Cold Fury

Harshing your mellow since 9/01

The death of the liberal media

Faster, please.

After reviewing last week’s news coverage, I would encourage President Trump to come up with a more accurate taunt than “fake news.” Maybe “garbage news.” Or perhaps “bottom-feeding news.” Even try “we-are-a-collection-of-dishonest-miscreants-who-are-unworthy-of-an-ounce-of-the-American-people’s-trust news.”

But “fake news” is tame in light of the media’s misleading, destructive, and willfully ignorant reporting last week that was intended further to inflame a divided body politic.

And it wasn’t just the dependable lunatics on the Left pushing trash commentary. Bret Stephens, the NeverTrump “conservative” columnist for the New York Times, compared Trump to a drug addict. Washington Post “conservative” blogger Jennifer Rubin warned that if Senators Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) voted to confirm Kavanaugh, their names would be, “as was the case with [Nazi-era traitor] Vidkun Quisling—synonymous with ‘sellouts,’ ‘collaborators,’ or, to use a Trumpism, ‘phonies.’”

As the week came to a close, the New York Times was forced to append its misleading article that criticized U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley for buying pricey curtains to decorate her official residence. The window coverings, it turns out, actually were purchased by her predecessor in the Obama Administration. But it was too late. Social media had pounded Haley all morning for being extravagant and heartless.


But there is a more sinister agenda behind this collective media cacophony: To hide their complicity in the biggest political scandal of all time, which included the weaponization of the nation’s most powerful government agencies to spy on a rival presidential campaign; the illegal leaking of classified information to friendly journalists to defame American citizens associated with the campaign; and the sabotage of an incoming presidency, the media is happy to distract us with manufactured non-scandals that advance the political interests of their friends.

The media’s scorched earth strategy to take down Trump as they cover their own asses is not an accident. They are doing whatever they can to try and stop the inevitable: the self-inflicted extinction of their integrity and credibility. Seventy percent of Americans—including 90 percent of Republicans—have lost faith in the news media over the past decade. More ignoble performances by the press only will deepen Americans’ distrust of this once-respected institution—and prove that the president is right.

And that we’re all right not to trust the lying liberal bastards. Couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch of assholes; their malignant, destructive industry is a blight on the nation, and it can’t go toes-up soon enough to suit me.


Dear MSM

Good riddance.

Well, you have certainly had one heck of year, haven’t you? I can’t imagine how it must feel to be you right now. This time last year you were yucking it up with your buddies in the White House about how Obama was going to ram through as many executive actions as he could to push the immigration debate into the ‘win’ category. How’d that work out for you? From there you went right into a National Lampoon-style daily snark against the guy you said didn’t stand a chance of winning and that went even better, right up until November 8th.

The looks on your faces that night were almost worth the past fifty years of your constant obfuscation and perfidy. It was a real-time version of the folks riding First Class on the Titanic realizing that their tuxedoes weren’t buying them a whole lot of sympathy down at the lifeboat boarding station. Stricken is the word that comes to mind. To call what the public delivered to you an ass-whooping would be an understatement. You guys looked like a collectivist version of Ronda Rousey after Holly Holm got done with her. Beaten, down for the count and weepy in the morning.

So why bother trying to keep up with the pretenses? In the grocery business, they’d say you were past your sell by date. There was a time when you had not only a purpose, but a mandate and those must have been heady days indeed, the gravitas and respect measured out in equal parts from every quarter of America. I remember well the way my own Grandparents would hang on every word uttered by the distinguished clergy of the time; Huntley, Brinkley and Cronkite.

If there had been room on the walls their portraits would have hung beside the ones of JFK and FDR, so admired were they for their earnest and judicious reporting on the comings and goings of our political leaders and the events of the day. Later, guys like Woodward and Bernstein turned themselves into nerdy Batmen, flipping the script on the powerful and turning up the pressure until their only recourse was to clamber on a helicopter and wave grimly not only to the public but any legacy that may have been hoped for. Good times, indeed.

But then something happened.

Did it ever. I can’t think of a better descriptive summary of their MO than “obfuscation and perfidy.” Nailed it, he did, clean and tight.


One more time ag’in

Jeez, I thought we’d settled this one years ago. Guess not.

Gallup headlined its write-up of a 2010 survey “One in Three Americans ‘Extremely Patriotic’: Republicans, conservatives, and seniors most likely to say so.” According to Gallup, 52 percent of Republicans and 48 percent of conservatives called themselves extremely patriotic; only 20 percent of Democrats and 19 percent of liberals did.

As a general matter, patriotic sentiment becomes more attenuated the further left you go. The late distinguished philosopher Richard Rorty, hardly a McCarthyite, once wrote a New York Times op-ed titled “The Unpatriotic Academy.”

He praised the Left on campus for its championing of marginalized groups, before stipulating that “there is a problem with this left: it is unpatriotic. In the name of ‘the politics of difference,’ it refuses to rejoice in the country it inhabits. It repudiates the idea of a national identity, and the emotion of national pride.”

Edmund Burke famously said that “to make us love our country, our country ought to be lovely.” For the Left, America is lovely to the extent it corresponds to a progressive vision of a European-style welfare state that leads from behind in international affairs and pounds its chest less about its own greatness and exceptionalism. The America it can feel proud of exists not in actuality, but in prospect, as a vessel for a distinct ideological vision.

Needless to say, it is hard to pursue this project while simultaneously feeling what George Orwell, in his definition of patriotism, called “devotion to a particular place and particular way of life, which one believes to be the best in the world.”

None of this means that questioning any particular politician’s patriotism will ever be considered in bounds — it smacks of questioning motives that are ultimately unknowable. But if Giuliani had stood up before that room of conservatives and said that liberals don’t feel about this country the way we do, he would have been on unassailable ground, and had the data to prove it.

Which says nothing at all about whether he would have been assailed or not anyway; he surely would have been, because “liberals” are at least smart enough to know that it’s very difficult to get away with seizing and holding power over a populace they so patently despise when their contempt for said populace is widely acknowledged.

In fact, for decades now “liberals” have regarded patriotism itself as worthy of scorn and ridicule, and have never been all that shy about sneering at those who openly profess it. As Ira Straus says:

Most of the people who are denouncing Giuliani’s remark probably think it’s true. Even many of the liberals who are denouncing it must think so. How often have they portrayed patriotism as a backward idea, held onto by ignorant ordinary Americans, the kind who cling to their religion and their guns — something intelligent people know better than? Even conservatives recognize that patriotism is an ambiguous virtue, a love of the near that can be in contradiction to the love of the universal good. Leo Strauss reminded us that Socrates said a soldier was like a dog, nice to the people of the house but dangerous to the rest. This does not lead conservatives to scoff at soldiers or forget their virtues, the way many progressives have been heaping mud on American Sniper.

The main use for words such as “patriotism,” in contemporary progressive circles, has been to deploy them in an upside-down fashion. When things are done and said at America’s expense, they praise it as “true patriotism,” as when an Obama or a Leahy says that “America would cease to be America” if it went on electing conservatives and taking commonsense national-protection measures. Or when they condemn a pro-American idea as “un-American” — a phrase they abhor when it is used sincerely, but feel no compunction about using for the sake of confounding the masses. Or talk about their loyalty to “America” as a “principle” — interpreted always their way — rather than an actual country, to be served loyally. Or demand that, to be true to their rhetorical “America,” we must sacrifice the global interests and power of the real America — the America whose strength is the most important guarantee the world has for the continuation and progress of its principles.

They don’t like it when ordinary patriotic Americans see something wrong with their lack of love for the real, existing America. They call it “McCarthyism,” an attack on intellectuals for thinking the things intelligent people are supposed to think. As if there could be anything wrong with being an enlightened intellectual and seeing through the silliness of love of country!

They don’t feel they are hurting freedom when they go about constructing an edifice of denunciation and discipline against ever saying such things. They feel it, rather, as a way of protecting their own freedom from unfair criticism. It is, for them, a matter of maintaining public hygiene in face of the unwashed, mean-spirited masses.

Straus has a lot more, particularly on the real but hidden motivation of the libs’ manufactured OUTRAGE! over all this (hint: think Stalin and one of his preferred methods for maintaining absolute control over a cowed populace) and the mechanism by which they implement it, and guys like Lowry really ought to read it before cooperating in their own subjugation by wringing their hands in “liberal”-approved fashion over Giuliani’s “inappropriate” truth-telling.

That truth remains: “liberals” are proud of the stumbling, staggering, impoverished, enfeebled, and above all contrite totalitarian shithole they intend to finish turning us into; conservatives are proud of the far greater nation–the Constitutional Republic as founded–that we were for a while there. Contra all the milquetoast conservatives who wilt onto the fainting couch whenever someone like Giuliana refuses to call a “liberal” spade a man-powered entrenching device, it is neither inaccurate nor unfair to speak the obvious and incontrovertible truth, without equivocation or euphemism. It might well be out of bounds, at least for some, but that says more about how firm the “liberal” grasp on our throats really is than anything else.


Clown nose on!

Glenn juxtaposes these two stories. His reasoning should be obvious.

It is the end of a fake-news era.

No it isn’t. Not at all, because Lyin’ Brian and the rest of the Court Media crowd will be….oh wait, they’re not talking about him.

Jon Stewart, whose wit defined “The Daily Show” for more than 15 years, will sign off the iconic Comedy Central program later this year.

“In my heart I know it is time for someone else to have that opportunity,” he said on Tuesday night’s show as his studio audience gasped.

Members of the audience yelled “we love you Jon” as he expressed his appreciation for the show’s staff and called hosting it “the honor of my professional life.”

It isn’t clear when Stewart will sign off; his contract expires in September, but he may leave as soon as July, or as late as December, he said.

Meanwhile, elsewhere in Lying Liberal Land:

We have decided today to suspend Brian Williams as Managing Editor and Anchor of NBC Nightly News for six months. The suspension will be without pay and is effective immediately. We let Brian know of our decision earlier today. Lester Holt will continue to substitute Anchor the NBC Nightly News.

Do it, NBC–just do it, please. We all know how badly you want to, and I don’t even have to say what.


Lyin’ Brian

There is nothing at all unusual or extraordinary about Lyin’ Brian Williams’ conduct. Nothing.

I bring this up because it explains why Brian Williams’ trustworthiness doesn’t matter, why the trustworthiness of television (and newspaper) “journalists” no longer matters in general, and why the internet upended them and rendered them obsolete. It’s not merely one technology replacing another. Mainstream journalists could maintain their authority amidst the noise…  if they just didn’t lie all the time. All. The. Time. It’s because they don’t tell the truth that we don’t trust them. They keep silent about what they don’t want us to know (say, the IRS scandal) and overplay what they want us to care about (the Valerie Plame non-scandal). And what Dowd’s column demonstrates is: They don’t even know what the truth is! They all live happily together in a foggy wonderland of left-wing mythology where its ALL Brian Williams under RPG fire all the time.

Cronkite “risked his career to go on TV and tell the truth,” and Edward R. Murrow toppled Joseph McCarthy and there was no stained Lewinsky dress and George W. Bush went AWOL and Obama called Benghazi a terrorist attack right away and the science is settled and Brian Williams took RPG fire. It’s all one thing, and only my polite upbringing keeps me from saying what that one thing is.

Yeah, well, mine doesn’t. Klavern links to this excellent (if nauseating) article, which contains verbal portrait after verbal portrait of Lyin’ Brian spreading for his–and our–Leftist masters, taking it all and begging for more like the good little propaganda whore he truly is. I repeat: anybody who believes a word out of the fork-tongued yap of any mainstream “journalist” by now is either a fool, or a Leftard himself.

My apologies to any actual traditional-style prostitutes who were offended by that admittedly invidious comparison I made above.

All of a piece update!NBC News Execs Divided on Brian Williams’s Fate“? Of course they are. They were all in on it themselves, and are not different from him in any real way. In fact, the only real “division” at NBC would be between those who wish to brazen it out, and those who wish to sweep it under the rug until the furore dries up and blows away and they can all get back to the business-as-usual of disseminating “liberal” propaganda. In sum: they all make their living by lying, with few enough exceptions to be counted on your fingers.

Bigger problem update! In the course of an article on Court Media’s Lyin’ Brian Syndrome, Mollie Hemingway asks the question we’ve all wondered about at one time or another: “Why does Dana Milbank have a job?

Yes, Brian Williams told tall tales to make himself seem like a hero. That’s what the Washington Post’s Dana Milbank calls Tuesday. And I don’t see anyone talking about media integrity vis-a-vis his continued employment.



Sick and tired

Last actual journalist leaves CBS “News.”

CBS News investigative correspondent Sharyl Attkisson has reached an agreement to resign from CBS News ahead of contract, bringing an end to months of hard-fought negotiations, sources familiar with her departure told POLITICO on Monday.

Attkisson, who has been with CBS News for two decades, had grown frustrated with what she saw as the network’s liberal bias, an outsize influence by the network’s corporate partners and a lack of dedication to investigative reporting, several sources said. She increasingly felt that her work was no longer supported and that it was a struggle to get her reporting on air.

At the same time, Attkisson’s reporting on the Obama administration, which some staffers characterized as agenda-driven, had led network executives to doubt the impartiality of her reporting. She is currently at work on a book — tentatively titled “Stonewalled: One Reporter’s Fight for Truth in Obama’s Washington” — that addresses the challenges of reporting critically on the administration.

While some championed her relentless dedication to investigations — ranging from defective Firestone tires to the Fast and Furious gun-walking scandal — others saw evidence of a political agenda, particularly against President Barack Obama. (The bulk of Attkisson’s work since 2009 has focused on the failures or perceived failures of the Obama administration, including its failed green-energy investments and the attack in Benghazi, though she has reported on several Republican failures as well.)

She seems not to have had any political agenda at all beyond honestly reporting on scandal and malfeasance, with which the illegitimate Obama junta is rife. But CBS “News'” agenda–propping up the regime, covering up its myriad misdeeds, pimping its propaganda, and promoting proper genuflection and obeisance to their beloved God-Emperor–is the one that matters here.

There is no longer any place for a real reporter at CBS “News.” There really hasn’t been in a good long time. That’s the long and the short of it.

Update! Relevant? Gee, I dunno.

She began discussing her early departure with CBS New president David Rhodes last April.

David Rhodes’s brother, Ben, is President Obama’s deputy national security adviser for strategic communication, and he was involved in the writing of the Benghazi talking points.

So she had worked tirelessly to expose the government’s lies, in which her boss’s brother was up to his filthy neck. Now she’s gone. Cronyism, privilege, corruption, abuse of power, nepotism, dishonesty, reprisal: it’s a perfect storm of liberal-fascist chicanery. As such, there can be only one word to describe it: UNEXPECTED!


Great minds

Looks like Codevilla has about as little use for dictator-fellating blowhards as I do.

Being human, politicians lie. Even in the best regimes. The distinguishing feature of totalitarian regimes however, is that they are built on words that the rulers know to be false, and on somehow constraining the people to speak and act as if the lies were true. Thus the people hold up the regime by partnering in its lies. Thus, when we use language that is “politically correct” – when we speak words acceptable to the regime even if unfaithful to reality – or when we don’t call out politicians who lie to our faces, we take part in degrading America.

The case in point is Television personality Bill O’Reilly who, in his pre-Super Bowl interview with Barack Obama, suffered the President to tell him – and his audience of millions – that the IRS’ targeting of conservative groups had been a minor “bonehead” mistake in the Cincinnati office, because there is “not even a smidgen of corruption” in that agency. O’ Reilly knew but did not say that both he and the President know this to be a lie, that the key official in the affair, Lois Lerner, had made sure that the IRS’s decision on how to treat the Tea Party matter would be made in Washington by writing: that the matter was “very dangerous” and that “Cincy should probably NOT have these cases.”

O’ Reilly did not call out the lie. Nor did he just remain silent. Rather, he said of Obama that: “his heart is in the right place.”

Which is first-water horseshit, and irrelevant anyway; a whole lot of damage has been done to liberty and Constitutional government over the years by (ostensibly) well-meaning people, after all.

Why then do we not call lies lies, and liars liars? Because there are consequences. Had O’Reilly told Obama something like “You know that this is false. You are insulting me by lying to my face. What makes you think that I, or any other American would stand for that?” he would have been ostracized by the Establishment – and lost his prized access to the White House.

For ordinary Americans, calling the regime’s lies by their name, deviating from political correctness, carries far stiffer penalties, because the regime has labeled each such deviation as an antisocial pathology: racism, sexism, homophobia, islamophobia, “denialism,”etc., any of which mark you as an opponent of those who count. They may fire you, pass you over, or just exclude you from that to which you wish to be included.

This is new and incomplete. But only in America. It is the very routine, the very constitution, of totalitarian society.

I’d just repost the whole thing here, but you really need to click through and read it all. O’Reilly’s unctuous egotism is far worse than mere masturbation; he’s aiding and abetting the undermining not just of what little is left of the legitimate Republic, but of the very idea of integrity itself. He’s making a chump not just of himself, but of all of us.

(Via Bill)


Enough already

Okay, I’m just gonna say it: is anybody but me sick and tired yet of the endless, all too hackish backslapping, self-congratulation, and general suck-uppery surrounding Bill O’Reilly and his momentous, gargantuan, earth-shattering, world-changing interview with Barrack Hussein Obama?

I mean, good Lord. Everybody on Fox talked about it breathlessly for the entire week before, then it REALLY, ACTUALLY HAPPENED, and they haven’t stopped talking about it yet. I know, I know, it’s O’Reilly; nobody really takes him seriously, the smarmy bastard, with all that sanctimonious “lookin’ out for the folks” crap and all. Or at least I hope they don’t.

But come on. He’s congratulating himself–along with everydamnedbody else on that stupid network–24/7 on how fearless and tough he was with the Liar In Thief; how dogged, how relentless, how absolutely completely focused on getting to the bottom of these shenanigans he was. How he didn’t let up, start to finish. Why, he BROUGHT OBAMA TO JUSTICE and DEMANDED SOME ACCOUNTABILITY, by GOD. He reminded this guy that he works for Da Peepul, and Da Peepul are getting a raw deal here, and, well, dammit, JUST WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT IT, BUB?!?



He did ask Ogabe some fairly direct questions, none of which were all that harshly put, and Obama lied right in his teeth about every last one of ’em. And O’Reilly let the lies stand and moved on. He never challenged him, on even one of them.

“Not a smidgen of corruption” in the IRS dustup, regarding a scandal whose scope and magnitude strikes at the very heart of our system of government and its shameful debasement? Not even a smidgen, really? When the troll in charge took the Fifth to avoid having to admit to what we all know to be true: that the most powerful, least accountable agency of the entire federal monstrosity was–is being, for fuck’s sake–used to suppress dissent and influence “elections,” in direst contravention of every principle this country is supposed to be founded on? When the person heading the sham “investigation” is a deeply partisan supporter of the very people who benefited from the crime?

Nothing to see here, let’s move on? Really? Not even a smidgen, from a government made up of Chicago Machine mountebanks for whom this precise sort of corruption is their very mother’s milk? Not a smidgen? Inquiry over, now stop asking?

Benghazi, Fast And Furious, Obamacare–all “phony scandals” that matter not a whit to anyone except the pestiferous pedants at Fox, who insist on wasting everyone’s time on these nothingburgers to the detriment of the smooth running of Hope And Change over the few Constitutional protections that remain intact after six or seven decades of Progressivist encroachment?

Obama a big-government Leftist? ABSURD! Why, the VERY IDEA!

And O’Reilly’s response to all this utterly transparent horseshit was: a shrug, a moment’s restiveness, and then on to the next question.

Okay, I know it’s easy for me to sit here and nitpick. I wasn’t there; I wasn’t the guy charged with interviewing the Lord and Master of us all, on one of the most-watched TV shows of the year. I wasn’t the one who had to balance respect for a now-tainted but still powerful office with my desire as an opposition journalist to get at the truth.

An aside on that respect for the office thing: I saw it mentioned somewhere or other that Ogabe couldn’t be bothered even to put on a tie for the thing, and how that showed disrespect for his position as president. I know that, most likely, his dozens of handlers and keepers focused-grouped that all to hell and gone, and they decided that a more casual look would resonate more with the people they hoped to influence–not to say manipulate– with this joke of an interview. He’s casual, he’s easygoing, he’s one of us, dude! Not like that alien Mitt Romney, man, or any of those other Rich White Guy presidents in their fancy suits.

But I think on some deeper, primal level, it was Ogabe and his crew’s way of showing disrespect not just for O’Reilly, but for those dwindling few to whom such gestures still matter. Unpresidential? I’d say so, yeah. But even as he’s usurped more and more illegitimate power unto himself, he still thinks little enough of his subjects to deem appropriate dress, presidential dress, as not worth the bother.


He blankly, obviously, incontrovertibly lied about every damned question he was asked. There’s no way even he believes his own bullshit at this point, to quote the child-man himself. It’s just too high, wide, and deep. As big a narcissist, as delusional a Leftist as he is, even he couldn’t possibly buy into this transparent garbage. No way.

Obamacare is going great. The economy is recovering, headed in the right direction after too many years of unbridled free-market folly. Benghazi was nothing to fret about, not in any way symptomatic of a misguided foreign policy in tatters and disarray, based on a presumption of weakness and incompetence, and a harsh betrayal of the core covenant between a nation and those it sends into harm’s way to protect its interests. The IRS depredations were a small, simple, local result of “bonehead decisions,” not one of all too many examples of a rogue, lawless, out of control government snuffing out the most basic rights of a once-free country–step by step, inch by inch. He is no way no how a big-government guy; that’s just a vicious lie promulgated by O’Reilly and his nefarious Fox cohorts, and the only thing holding us back is their unwillingness to be objective and give him a chance. The “S” word? Please; don’t make me laugh.

You right-wing radical extremists are out of touch with all reality, and you need to step aside and allow us to keep moving forward to the national glory that could be ours if only we allow the government to spend a bit more, tax a bit more, take control of a bit more, regulate and restrict a few more of your liberties, jump over a few more Constitutional hurdles, seize a little more power and exert it as we see fit. Trust us. We know what’s best. We’re on the right track. After two centuries of chasing after ideals that made us the most powerful and prosperous nation in human history-all of which we now refer to as “failure,” as something that “didn’t work”–we’re putting things right at last. Why, you would think they’d be thanking me.

All the scandals, the lawlessness, the corruption, the double-dealing, the crony capitalism, the inept coverups, the trampling of the Constitution? A figment of Fox’s imagination. A bitter clinger’s fever dream. Nothing more.

Ogabe just says whatever the hell suits his purpose at the moment, knowing full well that Court Media has his back every step of the way. Knowing that a lie gets halfway around the world before the truth ever gets its boots on. Knowing that all he has to do is look into the camera and puke it forth with a fair counterfeit of sincerity and, no matter how self-evidently ludicrous the spin o’ the day might be, half the damned country will buy it hook, line, and sinker. And that that half will hate anyone who dares discomfit them with the naked truth–with cold, hard facts–with the most searing, incandescent hate imaginable. Will be vilified, smeared, and denounced to within an inch of their lives for their insolence. Will be intimidated and harassed, along with their innocent loved ones, on the very doorsteps of their homes by frothing rent-a-mobs intent on suppression and raw fascist mayhem.

Would, actually, in a more perfect Leftist utopia, be gulagged and liquidated toot fucking sweet. Not yet, alas. But soon, comrades. Soon.

And knowing full well, too, that O’Reilly, the knight on the white charger riding to the rescue of “the folks,” wouldn’t dare call him on the least word it either. Not to his face. He has NEVER been called on it, not once, not in his entire life. No one has ever stood up in front of this empty, soulless cipher, looked him square in the eye, and just said, like a father to an errant son, or a drill sergeant to a wayward recruit: “BULLSHIT, son. You can’t kid a kidder. Peddle that bushwa someplace else. Ain’t no market for it here.” Not once.

And O’Reilly, despite his sticky satisfaction with himself, didn’t do it either.

Obama is an insult to the very notion of what a statesman ought to be. He is the living embodiment of a most anti-American phenomenon: the career politician. He is a weasel; worse, a viper we have brought into our national nest and nurtured and coddled and given free reign to bite and inject his left-wing poison into the very marrow of our sovereignty and self-determination.

And O’Reilly let him slide, right down the line, start to finish. For this highly dubious achievement, he seems to think congratulations are in order. More than congratulation: adulation.

Obama is a polyp, a cancer on a once proud and noble body politic. It isn’t all his fault; he’s merely the late stage of a very ugly and gradual degeneration, a symbol and a representative of something far bigger and far worse–something he himself lacks the wit and perspective to even begin to understand. If you could somehow pin Bill Ayers down and force the truth out of him, he could probably explain it all in terms even a gassy nothing like Obama could grasp. All the same, he ought to be confronted, made to answer, directly and without tolerance for equivocation. He ought to be pressed, and hard. He ought to be exposed, any time the opportunity presents itself. He ought not to be allowed to lie in our very teeth with complete impunity.

Time was, greasy worms like Nixon were called to account, by a media that thought of itself as an adversary–of bullshit, of manipulation, of unchecked and unquestioned power, of fraud. Turns out, they were just the adversary of the adversaries of the Left.

But that was still O’Reilly’s job, the task he took on of his own free will, with much advance ballyhoo. He’s having a fine old time now pretending that he’s the guy to do that–that he DID do it, courageously and without flinching or genuflecting before the obscene trappings of power we’ve tragically allowed to accrue around the office of a president unfit for his too-mighty position. O’Reilly is no such thing. He’s a flea on the ass of a donkey that thinks it’s a lion, and struts and growls around the jungle as if it were one. Obama treated O’Reilly exactly as such weak, minor annoyances deserve to be: with disdain, without a moment’s serious regard. He brushed him off with a flick of his tail, and gave him no more thought after than the lion gives the departed flea.

Such pretenses are as sad as they are annoying. I suppose some small props are due to O’Reilly for having the audacity to even pretend to beard the faux lion in his den, especially in light of how so many federal bureaucracies have been used as enforcement arms of the Ogabe regime. But those half-hearted kudos are more than negated by O’Reilly’s going along with the original pretense that the donkey is a lion in the first place, and sitting idly by to let the damnable jackass get away with it.

If this is the best our presumed conservative adversarial press can do when given the chance and a huge stage from which to project the dangerous truth, well, FreeFor has a way bigger job in front of it than we thought. Not that we ought to be relying on the likes of O’Reilly for anything at all, I know. But still.


The Lie Of The Year

From lying propagandists who must certainly recognize one when they see one.

One might have reasonably suspected, in 2008 and certainly in 2009 and 2012, that Obama was lying. But one could not prove it, because it was not yet a factual assertion. In 2008 it was but a promise, which Obama might or might not have intended and might or might not have been able to keep. By 2012, we now know, it was a full-fledged fraud, but exposing it conclusively as such would have required a degree of expertise few journalists have.

In other words, it’s not that PolitiFact was wrong to withhold its jejune “pants on fire” designation from the Obama statement in 2008, 2009 and 2012. It was wrong even to make a pretense of “fact checking” a statement that was, at the time, not a factual claim. Its past evaluations of the statement were not “fact checks” at all, merely opinion pieces endorsing ObamaCare.

Lots of people wrote opinion pieces endorsing ObamaCare, and some are still at it. Apart from the substance of the arguments, there’s nothing wrong with that. But selling opinion pieces by labeling them “fact checks” is fundamentally dishonest. In this case, it was in the service of the most massive consumer fraud in American history.

The liberal media is all about providing that sort of service. But we can’t be too hard on them, I guess; after all, if it wasn’t for lies, they’d have no hook at all from which to hang their hats.


Flying monkeys: released!

The Pimp In Thief has given them their talking lying points:

President Obama held an off-the-record meeting with MSNBC hosts and liberal pundits on Thursday, POLITICO has learned.

Present at the meeting: MSNBC’s Ed Schultz and Lawrence O’Donnell, Washington Post economics blogger Ezra Klein, Mother Jones Washington bureau chief David Corn, Talking Points Memo editor and publisher Josh Marshall, ThinkProgress editor-in-chief Judd Legum, Atlantic senior editor Garance Franke-Ruta, Salon political writer Brian Beutler and Fox News contributor Juan Williams.

The participants agreed to an off-the-record classification for the meeting, though sources familiar with President Obama’s remarks said that Williams later appeared on Fox News and cited some of the president’s remarks, which he attributed to administration officials.

Hey, remember when Court Media used to tout its “oppositional” role all the time? “Journalistic ethics,” “credibility,” “integrity,” the absolutely vital importance of being “neutral,” “unbiased,” and “independent”? Nah, me neither.

Suck harder, you cheap, greasy whores. At least Big Daddy doesn’t have to worry about any teeth accidentally interfering with his orgasmic bliss; you voluntarily had those removed yourselves, a long time ago.


A question

Is anybody else but me already sick and tired of the liberal-media meatbeating over the Kennedy assassination anniversary yet? Just wonderin’.

And for those MSM worshippers of “America’s Royal Family” (spit) who are trying to resurrect the trusty old right-wing-climate-of-hatred-and-bigotry meme: Oswald was a commie, you lying dolts–Red in tooth and claw, as the saying goes. Y’know, just like your latest leg-tingling Oval Office object of onanism is.

Guess these guys were so successful in dishonestly turning the liberal-fascism of the National SOCIALIST German Workers’ Party–celebrated misty-eyed and damp-legged by the so-called Progressives of the time, right up until it became all too clear what a monster their shared ideology had created–into a “right-wing” phenomenon that they always figure it’s worth taking a stab at it again, any time they get the chance. Unfortunately, they’ll probably turn out to be right about that.


Yer doin’ it wrong

A primer course for Imperial Media.

Reporters with the Society of American Business Editors and Writers received “training” on how to cover Obamacare’s rollout from a policy expert who works with President Obama’s former health information technology adviser.

The Commonwealth Fund’s Sara Collins claimed during the training that’s chronic dysfunctionality does not signify “deeper issues” with the law.

“I don’t think it signifies deeper problems, I think it is a website issue,” Collins told SABEW during the Oct. 28 training seminar.

Her optimistic take on the law’s difficulties is unsurprising since she works for an organization led by David Blumenthal, who was President Obama’s national coordinator for health information technology from 2009 to 2011.

What is surprising is that an organization claiming to represent professional journalists would endorse “training” delivered by advocates for the program they are covering, which would violate SABEW’s code of ethics.

Okay, the very idea that these Obama-attack-poodle “journalists” have any ethics at all is hilarious. But wait, it gets better, seeing as how one of the supposed “standards” of the “code” is this:

That code encourages journalists to “avoid any practice that might compromise or appear to compromise objectivity or fairness.”

Oh, stop it, you’re killin’ me.


“Obama’s Policies Have Crushed the Economy”

Well, d’uh. He’s a socialist; that’s what they do and, aside from enslaving and slaughtering people in job lots, all they do.

Well, okay, they enrich themselves along the way too.

The headline at CNN Money was, “Why America’s Youth Aren’t Finding Jobs.”

If you expected an analysis of how and why President Barack Obama’s policies hurt the job market for the young, think again. Believe it or not, CNN wrote a piece, supposedly explaining the tight job market, without using the following words: Obama, Obama administration, taxes, regulations, “stimulus” program or, of course, ObamaCare.


Apparently, CNN believes the country has been on autopilot for the last five years, with policy decisions by the White House having no effect, for good or for ill.

Well, that IS the Narrative, after all, obscenely puked forth from the very lying lips of His Majesty His Own Divine Self on a regular basis, and they’d best adhere to it slavishly and strictly if they know what’s good for them. And they do.

Since CNN will not, let’s examine the major economic decisions by this administration and their impact on the job market.

“Stimulus”: The Obama administration spent nearly $1 trillion on “economic stimulus” that would “save or create” 3.5 million jobs. Did it? “The inability to measure Mr. Obama’s jobs formula is part of its attraction,” wrote William McGurn in The Wall Street Journal. “Never mind that no one — not the Labor Department, not the Treasury, not the Bureau of Labor Statistics — actually measures ‘jobs saved.'”

But some things can be measured. To keep pace with the number of new people entering the job market, the economy must produce 150,000 new jobs every month. In July, the economy produced 162,000 jobs. To date, in the four years since the end of the recession, Obama’s economy has produced 4,657,000 jobs — an average of just 97,020 per month. The percentage of civilians 16 years and older working or actively looking for work recently reached a 34-year low. Down from 65.7 when President Barack Obama took office, it is 63.4 today. Would-be workers are simply giving up, frustrated, no longer looking.

Team Obama said that without stimulus, unemployment, which was then 7 percent, could reach as high as 8 percent. Well, Congress did pass stimulus — and unemployment rose to 10.2 percent in the first year of Obama’s presidency.

And that’s just the phonus balonus rate; REAL unemployment is in the high teens or even low twenties–who knows, since nobody can afford to be caught taking an honest look at it anymore–and there it will stay, as long as our fascinated flirtation with Eurosocialism continues to hold sway over sanity, common sense, and observance of the historical record.

Plenty more here, as you’d expect, all of it damning. But don’t call it a litany of failure; it’s a litany of disaster–self-inflicted, and anything but a coincidence.

Update! Nearly forgot to include this bit, which is absolutely crucial in all sorts of ways:

CNN’s head-in-the-sand piece on youthful joblessness serves as the latest example of the pro-Obama media’s failure, blindness and unwillingness to see and state the obvious. By historical standards, this recovery stinks. To understand why requires a repudiation of the very foundation of leftism. Leftists believe that enlightened government bureaucrats — meaning themselves — possess both the power to redistribute wealth from the undeserving to the deserving and the wisdom to know the difference.

Really says it all, don’t it?


An industry versus an action

Clearly, we need to do something about placing some common-sense regulations on the First Amendment. Registration and a background check for printing press and ink purchases would be a good start. After all, how could the Founders have foreseen…?

Journalism is indeed an activity, not a profession, and though we often refer to institutionalized media as “the press,” we should remember that James Madison talked about freedom of the press as “freedom in the use of the press” — that is, the freedom to publish, not simply freedom for media organizations.

In Madison’s day, of course, the distinction wasn’t as significant as it became later, when newspaper publishing became an industrial activity. It was easy to be a pamphleteer in Madison’s time, and there was real influence in being such.

But that changed with the increase in efficiencies of scale that accompanied the industrial revolution, and “the press” in common parlance became not a tool of publication but a shorthand for those organizations large and wealthy enough to possess those tools, much as the motion-picture industry has come to be referred to as “the studios.”

Yet now technology has changed things up again; the tools of Internet publication are available to anyone, however modest his or her means. (There are even homeless bloggers; I’ve met one myself.)

The ability to publish inexpensively, and to reach potentially millions of people in seconds, has made it possible for people who’d never be able to — or even want to — be hired by the institutional press to nonetheless publish and influence the world, much like 18th century pamphleteers.

Over the past few years, a lot of big scoops have come from people other than the institutional press — from James O’Keefe’s exposés of ACORN and voter fraud, to Edward Snowden’s release of NSA secrets via Glenn Greenwald, who talking head David Gregory suggested is not a “real journalist.”

Durbin’s pontifications about who’s entitled to press freedom were uttered in the course of promoting a federal “shield law” that would allow those “real” journalists to conceal their sources. I oppose such laws in general, but to the extent that they exist, they should protect everyone who’s doing journalism, regardless of where their paycheck comes from.

I wouldn’t trust Durbin (or most of his Senate colleagues) to baby-sit my kid. I certainly don’t trust them to decide who counts as a “real” journalist — and, more importantly, who doesn’t.

Babysit my kid? I wouldn’t trust Durbin, or any other scum-sucking American politician, to shine my damned shoes. My kid he ain’t getting within five hundred feet of, if I can help it. An extension course in Glenn’s schooling of the Constitutional scholar (in the Barrackian sense) Durbin:

Tweeting about a car crash you saw on the interstate is an act of journalism. It doesn’t matter that only a few of your friends might see it or care. You are passing along information. That’s all journalism is. The right of free speech doesn’t apply only to important speech or for people who are paid to speak. Freedom of religious expression doesn’t apply only to the minister or rabbi. It applies to everybody. Any rule that applies to journalists should by its nature apply to anybody who is providing information to others.

In my experience, though, Durbin’s misguided idea of journalism as an industry rather than an action isn’t confined to politicians. Sometimes it’s even perpetuated within the field. More than once in my time at a newspaper I’ve heard people say something to the effect of, “The media is the only industry that has protections written into the Bill of Rights.” That’s like saying that speechwriters get special recognition from the First Amendment.

Well, see, like with the TSA, the government needs to “professionalize” journalism so as to make it more efficient, reliable, and trustworthy. And I admit that in my more perverse and frustrated moments, I get a good laugh out of the prospect of seeing antique-media “journalists” suddenly finding themselves crushed under the weight of regulations, credentialization, and “oversight” like the rest of the private sector has been…especially since they operate more as a subsidiary of FederalGovCo than a private industry nowadays anyway.

A witless, humorless government stooge peering over every one of their shoulders, clipboard in hand and an army of bureaucrats at his beck and call for harassment purposes in case of any recalcitrance or insufficient “cooperation” might be just the thing to teach the socialist swine a lesson or two in how Big Government really works, and what it really is. Why should they be the only industry in the United Socialist Surveillance States of Amerika that gets off so light?


Reverting to type

Another reason my sympathy for “journalists” outraged over Ogabe’s harassment and intimidation of his media attack-poodles is limited to nonexistent:

Some conservatives think that the elite media are finally turning on Barack Obama and his administration.

The argument goes like this: The trio of scandals that have burst forth in the last couple of weeks—the events before, during, and after the deadly attack on the diplomatic outpost in Benghazi; the IRS’s targeting of conservative groups; and especially the Department of Justice’s secret subpoenas of Associated Press phone records and targeting of Fox News reporter James Rosen as a potential co-conspirator in a leak investigation—will mark an inflection point. From here on out, journalists will apply far more scrutiny to President Obama. His free ride is over.

Don’t believe it.

Journalists have been more critical of the administration in the IRS and Justice Department-press stories. But even there the criticisms of the president and his top advisers have been relatively restrained. And certainly the intensity of the coverage has been far less than if this were occurring under a Republican president.

So what explains the media’s abstemiousness when facing such glaring examples of dissembling, intimidation, and abuse of power? Three things. The first is journalistic enchantment with Barack Obama that began for some in 2004, for many others in 2008, and has never really gone away. When they look at the president and his top advisers, they see a reflection of their own background, education, and sympathies—and sometimes they see their former colleagues and even family members. The media therefore give the administration the presumption of good faith. If scandals did occur on Obama’s watch, it was simply because he wasn’t as engaged as he should have been.

A second reason is rooted in the attitude many journalists have toward Barack Obama’s political opponents. They judge Obama well because they view his critics with contempt, which is why journalists are working so hard to make these scandals about GOP partisanship and overreach. Why else would the New York Times use a headline that reads: “I.R.S. Focus on Conservatives Gives GOP an Issue to Seize On”?

A third explanation is that the vast majority of journalists are highly sympathetic to a large federal government, and they know where these scandals, if pursued vigorously, will lead—to a further deepening distrust of government. A new Fox News poll shows that more than two-thirds of voters feel the government is out of control and threatening their civil liberties. Journalists are aware that these scandals have the potential to deal a devastating blow to their progressive ideology, which is why they will downplay these stories as much as they can.

Well, duh. How very shocking that the scorpion remains a scorpion right up to the very end, when both he and the frog carrying him across the river drown.


“Progressives will not put anything ahead of their agenda, except themselves”

My sympathy for them is still not even making the needles jump slightly.

Hundreds of dead from the Obama administration’s Fast and Furious program didn’t interest the Democrat Media Complex. Neither did the cronyism of “green” loans to campaign donors or the illegal “recess appointments” to the National Labor Relations Board and Consumer Finance Protection Bureau. Neither did the president’s decision to refuse to enforce the immigration laws in any way other than cheering his implementation of the “DREAM Act” without it having been passed by Congress, or his choice to not defend the Defense of Marriage Act which, agree with it or not, is the law of the land.

There are many more scandals and abuses of power that would be 48-point headlines if the man in the White House had an R after his name instead of a D, and that’s before we even get to the disaster of Benghazi and the IRS targeting political opposition to the president. But now that the Obama administration has targeted their progressive media allies themselves, journalists suddenly have perked up a bit.

Welcome to the party, pal.

The subpoenaing of phone records of the Associated Press perked up their ears, but going after James Rosen’s records, including his personal email and parents’ phone records, finally seemed a bridge too far. To seize Rosen’s records, the government had to accuse him essentially of espionage against the country, which effectively criminalizes the act of investigative journalism. The Justice Department hasn’t pursued Rosen because the accusation was made only to gain access to his records, not build a criminal case against him. But the concept has put the fear of God into the hearts of journalists everywhere.

Most Washington reporters thought themselves immune to the pointy end of the stick because they were cheerleaders who were grateful for the carrot. But power knows no loyalty. They’d be less surprised by this purge if they’d learned from the history of left-wing purges of loyal lapdogs, but no victim ever thinks that which they cheer would turn on them.

Out of the scandal troika of Benghazi/IRS/AP, the AP/Fox business is the least significant…and the one that’s gotten the most attention from the Ogabe-sucking media. That’s no accident. Bob has this to say in summing up Scandalpalooza:

The Fox News wiretapping scandal may bring down Eric Holder, and the IRS scandal may have more legs politically towards the impeachment of the President, being identical to the second count of what brought down Richard Nixon, but it was Benghazi that shows Barack Obama is a vicious political animal that thought nothing of abandoning more than two dozen Americans and allied forces under fire in order to continue a political narrative that “al Qaeda is on the run.”

We’ve had some very bad Presidents in our nation’s history. Barack Obama may go down in history as the worst.

Yep. And even with AP/Foxgate thrown into the mix, there are still plenty of dewy-eyed minions in the Ministry of Propaganda who will defend their tin god to the last–which is where the “idiots” part of “useful idiots” comes in.


Fair weather friends of freedom

Like I said before, my sympathy for their pain is…quite constrained. Welcome to the party, assholes.

The reaction to the government seizure of the phone records is another reminder, if we needed one, that what the press cares about most is itself.

The New York Times sniffed at the Internal Revenue Service scandal. It didn’t even put the initial story on the front page. When it did eventually front it, the headline was about how Republicans were trying to make hay of the scandal. Editorially, it issued a relatively tepid tsk-tsk. But the AP subpoena earned the White House a firm rebuke in an editorial titled “Spying on the Associated Press”: The administration has “a chilling zeal for investigating leaks” and is trying “to frighten off whistleblowers.”

It sounds like the Times should go back and read President Barack Obama’s commencement address at Ohio State University the other day, where he lamented that the students have been “hearing voices that incessantly warn of government as nothing more than some separate, sinister entity” and “that tyranny is always lurking just around the corner.”

Yes, why can’t all the journalists hyped up about the AP subpoena simply put more trust in the good intentions and the workings of their own government?

Hey, the government is us–right, guys? Trouble is, as always, no matter how “liberal” and pro-government you are, sooner or later the despot will get around to diddling around with something you do care about. And the bigger the government, the more illegitimate diddling around it’s going to be doing. This part is particularly delicious:

In this, the reporters exhibited a healthy impulse toward vigilance about liberty. The phrase “chilling effect” has been bandied about often. A chill comes not necessarily from what government is doing to you but from what it might do to you. Very few reporters will ever have their records secretly subpoenaed by the government, but it is intolerable to them that it could happen. On top of everything else, it is the principle of the thing — an infringement, or even a potential infringement, on the constitutional rights of even a handful of reporters is an affront to all.

There are lots of people who share this way of thinking about rights and government. Some of them gather every year at places like CPAC and the National Rifle Association annual convention.

That’s gotta sting a bit. Or a lot. And I surely hope it does, and that the memory of it will linger a good, long while, at least with the more intelligent among them.


Shut up, they explained: uppity Negro sent packing

Shoulda known his place, and the iron law that comes with it: nobody criticizes the Lyin’ King. Especially not a black guy.

A prominent pastor and Morehouse College alumnus has been disinvited from the school’s graduation ceremonies after penning an op-ed critical of President Obama, who is scheduled to give the commencement address.

Earlier this month, Reverend Kevin Johnson, the senior pastor at Philadelphia’s Bright Hope Baptist Church, wrote a Philadelphia Tribune column titled “A President For Everyone, Except Black People,” arguing that the president has neglected the African-American community. “Indeed, if we objectively look at Obama’s presidency,” Johnson wrote, “African-Americans are in a worse position than they were before he became president.” He also criticized the lack of diversity in Obama’s cabinet picks.

Now, nobody should get too excited about the possibility of another Dr Carson moment coming from what certainly appears to be another “liberal” critiquing Ogabe from the Left. But it does point up just how committed our institutions of higher indoctrination are to diversity of thought, open debate, and free speech–ie, not even a little bit.


Whoever wins, they’ve lost

Good riddance and a very un-fond farewell to the swine.

By tomorrow night we’ll likely know the name of the next president. But we already know the loser in this election cycle: political reporters. They’ve disgraced themselves. Conservatives have long complained about liberal bias in the media, and with some justification. But it has finally reached the tipping point. Not in our lifetimes have so many in the press dropped the pretense of objectivity in order to help a political candidate. The media are rooting for Barack Obama. They’re not hiding it.

Reporters who push Obama for actual answers, meanwhile, find themselves scorned by their peers — as we discovered the hard way when our White House reporter dared ask Obama an unapproved question during a presidential statement in the Rose Garden. Months later, longtime Newsweek correspondent Jonathan Alter confronted us on the street and became apoplectic, literally yelling and shaking and drawing a crowd, over the exchange. His complaint: our reporter was “rude” to Obama.

Yep. Good reporters occasionally are impolite, especially to people in power who refuse to answer legitimate questions about their own policies. We don’t hire for table manners. We hire for persistence and toughness and the ability to spot a story among the fluff. We’re traditional that way. It’s the legacy media that have changed.

We could go on. The point is that many in the press are every bit as corrupt as conservatives have accused them of being. The good news is, it’s almost over. The broadcast networks, the big daily newspapers, the newsweeklies — they’re done. It’s only a matter of time, and everyone who works there knows it. That may be why so many of them seem tapped out, lazy and enervated, unwilling to stray from the same tired story lines. Some days they seem engaged only on Twitter, where they spend hours preening for one another and sneering at outsiders.

All of this was probably inevitable, but it came faster than expected. Through their dishonesty the legacy media hastened their own end. Their moral authority has evaporated. So has their business model. Wave them goodbye on the way out.

Actually, they won’t be going anywhere. If Romney wins big, as I expect, they’ll suddenly rediscover their once-revered “adversary” role, and will be re-energized as they do their level best to see to it that he’s hounded absolutely into the ground. They’ll continue to hemorrhage readers, viewers, and profits like a hemophiliac caught in a meat slicer, but there’ll always be enough left-wing idiots around in decaying cities and other blue-state boltholes to support a dwindling handful of the suppurating pustules in the style to which they’ve become accustomed.


Dreams I’m never gonna see

Stanley Kurtz has a modest request:

Even so, since the press has occasionally shown bias against Romney and other Republicans, I would like them to acknowledge that fact. I’m not asking for an outright apology, of course. The word “apologize” never has to come up. All I want is for the press to admit to a few mistakes. Using this handy list of President Obama’s foreign remarks as a guide, here is what I would like to hear the mainstream media say about its bias against Republicans and conservatives:

1) In displaying such blatant political bias, we the mainstream media have shown arrogance.

2) We have not been perfect.

3) At times we sought to dictate our ideological terms.

4) We yearn for some restoration of the media’s standing in the eyes of the American public.

5) Because of our bias, we went off course.

6) In displaying such bias, we sacrificed our most fundamental journalistic values.

7) The journalistic bias on display during these past few decades has been one of the darkest periods in our history.

8) We have not pursued sustained engagement with conservative points of view.

9) Potentially we made some mistakes.

10) Our leftist bias has only created a rallying cry for our enemies.

That’s all I’m asking. No apologies needed.

You’ll never get even that much, Stanley.


GREAT news for Barky!

Great for Barky, bad for the rest of us, as ever: millions more Americans have abandoned all hope of ever getting a job.

8. White House economist Alan Krueger says the jobs numbers are ”further evidence” the economy is healing. But he’s wrong.

He most certainly is; read on for the rest of it. Esvery one of us out there who is either looking for a job, worried over holding onto the one they have, or who has joined the every-growing ranks of those who have given up entirely won’t be fooled by the bullshit Obama and his Enemy Media lapdogs are putting out.

Look for a lot more of the kind of mind-numbing spin I just heard on NPR about this report; the NPR propagandist kept going way out of his way to refute the contention that the unemployment statistics are pretty much rendered worthless by their failure to include the folks who have given up in their calculations (in this guy’s case, by flatly stating that it’s “incorrect,” without any supporting evidence at all), and I’m quite sure the rest of Enemy Media will be doing the same over the next few days. After Ogabe’s debate fiasco, they see it as their job to pick their Lord and Savior up off the mat, dust off his trunks, wipe the blood off his face, and send him tottering back to center ring to continue the fight for them.


Shut up, he explained

Liberal “journalist” finds evil righwingNaziterroristdeathbeast complaints about Court Media tiresome.

In the last few days, conservatives have become agitated about Mitt Romney’s drop-off in the polls. So did they think the stumble was because of the ill-fated “47 percent” slip of the lip, or the hasty effort to gain a political edge after the death of an American ambassador in Libya, or more problematically, a campaign that can’t seem to stop pratfalling no matter what the news?

Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney on board the campaign plane at Dayton International Airport last week. Republicans have denounced recent unfavorable polls.

No, in their view, the mysterious drop can only be explained by the fact that the mainstream media have their collective liberal thumb on the scale, in terms of coverage and, more oddly, polling.

The mainstream media are frequently indicted suspects when the rink tilts against conservative causes. But it seems worth pulling apart that notion, especially in a landscape where ownership of the megaphone is increasingly up for grabs.

It would indeed seem “worth it”–to a hack propagandist interested in attempting to deny something so self-evidently true in order to protect not only his beloved King, but his own influence. Trouble is, it ain’t even remotely possible for any honest man to do it.

So of course, this clown tries. But frankly, I find it all too tiresome to bother arguing about it. To quote the old joke, it wastes my time and annoys the pig.

Via Ramesh Ponnuru, who says: “The headline, at any rate, is perfect. The trouble is that it’s also compatible with the subheadline ‘But They’re True, and an Indictment of My Colleagues.’ Which may be why the whole debate makes Carr so very tired.” Yep.


The audacity of corruption

Man, Caddel has gone waaay off the reservation.

We have a political campaign where, to put the best metaphor I can on it, where the referees on the field are sacking the quarterback of one team, tripping up their runners, throwing their bodies in front of blockers, and nobody says anything. The Republicans don’t.

The reason you will lose this battle is for one reason. Despite organizations like Accuracy In Media and others who are pointing this out, and the fact that 60% of the American people are in on the secret here—I mean, they’re no idiots—Republicans and those candidates who are not the candidates of the press refuse to call them out.

If I were the Romney campaign I would’ve been doing this for months! I’d have been looking at individual reporters! I would be telling the American people, “They’re not trying to stop me; they’re trying to stop you! And they are here to do this!” And I would have made the press themselves an issue because, until you do, what happens is, they are given the basic concession of authenticity and accuracy, or that they are credible, by not doing that.

Now too many reporters, too many political people in the Republican Party in this town, want to maintain their relationships with the press. This is how Sarah Palin got handed over to Katie Couric and to ABC before she was ready—because Steve Schmidt and others want to preserve their view, their relationships with the press.

You know, people have their own agendas, and often it’s not winning. But this not-pushing-back is a problem, and they don’t do it. And, you know what this is a different era: The old argument of “You don’t attack someone in the press”—or “You don’t get in a pissing match with someone who buys ink by the barrel”—doesn’t apply anymore. There are too many outlets, too many ways to do it, and the country doesn’t have the confidence in the press that they once had.

But all I want to conclude to this is that we face a fundamental danger here. The fundamental danger is this: I talked about the defense of the First Amendment. The press’s job is to stand in the ramparts and protect the liberty and freedom of all of us from a government and from organized governmental power. When they desert those ramparts and decide that they will now become active participants, that their job is not simply to tell you who you may vote for, and who you may not, but, worse—and this is the danger of the last two weeks—what truth that you may know, as an American, and what truth you are not allowed to know, they have, then, made themselves a fundamental threat to the democracy, and, in my opinion, made themselves the enemy of the American people. 

Amen to that. I sure hope Pat is prepared for the IRS audits, no-knock Ministry of Justice raids, and other Ogabe regime harassment sure to be coming his way after spilling the beans like this.




"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards." – Claire Wolfe, 101 Things to Do 'Til the Revolution

Subscribe to CF!
Support options


If you enjoy the site, please consider donating:

Click HERE for great deals on ammo! Using this link helps support CF by getting me credits for ammo too.

Image swiped from The Last Refuge

2016 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards


RSS - entries - Entries
RSS - entries - Comments


mike at this URL dot com

All e-mails assumed to be legitimate fodder for publication, scorn, ridicule, or other public mockery unless otherwise specified

Boycott the New York Times -- Read the Real News at Larwyn's Linx

All original content © Mike Hendrix