Very Fake News: Juan Williams Slams CNN Report Claiming Hannity ‘Pulled Gun’ on Him After ‘Argument’
“Incident is being sensationalized” says Williams
The fake news establishment media at CNN is at it again. Now they are attacking Fox News host Sean Hannity, smearing his reputation with a phony story about him allegedly pointing a gun at liberal Fox News contributor Juan Williams.
Dylan Byers, one of the media writers at CNN who works for media industry defender Brian Stelter, printed a story on Thursday alleging: “Last year, after ending one of his many spirited on-air arguments with liberal contributor Juan Williams, Hannity pulled out a gun and pointed it directly at Williams.” Byers cited “three sources with knowledge of the incident” to make the claim.
“He even turned on the laser sight, causing a red dot to bob around on Williams’ body,” Byers wrote, adding in parentheses: “Hannity was just showing off, the sources said, but the unforeseen off-camera antic clearly disturbed Williams and others on set.”
Byers added in the next paragraph that the alleged incident was investigated, and it was determined nothing bad happened.
“For the record: Hannity’s colleagues brought the Williams incident to the attention of Fox News executives, though it’s not clear whether anything came of it,” Byers wrote. “The sources said it went to Bill Shine, the network’s co-president and longtime Fox News executive, who is Hannity’s longtime friend and a former producer. A Fox News spokesperson said the incident was referred to the legal and human resources departments.”
(WND.com) Critics of the mainstream media often claim news reporters exist in a bubble in which they can hear only their own opinions echoed off its walls.
That critique appeared to be reflected in a remark White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer made to CNN reporter Jim Acosta at Tuesday’s daily briefing.
During a back on forth on the administration’s attempt to repeal and replace Obamacare, Spicer noted Americans are “paying higher and higher premiums” because “government-mandated, government-run healthcare has actually gone amuck.”
Acosta noted, “Medicare is government run,” and charged, “You don’t have senior citizens screaming that they want you to get rid of their Medicare.”
Shot back Spicer, “Yes, they are. I think you need to maybe get outside and talk to some of them because more and more Medicaid recipients — in fact, more and more Medicare recipients aren’t able to get coverage.”
He continued, “It’s one thing to have a card. It’s another thing to walk into a doctor’s office and them to tell you we no longer accept Medicaid anymore. That’s not care.”
Acosta pressed on with a theme echoed more than once by his colleagues: “But the President is okay that there are going to be millions of people who aren’t going to have coverage?”
Spicer explained it was the president’s goal to make affordable healthcare coverage available to everyone, but under Obamacare they are not getting that because, “The costs are going up, the choices are going down, and deductibles are going up.”
But reporters seemed under the impression that Trump had promised to provide universal health care coverage.
One asked, “Can you stand here today and say that the President will keep his promise of insurance for everybody?”
Another asked, “President Trump has said that under his plan there will be insurance for everybody … Is that a promise he can really keep?”
Spicer made the key clarification a number of times that the president’s goal was not to provide government-guaranteed coverage for every American, but to make affordable healthcare available to every American who wants it.
He said Obamacare was doomed to collapse because, “The costs are going up, the choices are going down, and deductibles are going up,” and that doing nothing was not an option.
That meant, “The question is, what can we do instead and what can we replace that with that gives people greater choice and lowers cost?”
In so many words, Spicer also explained the difference between what the president was proposing and universal coverage.
“I think in most cases, of course some people are always going to choose in a free society to not purchase something — I mean, we live in a country of 320 million people — at some point, you can’t force a product or a good down people in a free society.”
Spicer added, “But I think if you can give them a quality product that serves their needs, that they have the time, at a price that they can afford, there’s a greater likelihood under every economic model that that suggests that that will work.”
He pointed to Obamacare’s increasing unpopularity with consumers, noting, “You’ve got almost 20 million people in America who have said that they don’t want Obamacare and they’ll either pay a penalty or will apply for a hardship.”
Perhaps to counter the media narrative that Americans would suffer under the repeal and replacement of Obamacare, the White House issued a series of statements from people who have suffered because of it.
On Tuesday, Spicer’s office released this statement:
Readout of President Donald J. Trump’s Meeting with Obamacare Victims
On Monday, President Donald J. Trump welcomed to the Roosevelt Room individuals who have experienced significant hardship as a result of Obamacare’s poor coverage and rising prices.
The individuals in attendance included:
Ms. Kim Sertich of Arizona, whose health insurance has been cancelled three times since Obamacare became law. The plans now available to her have limited networks and high deductibles. Even worse, she will only have one insurer to choose from in 2017.
Mrs. Carrie Couey of Colorado, a mother of six from a cattle ranching family whose youngest son is autistic. The pre-Obamacare cost for her family’s insurance was $17,000 per year. After Obamacare became law, her insurance costs skyrocketed to $52,500 per year for a lower quality plan. Additionally, the cost for workers’ compensation insurance for her business’s employees increased from approximately $17,000 per year to more than $70,000 per year.
Mr. Elias Seife of Florida, who has had to change his and his wife’s health insurance every year for the past few years because his premiums have increased 30-40 percent annually, and the deductibles have risen even more sharply. Mr. Seife said that the middle class has been particularly hard-hit by Obamacare.
Ms. Brittany Ivey of Georgia, a working mother whose family has struggled under Obamacare. Ms. Ivey was working part-time at a small business that provided her family with health insurance until Obamacare raised her premiums sharply. This drove the Ivey family into the individual market, where a mid-level plan cost 65 percent of her monthly gross income, even accounting for a federal subsidy.
Mr. Greg Knox of Ohio, the owner of Knox Machinery and Chairman of the Dayton Region Manufacturers Association. The businesses in Mr. Knox’s association have been significantly affected by Obamacare’s rising prices. Mr. Knox expressed optimism that President Trump will return free market principles to our Nation’s healthcare system, which will benefit consumers by increasing options and lowering costs.
Mr. Joel Brown of Tennessee, a farmer whose costs for catastrophic coverage has spiked in the wake of Obamacare, from $119 per month to more than $500 per month. As a result, Mr. Brown was forced to settle for a much less desirable plan provided through his church, which cost him $280 per month.
Dr. Manny Sethi of Tennessee, founder of Healthy Tennessee, a non-profit organization designed to promote preventative healthcare. Dr. Sethi has seen first-hand Obamacare’s negative effects on the medical profession. As an orthopedic trauma surgeon and Assistant Professor at Vanderbilt University, Dr. Sethi is well aware of how Obamacare has harmed patient care across the country.
Dr. Robin Armstrong of Texas, a medical doctor whose wife is a breast cancer survivor. Dr. Armstrong strongly opposes Obamacare because its rising premiums and deductibles have hurt his patients. Dr. Armstrong told President Trump that he is excited about the reforms the President is pursuing, and believes they will drastically improve America’s healthcare system.
Hon. Stan Summers of Utah, a local county commissioner whose family has endured significant hardship as a result of Obamacare. Mr. Summers’ wife has been very sick and his son has struggled with a rare disease. Their insurance costs have skyrocketed as a result of Obamacare.
Mr. Louis Brown of Virginia, a 35-year-old attorney who currently works for the Christ Medicus Foundation, a Catholic healthcare foundation. In 2009, as Obamacare was moving through Congress, Mr. Brown was a staffer at the Democratic National Committee. He told President Trump that after much prayer and soul searching, he resigned from the DNC because he could not support a party that wanted to include taxpayer funding of abortion in Obamacare. Today, Mr. Brown supports the reforms in the American Health Care Act.
Ms. Gina Sell of Wisconsin, a young nurse who has had to work much longer hours to afford her increased health insurance premium under Obamacare. In fact, her premium now costs her more than her mortgage.
After hearing these stories, President Trump, Vice President Mike Pence, and Secretary of Health and Human Services Tom Price each committed to fighting for reforms that will bring costs down and increase access to care for all Americans.
Republished with permission from WND.com via iCopyright license.
Source: Horn News
Conservative commentator Michael Savage just destroyed CNN — and what he said left conservatives cheering.
Finally, someone with the guts to say what most Americans are thinking.
During an appearance on Newsmax TV on Friday, Savage unloaded on CNN’s shameful bias against President Donald Trump, and compared the corporate network to Soviet propaganda newspapers that thrived under dictators like Joseph Stalin.
“What do we say about them that hasn’t been said hundred times? What do we need to know about the Wolf Blitzers and the Jake Tappers of the world, to be specific?” Savage said to Steve Malzberg. “They work for the Democratic Party. They are part in parcel of Pravda or Izvestia,” two communist party papers in the former USSR.
“They are the mouthpiece of the far left, pretending to be objective journalists,” Savage continued, citing the mainstream media’s failure to properly cover last week’s tragic ax attack in Germany.
The savage assault was carried out by an unvetted Muslim migrant, and left nearly a dozen innocent people seriously injured.
“When you have an attack yesterday, in Germany, by an Islamist murderer with an axe and…. they don’t even call them a jihadi, they call him a deranged man,” Savage continued. “I mean, what are we going to do if we don’t identify the enemy themselves? How can we ever win the war against radical Islam?”
Of course, CNN has been a frequent target for Trump.
The president has called the liberal network “very fake news” and the “Clinton News Network” — and warned that fake news was an “enemy of the people” of America.
We couldn’t agree more.
CNN’s Reza Aslan Faces Backlash After Eating Part of a Human Brain While Filming with Hindu Cannibal Sect
CNN’s Reza Aslan has been facing some heavy criticism after he ate part of a human brain while filming a segment on a Hindu sect in India.
The episode, part of a series called Believer with Reza Aslan, provoked disgust from many viewers and prompted backlash from many American Hindus after it was aired Sunday, the Daily Mail reported.
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI), the only Hindu in Congress and one of the more high-profile critics of the episode, blasted CNN for using “sensationalist” ways to promote Hinduism.
“I am very disturbed that CNN is using its power and influence to increase people’s misunderstanding and fear of Hinduism,” Gabbard wrote on Twitter. “Aslan apparently sought to find sensationalist and absurd ways to portray Hinduism.”
“Aslan and CNN didn’t just throw a harsh light on a sect of wandering ascetics to create shocking visuals – as if touring a zoo – but repeated false stereotypes about caste, karma and reincarnation that Hindus have been combating tirelessly,” she added.
Aslan, 44, met with the Aghori sect when he was invited to eat cooked brain tissue during a ritual in which they also spread ashes from cremated human bodies on his face.
He drank an alcoholic drink out of a human skull before he ate the brain.
The Aghori guru got mad at Aslan at one point when he shouted, “I will cut your head off if you keep talking so much.”
The guru started eating his own feces before throwing it at Aslan, to which Aslan responded, “I feel like this may have been a mistake.”
The Aghori are devotees of the Hindu god Shiva and believe that the human body cannot be tainted. But orthodox Hindus reject their beliefs and practices.
Indian-Americans have criticized CNN for highlighting the practices of a cult of less than 100 members, saying that it does not represent mainstream Hinduism.
“With multiple reports of hate-fuelled attacks against people of Indian origin from across the US, the show characterises Hinduism as cannibalistic, which is a bizarre way of looking at the third largest religion in the world,” US India Political Action Committee (USINPAC) said in a statement to the Hindustan Times.
Indian-American industrialist and Trump adviser Shalabh Kumar also denounced CNN for its broadcast.
“CNN, Clinton News Network has no respect for Hindus. All Hindus worldwide should boycott CNN,” he wrote on Twitter.
Aslan seems to have no signs of apologizing for the segment, clarified in a post on his Facebook page that the Aghori are “an extreme Hindu sect” that is “not representative of Hinduism.”
Seeing as how there’s a new opening in the “environmental justice” division at the EPA, perhaps Kohn may want to apply
According to CNN’s Sally Kohn, Thursday night’s weather in New York City proves climate change is real and Trump and his administration are deniers for questioning it.
“Right now it’s 65 degrees in New York City,” Kohn wrote on Thursday on Twitter. “Tonight it’s going to snow 4 inches. Yet Trump & his administration still deny there’s a problem.”
Twitter users mocked her in response:
(ANTIMEDIA Op-Ed) — In an era of what WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange calls “weaponized text” — when terms like “fake news” can be used to discredit media outlets who refuse to tow the corporate line — it’s important to point out instances where journalists get it right.
One such journalist, who got it right for The New Yorker on Tuesday, is Steve Coll — whether he meant to or not.
In a piece titled “Donald Trump Meets the Surveillance State,” Coll, who is dean of the Graduate School of Journalism at Columbia University, highlighted something independent media has been saying for years.
The true danger of government leaders granting themselves more and more power, Coll argues, isn’t necessarily tied to the person who currently sits on the throne. The true danger is the precedent that gets set for the next one to wear the crown.
“The President and his advisors seem genuinely worried that a ‘deep state’ at the C.I.A. and the F.B.I, of the kind Oliver Stone might imagine, is out to get them,” Coll wrote Tuesday. “In their anxiety, it might be helpful if, instead of tweeting out wild and fanciful accusations about wiretapping at Trump Tower, they were to reflect on the actual engineering of the surveillance state and the much wider dangers to liberty and due process it poses.”
“The Trump Administration has already seen its first national-security advisor, Michael Flynn, resign, after it was revealed that the contents of a conversation between Flynn and Sergey Kislyak, Russia’s Ambassador to Washington, contradicted descriptions Flynn gave in public and to Vice-President Mike Pence.”
Coll says that as a career intelligence man, Flynn should have known he would be fair game in the realm of surveillance because of the broad authority the government has granted itself through items like Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).
That section, which grants the government the authority to spy — without a warrant — on any American suspected of being in communication with a foreigner targeted for surveillance, was used not long ago, Coll points out, to send a young man to prison for thirty years.
Using that case as an example, the writer suggests that given their current standing, Trump and his crew might want to seriously think about how much power they want their governing agencies to have:
“Yet the fact that evidence scooped up by the American surveillance state while it spies on foreign intelligence operatives might end up in a criminal case brought against an American citizen should give President Trump pause, particularly given the F.B.I.’s reported ongoing investigation into alleged contacts between Trump advisors and Russian intelligence and government officials.”
Of FISA, Coll says “the system is highly classified and not subject to scrutiny in open courts,” and goes on to highlight the blaring truth — that it’s precisely systems like FISA that have led to where the United States has found itself in the post-9/11 world:
“Since 2001, because of the U.S.A. Patriot Act and other expansions to counterterrorism authorities and programs, it has become easier for the government to use information collected for intelligence purposes, with or without a warrant, to support criminal prosecutions against any American.”
And he’s correct. Spot on, in fact. But he doesn’t take it far enough.
Coll is talking about the surveillance state, and how it could be turned against those in power. What he could have — and, in the opinion of this reporter, should have — done, is taken it all the way.
The dangers Coll speaks of aren’t rooted in the surveillance state. They’re rooted in the State itself.
What Coll is talking about — again, whether it is his intention or not — is the incremental growth of power. Just last week, Anti-Media reminded readers that, as the dictates being handed down by the current administration are now demonstrating, authoritarian regimes grow in steps. Each new suppression of liberty is built upon the ones that came before.
Coll’s piece is focused on dangers to members of the establishment. And he’s absolutely correct in his assessment. But it would have been nice to see him focus on the dangers to society itself; the ones posed by the State against the people who must exist under it — not on top of it.
Still, Coll saw something that didn’t agree with him. He analyzed it, broke it down into its working components, and then wrote about it. And, in the opinion of this reader, he did it quite well.
And that, friends, is how journalism is supposed to work.