several current or former staff members of the New York Times or Washington Post.
Just The News reached out to 13 members of the panel to find out if the CJR exposé had prompted second thoughts about the Russiagate prizes. Neil Brown, president of the Poynter Institute had an auto reply set, saying he was out of the office, while Steve Coll, former dean of Columbia Journalism School, had an auto-reply saying he is on sabbatical. None of the other board members replied.
In response to a request for comment on the CJR series, Pulitzer Prize Administrator Majorie Miller wrote, “Due to pending litigation regarding these matters, I am not able to comment on the story.”
After the Pulitzer board initially stood by its Russigate awards, former President Donald Trump — the central target of the narrative, which grew out of opposition research commissioned by his 2016 opponent Hillary Clinton — filed a defamation lawsuit against them in December, following a request to reconsider the prizes.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
AJ – Last night you responded to DJ, in part:
“And sometimes you don’t see it because it’s what you’re immersed in and surrounded by.
And yes, it is exhausting that you never seem to catch it.”
That was quite rude. Quite frankly, we see you being immersed in what seems to be mostly the far-right sources. You seem to see what you expect to see in various posts and comments, not always what is actually there.
For example, there have been several times when you have labeled and dismissed HRW as a “typical leftie” for a comment of his, but you completely missed what he was actually saying, merely assuming that he was taking the “typical leftie” view of a certain issue when he was in fact not doing so.
What is “exhausting” to some of us is that you make it seem like this is a place for discussion, but then beat down anyone who dares to have a different perspective. Perhaps that is why this thread rarely gets any comments besides your own? It is not a safe place to offer any different perspectives. And that is pretty sad.
LikeLike
I enjoy coming here occasionally to see a hearty “right” take on current events. HRW often provides a left leaning foil to the right leaning view. And he seems to be able to take the disagreement without becoming whiny. As a Canadian, I hope he knows his unique perspective is valued without having to tip a hat and take a formal bow to be acknowledged.
LikeLike
NancyJill @9:07 Interesting article. I would never have known about the ad campaign if you hadn’t posted, as I don’t watch the super bowl. But I can remember the ads being a big deal.
I think people around here have done similar ads on billboards.
LikeLike
Debra – I’m not sure if this – ” And he seems to be able to take the disagreement without becoming whiny. As a Canadian, I hope he knows his unique perspective is valued without having to tip a hat and take a formal bow to be acknowledged.” – was in any way a reference to my comment or if it was not related at all, but just in case it was, or someone else takes it to be that. . .
Yes, HRW is a class act in that he offers his comments intelligently and respectfully, despite his comments often being dismissed out of hand.
All DJ and I wanted was to be able to occasionally offer a differing perspective (even still within the realm of some conservative perspectives) without rude, dismissive replies. Disagreement? That’s fine. Respectful disagreement is possible. Ignore our comments? That’s fine, too. (“If you can’t say anything nice, don’t say anything at all.” 🙂 )
There are at least two people that I know of who have left the blog because of the tone on the news thread, and another that I suspect that this is true of. So this is not just a complaint of mine or DJ’s. But we have finally learned our lesson, and will be mostly staying away from this thread.
LikeLike
Debra, whiny?
No.
We’re just hoping this can be a place where other views will be freely shared and, if there is opposition (please, of course), that it’s respectful of the posters and not offered in a tone that clearly implies no other views are particularly welcome here and if you post them, well, you’re an idiot or a tool.
On a Christian site, that should not be a high bar to meet.
Is there tolerance for other views without name calling or an unduly harsh backlash? Are the issues debated logically or are people just ridiculed in what amount to weak (but hurtful at times) ad hominem attacks?
If the thread is meant for one particular viewpoint, the thread should be re-labeled as the host’s “views” and we’ll gladly stay clear. But I didn’t have that impression before (though now somewhat do).
The article I shared yesterday was not even addressed, there was nothing presented supporting the critique being made which was basically just a general side-swipe. Because there wasn’t anything there to base that criticism on. That’s not a reasonable debate. It’s not a debate at all, really.
And yes, it’s frustrating.
Most of us here are conservative. Some are much more to the right than others especially when it comes to the nuts and bolts of today’s over-heated political environment.
But some of us enjoy — and are not offended by — a mix of views. Christians do not walk in lock-step, politically. I wonder how the upcoming election will play out here, whether we can discuss it calmly or not?
As for issues (but also candidates, I suppose), there’s room for good faith disagreement on many fronts. Sometimes, some of us just like to post things that might be of interest to others and maybe thought-provoking; points of information, not opinion. It’s not meant to inflame, but it too often does.
We’ve tried to be respectful in what we’ve posted.
And, please, we are not whining.
We’re “just saying.”
I’m fine staying clear of this part of the blog if the host wants it to reflect the only social media-style, far-right views. That’s his prerogative, we’re guests. If this thread/room in the house is meant to be for restricted use only, I’m sure most of us will respect that.
We don’t wish to be disruptive or overly critical. But these issue have been brewing a while and, as Kizzie pointed out, even have led to some defection from the blog altogether.
So maybe it’s good to talk about it. Or not.
That’s all.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I should add, of course, that we all appreciate what goes into putting this site together each day and we are all appreciative to AJ for that. We’re a community; sometimes things just need to get hashed out and worked out in the best of families.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I have occasionally stayed away even from sites or threads that I completely agreed with just because sometimes I simply don’t want to think that hard or seriously or even about depressing things. Sometimes I want to just think peaceful beautiful thoughts. Politics is not generally a peaceful or beautiful topic.
I am truly amazed at AJ’s ability to wade through all of this muck every single day. I couldn’t do it. My hat’s off to you AJ…(figuratively, I wear a head over at work.). 😄
LikeLiked by 2 people
*head cover
I also wear my head on occasion. Special occasions.🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
*head cover
I also wear my head on occasion. Special occasions. 🙂
LikeLike
Deja vous! 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
Popping in for just a second as neighbors will be here for dinner but….,
Aj is passionate about falsehood being spewed by oh so many and I for one can relate! Off the charts with most news outlets … gotta scoot but had to put in my pennies worth🥴
LikeLike
NancyJill – DJ and I are not referring to that kind of thing. We are referring to him often being insulting to some of us here on the blog. And as Christians, we are supposed to rein in our passions, not give them full vent.
LikeLike
But here’s the question: How should honest differences of opinion here be treated?
Not all of us think in lockstep, it’s simply not the real world — nor is it expected that all Christians will have the same views on civic “politics,” the down-and-dirty end of it.
Issues? We probably mostly agree on, but not always there either. Is that acceptable? Or not?
LikeLike
Kizzie and I cross-posted.
LikeLike
Scripturally speaking, civility among us should at least be the norm, I would think?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Actually, “dispassionate” is one of my favorite terms these days, my pastor will use it often when speaking of the demeanor we should have in the face of disagreements or in debates (he’s a frequent and accomplished debater, always so gracious to his opponents — and that works wonders, keeps the focus on the issues, not on how much one guy hates another guy or who has the cleverest gotcha line).
Graciousness. It goes a long way.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Came across this quote while reading an old email a little while ago:
“We don’t have the right to cast off the fruit of the Spirit in the name of standing for truth.” (Shai Linne)
LikeLike
Neighbors are all gone now and I am piping in again. Who says we as believers should reign in our passions? And is not one of the fruits of the spirit faithfulness? Faithful to truth rooted in knowing and discerning good over evil? Shall we then not speak truth? I think I am confused about the issue here .
LikeLike
NancyJill, Fervor is good and I think Jesus wants us passionate about our work and about our attachment to truth:
“I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other!
So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth.
” Rev 3:15-16
DJ and Kizzie
No one here is trying to offend anyone. It’s not healthy to search for reasons to be offended with each other. Neither is it Biblical or righteous. Iron sharpens iron. Iron doesn’t sharpen a reed, but cuts it down for the fire. We need to be more like iron and less like reeds blowing in the wind. Let’s allow ourselves to be sharpened. That means allowing the uncomfortable trimming away of small pieces of ourselves so that we can be the most fit and useful version of us for the Lord. I have experienced this myself on the news thread and in other places from time to time. It’s not particularly pleasant sometimes, but it’s useful.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Can I be offended that you’re offended, or is that just rude too?
Is it rude to even ask?
LikeLike