Connect with us

Everything

‘Wolf!’ the New York Times cried

Published

on

I’m no apologist for President Trump. But the New York Times has put itself, once again, in a horrible position in reporting an anonymously-sourced story about a meeting between Donald Trump, Jr. and a Kremlin-connected lawyer.

This isn’t the first time they Gray Lady has cried “Wolf!”

Just last week, the NYT and AP corrected their previous and widely-reported claim that all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies agreed that the Russians interfered in the 2016 election in an attempt to help Donald Trump’s candidacy.

In February, the NYT claimed that phone records and “intercepted calls show that members of Donald J. Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and other Trump associates had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials in the year before the election.”

James Comey, under oath, directly refuted the NYT story. And the NYT reported on itself, without issuing a correction.

Answering a question about the Times article during an appearance before the Senate Intelligence Committee, Mr. Comey said that “in the main, it was not true.”

Instead of engaging in self-examination, the very reporters who gathered the anonymously-sourced stories pressed to know exactly what was wrong with their initial report. Comey did not, and could not without violating the FBI’s security and his own disclosure agreements, answer that.

But “in the main, it was not true” doesn’t mean, “it’s true with some problems.” It means it’s false, with some elements of truth.

The NYT continues to report in this manner: That it’s got the story mostly true. Yet time after time, their reports end up as “nothing-burgers” or embarrassing falsehoods promulgated by people with a political agenda.

It would seem to emerge (as we all know) that the NYT itself has a political agenda. They want to take down President Trump. The main stream media’s echo chamber of the NYT, Washington Post, CNN and MSNBC are hell-bent for leather to see Trump fall.

And the harder they try, the less credibility they have.

They keep crying “Wolf!” over and over when there’s no wolf there. In this latest report, what version of events should we believe? The hint may be in the small details. Today, the NYT, in a follow-up story to the original report, noted a correction.

Correction: July 9, 2017

An earlier version of this article misquoted a statement by Donald Trump Jr. about a meeting with a Russian lawyer. He said the meeting mostly focused on the topic of adoption, which “was not a campaign issue.” He did not say it was a campaign issue.

Trump, Jr. had a 20-minute meeting with a Russian lawyer, who, according to the person who set up the meeting and Trump, Jr. himself, offered to share “damaging information on Mrs. Clinton,” specifically information that Russians were helping to fund her campaign. Trump Jr. claims that was a pretext for the meeting to discuss issues dealing with adoption.

In fact, the lawyer, Natalia Veselnitskaya, is well-known for her work opposing the Magnitsky Act, which Congress passed in late 2015 to punish the Russians for the death of a Russian journalist. Trump, Jr.’s recounting of the meeting lines up with that fact. The NYT put words in his mouth, which they had to correct.

That’s really the entire point of all the “Wolf!” crying. The NYT and other media have presented, and continue to present counterfactual conditional claims of what was not said, or what was not assumed to be true. These types of  “if she did discuss the Clinton campaign, it would be collusion” are nothing more than rank speculation, and the media builds upon these speculations in an ever-more-fragile logic tree of “if-thens.”

Any one of those “if-thens” tends to collapse their arguments, but instead of correcting course, they replace one tenuous argument for another. “If Comey lied, then…” when Comey became the media’s hero until he contradicted their story.

It’s fairly obvious to anyone that the NYT and its media comrades have a pre-determined narrative. They want us to believe that there was collusion. They want us to believe there is a wolf. The problem they’ve created is that if a wolf really does show up, nobody is going to believe them.

Serial entrepreneur. Faith, family, federal republic. One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Continue Reading
Advertisement Donate to NOQ Report
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Politics

Polls show Trump, the GOP, and Trumpservative media sinking fast

Published

on

Polls show Trump the GOP and Trumpservative media sinking fast

According to several recent polls, Trump’s job approval and personal popularity have continued to fall as the GOP tries to find ways to survive in November.

While the pro-Republican Rasmussen Reports released a poll showing an increase in Trump’s job approval to 50 percent, other polls paint a much different picture of the NY liberal.

Gallup is reporting that Trump’s job approval rating has dropped to 39 percent, and a Quinnipiac University National Poll shows that only 31 percent of American voters like him as a person while 59 percent dislike him—a 2-1 ratio against Trump.

As Quinnipiac assistant director Tim Malloy accurately observed, these are “not the kind of numbers that gets you a date to the prom—or helps your party as the midterm elections approach.”

Another Quinnipiac poll shows that Trump is losing his war against the media with 65 percent of voters stating that the news media is important to democracy, while only 26 percent agree with Trump’s claim that the media is the enemy of the American people. Unfortunately, the party owned, operated, and rebranded in Trump’s image is the exception to the overall results, with 51 percent of Republicans agreeing with Trump.

As I wrote a few weeks ago when Trump banned CNN from a White House event, so-called conservative White House Correspondent Jon Miller with CRTV praised Trump for attacking CNN reporter Kaitlan Collins. A few days after that incident, I reported on Sean Hannity’s defense of Trump supporters after they threatened CNN reporter Jim Acosta at a Florida rally.

Trump recently bragged about being the most popular Republican with the Democrat party since Abe Lincoln, but these recent polls tell a different story. What little popularity and job approval he still has is limited to just over half of Trumplicans and Trumpservatives and is propped up by media outlets like CRTV and FOX News.

Last week I wrote about how the struggles historically experienced by the party occupying the White House, along with documented evidence of Democrats outperforming projections in special elections, made predictions of a Blue Tsunami in November very real. And when you take the long list of broken promises by Trump and the GOP and add that to these recent polls, the only question remaining is how serious the damage will be when tsunami strikes.

Originally posted at The Strident Conservative.

 


David Leach is the owner of The Strident Conservative. His daily radio commentary is distributed by the Salem Radio Network and is heard on stations across America.

Follow the Strident Conservative on Twitter and Facebook. Subscribe to receive podcasts of radio commentaries: iTunes | Stitcher | Tune In | RSS

Continue Reading

Opinions

Conservative Picks for the Minnesota Primary

Published

on

Conservative Picks for the Minnesota Primary

Minnesota has a lot of action and potential relative to other states. Minnesota has three blue districts Donald Trump won in 2016. This means the right candidate can come along and upset the “blue wave” or at least mitigate potential losses. Minnesota is hopeful because in almost every race, there’s at least one candidate that doesn’t suck. It would be nice to see a little more enthusiasm in the Senate races(courtesy of Al Franken.) The GOP can look to make progress in what has been a staunchly blue state for decades. Minnesota has become redder with each of the last three presidential elections, so the Democrats reign is in trouble.

Best Picks: Jim Newberger, Tom Emmer, Jen Zielinski
Worst Picks: Carla Nelson
Best Race: District 7
Worst Race: Senate Special Election

US Senate Special Election

Karin Housely is the GOP favorite in this race. However she comes off as a RINO who would expand the debt. Her stint in the State Senate shows she really isn’t all that Conservative despite having a more Conservative 2017 session, which every other Republican did as well, so it seems. She doesn’t impress up front. Her main opponent is Bob Anderson. Anderson fancies himself as an outsider. He comes off as a populist rather than a Conservative, but that is preferable to the shining RINO that Housely would likely be. Anderson is anti-establishment so he is more likely to shake things up.

Conservative Pick: Bob Anderson

US Senate

The most serious candidate here seems to be Jim Newberger. As a rep in the Minnesota House, Newberger has an outstanding record. For that reason, it’s a good thing for Conservatism that he may walk into a easy victory here in an underwhelming race. Merrill Anderson is a populist and perhaps a conspiracy nut. He doesn’t reasonably stand a chance. Roque De La Fuente is literally running for Senator in every state that has loose enough residency requirements. He isn’t Conservative. He is not the pick here, but he understands taking chances.

Conservative Pick: Jim Newberger

District 1

Jim Hagedorn looks to reclaim he seat he barely lost in 2016. This is district went red for Trump, yet he lost by less than 1%. His main opponent is Carla Nelson, a state rep. She is ACU’s lowest ranking Republican in 2016 and was tied for a repeat in 2017. She is no Conservative.

Conservative Pick: Jim Hagedorn

District 2

Jason Lewis is the highest rated Congressman in the state. He’s not a perfect Conservative, but deserves another term. He is unopposed.

District 3

Erik Paulsen is an unchallenged RINO.

District 4

Greg Ryan is an unchallenged RINO.

District 5

Jen Zielinski seems to be the GOP favorite in this race. She seems to have the potential to shrink the government. She also wants to make the Republican Party the “Party of Choice.” This is good branding for incorporating issues such as school choice. The other candidates don’t appear to be as serious.

Conservative Pick: Jen Zielinski

District 6

Tom Emmer hasn’t done a terrible job in Congress. His Liberty score of 69 shows a more fiscally responsible Republican than a typical RINO. He faces the same two challenges as he did last time around. Neither of these candidates are particularly inspiring enough to warrant a course change.

Conservative Pick: Tom Emmer

District 7

David Hughes looks for a rematch after losing by 5% in 2016. Hughes is a solid Conservative by looks. His platform is right of Trump on immigration and healthcare. His opponent Matt Protch is campaigning as an outsider. Rather than a populist, he actually seems Conservative. This race is winnable for the GOP so Hughes is perhaps the best bet here. But he lost a race where Trump won. This indicates weak campaigning. So perhaps its time to invest in someone new? However Collin Peterson has been in since 1990, too long. He’s also way more vulnerable in an increasingly red district. Perhaps Hughes can win with a second chance, now that he potentially has more name recognition. Or perhaps Protch is the choice.

Conservative Pick: David Hughes?

District 8

The most serious candidate here is Pete Strauber who seems like a regular Republican, and that comes with a bad connotation. This is another flippable seat in Minnesota.

Conservative Pick: Pete Strauber

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Pro-life Trumpservatives praise Trump for protecting unborn babies he isn’t protecting

Published

on

Pro-life Trumpservatives praise Trump for protecting unborn babies he isnt protecting

Lately, it seems that not a day goes by where we aren’t provided with another example of how conservative values have been consumed by the fires of compromise on the altar of Trumpservatism. While sacrificing principles for power is commonplace for the GOP priests serving in the Temple of Trump, the sad reality is that real priests, pastors, and other religious leaders have provided the kindling and the oil that fuels the flames.

One of the tragic consequences coming from the rise of the group I refer to as the Fellowship of the Pharisees concerns abortion. In the Age of Trump, these false teachers have abandoned their defense of the unborn under the delusion that Trump is keeping his promises.

On her blog (civilrightsfortheunborn.org), Dr. Alveda King, the niece of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., wrote a piece responding to recent accusations made by Omarosa Manigault Newman that Donald Trump often uses racial slurs. *

* NOTE: While her claims may or may not be true, Trump is taking advantage of this “squirrel” moment to let America know that Omarosa is a “low life” even though he frequently brags about how he hires only the “best people.”

After making her case in defense of Trump, King concluded with these words:

“He is keeping his campaign promises. The job market is better for everyone. Unemployment is at an all-time low. Babies and children are safer inside and outside the womb. Prayer is returning to the public square.” (emphasis mine)

King’s claim is not only untrue, but the lives of the unborn continue to grow more perilous … and profitable.

Besides the fact that Trump and the GOP have continued to fund Baby Butchers, Inc. (Planned Parenthood), the byproduct of their murderous practices (body parts) has become another revenue stream, courtesy of the taxpayer—an income stream that has increased under Republican control of Washington.

A few days ago, we learned about a contract between the US Food and Drug Administration and Advanced Biometric Resources (ABR) to acquire human fetal tissue for experiments on mice. In a 2016 Senate Judiciary Committee report, we learned that ABR’s primary source of baby parts was Planned Parenthood.

Trump and the GOP allegedly created the “most pro-life platform ever” in 2016, and they promised to defund Planned Parenthood and bring an end to dismemberment abortions. Despite candidate Trump’s pro-Planned Parenthood sentiments at the time, so-called pro-life activists believed he would fulfill the GOP’s promise. But as we learned earlier this year, they have no intention of doing so.

Unfortunately, those who used to defend the unborn baby in the womb have chosen to defend the unethical baby in the White House. Meanwhile, there will be hundreds of thousands more slaughtered babies, thanks to cowards like Trump, the GOP, and so-called religious leaders.

Originally posted on The Strident Conservative.

 


David Leach is the owner of The Strident Conservative. His daily radio commentary is distributed by the Salem Radio Network and is heard on stations across America.

Follow the Strident Conservative on Twitter and Facebook. Subscribe to receive podcasts of radio commentaries: iTunes | Stitcher | Tune In | RSS

Continue Reading

NOQ Report Daily

Advertisement

Facebook

Twitter

Advertisement Donate to NOQ Report

Trending

Copyright © 2017 NOQ Report.