"USA" Today had to clarify later that the Eagle is also a USA symbol. "Worth noting."

2 hours ago, TEW said:

To be fair, the US Eagle usually looks to its right (the viewer’s left) towards the talon carrying the olive branch rather than the talon carrying the arrows to symbolize our preference for peace but ability to wage war:

So N4z1style eagles for the Trump T shirts.  Regular American style for Pelosi's seal and pin.

So Michael Cohen was released on the condition of house arrest, gets photographed eating out, and gets sent back to prison for violating his house arrest.  It's that simple.  Here's CNN completely lying about it, never once mentioning that he was on house arrest.  And people wonder why CNN viewers are so ignorant and gullible.

Quote

CAMEROTA: Speaking of being prevented from speaking, Michael Cohen, the president's longtime fixer and personal attorney, was ferried back to federal prison this weekend. Is it because he refused to sign a document saying that he would not publish a book or that he would not speak to the media?

TOOBIN: Well, that's certainly what his lawyers say. And, you know, when you go to prison you give up certain rights, obviously. When you are on parole you give up certain rights. Well, the question in the Cohen case is is he being singled out for

special treatment for being -- is he being told that he can't speak because it may damage President Trump? That would be wrong. That would be counter to the First Amendment.

If he's being treated like everyone else, then I don't think he'd a have a ground to complain. The question is is this restriction on his speech something that everyone gets or is it just to protect the president. That's something that's very important to know.

CAMEROTA: What's the answer?

TOOBIN: I don't know. I mean, I think we need to hear more from the Bureau of Prisons. We need to hear -- you know, just more facts. What are the requirements that are imposed on all citizens?

I mean, this is an unusual situation because she -- he was released because of the virus. This wasn't like a normal parole release. So, I mean, it's an unusual situation but it's also an unusual restriction.

I mean, remember, going -- Martin Luther King wrote "Letter from Birmingham Jail." A lot of people write things in prison that ultimately get published.

And there's a real question here about whether Michael Cohen is being singled out because he's critical of the president. That's something that we need to know.

CAMEROTA: Well, I mean, as far as the reporting I've seen there's no standard probation form that includes language about not being able to speak to the press.

TOOBIN: And -- but if that's the case and if there is something that's being -- that is just designed to silence Michael Cohen, that would be inappropriate and probably unlawful.

You know, the problem for Michael Cohen is that he has to litigate this from back in prison.

CAMEROTA: Yes.

TOOBIN: And, you know, that's a -- I mean, it's just a disastrous situation for him, needless to say.

CAMEROTA: And then if you look at the split-screen of Roger Stone -- whose sentence was commuted for seven felonies and he was commuted by the president, as you know, late on Friday -- and Michael Cohen going back to prison. At the moment, we're told he's in solitary confinement because of having to quarantine. And so, Roger Stone is free to say whatever he wants, it appears.

[07:35:00]

TOOBIN: Well, and not only that, while Roger Stone was out on bail he threatened the judge. He put out a social media post that had a -- like a bullet target by Judge Amy Berman Jackson. He almost had his bail revoked. So it wasn't like he was a model citizen out when he was -- when he was out on bail, and doing so publicly.

So, I mean, the contrast between the two -- I mean, there's no allegation that Michael Cohen behaved inappropriately in prison. All he did, apparently, was write a book.

But, you know, it's the whole story with how the president and the Justice Department have treated the president's enemies and how they've treated their friends. You know, Michael Flynn gets his conviction overturned, Roger Stone gets a commutation. You know, the whole Russia investigation is now under investigation, itself, by the Justice Department.

But, Michael Cohen, who is an enemy of the president, gets locked up, apparently. And we'll see whether it's, appropriately, simply because he wrote a book.

 

This is Mark Levin getting caught red handed making numerous false claims and faceplanting in one tweet, saying Obama took hydroxychloroquine in 2008. 

Kurt

Quote

 

Dear A.G.,

It is with sadness that I write to tell you that I am resigning from The New York Times. 

I joined the paper with gratitude and optimism three years ago. I was hired with the goal of bringing in voices that would not otherwise appear in your pages: first-time writers, centrists, conservatives and others who would not naturally think of The Times as their home. The reason for this effort was clear: The paper’s failure to anticipate the outcome of the 2016 election meant that it didn’t have a firm grasp of the country it covers. Dean Baquet and others have admitted as much on various occasions. The priority in Opinion was to help redress that critical shortcoming.

I was honored to be part of that effort, led by James Bennet. I am proud of my work as a writer and as an editor. Among those I helped bring to our pages: the Venezuelan dissident Wuilly Arteaga; the Iranian chess champion Dorsa Derakhshani; and the Hong Kong Christian democrat Derek Lam. Also: Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Masih Alinejad, Zaina Arafat, Elna Baker, Rachael Denhollander, Matti Friedman, Nick Gillespie, Heather Heying, Randall Kennedy, Julius Krein, Monica Lewinsky, Glenn Loury, Jesse Singal, Ali Soufan, Chloe Valdary, Thomas Chatterton Williams, Wesley Yang, and many others.

But the lessons that ought to have followed the election—lessons about the importance of understanding other Americans, the necessity of resisting tribalism, and the centrality of the free exchange of ideas to a democratic society—have not been learned. Instead, a new consensus has emerged in the press, but perhaps especially at this paper: that truth isn’t a process of collective discovery, but an orthodoxy already known to an enlightened few whose job is to inform everyone else.

Twitter is not on the masthead of The New York Times. But Twitter has become its ultimate editor. As the ethics and mores of that platform have become those of the paper, the paper itself has increasingly become a kind of performance space. Stories are chosen and told in a way to satisfy the narrowest of audiences, rather than to allow a curious public to read about the world and then draw their own conclusions. I was always taught that journalists were charged with writing the first rough draft of history. Now, history itself is one more ephemeral thing molded to fit the needs of a predetermined narrative.

My own forays into Wrongthink have made me the subject of constant bullying by colleagues who disagree with my views. They have called me a NSDAP and a racist; I have learned to brush off comments about how I’m "writing about the Jews again.” Several colleagues perceived to be friendly with me were badgered by coworkers. My work and my character are openly demeaned on company-wide Slack channels where masthead editors regularly weigh in. There, some coworkers insist I need to be rooted out if this company is to be a truly "inclusive” one, while others post ax emojis next to my name. Still other New York Times employees publicly smear me as a liar and a bigot on Twitter with no fear that harassing me will be met with appropriate action. They never are.

There are terms for all of this: unlawful discrimination, hostile work environment, and constructive discharge. I’m no legal expert. But I know that this is wrong. 

I do not understand how you have allowed this kind of behavior to go on inside your company in full view of the paper’s entire staff and the public. And I certainly can’t square how you and other Times leaders have stood by while simultaneously praising me in private for my courage. Showing up for work as a centrist at an American newspaper should not require bravery.

Part of me wishes I could say that my experience was unique. But the truth is that intellectual curiosity—let alone risk-taking—is now a liability at The Times. Why edit something challenging to our readers, or write something bold only to go through the numbing process of making it ideologically kosher, when we can assure ourselves of job security (and clicks) by publishing our 4000th op-ed arguing that Donald Trump is a unique danger to the country and the world? And so self-censorship has become the norm.

What rules that remain at The Times are applied with extreme selectivity. If a person’s ideology is in keeping with the new orthodoxy, they and their work remain unscrutinized. Everyone else lives in fear of the digital thunderdome. Online venom is excused so long as it is directed at the proper targets. 

Op-eds that would have easily been published just two years ago would now get an editor or a writer in serious trouble, if not fired. If a piece is perceived as likely to inspire backlash internally or on social media, the editor or writer avoids pitching it. If she feels strongly enough to suggest it, she is quickly steered to safer ground. And if, every now and then, she succeeds in getting a piece published that does not explicitly promote progressive causes, it happens only after every line is carefully massaged, negotiated and caveated.

It took the paper two days and two jobs to say that the Tom Cotton op-ed "fell short of our standards.” We attached an editor’s note on a travel story about Jaffa shortly after it was published because it "failed to touch on important aspects of Jaffa’s makeup and its history.” But there is still none appended to Cheryl Strayed’s fawning interview with the writer Alice Walker, a proud anti-Semite who believes in lizard Illuminati. 

The paper of record is, more and more, the record of those living in a distant galaxy, one whose concerns are profoundly removed from the lives of most people. This is a galaxy in which, to choose just a few recent examples, the Soviet space program is lauded for its "diversity”; the doxxing of teenagers in the name of justice is condoned; and the worst caste systems in human history includes the United States alongside NSDAP Germany.

Even now, I am confident that most people at The Times do not hold these views. Yet they are cowed by those who do. Why? Perhaps because they believe the ultimate goal is righteous. Perhaps because they believe that they will be granted protection if they nod along as the coin of our realm—language—is degraded in service to an ever-shifting laundry list of right causes. Perhaps because there are millions of unemployed people in this country and they feel lucky to have a job in a contracting industry. 

Or perhaps it is because they know that, nowadays, standing up for principle at the paper does not win plaudits. It puts a target on your back. Too wise to post on Slack, they write to me privately about the "new McCarthyism” that has taken root at the paper of record.

All this bodes ill, especially for independent-minded young writers and editors paying close attention to what they’ll have to do to advance in their careers. Rule One: Speak your mind at your own peril. Rule Two: Never risk commissioning a story that goes against the narrative. Rule Three: Never believe an editor or publisher who urges you to go against the grain. Eventually, the publisher will cave to the mob, the editor will get fired or reassigned, and you’ll be hung out to dry.

For these young writers and editors, there is one consolation. As places like The Times and other once-great journalistic institutions betray their standards and lose sight of their principles, Americans still hunger for news that is accurate, opinions that are vital, and debate that is sincere. I hear from these people every day. "An independent press is not a liberal ideal or a progressive ideal or a democratic ideal. It’s an American ideal,” you said a few years ago. I couldn’t agree more. America is a great country that deserves a great newspaper. 

None of this means that some of the most talented journalists in the world don’t still labor for this newspaper. They do, which is what makes the illiberal environment especially heartbreaking. I will be, as ever, a dedicated reader of their work. But I can no longer do the work that you brought me here to do—the work that Adolph Ochs described in that famous 1896 statement: "to make of the columns of The New York Times a forum for the consideration of all questions of public importance, and to that end to invite intelligent discussion from all shades of opinion.”

Ochs’s idea is one of the best I’ve encountered. And I’ve always comforted myself with the notion that the best ideas win out. But ideas cannot win on their own. They need a voice. They need a hearing. Above all, they must be backed by people willing to live by them. 

Sincerely,

 

Bari Weiss

 

 

The media willfully lying again.

 

Quote

 

The White House Press Secretary on Trump's push to reopen schools: ‘The science should not stand in the way of this,’” said CNN’s Jim Acosta, conveniently omitting some fairly necessary context.

CNN’s Ana Cabrera claimed, "WH Press Secretary: ‘When he (Trump) says open, he means open – in full – kids being able to attend each and every day at their school,’ McEnany told reporters at the press briefing. ‘The science should not stand in the way of this.’”

"From the White House podium: ‘Science should not stand in the way’ of reopening schools,” CBS News White House correspondent Weijia Jiang said elsewhere.

Reporter Jim Heath, who brags in his Twitter media profile that he is a Walter Cronkite Award-winner, said, “‘The science should not stand in the way of this.’ You just can't make this stuff up. 108 days until the election.”

"'The science should not stand in the way of this,’ [McEnany] says of fully re-opening schools," said NBC News’s Josh Lederman.

The Daily Beast claimed in its headline from the briefing, "Kayleigh McEnany: ‘Science Should Not Stand in the Way’ of Reopening Schools.”

Tweeted CBS News, "McEnany: ‘The president has said unmistakably that he wants schools to open...When he says open, he means open and full, kids being able to attend each and every day at their school. The science should not stand in the way of this.’”

"The White House press secretary says ‘science should not stand in the way’ of reopening schools,” the New York Times claimed in the headline to a live blog post.

The Guardian similarly claimed on its live blog, "White House: 'The science should not stand in the way' of reopening schools.”

"White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany on school reopenings: ‘The science should not stand in the way of this,’” said the Washington Post’s official Twitter account.

The Washington Post also published a headline that reads, "‘The science should not stand in the way’ of schools reopening, White House press secretary says."

 

 

 

 

29 minutes ago, The_Omega said:

The media willfully lying again.

 

 

 

Roll tape.

 

Kayleigh, while repeating what the President told her, LOOKS AT HER OWN NOTES, and says quote: "The science should not stand in the way of this." Then she claims the science is on the side of schools reopening, when there really is no clear consensus. She's trying to have it both ways:  White House is not considering the science. But the science is on the WH side. Well, what is it? Are they considering science or not? Only when it fits their narrative? Clearly BS. Another case where the truth is worse than the soundbite.

Ingraham having trouble getting her facts straight:

1. What does the city of Toronto have to do with Joe Biden? Toronto is in Canada. Biden is running for POTUS.
2. The archdiocese made the decision. Toronto government has not made any such ban. LINK

What's she up to? Does Ingraham want the government to override church decisions? She should know better than peddle such questionable sources.

 

38 minutes ago, toolg said:

Ingraham having trouble getting her facts straight:

 

She should know better than peddle such questionable sources.

 

Or Maybe a little common sense would help her out

1 hour ago, toolg said:

Roll tape.

 

Kayleigh, while repeating what the President told her, LOOKS AT HER OWN NOTES, and says quote: "The science should not stand in the way of this." Then she claims the science is on the side of schools reopening, when there really is no clear consensus. She's trying to have it both ways:  White House is not considering the science. But the science is on the WH side. Well, what is it? Are they considering science or not? Only when it fits their narrative? Clearly BS. Another case where the truth is worse than the soundbite.

No one is surprised that you would defend their lies.

3 minutes ago, The_Omega said:

No one is surprised that you would defend their lies.

Watch the video. The words came out of Kayleigh's mouth. The librul media didn't make them up.

24 minutes ago, toolg said:

Watch the video. The words came out of Kayleigh's mouth. The librul media didn't make them up.

I did watch the video. It’s obvious the media and their lackeys (you) are misrepresenting her statement and broader point. If they weren’t, they would have reported the complete quote, rather than the incomplete snippet.

2 minutes ago, The_Omega said:

I did watch the video. It’s obvious the media and their lackeys (you) are misrepresenting her statement and broader point. If they weren’t, they would have reported the complete quote, rather than the incomplete snippet.

I must have missed the episode of Tucker Carlson where he told you what you're supposed to think she was trying to say.

12 minutes ago, toolg said:

I must have missed the episode of Tucker Carlson where he told you what you're supposed to think she was trying to say.

Damn you are dumb.

17 minutes ago, The_Omega said:

Damn you are dumb.

lmao the american media doesn't even try anymore.

 

😬

lol pretty weak attempt to get at Tucker IMO. Won't stick.

1 hour ago, mayanh8 said:

😬

Quote

 

"We take all claims of harassment, misconduct and retaliation seriously, promptly investigating them and taking immediate action as needed — in this case, the appropriate action based on our investigation is to defend vigorously against these baseless allegations,” the statement continues. "Ms. Areu and Jennifer Eckhart can pursue their claims against Ed Henry directly with him, as FOX News already took swift action as soon as it learned of Ms. Eckhart’s claims on June 25 and Mr. Henry is no longer employed by the network.”

Henry’s attorney, Catherine Foti, issued a statement on behalf of her client.

"The Me Too movement has helped to bring to light a number of injustices in our society, and everyone that has suffered deserves to be heard,” the statement said. "This is not one of those cases.  The evidence in this case will demonstrate that Ms. Eckhart initiated and completely encouraged a consensual relationship. Ed Henry looks forward to presenting actual facts and evidence, which will contradict the fictional accounts contained in the complaint. That evidence includes graphic photos and other aggressively suggestive communications that Ms. Eckhart sent to Mr. Henry.”

 

 

On 7/13/2020 at 10:33 PM, mayanh8 said:

Err...the bottle isn't even hydroxychloroquine....and it was prescribed as a preventative measure for when he traveled to countries with higher rates of malaria.

3 hours ago, The_Omega said: