Month: July 2016

Boycott Trump?

Trumpface
Photo courtesy: The Blaze

The Atlantic’s Ron Fournier made a not so modest proposal this week. He believes the media should boycott Donald Trump until he does the things Fournier says he should do.

Before I criticize his idea, let me note that I read most of his work and have admired him as a journalist and writer for a long time.

Sure, I want to see Trump’s tax returns. I’d like to see everything Ron would like to see, and more. As for the “Russian connection,” it takes more than a claim by a Democratic party operative and a piece in Slate to make something credible. As I’ve said in a prior piece, it took the FBI a year to determine they didn’t know who may have hit Hillary’s server. But we know in two days the Russians hacked into the DNC server because “experts.”

Fournier says political journalism has to change to meet the challenge Trump has presented. Change the rules because you can’t do your job? Now that sounds like journalism.

But boycotting The Donald isn’t enough. Fournier wants media to ban his “surrogates.” You know, those talking heads you see on TV that represent the candidates. It seems fitting Ron would link to a Media Matters “article.” Always a great Soros for news. I mean source.

More silence from a profession that professes more speech. Oh, and punish those whose speech you don’t like for good measure. Anyone else hear the Republic crashing?

Look, Fournier is a pundit. He’s there for his “learned” opinion. To be fair, I’ve seen him hit Hillary really hard too. And maybe to save his journalistic integrity just a tad, he finally gets to Hillary in the last paragraph of his piece. He’d like herself to give up the Wall Street transcripts (please…).

Yet the same Ron Fournier called Barack Obama “the least transparent president in the nation’s history,” but never called for a Barack boycott. Obama tried to prosecute reporters.

Given Hillary Clinton’s remarkable avoidance of the press, outside the most controlled of situations, and her campaign’s apparent go fuck yourself attitude. “We’ll have a press conference when we want to have a press conference” signals a continuation of Obama’s transparency plus Hillary’s epic secrecy.

Of course, being the Washington Post, the piece slams Trump throughout instead of Hillary’s controlling arrogance.

Politicians can only be this arrogant with the media’s acquiescence.

Plain and simple, it isn’t the job of journalists to try and silence speech. I can’t even believe I’m saying that. It’s dangerous and stupid.

While usually a writer who asks us to “do better,” Fournier’s suggestion does worse. It feels like the rant of a frustrated and bitter man.

Fournier says he doesn’t come to his boycott conclusion easily. So before you silence a presidential candidate, here’s a question for Ron and other journalists:

Why don’t voters have confidence in the press?

The elite media, on the left and the right, pound Donald Trump every hour of every day, yet he’s the GOP nominee and holding his own for now. Despite their best efforts over time they’ve gained little traction.

Does the media’s frustration and desire to silence a candidate come from the fact the voters have silenced the media?

 

© 2016 carlgottliebdotnet

Back in the USSR

People react to bad news in a number of ways. They freak about the message, or freak about the messenger. After it was revealed the Democratic National Committee screwed Bernie Sanders and his supporters, by favoring Hillary Clinton, media is angry at the possible messenger.

Yes, the more information profession is pissed off about more information. So, when in doubt, blame the Russians. It reminded me of this scene from “Dr. Strangelove.” Media jumped on that narrative faster than Slim Pickens on a nuke.

drstranglovebomb
Photo courtesy: Dr. Strangelove/Columbia Pictures

Never mind it took the FBI up to a year to determine they couldn’t figure out if the Russians, or others, hacked Hillary’s server of convenience and obstruction. Within days, we hear it’s likely the hackers were the Russians. From “experts.” As a former TV producer I can find an expert to tell you Guam is sinking. In Congress. But, that’s a story for another time.

And it’s not like the DNC wasn’t warned.

This morning, Donald Trump dared to go where Hillary hasn’t since December 4, 2015. The candidate for US president held an open press conference and took questions from reporters for about an hour.

Here’s what made the media crap themselves today.

While answering questions from reporters in Florida today, Trump looked directly into the cameras and said, “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing.” (ABC News)

Clinton’s camp was in high dudgeon. The media followed.

Clinton’s senior policy adviser, Jake Sullivan, released a statement in response to Trump’s comments.

“This has to be the first time that a major presidential candidate has actively encouraged a foreign power to conduct espionage against his political opponent,” Sullivan said. “That’s not hyperbole. Those are just the facts. This has gone from being a matter of curiosity and a matter of politics to being a national security issue.” (ABC News)

Now, here’s the part of that exchange that isn’t getting a lot of play. It changes the context of Trump’s “Russia, if you’re listening…” remark.

“By the way, if they hacked, they probably have her 33,000 emails. I hope they do. They probably have her 33,000 emails that she lost and deleted.” (ABC News)

Trump mocked the press and they bit.

Now, to be clear, if the Russians are trying to influence our politics it’s a bad thing. But that bad thing has been going on forever. We do the same. Look at Barack Obama trying to oust Benjamin Netanyahu. Despite the administration’s earlier denials, look at what a Senate committee turned up.

And it’s not the first time a major presidential candidate has actively encouraged a foreign power to conduct espionage against his political opponent.

Think “Lion of the U.S. Senate” and, bad driver of Oldsmobiles, Ted Kennedy.

Kennedy (lost to Jimmy Carter in 1980 and had to withdraw because of the Oldsmobile in 1972) was so desperate to keep Ronald Reagan from being re-elected in 1984, he secretly went to the Soviet Union for help. This was made public in the early 90’s after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Never mind that the current administration and current Democratic candidate for president underestimated Russia and mocked Republicans about the Cold War.

But back to the media.

Not all WikiLeaks are equal. Or so it would seem.

The Washington Post was thrilled to invite its readers to find what they could in the so-called “Cairo cables.” They went as far as crowd-sourcing the database to turn up more information faster.

Just like the Cairo WikiLeaks, the DNC WikiLeaks are about information. Sure, the Russians may be a secondary story and a big one at that, but the screwing over of a candidate and his followers is really the story right now.

Bernie Sanders knows darn well what happened. When asked if he trusted Hillary to carry out the “left leaning platform” for the Democrats, Sanders balked.

“Sorry, I’m not going to get into the trusted or not,” he responded.

“Hillary Clinton, you know, as I just said a moment ago, [you asked me to] characterize somebody in a way I’m not going to. Hillary Clinton is a very, very intelligent person . . . I’ve known her for 25 years.” (NY Post)

Just as Ted Cruz didn’t endorse Donald Trump, Bernie Sanders wouldn’t, when he could, say he trusted Hillary Clinton.

And, if you believe for a second that Debbie Wasserman Shultz wasn’t in the tank for Hillary Clinton, look at it this way instead.

Who knows more than DWS about collusion between the DNC and Hillary camp against Sanders? Best way to silence people: hire them. Debbie also needs party backing in a potentially tough re-election to the House.

So yeah, go ahead and be outraged by Russian mischief. I’m into nostalgia.

It takes me back to the good old days of duck and cover.

DuckandCover

And given the Trump press conference took place near Miami Beach, I couldn’t help but think of the Beatles send-up of the Cold War.

Here’s Paul McCartney performing in Kiev in 2008.

No matter how you feel about the DNC leaks and who leaked them, it’s hard to see why the content rather than the alleged leaker is the main story. I expect our enemies to mess with us. But neither Obama’s “flexibility,” or Clinton’s “reset button,” look like good foreign policy right now.

Funny thing. When I was a TV news manager I took many calls from disgruntled (love that word) viewers who had issues with stories. Only a tiny percentage of those stories had factual problems.

I always touched base with the producer or reporter involved with the questioned piece. More often than not one of us uttered this phrase of frustration, “they always want to kill the messenger.”

 

 

© 2016 carlgottliebdotnet

WikiLeaks

WikiLeaks_Logo

It’s hard to know where to even start with the revelations of the leaked Democratic National Committee e-mails. Is this where I thank WikiLeaks for some great summer reading?

For starters, the Democratic National Committee seems to have rigged the primaries for Hillary Clinton and screwed Bernie Sanders and his supporters.

It also looks like there was media collusion to help Hillary Clinton.

One example was a Politico reporter sending a complete story to the DNC before publishing it. Generally not a good practice. Why is at always Politico? Remember Mike Allen?

But there’s more. I love that phrase.

Gateway Pundit put together this list of insanity.

Different media outlets and pundits (can I call them pound-its?) found their own outrage.

Here’s what the Washington Post found newsworthy

However, they didn’t find this e-mail about fundraising interesting.

Ron Fournier, who made his bones covering the Clintons, was on the mark in criticizing Hillary. This passage from his first point can only remind you of Richard Nixon and Watergate:

“So righteous in their cause and paranoid of their enemies are the Clintons, that they cut corners to victory—even when, as was the case in the race against Sanders, they would likely win without shenanigans.”

Like Tricky Dick against George McGovern, Hillary knew she’d win but couldn’t take a chance.

Then the coup de grace:

“Another hallmark of the Clinton tradecraft is to keep a safe distance from the dirty work while others get soiled.”

This is where Hillary’s machine outshines anything Nixon dreamed of.

Hillary always gets away and someone else always takes the fall. Bye bye, Debbie Wasserman Shultz.

And as always, Hillary blames others for her troubles while feigning ignorance of the whole mess. Sure, expect the nation to believe Debbie did this on her own.

Check out this portion of Clinton’s interview with 60 Minutes’ Scott Pelley that never made air.

And just for fun, check out how “conservative” Twitter exploded when Hillary said she was “held to different standards.”

I always encourage news consumers to go straight to the source when possible. Here’s the WikiLeaks searchable database. Maybe you’ll come up with a gem overlooked by others. Let me know.

Search for your favorite media person, network, or cable news outlet and decide for yourself if they’re aiding a particular candidate. Or just search to your heart’s content.

The immediate response by the Democrats was to say the hacking was the work of the Russians to aid Donald Trump. Yup, those same Russians Barack Obama mocked candidate Romney about.

The aptly named Robby Mook, Clinton’s campaign manager, delivered that theory.

Those same Russians that couldn’t have possibly hacked Mrs. Clinton’s private server.

It’s certainly possible the Russians hacked the DNC. Maybe even likely.

What’s not likely is that they wrote the e-mails. Much beleaguered GOP boss Reince Preibus put it this way.

Of course the FBI is already investigating the hacking of the DNC. My guess is their involvement is more to send a chilling message to WikiLeaks and Adrian Assange, than anything. Besides, after the Hillary investigation does anyone really trust the FBI?

This administration hates leaks. [See Coleridge Election and the prosecution of journalists.]

Here we are at the end of July. We are in the midst of a political shit storm once again caused by someone whose name is Clinton. It’s clear the former Secretary of State has been the media favorite in this election cycle.

It’s now been seven months and twenty-one days since Clinton’s last open press conference. The elite media can pretty much force Clinton into a presser if they want to.

Think of what’s happened since May. The State Department Inspector General shredded HRC’s e-mail defense. The FBI’s James Comey indicted Mrs. Clinton in the court of public opinion. [See: The Immaculate Indictment]. Now, it’s obvious Hillary and her operatives rigged the Democratic primaries.

I think it’s time for the media to start asking some questions.

 

© 2016 carlgottliebdotnet

The Dallas Police Memorial: Obama’s missed opportunity

Obama Dallas
Photo Courtesy: WALA-TV/Mobile, Ala.

Barack Obama knows an opportunity when he sees one. It puzzled me when his highly anticipated “healing speech” fell flat on a number of fronts. Even worse, the president couldn’t stay away from his favorite rhetorical vehicles and his agenda.

The speech seemed fine, albeit unremarkable, at the get go.

Usually, a speaker kicks off with a joke to relax the crowd. Obama’s Stevie Wonder/Michelle/Chief Brown joke seemed more about relaxing himself. Decide for yourself if it was appropriate for the situation.

But there were the usual and appropriate things in Obama’s speech about police officers killed in the line of duty. The emotional references to family, service, and selflessness we’ve heard at all too many police funerals.

None of this was terrible, and I thought the president might get it. Does he finally get there are times to stay away from politics. Does he get this wasn’t the moment to scold and lecture America? This was the moment to honor five dead cops who were killed doing their jobs.

About a quarter of the way through the speech the president could no longer stifle his instinct to use any tragedy, any event, anything to push his narrative du jour.

“And then around nine o’clock, the gunfire came. Another community torn apart; more hearts broken; more questions about what caused and what might prevent another such tragedy.”

– Barack Obama; July 12, 2016

I knew the speech had turned.

And then soon after, this little gem:

“We turn on the TV or surf the Internet, and we can watch positions harden and lines drawn and people retreat to their respective corners, and politicians calculate how to grab attention or avoid the fallout. We see all this, and it’s hard not to think sometimes that the center won’t hold and that things might get worse.”

The president fails to mention that many of the offending opiners, and some of the most bombastic, are put out there by the White House.

And for at least the second time Obama used the, “I’m here to insist that we are not as divided as we seem” line. An odd thing to say at a memorial for five slain officers. How much more divided do we have to be?

But Barack was just warming up. He was about to employ one of his favorite tactics: “Because I said so.”

“As a society, we choose to under-invest in decent schools.”

As if there can ever be enough money for schools. Any politician who doesn’t agree loses.

Fact: We spend about $70 billion a year on education at the federal level alone.

“We allow poverty to fester so that entire neighborhoods offer no prospect for gainful employment.”

Fact: While the military continues to take the lion’s share of our budget, we spend more than $62 billion on housing and community.

“We refuse to fund drug treatment and mental health programs.”

Fact: We spend $66 billion on Medicare and health.

It’s easy to say we need to do more. But who’s been president for nearly eight years? “The buck stops here.” No?

Still, up until this point it was the president’s usual speech. Then came this doozy:

“We flood communities with so many guns that it is easier for a teenager to buy a Glock than to get his hands on a computer or even a book.”

My stomach sank and my ass liked to bite the seat. The Internet exploded into ridicule. As fact as you can hit send, people like Sean Davis of “The Federalist” were on the president’s case.

Social media became a cornucopia of call-out.

Why the hell did Barack Obama go there?

Statements like that may sound and feel good to the president’s most rabid supporters, but even the rational faithful know it hurts the chances of having a real dialogue about the issue anytime soon.

“Don’t do stupid shit,” was, at one time, the motto of this White House.

I’ll let that one sit there.

I think the president had to bring up race. I know many were upset with that, but it’s impossible to unravel what happened in Dallas from race.

Maybe the surprise of the day, for me, came from none other than former president George W. Bush.

While still not no orator, Bush’s words felt real.

“At times, it seems like the forces pulling us apart are stronger than the forces binding us together. Argument turns too easily into animosity. Disagreement escalates too quickly into dehumanization. Too often we judge other groups by their worst examples, while judging ourselves by our best intentions. And this has strained our bonds of understanding and common purpose.”

– W; July 12, 2016

And like all things real and true, his words left me a little enlightened, and a little ashamed.

 

Barack Obama’s Alternate Reality

“Who are ya gonna believe, me or your own eyes?”  

That Chico Marx line from the Marx Brothers’ “Duck Soup” could well sum up President Barack Obama’s reaction to the slaughter of innocents.

Before the shock of a radical Muslim attack that killed 14 people at a Christmas party in San Bernardino wore off, Obama was blaming guns despite what the killers had to say: They swore allegiance to ISIS.

“Just after the shooting began, Malik went on Facebook and pledged her allegiance to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the emir of the self-proclaimed Islamic State, the militant group that says it has established a caliphate in Syria and Iraq, according to law enforcement officials. A Facebook official confirmed the posting, speaking on the condition of anonymity due to the ongoing investigation.”

– The Washington Post; December 4, 2015

Straight from the horse’s mouth, as we used to say.

But never mind what the radicalized Islamists told us. Here’s what the president wanted to talk about.

Not only was San Bernardino all about guns and the end of due process to the president, Attorney General Loretta Lynch carried his message even further. Lynch saw fit to stifle free speech. Is there something about the Bill of Rights this administration hates?

In the middle of his murder spree inside the Pulse nightclub, Omar Mateen couldn’t wait to tell us why he was bent on killing as many Americans as possible. So he called 911.

When it was announced that Mateen made the call, the Obama administration’s first reaction was to try to block the public from seeing his true motives. The “most transparent administration,” as the president likes to tout, finally relented to political and media pressure. Like the massacre in San Bernardino, Obama would rather the terrorist’s motives for killing 49 people remain unknown.

Here is Mateen’s response when the police dispatcher had asked for his name: “My name is I pledge of allegiance to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi of the Islamic State.” Sound familiar?

Faster than a speeding bullet, Obama blamed guns. Once again, sound familiar?

To admit Mateen’s act was ISIS inspired, a group he once called the “JV squad,” wasn’t politically palatable for the president.

Admitting that adherence to the principles of radical Islam was at the root of the worst terror attack on the United States since 9/11, destroys Obama’s ISIS narrative.

And now we come to Dallas. For the past eight years, Obama’s surrogates like Black Lives Matter and Al Sharpton have been telling black people the police are the enemy. Police deaths are up this year. Is it a coincidence?

In New York, attendees of a Black Lives Matters march chanted for “dead cops.”

Why did Micah Johnson shoot 12 police officers and two civilians? He wanted to “kill white people, especially white officers.”

Finally, under the intense weight of a narrative he helped create, Obama tried to dial it back.

But the damage has already been done in so many ways.

The cynical use of the Ferguson fantasy as well as the use of people of color being shot by police as political hammers have served only to divide the nation along hard racial lines. Especially when those stories don’t turn out to be what’s been pushed.

Yet, in an election year, dead cops and ISIS inspired attacks are not a good narrative for the president’s legacy.

So Obama goes back to old, reliable, “The guns made him do it.”

Radical Islam and race relations are both important subjects the nation must discuss. Both will be uncomfortable conversations for each side if an honest talk is to take place. The president’s insistence on seeing these issues through his preferred political lens is dangerous and non- productive.

Three times now, murderers have told the nation why they committed the atrocities they did. And three times Barack Obama has asked, “Who are ya gonna believe, me or your own eyes?”

 

© 2016 carlgottliebdotnet

Dallas

DMN Front Page
Photo courtesy: Ting Shen/Dallas Morning News

Nearly eight years into Barack Obama’s race baiting of America, he’s finally achieved his goal. Open warfare against, what he believes is, an irretrievably racist white society.

After the shooting of black men by police in Minnesota and Louisiana, Obama couldn’t resist the opportunity to do what he does best. Divide the nation by race and class.

This was part of his reaction to the shootings:

“All of us as Americans should be troubled by these shootings,” he continued. “These are not isolated incidents, they are symptomatic of a broader set of racial disparities that exist in our criminal justice system.”

Instead of waiting for the facts to come in, Obama couldn’t resist the opportunity to push his favorite narrative.

But later, once the consequences of his words became clear, at least five officers gunned down in Dallas with seven more wounded (as well as two civilians), Obama changed his tone, calling the police shootings “despicable.” But his prior words, like birds, can’t be called back once let loose. (Thank you mom.)

And to be sure Obama’s words have had consequences. One of the shooters wanted to, “kill as many white people as possible.”

Dallas Cops
Photo courtesy: Maria R. Olivas/Dallas Morning News

The president has assured the nation justice would be done. A hard sell after Hillary Clinton’s non-indictment for indictable offenses.

But never wasting a crisis, Obama wasn’t quite done. He wouldn’t be the political creature he is without pushing an agenda born of tragedy.

“Today is a wrenching reminder of the sacrifices they make for us,” Obama said of law enforcement officers. “We also know when people are armed with powerful weapons, unfortunately, it makes attacks like these more deadly and more tragic.”

Out of the other side of the president’s mouth Obama said he wanted Friday to “focus is on the victims and their families.”

“Focus on the families,” simply means change the narrative.

In an election year where Americans are worried about their safety and security, the killing of five police officers is political poison for Obama and his party. Spelled H-I-L-L-A-R-Y.

That’s why we’re hearing frantic calls from media to “not politicize,” Dallas.

If only someone had told Jesse Jackson, who couldn’t wait to blame… who else? Donald Trump!

You can’t have it both ways. The president’s surrogates have pushed the racist cop narrative so hard that demonstrators have called for violence. Why wouldn’t you if your leaders have convinced you police don’t care about your life?

But remember this video? Black Lives Matter led the New York street marches after police killed a black man in Staten Island. The chants of the crowd are clear. They want “dead cops.” They want “dead cops now.”

Yesterday, without all the facts, cable news fanned the flames of resentment for ratings. Emotion sells. Especially if it’s politically correct emotion. How could they so soon forget how wrong they were about Ferguson?

CNN
Photo courtesy: CNN

Look at what über-liberal Jonathan Capehart said about the killing of Michael Brown in Ferguson and the false narrative that was pushed for months.

It’s time for media and Barack Obama to shut up and allow the system to work. It doesn’t always work, but it’s still the best legal system around.

The racial resentment they both foment just came back to bite them on their collective asses. It isn’t doing the nation any good either.

There’s a saying in journalism that applies to everything. “It’s more important to be right, than to be first.”

The deaths of five police officers in Dallas should be the turning point where media decides it isn’t going to report speculation and rancid, self-serving political opinions, especially in emotionally charged stories. I doubt it will be.

And as I mentioned above, media have already put out the message that this is not a time to politicize tragedy. Too bad they didn’t think of that yesterday.

 

© 2016 carlgottliebdotnet

The Immaculate Indictment

Yesterday’s remarkable performance by FBI Director James Comey, or as I call it, The Immaculate Indictment, would take a religious epiphany for one to conclude Hillary Clinton shouldn’t be indicted based on the evidence presented.

Why “immaculate?”

Because while not an official indictment, Comey indicted Hillary in the court of public opinion.

Fifty four percent of voters polled believe Hillary should have been indicted.

Eighty one percent of the voters, as indicated in the latest Rasmussen Reports Poll, believe the powerful get preferential treatment when they break the law.” Clinton should have been indicted.

Just what this election has been about from the get go.

Them and us.

The people believe the elites play by different rules, made by the elite, for the elite. Have I said elite enough?

Most TV reporters you see on cable or the networks aren’t the “ink stained wretches” of black and white movies. They often party and play with the people they cover. They make a lot of money. They are the elite.

The crossover and intermingling of the worlds of journalism and politics is understandable. You meet people at work. But it’s also understandable that the people might be suspicious. They have every right to be.

Polls show voters believe the media have a pro Hillary bias. [See The Samuel Taylor Coleridge Election].

Here’s a way to try and win back the confidence of some of those voters.

It’s time for the elites in media to pressure the former Secretary of State into an open press conference.  Not a controlled sit down on a set with a sympathetic reporter, no redundancy intended. Not a town hall stacked with anyone’s adoring supporters.

A real press conference. The last one Hillary Clinton held was on December 4, 2015. That’s 215 days, or a little more than seven months ago.

Obnoxious time comparisons:

– It took the Mayflower a little more than three months to make it from England to the shore off of what’s now Cape Cod.

– The gestation period of a grizzly bear is about 220 days.

– The gestation period of an opossum is 12 -13 days. I don’t know if they’re frisky creatures.

Resist shiny things and low hanging fruit.

Donald Trump makes it easy for the media to lose focus on what they’d like to lose focus on. Seems The Donald praised Saddam Hussein. Not the first time, but the first time media was looking for anything to change the narrative. A number of reporters jumped on it. Why not?

It’s a gift to media and Democrats redundant) that Trump seems to lack the ability to process and stop his thoughts before they become headlines. “Dude, do you hear yourself talking?”

The shooting of Alton Sterling, while a big story because of what looks like an execution by police of a black man, shouldn’t be ignored, nor should it be a distraction from Hillary Clinton’s deeds.

I hope the media, especially cable TV, resists the urge to politicize this the way they did Ferguson. Remember the now embarrassingly discredited “hands up don’t shoot” theme of nearly every show on CNN?

CNN.jpg

I doubt the social justice warriors in newsrooms will be able to resist, especially with the shooting video to use in teases and promos. Conflict works.

Hint to media: you can cover both stories.

Louisiana Governor John Bel Edwards has already handed the investigation over to the Department of Justice and the FBI. It’s time to let the system work. You know, the same system that delighted liberals when it didn’t didn’t indict Hillary. No justice, no peace anyone?

There’s no point in asking the Democrats and Hillary to lay off the racial politics for the good of the country. If they make the calculation a long hot summer is good for their electoral fortunes, there will be a long hot summer.

But back to the media.

Once again the people are telling the media, screaming at the media, “we’re being rat-fucked, please do something.”

When eighty one percent of the people believe they’re screwed it’s a dangerous thing.

To my former colleagues and friends in the media: isn’t it time to get back some of your self-respect? You work for the people, not the politicians. You have the unique opportunity and privilege to hold those politicians accountable. With that privilege comes the responsibility to do so.

Demand Hillary face the press and the people.

 
© 2016 carlgottliebdotnet

Dazed and Confused. The Comey Statement.

If you watched James Comey’s statement on TV, maybe you came away dazed and confused like I did.

The FBI Director went through his department’s year-long investigation and addressed what they had found. Not being a lawyer, it seemed to me Hillary Clinton was about to be indicted.

Some lawyers thought Clinton should have been indicted too. Andrew C. McCarthey, the former Assistant U.S. Attorney who prosecuted Sheikh Omar Abdul Rahman, and a personal friend of Comey’s, tore him a new one.

All over social media, people mockingly rejoiced in the “lack of intent” part of Hillary’s seeming exoneration.

“Sorry officer, I didn’t mean to speed. Will that be all?” You get the picture.

But I’m not sure Comey let Hillary off the hook. He may have even signaled his disdain for Clinton when he said:

“To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences.”

If you read Comey’s speech you can see it’s an attack ad bonanza for Donald Trump.

Comey’s description of how the woman who would be president handled state secrets for self-serving reasons has to make even the deepest blue Democrats question Clinton’s judgement and honesty. Again.

The recent State Department Inspector General’s report showed Clinton’s key assertions about how she handled her e-mails were false. Today, according to the Comey FBI report, her claims have once again proven to be mostly lies.

Jim Nabors Surprise

And surprise, surprise, It also seems Hillary’s representatives lied to the press about the process her lawyers employed to sort through her e-mails.

Even worse, Hillary may have perjured herself when she testified before Congress.

In light of today’s events, it becomes increasingly hard to believe the Clinton-Lynch tale about “running into each other at the airport,” calling into question Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s honesty. Today makes it feel even more like the fix was in. Think about the timing of today’s Obama campaign trip.

Maybe even worse for Clinton, it’s not hard to see how people believe that laws are different for the little people. It’s also not hard to believe if you have enough power and influence you can seemingly skate by anything. The very things Bernie Sanders voters despise.

The candidate that could least afford to look like a privileged insider will have a harder, if not impossible time shaking that mantle. Photo ops in a Mexican fast food place or on a subway car can’t wash away the smug entitlement of someone the voters believe is above the law and not accountable.

Not a good look for a candidate in the year of populism and the outsider.

 

© 2016 carlgottliebdotnet

The Tweet and Media’s Hypocrisy When it Comes to Anti-Semitism

My first clear memory of someone being openly anti-Semitic to me was in the mid-1950’s. I was probably about six, maybe seven years old.

As I sat on the “Johnny-pump,” fire hydrant to most of you, my young and boundless imagination re-enacted some western I’d no doubt seen on TV. The hydrant became my horse.

The little blonde girl, from the building next door, walked by and considered me. I had noticed her before. She may have been my first blonde shiksa goddess. Not for long.

“Do you know my name?” she demanded. An odd question to ask the first time you meet someone.
“No,” eyes down my shy face burned.
“My name is Christina,” she seemed angry. “Do you know how to spell Christina?” Another question I could only answer with a quiet, “no.”
“Christina has Christ in it and you can’t spell it because you’re a Jew. My Grandpa says the Jews killed Christ.” I remember running to my apartment in tears.

My parents, and nearly all of my aunts and uncles, were holocaust survivors. Most had been out of the camps no more than a dozen years. The memory of the horrors they endured were fresh and still raw, not yet softened by the years.

Some of their physical scars hadn’t faded. Their emotional scars never would. Those scars help shape the lives of people like me.

I grew up with stories about concentration camp “life,” death, and brutality the way most kids grow up with Hans Christian Anderson. My parents and relatives taught me to never accept anti-Semitism.

You’d think I’d be happy with the criticism of the now infamous Donald Trump Star of David tweet. I’m not.

The same self-righteous bull-shitters that shielded Barack Obama from years of sitting in the pews of anti-Semitic preacher Jeremiah Wright, are trying to use a tweet with Star of David imagery to tar Trump.

Wright, by the way, is also a fan boy of Jew baiter extraordinaire Louis Farrakhan.

The media wasn’t rushing to the defense of Jews as Al Sharpton turned his wrath on Crown Heights in Brooklyn, and Freddy’s Fashion Mart in Harlem. People died and now Sharpton has a TV show on MSNBC and advises President Barack Obama.

Here are transcripts of Sharpton’s diatribes as he spurred protesters in the Freddy’s tragedy.

This account of the Freddy’s murders by prolific blogger Yid with a Lid is chilling.

As media continued its full-throated political defense of Judaism over a tweet, Elie Weisel died. Most of the world mourned the loss of a good man who taught the world what the holocaust meant.

Before Weisel’s body is even cold, Max Blumenthal, the son of Hillary Clinton confident, and e-mail buddy, Sidney Blumenthal, goes on a vicious tweetstorm about the man much of the civilized world admires.

Outside conservative media, the story got little coverage.

You may say none of those bigots are running for president. You’d be right.

Wright was Barack Obama’s spiritual advisor. Sharpton became Obama’s political advisor.

With all of the faults in Donald’s briefcase of bombast, I don’t think anti-Semitism is in there. A possibly clumsy tweet, magnified by the echo chamber of a hostile press, looking for the next outrage, doesn’t cut it for me.

Nor do I need the media to stand up against supposed anti-Semitism when it’s politically convenient and supports a narrative they want to push.

What ever happened with Christina? I never spoke with her again. Over the years her brother (I don’t remember his name) tormented me until I caught up with him in size.

One winter afternoon East 165th Street was snowed in between Whitlock and Longfellow Avenues. I saw Christina’s brother coming down the street with a full grocery bag while I played in the fresh, still falling snow.

My slush-ball flew fast and true. It hit him in the back with a heavy thud and his groceries flew everywhere. He ran into his building and his grandfather came for me in a rage. He slapped me hard across my face. At about eleven or twelve I was no match for this brute. I fell into the snow, dazed.

The man at least 40 years my senior berated me with every age old anti-Jew blood libel imaginable as I regained my composure. Sometimes I still think of his face as the closest thing to perfect hate I’ve ever seen.

“I wish Hitler had finished the job,” he spat at me as he walked away.

I made another slush-ball and hit him in the back of the head with it as hard as I could throw. He turned and stared death at me. I didn’t budge.

© 2016 carlgottliebdotnet

The Star of David

On the day the former Secretary of State, and presidential front runner Hillary Clinton, is questioned at headquarters by the FBI about her e-mail set up, the mainstream media are obsessed with a Donald Trump campaign tweet that has a Star of David in it.

04fd-stardavid-blog427
Photo courtesy of New York Times

As a Jew and the son of two holocaust survivors, I took a look to see if it was upsetting. It really wasn’t. In fact, since Hillary isn’t Jewish the charges make no sense.

But where have I seen the Star of David (outside Judaism) before?

Insert swirly flashback lines here. Sometime around 1972.

I was on I-40 West headed to Memphis. If you’ve ever driven that stretch of road, you know there is usually little traffic and flat, straight road. For me and my Camaro it was too much to resist.

My foot hit the floor and the V8 roared. The front of the Camaro jumped and in an instant I went from the speed limit, 75 at the time, to a speed I don’t care to mention.

The blue lights in my rearview pulled my foot from the accelerator.

And there it was. The Star of David on the Trooper’s shoulder patch. And as I recall, a Star of David on the Trooper’s car.

Trooper&HisCar
A more recent photo of a trooper and his car

Anything can be twisted into the worst possible meaning, and often is when it suits media’s narrative. That is: Trump’s followers are anti-Semitic.

They’re right. Some Trump followers are scumbag anti-Semites. So are some of Hillary’s followers. So are some of Barack Obama’s devotees. Anti-Semitism is a thing in America.

If we Jews were to withhold our votes from candidates with anti-Semitic fans we’d likely never vote.

The star looked to me like a law enforcement symbol used to push Trump’s favorite attack line “crooked Hillary.” The money a symbol, to Trump supporters, of Hillary’s greed.

Just like that. Every media organization chimed in and said it was anti-Semitism. The Trump campaign changed the star into a circle. Is it proof the Star of David was there because of anti-Semitism? No. It’s proof that if you’re hounded about something you can change, you change it.

In this election media have elected to sanitize Hillary Clinton’s past. Hillary had her own anti-Semitic scandal years ago. She was accused of calling Paul Fray, a campaign aide during the 70’s a, “fucking Jew bastard.”

Contrast that to how media handled the now infamous “impromptu” Bill Clinton – Attorney General Loretta Lynch tarmac meeting.

Should media lay off Donald Trump to be fair? Hell no.

But please stop shading the news in favor of Hillary Clinton.

No one in their right mind believes the tarmac meeting was an accident. The fact that a candidate for the presidency is being questioned by the FBI is a “big fucking deal.” Apologies to Joe Biden.

Yes, remind people of her past. Many young voters weren’t alive or were kids when Hillary ran the “nuts and sluts” campaign against Bill’s accusers. They deserve to know everything, and no, the press doesn’t get to decide what’s been “litigated.”

One of the first things you’re taught as a journalist is to assume your audience knows nothing about the story.

As a former News Director of mine would implore, “a random act of journalism please?”

 

© 2016 carlgottliebdotnet