Widget Image
Follow PPD Social Media
follow
1,000 Followers
follow
0 Followers
follow
People's Pundit Locals Community
Saturday, January 11, 2025
SECTIONS
logo
mobile-logo
HomeStandard Blog Whole Post (Page 80)
Editorials

Graphic concept for the media industry depicting an anchorman woman with a city background delivering a fake breaking news tv broadcast for a news organization. (Photo: AdobeStock)
Graphic concept for the media industry depicting an anchorman woman with a city background delivering a fake breaking news tv broadcast for a news organization. (Photo: AdobeStock)

The primary source of division in the United States of America is corporate big media, not Donald Trump. Now openly partisan, big media have been dividing Americans for political gain long before he ever came on the political scene.

Here are four of the worst, most cited lies big media manufactured and critics have used to support the allegation Donald Trump is a racist.

Big Media Lied About Trump From the Jump

On June 16, 2015, big media began spreading the lie Donald Trump called Mexicans rapists, even that he called all Mexicans rapists. It became and remains one of the most frequently used examples to support accusations of racism.

He said no such thing. Here is the video and entire relevant transcript.

The U.S. has become a dumping ground for everyone else’s problems. It’s true. And these aren’t the best and the finest.

When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you [pointing]. They’re not sending you [pointing].

They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists and, some, I assume are good people. But I speak to border guards and they tell us what we’re getting.

And it only makes common sense. It only makes common sense. They’re sending us not the right people. It’s coming from more than Mexico. It’s coming from all over South and Latin America and, it’s coming probably, from the Middle East. But we don’t know because we have no protection.

Donald J. Trump, Presidential Campaign Announcement at Trump Tower in New York City on June 16, 2015

Crass and lacking tact? Absolutely.

But Donald Trump did not say Mexicans are rapists, let alone that all Mexicans are rapists. It is no more true than the reports claiming he called for the creation of a national database for Muslims.

Trump Called for a Muslim Registry

Jussie Smollett — who staged being the victim of a hate crime at the hands of the president’s supporters in Chicago — fully believed Donald Trump called for a national database to serve as a Muslim registry. He is by no means alone in that belief.

Jussie Smollett Muslim Registry Tweet November 2015. (Photo: Twitter Screenshot)
Jussie Smollett Muslim Registry Tweet November 2015. (Photo: Twitter Screenshot)

He did no such thing. In November 2015, then-candidate Donald Trump was interviewed by Hunter Walker at Yahoo! News. The exchange followed:

Hunter Walker (Yahoo! News): Do you think we need to register Muslims in some type of database or note their religion on their I.D.?

Donald Trump: Well, we’re going to have to look at a lot of things very closely. We’re going to have to look at the mosques. We’re going to have to look very, very carefully.

Hunter Walker interviewing Donald Trump for Yahoo! News, November 2015

When it was first reported by Yahoo! News, Mr. Walker reported he wouldn’t rule out a Muslim registry. CNN later reported “Donald Trump on Thursday called for the creation of a national database” in a story published online under the headline, Trump Wants Muslim Database.

Worth noting, Islam is a religion, not a race. But much like the tweet above, the facts do little to silence the critics.

A “Hitlerian” Inaugural Address

Donald Trump’s Inaugural Address on January 20, 2017, was a clarion call for conservative populism. He put the status quo powers on notice and told the American people they would never be forgotten again.

Here is the entire address and a transcript of “a few of the most memorable lines” from the address.

For too long, a small group in our nation’s capital has reaped the rewards of government while the people have borne the cost. Washington flourished, but the people did not share in its wealth. Politicians prospered, but the jobs left and the factories closed.

The establishment protected itself, but not the citizens of our country. Their victories have not been your victories. Their triumphs have not been your triumphs. And while they celebrated in our nation’s capital, there was little to celebrate for struggling families all across our land.

That all changes starting right here and right now because this moment is your moment, it belongs to you. January 20th, 2017 will be remembered as the day the people became the rulers of this nation again.

What truly matters is not which party controls our government, but whether our government is controlled by the people. This Americans carnage stops right here, and it stops right now. We are one nation and their pain is our pain.

When you open your heart to patriotism, there is no room for prejudice. We all bleed the same blood of patriots.

We share one heart, one home and one glorious destiny.

Donald J. Trump, Presidential Inaugural Address in D.C. on January 20, 2017

On MSNBC, Chris Matthews characterized the speech as “Hitlerian.” On his network and others, critics claimed the “us vs. them” theme didn’t actually refer to the “people vs. the powerful” but rather was a “white vs. non-white” reference.

It was an outrageous, divisive media manufactured lie meant to scare minority voters back to their socially constructed cells in a political prison run by their preferred party.

It was meant to guilt white voters who supported Donald Trump. It was meant to protect the status quo.

Neo-Nazis Are “Fine People”

The Charlottesville hoax — which relies on the belief Donald Trump called neo-Nazis “fine people” — is one of the most dangerous, irresponsible and divisive lies ever spread in U.S. political discourse. Big media purposefully and repeatedly omitted statements to take the president out of context.

Joe Biden not only cited but chose to focus on the lie in the video launching his presidential campaign. In the wake of the shootings in El Paso and Dayton, the hoax has resurfaced.

But it is not true. It is another media manufactured lie, perhaps the worst of all.

Donald Trump: Excuse me, they didn’t put themselves down as neo-Nazis, and you had some very bad people in that group. But you also had people that were very fine people on both sides. You had people in that group — excuse me, excuse me. I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down, of to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name.

Reporter: George Washington and Robert E. Lee are not the same.

Donald Trump: Oh no, George Washington was a slave owner. Was George Washington a slave owner? So will George Washington now lose his status? Are we going to take down — excuse me. Are we going to take down, are we going to take down statues to George Washington? How about Thomas Jefferson? What do you think of Thomas Jefferson? You like him? Okay, good. Are we going to take down his statue? He was a major slave owner. Are we going to take down his statue? You know what? It’s fine, you’re changing history. You’re changing culture and you had people — and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally — but you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists, okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly. Now, in the other group also, you had some fine people, but you also had troublemakers and you see them come with the black outfits and with the helmets and with the baseball bats — you had a lot of bad people in the other group, too.

That despicable hoax has spread far and wide, from politics to pop culture.

Americans can’t even watch a stand up comedy routine on Netflix without being subjected to it. In You Complete Me, Ho comedian Ken Jeong asked the audience how hard it was to denounce neo-Nazis. He concluded it was because the president is a racist.

Like Mr. Smollett, Ken Jeong believed the lie. Like most in Tinseltown, he relies on socially-approved media sources to feed him manufactured lies, which he in turn feeds to his audience, deepening the division.

The sad truth is that big media manufactured these lies with the intention of deepening division. If critics didn’t have them to reference in debate, they wouldn’t have much to debate, at all.

Here are four of the worst, most

Economy

A graphic concept depicting a young family and a mortgage application for a home. (Photo: AdobeStock)
A graphic concept depicting a young family and a mortgage application for a home. (Photo: AdobeStock)

The Mortgage Bankers Association’s (MBA) Weekly Mortgage Applications Survey gained 5.3% for the week ending August 2. The jump in the survey followed a drop in interest rates and a surge in refinance applications.

Purchase Index fell 2% from the week ending July 26.

IndicatorJuly 26August 2
Composite Index – W/W∆-1.4%5.3%
Purchase Index – W/W ∆-3.0%-2.0%
Refinance Index – W/W ∆0.1%12.0%

“The Federal Reserve cut rates as expected last week, but the bigger influence on the financial markets was the beginning of a trade war with China,” Mike Fratantoni, MBA Senior Vice President and Chief Economist, said. “The result was a sharp drop in mortgage rates, which will likely draw many refinance borrowers into the market in the coming weeks.”

The 30-year fixed rate mortgage fell to its lowest level since November 2016, fueling a nearly 12% gain in refinance applications. The Refinance Index now sits at over 2,000, the highest level for the same time period and 116% higher than the same week one year ago.

“We fully expect that refinance volume will jump even higher this week given the further drop in rates,” Mr. Fratantoni added.

The refinance share of mortgage activity rose to 53.9% of total applications, up from 50.5% the previous week. The adjustable-rate mortgage (ARM) share of activity was unchanged at 4.7%.

The FHA share of total applications decreased to 11.0 percent from 11.3 percent the week prior. The VA share of total applications increased to 12.8 percent from 12.6 percent the week prior. The USDA share of total applications remained unchanged from 0.6 percent the week prior.

The average contract interest rate for 30-year fixed-rate mortgages with conforming loan balances ($484,350 or less) decreased to 4.01 percent from 4.08 percent, with points increasing to 0.37 from 0.34 (including the origination fee) for 80 percent loan-to-value ratio (LTV) loans. The effective rate decreased from last week.

The average contract interest rate for 30-year fixed-rate mortgages with jumbo loan balances (greater than $484,350) decreased to 3.96 percent from 4.04 percent, with points increasing to 0.26 from 0.22 (including the origination fee) for 80 percent LTV loans. The effective rate decreased from last week.

The average contract interest rate for 30-year fixed-rate mortgages backed by the FHA decreased to 3.86 percent from 3.94 percent, with points increasing to 0.38 from 0.29 (including the origination fee) for 80 percent LTV loans. The effective rate decreased from last week.

The average contract interest rate for 15-year fixed-rate mortgages decreased to 3.37 percent from 3.48 percent, with points increasing to 0.37 from 0.26 (including the origination fee) for 80 percent LTV loans. The effective rate decreased from last week.

The average contract interest rate for 5/1 ARMs decreased to 3.36 percent from 3.52 percent, with points increasing to 0.36 from 0.31 (including the origination fee) for 80 percent LTV loans. The effective rate decreased from last week.

Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA) Press Release

About the Survey

The survey covers over 75 percent of all U.S. retail residential mortgage applications, and has been conducted weekly since 1990. Respondents include mortgage bankers, commercial banks and thrifts. Base period and value for all indexes is March 16, 1990=100.

The Mortgage Bankers Association's (MBA) Weekly Mortgage

Economy

The total number of job openings in the U.S. was little changed at 7.348 million in June, slightly beating the consensus forecast (7.293 million). The number was revised higher for May, up from 7.323 million to 7.384 million.

Hires and separations were largely unchanged at 5.7 million and 5.5 million, respectively. Within separations, the quits rate was unchanged at 2.3%, as was the layoffs and discharges rate at 1.1%.

The total number of job openings in

Policy

AdobeStock_135014859-Home-Prices-Scale-Flat-1200x630
Graphic concept of a house on a flat scale with currency. (Photo: AdobeStock)

In my libertarian fantasies, we dramatically shrink the size of the federal government and return to pre-1913 policy by getting rid of the income tax.

But if I’m forced to be at least vaguely realistic, the second-best option is scrapping the current tax code and replacing it with a simple and fair flat tax based on the “Holy Trinity” of good policy.

The third-best option (i.e., the best we can hope for in the real world) is to adopt incremental reforms that move the tax code in the right direction.

That happened in 2017. I’ve written many times about why it was a very good idea to reduce the tax rate on corporate income. And I’ve also lauded the 2017 law’s limitation on the state and local tax deduction.

Today, let’s focus on the changes in that law that reduced the tax preference for residential real estate.

The housing lobby — especially builders and realtors — tried to scare lawmakers that any reduction in their privileged tax status would cause a large amount of damage.

Yet, as reported last year by the New York Times, there was no adverse effect in the first year of the new tax law.

It wasn’t supposed to take long for the Trump tax cuts to hobble housing prices… Nearly nine months later, those warnings have not materialized. …Economists see only faint effects from the new law so far in housing data. They’re small, and they’re contained to a few high-priced, highly taxed ZIP codes, largely in blue states. They’re nothing close to the carnage that real estate groups warned about when the law was under debate last fall. …the tax law has unquestionably diminished the value of several federal subsidies for homeowners. It limits deductions for state and local taxes, including property taxes, to $10,000 per household, which hurts owners of expensive homes in high-tax states. It lowers the cap on the mortgage interest deduction, which raises housing prices by allowing homeowners to write off the interest payments from their loans, to $750,000 for new loans, down from $1 million.

To the extent the impact could even be measured, it was a net plus for the economy.

After the law passed, ZIP codes in the Boston area saw a 0.6 percentage point slowdown in home appreciation on the Massachusetts side — and a 0.1 percent acceleration on the New Hampshire side. The effect there is “not huge, it’s small,”… Experts say several forces are helping to counteract the diminished federal home-buying subsidies. …said Kevin Hassett, “…if you’re getting a lot of income growth, the income growth increases the demand for housing, and the mortgage interest deduction reduces it. And the effects offset.”

This chart from the story is particularly persuasive. If anything, it appears housing values rose faster after the law was changed (though presumably due to bad policies such as building restrictions and zoning laws, not just the faster growth caused by a a shift in tax policy).

There’s also no negative effect one year later. A report from today’s New York Times finds that the hysterical predictions of the housing lobby haven’t materialized.

Even though the tax preference was significantly reduced.

The mortgage-interest deduction, a beloved tax break bound tightly to the American dream of homeownership, once seemed politically invincible. Then it nearly vanished in middle-class neighborhoods across the country, and it appears that hardly anyone noticed. …The 2017 law nearly doubled the standard deduction — to $24,000 for a couple filing jointly — on federal income taxes, giving millions of households an incentive to stop claiming itemized deductions. As a result, far fewer families — and, in particular, far fewer middle-class families — are claiming the itemized deduction for mortgage interest. In 2018, about one in five taxpayers claimed the deduction, Internal Revenue Service statistics show. This year, that number fell to less than one in 10. The benefit, as it remains, is largely for high earners, and more limited than it once was: The 2017 law capped the maximum value of new mortgage debt eligible for the deduction at $750,000, down from $1 million.

Once again, the evidence shows good news.

…housing professionals, home buyers and sellers — and detailed statistics about the housing market — show no signs that the drop in the use of the tax break is weighing on prices or activity. …Such reactions challenge a longstanding American political consensus. For decades, the mortgage-interest deduction has been alternately hailed as a linchpin of support for homeownership (by the real estate industry)…. most economists on the left and the right…argued that the mortgage-interest deduction violated every rule of good policymaking. It was regressive, benefiting wealthy families… Studies repeatedly found that the deduction actually reduced ownership rates by helping to inflate home prices, making homes less affordable to first-time buyers. …In the debate over the tax law in 2017, the industry warned that the legislation could cause house prices to fall 10 percent or more in some parts of the country. …Places where a large share of middle-class taxpayers took the mortgage-interest deduction, for example, have not seen any meaningful difference in price increases from less-affected areas.

Incidentally, here’s a chart from the story. It shows that the rich have always been the biggest beneficiaries of the tax preference.

And now the deduction that remains is even more skewed toward upper-income households.

As far as I’m concerned, the tax code shouldn’t punish people simply because they earn a lot of money.

But neither should it give them special goodies.

For what it’s worth, the mortgage interest deduction is not a left-vs-right or statism-vs-libertarian issue.

I’ve crossed swords on a few occasions with Bill Gale of the Brooking Institute, but his column a few months ago in the Wall Street Journal wisely calls for full repeal of this tax preference.

With any luck, the 2017 tax overhaul will prove to be only the first step toward eventually replacing the century-old housing subsidy… This is a welcome change. The mortgage-interest deduction has existed since the income tax was created in 1913, but it has never been easy to justify. …Canada, the United Kingdom, and Australia have no mortgage-debt subsidies, yet their homeownership rates are slightly higher than in the U.S. A large reduction in the mortgage-interest deduction in Denmark in 1987 had virtually no effect on homeownership rates. …The next step should be to eliminate the deduction altogether. The phaseout should be gradual but complete.

Here’s another example.

Nobody would ever accuse the folks at Slate of being market friendly, so this article is another sign that there’s a consensus against using the tax code to tilt the playing field in favor of residential real estate.

One of the most remarkable things about the tax bill Republicans passed last year was how it took a rotary saw to the mortgage interest deduction. The benefit for homeowners was once considereda politically untouchable upper-middle-class entitlement, but the GOP aggressively curtailed it in order to pay for cuts elsewhere in the tax code. …just 13.8 million households will subtract mortgage interest from their 2018 returns, down from 32.3 million in 2017. …if Democrats ever get a chance to kill off the vestigial remains of the mortgage interest deduction down the line, they might as well. …any negative effect of the tax law seems to have been drowned out by a healthy economy.

I’ll close by digging into the archives at the Heritage Foundation and dusting off one of my studies from 1996.

Analyzing the flat tax and home values, I pointed out that rising levels of personal income were the key to a strong housing market, not the value of the tax deduction.

Everything that’s happened over the past 23 years – and especially the past two years – confirms my analysis.

Simply stated, economic growth is how we get more good things in society. That’s true for housing, as explained above, and it’s also true for charitable giving.

The housing lobby was wrong about the

Opinion

Summer's End. Lexington Green, 11 September 2002. Photo taken in Minute Man National Historical Park, with flag at half staff on the first anniversary of the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001. Sculpture : "Minuteman" by sculptor Henry Hudson Kitson (1863-1947), dedicated April 19, 1900. Erected 1899. (Wiki via Aldaron CC)
Summer’s End. Lexington Green, 11 September 2002. Photo taken in Minute Man National Historical Park, with flag at half staff on the first anniversary of the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001. Sculpture : “Minuteman” by sculptor Henry Hudson Kitson (1863-1947), dedicated April 19, 1900. Erected 1899. (Wiki via Aldaron CC)

The problem in our society today is not guns. The problem is us and how we view what a functional society is supposed to be. What we have in America is a nation of sheep guarded by a few rams, and a pack pissed off wolves living on the same water supply.

Civil war is beginning to break out in every city. If we keep pushing our particular brand of politics; if we keep saying someone who has different ideas is evil; if we keep grabbing at other peoples’ things and ideas, it will continue to get worse.

People need to stop dividing society and start asking two important questions. Why are people so angry at each other and what can we do to stop it?

Indeed, the issue is not skin color, but the divisions in society, and people viewing each other in identity groups, rather than as human beings, or Americans with a common bond.

Multiculturalism, racism and identity politics do more to hurt us than any gun. Neither the Second Amendment nor the National Rifle Association (NRA) are the problem. Our current understanding of what makes a functional society, is wrong.

The single shot rifle is the primary form of national and personal defense. Without it, the nation is effectively disarmed.

As for the Second Amendment, the phrase “well-regulated” was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected.

Not only was it not the intent of the founders to establish government oversight of the people’s arms, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that they chose that language.

Any sort of federal intervention in gun regulation thus is not what was intended, and the states and cities embracing local control are the areas where these sorts of incidents occur with greater frequency.

Even though Texas loosened gun laws, it was done only fairly recently and El Paso still retains many older regulations. A story from 2016 illustrates how few people in El Paso are armed.

Another term is “militia” and that was decided several times by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS), most recently in District of Columbia v. Heller. The Court looked at it and its 18th century phrasing.

The justices divided the Amendment into an operative clause: “right of the people to keep and bear arms,” and the clause: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.”

The court determined the relationship between these phrases, as well as the historical context of the U.S. Constitution’s creation, clearly provided an individual right. Thus, the term “Militia” meant “of the people” not “of the government,” neither federal or state.

As a point of note, the problem with these mass shooting is that our nation is effectively disarmed. The vast majority of people in everyday life no longer embrace the Second Amendment.

They do not walk around armed. They do not know about, nor are they comfortable around, firearms. In such a society, a trained or experienced shooter with the single shot rifle is an extremely dangerous individual. Add to that the divisions we have now created in our society, and you have a recipe for disaster.

We are all Americans. and fellow human beings, not identity groups. It’s acceptable to have different ideas and debate them as long as we don’t see each other as different. When we stop dividing people by color, politics and gender, then people will reduce killing each other.

Legislation won’t solve the inherent problems of division in society, and in fact, it may exacerbate them.

Never trust government, politicians or authority, but instead put your trust in responsibility and self-sufficiency, as well as disciplined self-reliance. Such a person, who is responsible for one’s own defense and actions resulting from it, is never a “mass shooter”.

We need to demand accountability both in ourselves, and society at large.

Then, and only then, will these violent massacres stop.

The problem in our society is us,

Economy

A Walmart employee who serves as a "customer host," walks in front of the customer service desk at a Walmart super-center location in Gainesville, Florida. (Photo: Laura Baris/People's Pundit Daily/PPD)
A Walmart employee who serves as a “customer host,” walks in front of the customer service desk at a Walmart super-center location in Gainesville, Florida. (Photo: Laura Baris/People’s Pundit Daily/PPD)

The Institute for Supply Management (ISM) Non-Manufacturing Index (NMI) indicates the U.S. service sector grew more moderately in July. However, comments from the panel suggest an expected pickup in the second half of 2019.

“The non-manufacturing sector’s rate of growth continued to cool off,” Anthony Nieves, Chair of the ISM Non-Manufacturing Business Survey Committee, said. “Respondents indicated ongoing concerns related to tariffs and employment resources.”

The New Orders Index came in at 54.1%, which is down 1.7% from June. The Employment Index still rose 1.2% in July to 56.2%, but comments from the panel confirm PPD’s repeated reporting on the skills gap.

The 13 non-manufacturing industries reporting growth in July — listed in order — are: Accommodation & Food Services; Utilities; Professional, Scientific & Technical Services; Real Estate, Rental & Leasing; Transportation & Warehousing; Construction; Information; Other Services; Finance & Insurance; Public Administration; Management of Companies & Support Services; Mining; and Health Care & Social Assistance.

The five industries reporting a decrease are: Arts, Entertainment & Recreation; Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing & Hunting; Retail Trade; Wholesale Trade; and Educational Services.

WHAT RESPONDENTS ARE SAYING

  • “Business is still strong, considering the seasonality.” (Accommodation & Food Services)
  • “Business volumes were flat compared to the previous month.” (Health Care & Social Assistance)
  • “Tariffs continue to push costs higher, and customers are looking for more discounts due to mortgage-rate fluctuations.” (Construction)
  • “Some uncertainty hinges on tariffs, but there have been no changes in market conditions.” (Information)
  • “For our company, July is looking to be a record-setting month for sales. Customers have been converting quotes to sales quicker than in past months. The tariffs have increased prices for our industry, but our clients are not balking at the slight price increases that have been passed along. We feel that (the third quarter) will be strong.” (Management of Companies & Support Services)
  • “It appears that the mining capital-expense environment is improving, with a good prospectus for the coming months. Our dependence on Chinese and Asian supply chains remains strong. NAFTA countries do not have the same capacity and speed.” (Mining)
  • “Companies involved in the oil and gas industry remain cautious relative to hiring direct employees and contingent workers, as well as investing in new capital projects. Volatility in oil price and geopolitical concerns are driving this wait-and-see approach.” (Professional, Scientific & Technical Services)
  • “Demand seems strong. There are still pressures for skilled labor. It is difficult to find fully qualified candidates. Suppliers are having trouble with demand.” (Public Administration)
  • “As our corporate objectives drive us more and more into digitization, advanced analytics, and data management in general, we are finding it increasingly difficult to find, develop and retain professional with advanced skills in these disciplines.” (Retail Trade)
  • “Business is somewhat slow for the first half of 2019, but it is expected to pick up for the second half.” (Wholesale Trade)

The Institute for Supply Management (ISM) Non-Manufacturing

Politics

President Trump Proposes Holistic Approach to Combat All Violence in Wake of Mass Shootings

President Donald Trump on Monday said the “nation must condemn hatred, bigotry and white supremacy,” and proposed numerous actions to curb mass shootings.

“In one voice, our nation must condemn hatred, bigotry and white supremacy,” President Trump said. “Hate warps the heart, mind and soul.”

Over the weekend, a shooter from Dallas traveled to El Paso, Texas, and killed at least 20 people. Only hours later, the president said “another monster” claimed the lives of at least 9 in Dayton, Ohio.

“Our nation is overcome with shock, horror and sorrow by these evil attacks,” he said. “The First Lady and I join all Americans in praying and grieving with and for them.”

While Democrats in Congress and candidates for the 2020 nomination have used the shootings to call for strict gun control, the president called for an end to “destructive bipartisanship” and laid out numerous preventive measures.

Open wounds cannot heal if we are divided,” he said. “We must find real bipartisan solutions.”

The President said we must do a better job identifying early warning signs, stop the glorification of violence in our society and ensure those who pose a great risk to society do not have access to firearms.

“Cultural change is hard,” President Trump conceded. “But each of us can choose to build a culture that celebrates the inherent dignity of human life in every individual.”

He directed the Justice Department (DOJ) to work with social media companies to develop tools to detect mass shooters before they strike.

“We must stop mass murder on the Internet before it starts,” he said. “The perils of hate on social media and Internet cannot be ignored and they will not be ignored.”

He called for red flag laws, otherwise known as extreme risk protection orders, as well as a mandatory death penalty, or capital punishment for convicted mass shooters.

“I’m open and ready to listen to discuss all ideas that will actually work,” he added. “Now is the time to put destructed bipartisanship aside and find the courage to answer hatred with unity and love.”

“We are a loving nation and our children are entitled to grow up in a just and safe society. We ask God in Heaven to ease the pain of those who suffer in loss and we vow to act.”

President Donald Trump on Monday said the

Policy

New York Times (NYT) building in New York City. (PHOTO: REUTERS)
New York Times (NYT) building in New York City. (PHOTO: REUTERS)

I periodically mock the New York Times when editors, reporters, and columnists engage in sloppy and biased analysis.

Now we have another example.

Check out these excerpts from a New York Times column by Steven Greenhouse.

The United States is the only advanced industrial nation that doesn’t have national laws guaranteeing paid maternity leave. It is also the only advanced economy that doesn’t guarantee workers any vacation, paid or unpaid, and the only highly developed country (other than South Korea) that doesn’t guarantee paid sick days. …Among the three dozen industrial countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the United States has the lowest minimum wage as a percentage of the median wage — just 34 percent of the typical wage, compared with 62 percent in France and 54 percent in Britain. It also has the second-highest percentage of low-wage workers among that group… All this means the United States suffers from what I call “anti-worker exceptionalism.” …America’s workers have for decades been losing out: year after year of wage stagnation.

Steven Greenhouse, The New York Times

Sounds like the United States is some sort of Dystopian nightmare for workers, right?

Well, if there’s oppression of labor in America, workers in other nations should hope and pray for something similar.

Here’s a chart showing per-capita “actual individual consumption” for various nations that are part of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). As you can see, people in the United States have much higher living standards.

By the way, I can’t resist pointing out another big flaw in Mr. Greenhouse’s column.

He wrote that the U.S. has “the second-highest percentage of low-wage workers.” That sounds like there’s lots of poverty in America. Especially since the U.S. is being compared to a group of nations that includes decrepit economies such as Mexico, Turkey, Italy, and Greece.

But this statement is nonsense because it is based on OECD numbers that merely measure the percent of workers in each nation that earn less than two-thirds of the national median level. Yet, since median income generally is much higher in the United States, it’s absurd to use this data for international comparisons.

In other words, Mr. Greenhouse is relying on data that deliberately confuse absolute living standards and relative living standards.

Why?

Presumably to try to make the United States look bad and/or to advance a pro-redistribution agenda.

In an economically illiterate column for The

Politics

Mitch McConnell Refused to Meet With John Ratcliffe

President Donald Trump meets with John Ratcliffe and the Republican Study Committee regarding healthcare in the Oval Office on Friday, March 17, 2017. (Credit: Official White House Photo by Shealah Craighead)
President Donald Trump meets with John Ratcliffe and the Republican Study Committee regarding healthcare in the Oval Office on Friday, March 17, 2017. (Official White House Photo by Shealah Craighead)

Rep. John Ratcliffe, R-Tx., on Friday withdrew his name from consideration to replace Dan Coats as the Director of National Intelligence (DNI). The withdrawal came only days after President Donald Trump announced that Director Coats would step down this month.

Director Coats, a former U.S. Senator from Indiana, has held the job since March 2017.

“While I am and will remain very grateful to the President for his intention to nominate me as Director of National Intelligence, I am withdrawing from consideration,” the Ranking Member of the House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security tweeted on Friday.

Critics argued he didn’t have the experience to run the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI). Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said it would be a “big mistake” to confirm him “to a position that requires intelligence expertise and non-partisanship.”

President Trump said on Friday at the White House he thought Rep. Ratcliffe “was being treated very unfairly.”

“He doesn’t deserve it,” the President told reporters. He announced the withdrawal of Rep. Ratcliffe’s name from consideration and his intent to nominate on Twitter.

But according to sources with knowledge of the events, it was Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and two other Republican Senators who sank the intended nominee before the formal nomination. Further, their reasons appear to be unrelated to his job qualifications.

Sources tell PPD that President Trump, Vice President Mike Pence and acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney were willing to fight for what was expected to be a tough nomination battle.

The White House strategy was to allow political opponents to have their attacks following the announcement. They would not hold a press conference or respond until the political storm calmed. Rep. Ratcliff agreed under the condition the majority leader would have his back.

But he didn’t.

Instead, Senate Majority Leader McConnell refused to meet with Rep. Ratcliffe after the announcement, at best putting him off for at least a few weeks.

Senator Richard Burr, R-N.C., the Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee who would’ve presided over confirmation hearings, said publicly he would “work to move it swiftly through regular order” after the White House sent the formal nomination.

But privately, he was a “hard no,” according to sources.

“Burr was the big schemer,” one source, who spoke to PPD on the condition of anonymity, said. The scheme was to sabotage Rep. Ratcliffe to force President Trump to nominate ODNI Principal Deputy Director Sue Gordon, who by federal law is next in line to take over as acting DNI.

Senator Mark Warner, D-Va., the Ranking Member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, agrees. He tweeted “the President should take this opportunity to nominate a DNI in the mold of Dan Coats,” an intelligence insider.

“He [Burr] has more in common with Warner than he does with Trump on this and they want a more intelligence community-friendly nominee,” another source added. “Someone more like Coats.”

Mr. Coats served on the Senate Intelligence Committee from 2015 to 2016, which approved his nomination by a vote of 13 to 2 on March 9, 2017.

After the U.S. Senate voted 85 to 12 to confirmed him on March 15, the committee undertook what media and D.C. framed as “the serious investigation” into Russian interference. The comparison aimed to downplay findings from the more skeptical House Intelligence Committee.

While ultimately concluding there was no evidence to support allegations of collusion between members of the Trump Campaign and Russia — the same conclusion reached by the House a year earlier — the committee was not without embarrassment.

James A. Wolfe, the committee’s longtime director of security, pleaded guilty in October 2018 to making false statements to federal agents during the course of an investigation into the unlawful disclosure of classified information.

Put plainly, he selectively leaked classified national security information to The New York Times in a manner designed to politically damage President Trump. The plea deal allowed him to avoid more serious charges involving the leaks.

In May, Attorney General William Barr assigned U.S. Attorney John H. Durham in Connecticut to conduct an investigation in to the origins of and potential wrongdoings in the Russia probe. Director Coats and FBI Director Christopher Wray have been less than cooperative with investigators.

But Rep. Ratcliffe supported the investigation, has long-been skeptical of unfounded allegations of collusion, and likely would’ve been more forthcoming with investigators.

Senator Susan Collins, R-Me., found that skepticism problematic. She was also a “no” specifically because she felt Rep. Ratcliffe was too tough on former Special Counsel Robert Mueller during testimony under oath last month.

Mr. Mueller, the former figurehead of the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election, testified before House Committees on July 31. He appeared confused and contradictory as he faced questions from Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee.

One of the most damning moments for Mr. Mueller and Democrats came during an exchange with Rep. Ratcliffe, who argued the assertion that the investigation didn’t exonerate President Trump violated policy and a “bedrock principle of our justice system.”

Rep. Ratcliffe asked Mr. Mueller to identify a case in which the law “set forth a legal standard that an investigated person is not exonerated if their innocence from criminal conduct is not conclusively determined.”

“Can you give an example other than Donald Trump where the Justice Department determined an investigated person was not exonerated because their innocence was not conclusively determined?” Rep. Ratcliffe asked.

Mr. Mueller replied: “I cannot but this is a unique situation.”

Rep. Ratcliffe proceeded after that short answer.

“Okay, well you can’t–time is short, I got five minutes, let’s leave it at you can’t find it because–I’ll tell you why, it doesn’t exist,” he said. “The special counsel’s job didn’t say you were to determine Trump’s innocence or to exonerate him.”

“It’s not in documents, it’s not in the Office of Legal Counsel opinion, any justice manual… Respectfully it was not the special counsel’s job to conclusively determine Trump’s innocence.”

It is not accurate for Republicans to claim experience was the predominant factor, according to sources. Senator Collins, an important member of the committee and swing vote, found the exchange disqualifying, though it was irrelevant to his job experience.

Records at the Justice Department (DOJ) show Rep. Ratcliffe was assigned to more than 40 cases related to terrorism. Critics point out only one of them led to criminal charges — a case involving a stolen Social Security number. The defendant pleaded guilty and was sentenced to six months in jail.

Then-U.S. Attorney Ratcliffe was named special prosecutor to investigate concerns of jury tampering during the trial against the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF). He spent over four months investigating the conspiracy that resulted in a mistrial.

The Washington Post published a report suggesting he embellished the record. But most of the details surrounding the investigation were sealed. Further, The Post’s source is the lawyer for the defendants.

Neither the lawyer nor the family had contact with Mr. Ratcliffe. The details would not have been disclosed to them given they were the subject of the investigation.

Five of its leaders were subsequently convicted in November 2008 on charges of providing material support to Hamas, a designated foreign terrorist organization. U.S. District Judge Jorge A. Solis sentenced them to prison terms ranging from 15 to 65 years on May 27, 2009.

Nevertheless, President Trump and his top chieftains at the White House wanted to fight for Rep. Ratcliffe. But the nominee needed Majority Leader McConnell’s assurance and support.

In the end, he received neither.

Editor’s Note To Readers

This article was removed from the paywall for public interest reasons.

If you’d like to support data journalism and investigative journalism such as this, consider donating or subscribing to PPD.

The inside story of why Rep. John

Politics

Constitutional Lawyer Robert Barnes: “Legal Remedy Should Not Be Limited to the Left”

Robert Barnes, constitutional lawyer and founder of the Free America Law Center (FALC).
Photo Credit: Free America Law Center (FALC)

The American Civil Liberties Union (ALCU) and the embattled Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) no longer have a monopoly on the defense of civil rights. Constitutional law attorney Robert Barnes announced on Friday the launch of the Free America Law Center (FALC), an organization founded to combat growing attacks on free speech.

Mr. Barnes, a high-profile attorney and frequent guest on cable news, represents the Covington Catholic High School students, former FBI agent Robyn Gritz and InfoWars personality Alex Jones. He is also known for successfully representing actor Wesley Snipes.

“Legal remedy should not be limited to the left. We need free speech for a free America that does not privilege the powerful. That is what this suit, and the Free America Law Center is all about.”

Robert Barnes, Constitutional Law Attorney and Founder of Free America Law Center (FALC)

He said FALC will respond to increased defamation in the media, social media censorship and use the law to protect deep state whistleblowers. FALC “democratizes the law” by allowing members “to choose the legal battles our constitutional experts wage against suppression,” the site states.

Barnes Predicts Lin Wood’s Strategy Would Fail Covington Kids

One such battle continues over the media treatment of students from Covington Catholic High School who attended the March for Life in DC. The media led by The Washington Post falsely portrayed the kids as racists after an encounter with a Native American liberal activist at the Lincoln Memorial.

Their real crime was wearing “Make America Great Again” hats.

Nicholas Sandmann, the teen who became the face of the Covington Catholic High School students, hired big media’s favorite defamation lawyer, Lin Wood.

Mr. Wood is best known for representing Richard Jewell, the security guard falsely accused in the Centennial Olympic Park bombing in Atlanta in 1996. He took on other high-profile cases, including John and Patsy Ramsey, the parents of JonBenét Ramsey.

He sued The Washington Post on behalf of Sandmann for $250 million in February, alleging the newspaper engaged in “targeting and bullying” and modern “McCarthyism.”

In conversations with PPD at the time, Mr. Barnes criticized Mr. Wood’s legal strategy and handling of the case. He said federal courts would view it as “ambulance-chasing,” given the amount. Mr. Barnes also argued the case was filed in the “hardest venue,” referring to Mr. Wood’s decision to sue in federal court rather than state court.

In a long list of flaws Mr. Baries noted with the lawsuit, the “final flaw” was the substantive facts of the suit focused on almost everyone other than The Washington Post. It did not identify how opinion statements failed to disclose false facts, a bar necessary for libel law. Unlike Mr. Barnes, Mr. Wood procedurally failed to give The Post adequate notice before making a claim for punitive damages (that is now highly likely to be stricken from the suit.)

While certainly not the sum total of his disagreements, those criticisms became reality last week. Federal Judge William O. Bertelsman last Friday threw out the teen’s lawsuit against The Washington Post, as Mr. Barnes predicted.

“Few principles of law are as well-established as the rule that statements of opinion are not actionable in libel actions,” Judge Bertelsman wrote in the 36-page opinion.

Judge Bertelsman’s opinion will not serve as a deterrent against current and future action from Mr. Barnes and the Free America Law Center.

“Some might have thought after some legal setbacks in other cases brought by other lawyers, the Covington kids would go gently into that good night,” Mr. Barnes said in a statement. “But those who libeled these kids are not so lucky. The Covington kids chose to fight against the dying of the light, as Dylan Thomas the poet famously called for decades ago.”

“Instead, the Covington boys brought suit in state court in Kentucky.”

Mr. Barnes envisions FALC as a place for average Americans to turn in the face of free speech threats, and one supported by them as opposed to big money donors with ideologically-driven ends. Groups such as the ACLU and SPLC don’t appear concerned over political censorship if it targets those who don’t share their ideology.

“Legal remedy should not be limited to the left. We need free speech for a free America that does not privilege the powerful,” Mr. Barnes added. “That is what this suit, and the Free America Law Center is all about.”

Constitutional law attorney Robert Barnes announced the

People's Pundit Daily
You have %%pigeonMeterAvailable%% free %%pigeonCopyPage%% remaining this month. Get unlimited access and support reader-funded, independent data journalism.

Start a 14-day free trial now. Pay later!

Start Trial

Subscribe