The Press Eunuchs Rattling Their Cups - Clarice Feldman

by Clarice Feldman

One might think there’s a Journalism for Lying Dummies handbook they’re working from -- and this week the fairytale narrative is “chaos”.

In Imperial China, the palace eunuchs were given cups (paos) in which their external genitalia were preserved in alcohol. Watching the once docile and obedient to Obama press continuing their rage at the new order reminded my friend Thomas Lipscomb of the scene in the movie The Last Emperor when the exiled eunuchs “proceed to demonstrate their anguish by waving their mummified masculinity and howling.” I cannot think of a better analogy to this week’s continuing media meltdown.

I cannot begin to list all the fabrications being peddled by the now out of favor and all but exiled mainstream media this past week. John Nolte published a list of fake news by the national media as of January 25 and this week followed up with another list of the biggest lies for the ensuing week. If you read a newspaper or watched TV newscasts, you might want to read his dissection and links lest you remain forever misled. Paraphrased in short form, here are some of the most significant:

• The entire media lied about Trump’s immigration suspension being a Moslem Ban
• Time magazine blamed its misreporting on Trump’s Executive orders on Trump.
• The Washington Post’s Glenn Kessler “called on foreign service officers to sign a dissent memo” which was then used as an anti-Trump story.
• The media has omitted informing its audience of the documented threats from foreign-born immigrants. AP misled readers into thinking that Trump’s vote fraud expert committed fraud because his name appears on registrations in three states.
• They falsely reported that former Vice-President Cheney had criticized Trump for his refugee pause. They reported the refugee pause was occasioned by Trump’s business interests, when, in fact, the list of countries to which the pause applied had been prepared by the Obama administration. They concocted and spread the fairytale that refugee pauses create terrorists. They spread the lie that the son of Trump’s National Security Adviser had characterized the pause as a “Muslim ban”’
• They falsely reported that there was a “mass exodus of senior Foreign Service officers” at the State Department when in fact the resignations had been asked for, standard procedure when administrations change.
• The NYT’s Maggie Haberman falsely claimed that only the San Bernardino shootings involved a “Non-US-born attacker”. The media lied when they claimed Obama did not discriminate against Christian refugees. They lied when they published that Trump had installed a gag order against the EPA, ignoring that the directives were standard operating procedure during a change in administrations. They covered up and lied about Obama’s 2011 refugee ban from Iraq and pretended it was different than Trump’s. Covering Prime Minister May’s visit, the Washington Post published an anti-Trump editorial as a news story. NBC’s Chuck Todd admitted that reporters knew how unpopular Hillary was in the Midwest and covered it up because “it would be sexist to tell the truth”. The Philadelphia Inquirer reported in 2016 that the murder rate there was increasing and when Trump agreed with him they called him a liar. The Atlantic published a fake story advancing the pro-abortion narrative by dehumanizing the unborn and has been forced to publish repeated corrections to the multiple clear errors in it. The media continues to demonize and lie about Steve Bannon, a key Trump adviser. ABC cut out of its official transcript Trump’s criticism of the media for underplaying the massive crowds at the March for Life.
• The media consistently ignores evidence of widespread vote fraud.

Thomas Lipscomb, a former reporter for the NYT himself, took particular aim at that paper’s “sheer lousy reporting.”

In their polemic staff editorial against "President Bannon" they build up the "alt-R" fantasy issue and now have Bannon both publishing Breitbart for this MSM chimera, AND aggrandizing power in the WH for it. The NYT has yet to run an article on Alt-R and seem to think it is sufficient for their degraded paper to wave the bloody shirt.
In their even worse article on the Yates firing, they still get wrong that she was NOT the only person at DOJ who could sign and carefully omit the fact that her opinion was not only not based upon any legal argument, but her own Justice Legal Review had approved the action.
I have no problem with anyone being anti or pro Trump, but there are key elements of the issues that have to covered in a respectable article.

Getting little purchase in its war on Trump and Bannon, the media have targeted Trump’s family as well. A boycott effort by two women has persuaded the financially troubled Nordstrom’s to virtue signal by dumping Ivanka’s clothing line. (Shoe.com, a Canadian outfit, which did the same, announced bankruptcy shortly afterward.) The Forward carried a despicable article by Peter Beinart on her husband Jared Kushner.

One might think there’s a Journalism for Lying Dummies handbook they’re working from -- and this week the fairytale narrative is “chaos”. 

Probably the worst of the stories this week are the accounts of the private phone calls between the president and the leaders of Mexico and Australia. One wonders what their sources of these private conversations were and how they got them so wrong.

The Washington Post ran an AP account which reported that Trump had threatened to invade Mexico and was forced to concede the story was not properly sourced, but not before it had been widely quoted by other media outlets: “Editor’s note: This article has been updated and a reference to an AP report on the details of a phone conversation between President Trump and Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto removed because they could not be independently confirmed.”

The account of the conversation with Australian Prime Minister Turnbull was equally suspect, but more importantly it exposed another piece of treachery by Obama and former Secretary of State John F. Kerry. The impeccable reporter Shoshana Bryen explains the underhanded post-election deal and why Trump has every reason to scotch it. 

Australia wants to prevent immigrants arriving by sea and has dumped them on the islands of Nauru and Manus where they are kept in utterly appalling conditions, creating a public relations nightmare for the Australian government. Bryen writes:

In September, Turnbull agreed to resettle Central American refugees who were in a processing center in Costa Rica. At the time, Australian officials said firmly there would be no quid pro quo. "There will not be a people swap," announced Scott Ryan, a special minister of state. The American agreement to take Australian internees came two months later, providing a convenient way for Mr. Turnbull to keep his promise to his people and get rid of people who had become a public relations disaster.
Then-Secretary of State John Kerry worked out the deal with Australia to "fast track" the immigrants, but did not tell Congress. In November, responding to information it received, WND reported that the chairmen of the House and Senate judiciary committees demanded details:
"Congress only learned of the deal through media reports two weeks ago [November, 2016] and -- according to a letter sent to administration officials by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), and Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) -- the deal is not only a matter of grave national security concern, but it could be illegal."
It would be illegal if the deal was considered a treaty negotiated by then-Secretary Kerry. According to the Constitution, it would have to have been sent to Congress for ratification.
Asked if he had discussed the deal with then-candidate Donald Trump, Turnbull said, "We deal with one administration at a time and there is only one president of the United States at a time." But Donald Trump is now president and his decision appears to have left the Australian government with few choices.
Asked if there was a "Plan B" for Australia, Turnbull said he was examining several options, but that Australia would not back down on its decision not to let those refugees stopped at sea enter the country:
"Our expectation naturally, given the commitments that have been made, is that it will go ahead. The only option that isn't available to [the refugees] is bringing them to Australia for the obvious reasons that that would provide a signal to the people smugglers to get back into business."
Whether there is an agreement to be had between the United States and Australia for the resettlement of Australia's interned population or not, it is clear that this deal had more to it than the Obama Administration -- or the Turnbull government -- wanted to admit. The United States and Australia both had reasons not to admit the migrants closest to their borders, but trading Central Americans who wanted to come to the U.S. for Muslims who wanted to reach Australian shores would allow Turnbull to keep a campaign promise and Obama to divert attention from the massive breach of America's southern border.

When news of the deal broke this week, Australians supported Trump’s refusal to abide by it:

1) Chronology is important here.
1. Ten months out from U.S. presidential election, Turnbull visits U.S. He meets Hillary and snubs Trump.
2. In the weeks leading up to U.S. presidential election, Turnbull does a deal with a dead [sic] duck president.
3. Turnbull and Obama agree to not announce it (hide the deal) until the U.S. presidential election is over. They both want Hillary to get up, and the deal would be excellent ammunition for Trump in a campaign dominated by illegal immigration.
4. Trump wins. Turnbull panics.
5. Turnbull has to call Greg Norman to find out how to get in touch with Trump.
6. Turnbull announces deal publicly five days later, and before he has spoken to Trump about it.
7. Trump understandably gives him a smack down on the phone.
8. Turnbull spins the phone call, and in desperation to announce something good in his otherwise failing prime ministership, announces the deal as done.
9. Trump is annoyed that Turnbull couldn’t keep quiet. Trump has been placed in a contradictory position that could damage him politically.
10. Trump gives Turnbull a smack down on Twitter, and leaks the phone call to return the favour.
The problem exists because of Turnbull, and Turnbull alone.
– At no point has Turnbull invested in a personal relationship with Trump. Mostly because he exists in the same elitist bubble as people who predicted a thumping Hillary win.
– He did a sneaky deal with left wingers and helped hide it from voters in the U.S.
– He then tried to pump his own political fortunes up and didn’t care about the damage it might do to Trump.
Turnbull has to go. He is damaging the Liberal party and the nation.

The now odious White House Correspondents Dinner, which for years has merely highlighted the inappropriate media-Democrat love fest, may be cancelled. And it turns out that not only did many viewers find it a distasteful show but in fact more money went to the organizer than went to fund scholarships -- its stated purpose.

There’s also a question of what the WHCA really is. According to their Form 990 filing for 2015, the not for profit group had $330,000 in expenses in 2015. Nearly half of that money -- about $145,000 – went to their president, Julia Whitson, in salary. Only $86,550 went to grants to individuals like journalism students. Indeed gifts, grants and other monies received have declined sharply from $293,189 in 2010 to $63,420 in 2014. They claim total net assets of $602,550 for 2015.

In the meantime, I advise you to insert the word "not" in any story you read or hear or see from the mainstream media -- they’re just rattling their cups and wailing.

Clarice Feldman

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/02/the_press_eunuchs_rattling_their_cups.html

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.