Category Archives: EU/Eurozone

MSM coverage of President Trump overwhelmingly negative

This comes as no surprise to us, but it’s still good to have confirming statistics.

A new report from Harvard Kennedy School’s Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy found that U.S. and European news coverage of President Trump’s first 100 days in office was overwhelmingly negative.

The report is based on an analysis of news reports in the print editions of The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and The Washington Post, the main newscasts of CBS, CNN, Fox News, and NBC, and three European news outlets (The UK’s Financial Times and BBC, and Germany’s ARD).

The report defines “negative” tone of coverage as stories/reports in which:

  • Trump is criticized directly.
  • An event, trend, or development reflects unfavorably on Trump, e.g., stories that appeared under the headlines “President Trump’s approval rating hits a new low” and “GOP withdraws embattled health care bill, handing major setback to Trump, Ryan.”

Here are the report’s findings:

(1) The media are obsessed with President Trump: Trump was the topic of 41% of all news stories—three times the amount of coverage received by previous presidents.

(2) On almost every major Trump topic, the media’s coverage was overwhelmingly more negative than positive.

(3) The media set a new standard for unfavorable coverage (80%) in their coverage of President Trump. In contrast, only 41% of the media’s coverage of Obama was negative.

(4) The liberal MSM were overwhelmingly negative, with CNN and NBC leading the way with a stunning 93% of their coverage of Trump being negative. Even the Wall Street Journal was more negative (70%) than positive. Although Fox was the only news outlet in the study that came close to giving Trump positive coverage overall, a majority (52%) of the network’s reporting on Trump still was negative.

(5) European reporters were even more negative than U.S. reporters.

(6) With the exception of Fox, the majority of media all question Trump’s fitness for office:

(7) The only thing that Trump did which garnered glowing positive coverage from the media was his missile attack on Syria, showing that the corporate media are all blood-thirsty warmongers.

The Harvard report concludes:

Trump’s coverage during his first 100 days was negative even by the standards of today’s hyper-critical press. Studies of earlier presidents found nothing comparable to the level of unfavorable coverage afforded Trump. […]

Have the mainstream media covered Trump in a fair and balanced way? […] The early days of his presidency have been marked by far more missteps and miss-hits, often self-inflicted, than any presidency in memory, perhaps ever. […]

Nevertheless, the sheer level of negative coverage gives weight to Trump’s contention, one shared by his core constituency, that the media are hell bent on destroying his presidency. […]

At the same time, the news media need to give Trump credit when his actions warrant it. The public’s low level of confidence in the press is the result of several factors, one of which is a belief that journalists are biased. That perception weakens the press’s watchdog role. One of the more remarkable features of news coverage of Trump’s first 100 days is that it has changed few minds about the president, for better or worse. The nation’s watchdog has lost much of its bite and won’t regain it until the public perceives it as an impartial broker, applying the same reporting standards to both parties. […]

Journalists would also do well to spend less time in Washington and more time in places where policy intersects with people’s lives. If they had done so during the presidential campaign, they would not have missed the story that keyed Trump’s victory—the fading of the American Dream for millions of ordinary people. […]

Never have journalists fixated on a single newsmaker for as long as they have on Trump. If he sees journalists as his main opponents, one reason is that between Trump and themselves there’s not much air time for everyone else. Journalists need to resist even the smallest temptation to see themselves as opponents of government. It’s the competition between the party in power and the opposing party, and not between government and the press, that’s at the core of the democratic process.

Will journalists heed the report’s counsel?

I doubt it.

~Eowyn

Advertisements

Jihad-watcher Robert Spencer poisoned by Leftist in Iceland

Robert Spencer is an expert on radical Islam, a frequent guest commenter on Fox News, and has given seminars to various law enforcement units in the United States. An author of a number of books on Islam, including two New York Times bestsellers, Spencer is the founder of the Jihad Watch blog.

In a post on Jihad Watch, Spencer wrote that on May 11, 2017, shortly after he had delivered a lecture on the jihad threat in Reykjavik, Iceland, he was poisoned by a “young leftist” who approached him in the Grand Hotel’s bar.

Spencer writes:

It happened after the event, when my security chief, the organizers of the event, and Jihad Watch writer Christine Williams, who had also been invited to speak, went with me to a local restaurant to celebrate the success of the evening.

At this crowded Reykjavik establishment, I was quickly recognized. A young Icelander called me by name, shook my hand, and said he was a big fan. Shortly after that, another citizen of that famously genteel and courteous land also called me by name, shook my hand, and said “F**k you.”

We took that marvelous Icelandic greeting as a cue to leave. But the damage had already been done. About fifteen minutes later, when I got back in my hotel room, I began to feel numbness in my face, hands, and feet. I began trembling and vomiting. My heart was racing dangerously. I spent the night in a Reykjavik hospital.

What had happened quickly became clear, and was soon confirmed by a hospital test: one of these local Icelanders who had approached me (probably the one who said he was a big fan, as he was much closer to me than the “F**k you” guy) had dropped drugs into my drink. I wasn’t and am not on any other medication, and so there wasn’t any other explanation of how these things had gotten into my bloodstream.

For several days thereafter I was ill, but I did get to Reykjavik’s police station and gave them a bigger case than they have seen in good awhile. The police official with whom I spoke took immediate steps to identify and locate the principal suspects and obtain the restaurant’s surveillance video.

Iceland is a small country. Everyone knows everyone else. And so as it happened, I was quickly able to discover the identity, phone number, and Facebook page of the primary suspect, the young man who claimed he was a “big fan.” I don’t intend to call him.  Icelandic police will be contacting him soon enough, if they haven’t done so already.

However, I did look at his Facebook page, and as I expected, I saw nothing that might indicate that he really was a “big fan” of my work, or that he held any views out of the mainstream — which is, courtesy of Iceland’s political and media elites, dominated entirely by the Left.

The most likely scenario is that this young man, or whoever drugged me, heard that a notorious “racist” was coming to Reykjavik, by chance saw me in the restaurant, and decided to teach me a lesson with some of the illegal drugs that are as plentiful in Reykjavik as they are anywhere else.

I should have seen it coming. After all, my visit had triggered a firestorm of abuse in the Icelandic press, all based on American Leftist talking points. Every story about my visit had the same elements: the notice that the SPLC claims that I purvey “hate speech,” which is a subjective judgment used to shut down dissent from the establishment line; the fact that I am banned from Britain, with no mention of the key detail that I was banned for saying that Islam has doctrines of violence (which is like being banned for saying water is wet) and for the crime of supporting Israel; and the false claim that I incited the Norwegian mass murderer Anders Breivik to kill (in reality, I’m no more responsible for Breivik’s murders than the Beatles are for Charles Manson’s). After the event, one article even featured a big photo of Breivik, but quoted nary a thing I said that evening.

Not a single Icelandic media outlet that ran a story about my coming or about the event itself contacted me for comment, much less for rebuttal to the charges they made against me. One TV station did air an interview with me in which the interviewer refused to believe that I did not feel responsible for the Breivik murders, and asked me about them again and again.

After the event, articles in the Icelandic press included quotes from the 50 protesters, but none included even a single quotation or description of anything we had actually said. None quoted any of the 500 brave Icelanders who braved the hatred of the politically correct elites to come to the Grand Hotel to hear me and Ms. Williams – a staggeringly large number in a country of 300,000 people.

It’s clear: jihad and Islamization are not subjects that Icelandic politicians and media opinion-makers want Icelanders to discuss.

That’s all the more reason why it must be discussed.

But meanwhile, I learned my lesson. The lesson I learned was that media demonization of those who dissent from the Leftist line is direct incitement to violence. By portraying me and others who raise legitimate questions about jihad terror and Sharia oppression as racist, bigoted Islamophobes, without allowing us a fair hearing, the media in Iceland and elsewhere in the West is actively endangering those who dare to dissent. The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Center for American Progress and the rest who devote so much money, time and attention to demonizing “Islamophobes” are painting huge targets on our backs.

[…] I’m certain that whoever poisoned me in Iceland went away feeling happy over what he had done. If he told anyone what he did, I’m sure he was hailed as a hero. I’m also aware that many who read this will be thrilled at the fact that I became seriously ill. That in itself is a sign of how degenerate and evil the Left has become.

All over the West, as Leftist students riot and physically menace conservative speakers and Leftist spokesmen indulge in the most hysterical rhetoric to defame their foes, politicians cower in fear and decline to discuss these issues, only ensuring that the problems I identified when I spoke in Reykjavik will continue to grow in Iceland and elsewhere.

As they were rising to power in Germany, the Nazis indoctrinated their young followers with the same message: those who oppose us are evil. Those who brutalize them are doing a great thing. The Left’s demonization of its opponents today will lead to exactly the same thing. It already has for me, in beautiful Reykjavik.

The hospital’s medical report on Spencer says he tested positive for amphetamines and MDMA (Ecstasy).

See also:

~Eowyn

Germany confiscates private homes for ‘migrants’

Germany continues to behave like cucks.

Already, the socialist government of Hamburg, Germany’s second-largest city, have been seizing commercial properties and converting them into migrant shelters since late 2015, when Chancellor Angela Merkel opened the country’s borders to two million Muslim migrants from Africa, Asia and the Middle East. Now, the city is expropriating residential property units owned by private citizens.

Soren Kern writes for Gatestone Institute, May 14, 2017, that authorities in Hamburg have begun confiscating private dwellings to ease a housing shortage — one that has been acutely exacerbated by Chancellor Angela Merkel’s decision to allow more than two million migrants into the country in recent years.

In an unprecedented move, Hamburg authorities recently confiscated six residential units in the Hamm district near the city center. The units, which are owned by a private landlord, are in need of repair and have been vacant since 2012. A trustee appointed by the city is now renovating the properties and will rent them — against the will of the owner — to tenants chosen by the city. District spokeswoman Sorina Weiland said that all renovation costs will be billed to the owner of the properties.

The expropriation is authorized by the Hamburg Housing Protection Act (Hamburger Wohnraumschutzgesetz), a 1982 law that was updated by the city’s Socialist government in May 2013 to enable the city to seize any residential property unit that has been vacant for more than four months.

Of the 700,000 rental units in Hamburg, somewhere between 1,000 and 5,000 (less than 1%) are believed to be vacant, according an estimate by the Hamburg Senate. Socialists and Greens in Hamburg recently established a “hotline” where local residents can report vacant properties. Activists have also created a website — Leerstandsmelder (Vacancy Reporter) — to identify unoccupied real estate in Hamburg and other German cities.

Government seizure of vacant residential homes is justified on the basis of Hamburg’s paucity of housing. Indeed, A study conducted in 2012 — well before the migrant crisis reached epic proportions — forecast that by 2017, Hamburg would have a deficit of at least 50,000 rental properties. But the housing shortage problem itself is a creation of the city’s socialist government:

  • In 2016, however, only 2,433 new residential units came onto the market, while only 2,290 new building permits were approved, according to statistics provided by the City of Hamburg.
  • In 2012, Hamburg’s Socialist government presented a plan to build 6,000 new residential units per year. The plan never materialized, however, because prospective builders were constricted by government-imposed rental caps which would have made it impossible for them to even recover their construction costs.

So the city turned to seizing private property to resolve its self-inflicted housing crisis, beginning with a new law passed by the Hamburg Parliament on October 1, 2015, which allows the city to seize vacant commercial real estate (office buildings, retail space and land) and use it to house migrants.

City officials said the measure was necessary because, at the time, more than 400 new migrants were arriving in Hamburg each day and all the existing refugee shelters were full. They said that because the owners of vacant real estate refused to make their property available to the city on a voluntary basis, the city should be given the right to take it by force.

The measure was applauded by those on the left of the political spectrum. “We are doing everything we can to ensure that the refugees are not homeless during the coming winter,” said Senator Till Steffen of the Green Party. “For this reason, we need to use vacant commercial properties.”

Others have argued that efforts by the state to seize private property are autocratic and reek of Communism, which of course it is:

  • André Trepoll of the center-right Christian Democratic Union (CDU) said: “The proposed confiscation of private land and buildings is a massive attack on the property rights of the citizens of Hamburg. It amounts to an expropriation by the state.” He said the proposed measure is a “law of intimidation” that amounts to a “political dam-break with far-reaching implications. The ends do not justify any and all means.”
  • Katja Suding, the leader of the Free Democrats (FDP) in Hamburg, said that the proposed law is an “unacceptable crossing of red lines… Such coercive measures will only fuel resentment against refugees.”

Similar expropriation measures have been proposed in Berlin, the German capital, but abandoned because they were deemed unconstitutional.

As an example, in November 2015, Berlin lawmakers considered emergency legislation —  proposed by Berlin Mayor Michael Müller of the center-left Social Democrats (SPD) — which would have allowed local authorities to seize private residences to accommodate asylum seekers. The proposal also authorized police forcibly to enter private homes and apartments without a warrant to determine their suitability as housing for refugees and migrants.

Berlin’s socialist mayor Müller‘s proposed legislation would have amended Section 36 of Berlin’s Public Order and Safety Law (Allgemeine Gesetz zum Schutz der öffentlichen Sicherheit und Ordnung, ASOG), which currently allows police to enter private residences only in extreme instances, to “avert acute threats,” that is, to fight serious crime. Müller wanted to expand the scope for warrantless inspections to include “preventing homelessness.”

The proposal was kept secret from the public until the leader of the Free Democrats (FDP) in Berlin, Sebastian Czaja, warned the measure would violate the German constitution. He said:

“The plans of the Berlin Senate to requisition residential and commercial property without the consent of the owner to accommodate refugees is an open breach of the constitution. The attempt by the Senate to undermine the constitutional right to property and the inviolability of the home must be resolutely opposed.”

Since then, both Berlin’s mayor’s and the Senate appear to have abandoned their plans.

It remains unclear why no one has challenged the constitutionality of Hamburg’s expropriation law.

~Eowyn

German judge uses multiculturalism to acquit Muslim Turk of violent rape

Germany is reaping the harvest of multiculturalism: moral relativism.

A female judge in Brandenburg, one of the 16 federated states of Germany, acquitted a Muslim man of raping a non-consenting woman for four hours, on the grounds that according to the defendant’s Turkish culture, it was not rape, but merely “wild sex”.

According to a Google Translation of Jürgen Lauterbach’s report, “Sex mit Gewalt, aber keine Vergewaltigung (Sex with violence, but no rape),” for the April 20, 2017 edition of the German-language Brandenburg daily newspaper Märkische Allgemeine, on the night of August 18, 2016, the victim — a young woman from the town of Plaue in central Germany — went to the 23-year-old defendant’s apartment in downtown Potsdam, the capital of Brandenburg, to buy drugs.

After the man and woman took the drug methamphetamine or speed, the defendant indicated he wanted to have sex with the woman. The woman testified in court that she refused, saying that he was “not her type”.

The defendant then dragged the woman by her arm, “threw her on the bed” and pushed her head between the metal bars of the headboard. The woman cried “stop!” and resisted the man by scratching him on his back. But she told the court that “at some point,” she “gave up”.

The man “entered her” several times. The whole ordeal ended after four hours when the man received a phone call and “suddenly had to leave”. The woman was so disabled by the “violent sex” that she “could not run properly for the next two weeks”.

Saying that “I believe [defendant] Mrs. G’s every word” — that the woman did not give her consent to the defendant who had “taken her by force” — the judge nevertheless acquitted the defendant of rape because she believed the accused when he said the wild sex was amicable, and that he “probably did not know what he was doing to her”. 

In court, the decisive question that determined the judge’s ruling was asked of the victim: “Could it be that the defendant thought you agreed to the sex?”

The victim replied that it could be because, given “the mentality” of the defendant’s “Turkish culture,” she could not tell whether he viewed the rape that she was experiencing to be rape, or whether he saw it as just “wild sex”.

The defendant had denied from the beginning that he raped the woman, insisting that he would not do such a thing since he himself has a mother and a sister.

And so the judge ruled that no conviction is possible because the prosecution had not demonstrated an intention to rape.

Reporter Jürgen Lauterbach points out that a study in 2014 by the Criminological Research Institute of Lower Saxony found that German courts have convicted only 8.4% of rape cases.

H/t PJMedia

~Eowyn

Globalist tax-evader Emmanuel Macron voted French president in landslide

Two weeks ago, a French reader of FOTM threw a big stink at my post “Insane: 16% of French with favorable view of ISIS” and readers’ comments, bitching that we are being unfair to all those brave French people who are buckling the trend.

I said that if and when the French people vote nationalist Marine Le Pen as president, I’d be the first to congratulate them.

Alas, that is not to be.

Despite the fact that “pro-European centrist” globalist Emmanuel Macron is a tax evader, thanks to Alt-Rightists on 4chan who obtained and published his damning tax evasion emails two nights ago, Macron won France’s presidential election today in a landslide. (See “French government doesn’t want its people to see presidential candidate Macron’s tax-evasion emails“)

With 65% of the votes, former Rothschild & Cie Banque investment banker Macron, 39, “resoundingly” defeated rival Le Pen (who received 35% of the votes) to be the country’s youngest ever president.

Many French opted not to vote in today’s election, which has the lowest voter-turnout (65.3%) in presidential elections since 1974.

Macron was an unknown less than three years ago when, in 2014, he was plucked from obscurity by socialist President François Hollande and named Minister of Economy, Industry and Digital Affairs. Now, the inexperienced 39-year-old without a political party is poised to become one of Europe’s most powerful leaders.

After Britain’s Brexit vote last year to leave the EU and Donald Trump’s victory in the US, the French election had been widely watched, particularly in Brussels and Berlin, as a test of how high a tide of anti-globalization “right-wing nationalism” would rise. (Do take note that it is the right who are nationalists, which means the left really don’t give a hoot for the interests and well being of their supposed nation/country.)

Le Pen, 48, had portrayed the election as a contest between her patriotic vision of strong borders and French national identity, against Macron, the globalists’ candidate, who favors immigration, open trade, and “shared sovereignty” (an oxymoron!).

In the first round of the presidential election on April 23, Macron had topped the vote with 24.01%, followed by Le Pen with 21.30%, in a crowded field of 11 candidates.

Macron was favored among wealthier, better educated citizens in cities, while Le Pen drew support in the countryside and in poverty-hit areas in the south and rustbelt northeast.

Sources: AFP; ZeroHedge; Wikipedia

See als0:

Update:

Macron has a plan for the Islamization of France and Europe — here.

~Eowyn

50,000 in Poland march for Christianity against Muslim invasion

News you didn’t see on the MSM-Deep State Media.

On November 11, 2015, some 25,000 to 50,000 Polish nationalists peacefully marched in Warsaw, Poland, to mark the country’s return to independence after the First World War, to uphold Poland’s Christian civilization, and against the Muslim invasion of Europe.

The 50,000 figure is that of the march organizers.

The rally was held under the slogan, “Poland for the Poles, Poles for Poland”, in reference to the ongoing “migrant” invasion.

Chanting “God, honour, homeland” and “Yesterday it was Moscow, today it’s Brussels which takes away our freedom,” the marchers trampled on and burned an EU flag, and held banners that read “Great Catholic Poland” and “Stop Islamisation”. (Breitbart)

Even Snopes admitted that the march received sparse news coverage, reported by only Bloomberg and U.S. News and World Report, and in Europe, by Telegraph, Express, Financial Times and RT.

One would think that a march that massive, of tens of thousands of people, would warrant at least a mention in the New York Times, or Washington Post, or the alphabet TV news.

It is also ironic that instead of the countries of western Europe, it is Poland — a former communist party-ruled country that was officially atheistic — that defends Christianity.

H/t FOTM‘s stlonginus

~Eowyn