Just how newsworthy is the news? According to a recent in-depth report by the Harvard Center for Media Study concerning the first 100 days of the Trump presidency, it's worth very little.

The data for the study were provided by Media Tenor, a firm that specializes in collecting news content. Media Tenor employs trained, full-time employees who visually surveyed, evaluated, and classified every article about Trump's first three months in the Oval Office.

After reading the evidence reported by the Harvard Center, you might wonder, Are the MSM providing news or purveying propaganda?

The Harvard research is exhaustive, but the salient points are summed up in three tables. We'll examine each.

Comparison of Negative Reporting of Trump With The Three Preceding Presidents

Trump --------------- 80 percent

Obama -------------- 40 “

G. W. Bush --------- 57 “

Clinton --------------- 60 “

We see the news articles about Trump are overwhelmingly negative compared to the presidents who were ahead of him. Compared to Obama it's 2 to 1.

Negative News Coverage of Trump's First 100 Days by The MSM

CNN --------------- 93 percent

NBC --------------- 93 “

CBS --------------- 91 ”

NYT --------------- 87 “

Wash. Post------- 70 ”

WSJ -------------- 70 ”

Fox --------------- 52 “

Of those seven news organs, only one came close to 50 percent. This is not to say that 50 percent is balanced. Fox, too, may also have been overly critical.

Negative Reportage on Trump's Policies

Immigration --------------------------- 96 percent

Health Care --------------------------- 87 “

Russia and The Election ---------- 87 “

International Trade ------------------ 84 “

Foreign & Domestic ----------------- 82

All of Trump's policies initiatives were greeted with four times as much negativity as with favorable responses.

Lastly, we leave the Harvard study to examine the campaign contributions made by employees of the federal government.

The Hill, a major political newspaper, investigated the donations made by federal workers from 14 agencies to Clinton's 2016 campaign coffer.

Here's a representative list of seven of those 14 agencies and the percentage of total contributions given by each department deposited in Clinton's war chest.

Federal Employees Donations to Clinton's 2016 Campaign

Dept. of Commerce ---------- 98 percent

Dept. of Education ----------- 99.7 “

Dept. of Defense ------------- 84 “

Dept. of Labor ---------------- 99.4 “

State Dept. --------------------- 99 “

Dept. of Treasury ------------- 95 “

Dept. of Veterans Affairs ---- 88 “

An average of 95 percent of private federal political donations from 14 departments went to the Democrat nominee's campaign; 5 percent went to Trump.

Concluding: regardless of incidences drudged up from Trump's past, or the MSM's stream of cooked-up scandals, or the stubbornly one-sided news coverage, or the headwind of an entrenched Left-leaning bureaucracy, the GOP standard bearer always rises stronger after a predicted demise.

Antaeus was the ancient Greek god who derived strength from contact with the earth. If Antaeus were thrown to the ground, he would rise more vigorous and vanquish those who fought against him. ( I think you can see where this is going.)

Despite the media's unrelenting offensive against Trump, the concerted onslaughts of his enemies have had little effect. Among those who voted Trump into the presidency, he remains, despite all, as popular as ever; the peoples' Antaeus.

Sincerely,

Bob Scroggins

New Milford, PA

Based on current trends in public policy, I'd like to make an offer to the Dealmaker-in-Chief, or to his subordinates in the legislature. It's about money. Mine.

Let's start with health care. The Republican idea of it does not include guaranteed coverage. To them, if it's available on the market, they've done their job. "If you can't afford to buy it, that's on you," is their attitude. "Not our problem."

That's harsh and unhelpful. But let's apply that principle to the Republican issue of "educational choice". The GOP is intent on extending it to private schools, even though these are unaccountable to the taxpayer. They whine that parents should have choice when it comes to the school they send their kids to. Well, they have that choice. What they often don't have, and never should, is an entitlement to have that choice subsidized by me, the taxpayer. If they can't afford a pricey private school, that's on them. (Some can, yet are subsidized anyway!)

Can we be consistent here? After all, I have the choice whether to buy a Bugati, but if I can't afford it I shouldn't expect to be subsidized.

Now let's look at the conscience exemptions that Republicans are keen on granting. Some pharmacists want to opt out of selling birth control if THEY disapprove of it. (Whatever happened to "The customer is always right"? Why it is their business?) Some bakers don't want to see cakes, some florists don't want to sell flowers, some photographers don't want to provide services to same-sex weddings. Lousy businessmen if you ask me-- everyone's money is equally green, and cake baking is NOT a religious act!

But soon these exemptions may include denying accommodations to both same-sex and opposite sex guests, as some proprietors want to be volunteer Sex Police. What's next, "We Don't Serve Colored" signs at restaurants? If not, why not? What principle can the conscience exemption crowd invoke to deny this, but not the other claims of exemption? Racism is a deeply personal, even quasi-religious belief to many.

It could get ridiculous if anyone is allowed to exempt themselves from any law they choose merely by invoking a personal religious belief, but this is the direction Republicans are drifting toward.  It makes anybody a law unto themselves, something no society can endure.

I oppose this trend. But I still want to ask for a far more reasonable application of the conscience exemption. I want myself, and every other taxpayer, not to be forced to pay a single cent of tax money to support religion. Particularly a religion that we disapprove of. What could be a more profound violation of conscience to force someone to contribute? (They have no trouble seeing this point when it comes to taxpayer funding of abortion, something that's been illegal since 1973.)

This idea has the advantage of being well-precedented. Objecting to a proposed tax to support religion in Virginia, James Madison (Father of the Constitution) wrote his "Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments". I urge anyone who cherishes American history to read it. Jefferson implemented Madison's principles with his Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, writing, "To compel a man to furnish contributions of funds for the propagation of [religious] opinions with which he disbelieves is tyrannical and sinful."

I agree. Yet more and more in recent times religious groups are demanding, and winning, subsidies. It starts with religious education, but includes asking taxpayers to pay for Church repairs that should be paid for by its congregation. In a case currently before the Supreme Court (Trinity Lutheran v. Comer), a church school is demanding to have their playground resurfaced at taxpayer expense. This may destroy the constitutional provisions of 37 states that, consistent with Madison and Jefferson, require religion to be self-sustaining. This protects our conscience rights, all of us.

I ask them, how would they like it if they were forced to pay for voodoo, Satanism, or anything else they find objectionable? It's not out of the realm of possibility. A religious club at a public university won funding by claiming that to deny them constituted discrimination (Rosenberger v. University of Virginia, 1995). Trinity Lutheran is making the same argument and seems likely to win also, even without the biased vote of new Justice Gorsuch. And Muslim schools, certainly no favorite of the GOP, are included in all the voucher programs implemented so far. They can't be discriminated against, so if the state is making the funds available, that means all comers. Christians are paying for Islam right now.

So am I being unreasonable here when I demand to be free from paying for religion, invoking my conscience rights? Is there any consistent principle to Republican thinking, or is it all an arbitrary matter, pure power politics? Let me know.

Meanwhile, I'm giving ALL my money this year to progressive causes so I'll have no tax liability at all. One way or another I will NOT pay for religion. There's also a desire to opt out of supporting the bloated, wasteful Military-Industrial Complex-- it's against my religion!

Sincerely,

Stephen Van Eck

Rushville, PA