Category Archives: Media

Hillary And Her Bipartisan Village Idiots

Democrats, Hillary Clinton, Media, Republicans

“Hillary And Her Bipartisan Village Idiots” is the current column, now on WND. An excerpt:

Big media are all about the angle, the spin. Look to the overarching theme that runs through each and every news story. Be hip to the meta-narrative peddled.

Recent examples:

A perfectly logical statement made by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in February, was framed by CNN anchorette Brooke Baldwin as “controversial.” In view of rife, Islamic anti-Semitism in Europe, Mr. Netanyahu told “all of the European Jews, and all Jews wherever [they] are [that] Israel is the home of every Jew.”

To the rational individual, unburdened by the obtuse thinking of a teletart, Netanyahu’s statement was utterly uncontroversial. It follows from an irremediable reality: The subordinate satellite states of the European Union refuse—and no longer have the power—to properly and vigorously defend their innocent, Jewish and Christian citizens from an identifiable threat.

Another example of the meta-shaping of news came courtesy of Fredricka Witless (whose intellectual prowess I chronicled in “Joan Rivers: Antidote to PC Totalitarianism”).

Ms. Witless used leading questions in an interview with a man she introduced as the “controversial Swedish artist Lars Vilks.” In a free society, a painter—impressionist, realist, muralist, cubist, cartoonist—would never be considered controversial. He harms no one in the fulfillment of the requirements of his benign profession.

However, with her leading question, wittingly or unwittingly, Fredricka Whitfield was essentially asking an innocent cartoonist, who ekes out a life hiding from Muhammadans, whether he felt responsible for crimes perpetrated by his assailants. After all, the criminals were spurred by his drawings of their prophet.

Leading questions suggest a certain reality. They force defensive replies. They shift blame. They invert morality and reality.

Likewise has the logic of the debate been lost in the hyperventilating over Mrs. Clinton’s unorthodox email account. The dynamic at play: Hound Hillary Rodham Clinton for lesser, technocratic offenses, thus allowing her to gracefully evade responsibility for serious war crimes: the war on Libya, Hillary’s special project, for one. Benghazi, for another. …

… Read the rest. “Hillary And Her Bipartisan Village Idiots” is now on WND.


like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

Presstitutes & Politicians: Seamlessly Unseemly

Democrats, Ethics, Media, Morality

As was noted in “Brian Williams: Member Of Media Circle Jerk,” America’s presstitutes are “no better than the lobbyists and the politicians they petition, they move seamlessly between their roles as activists, experts and anchors; publishers and authors; talkers and product peddlers; pinups and pontificators.”

And their wives follow the gravy train.

In the tradition of keeping you in the loop of the corrupt conflict-of-interest unseemliness that typifies the American media—I’m glad to report that Chris Matthews’ “queen” (no, it’s not Barack Obama) is running for office. The anchor promised that if Kathleen Matthews “runs for office her campaign will be covered fairly by the network.”

That’s not the point, pinhead: The point is that the male Matthews’ access has likely facilitated his wife’s access.

The queen of conflict on interest is Hillary Clinton (and the subject of this week’s column). Just one of her infractions had to do with enabling Anthony Weiner’s long-suffering wife, Huma Abedin, to get “status in June 2012 as a “Special Government Employee,” enabling her to hold down multiple jobs in the private sector while she also collected a State Department paycheck.”


like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

Media’s Hillary Straw-Argument Strategy

Democrats, Hillary Clinton, Left-Liberalism, Media, Republicans

Not for nothing are they called the Stupid Party. Republicans (at least someone is now copy-editing S. E. Cupp’s piss-poor prose, which has improved slightly) have fallen for what I suspect is not so much a deliberate tactic on the part of the liberal media, but a reflexive strategy:

Hound Hillary Rodham Clinton for lesser, technocratic offenses, allowing her to evade responsibility for serious crimes: the crime that was the war on Libya, Hillary’s special project, for one. Benghazi is another.

Hillary Clinton, the woman who cracked the whip at Foggy Bottom at the time, had clearly resolved to run the U.S. embassy in Benghazi, Libya, as one would an open community center. This was meant to signal that her war on Libya had been a success, when in fact Hillary’s adventure there had as much “host-nation support” as George Bush’s faith-based forays into Iraq and Afghanistan.

The hyperventilating over Hillary Clinton’s unorthodox email account is probably overblown and certainly suspect. Hint: Look at the many left-liberals leading the “charge” against the former secretary of state for conducting the affairs of state via a non-governmental e-mail address.

The New York Times, President Obama’s first press secretary, Robert Gibbs, CNN groupies Brianna Keilar and DANA BASH, who huffed:

I think concern is an understatement. There is a lot of fretting going on right now. I’ve been talking on the phone, I’ve been e- mailing with Democratic lawmakers, with other Democratic sources because, you know, she’s their horse. She’s it. And, obviously, a concern among Democrats has been about her, her baggage. There’s no other way to put it. And as Jake was just talking about with Chris, what this exposes isn’t just some troubles about these e-mails, but it took, maybe not unlike Mitt Romney and his 47 percent problem, that was a problem because it fed a narrative. And this feeds a narrative that the Clintons feel like they are above everything else. They can get around the laws, fair or not. Perhaps in this case it is unfair if we get all the information. That’s what Democrats are very, very concerned about.

And Ron Fournier of National Journal. He calls this email “scandal” “seedy, sanctimonious, self-important, slick.” Fournier is careful, however, to offer disclaimers.

I admire their intelligence and passion and empathy. They’ve [the Clintons] been good to my family. I’ve actually long thought that she has the potential to be a better president than he was.

Yes, major media are all part of one big “circle jerk.”

In any event, this line of attack on Hillary is not worth a straw. It lets her go scot-free for war crimes.


like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

Don’t Be Conned By Con-servatives & Their ‘Ism’ Talk

Conservatism, Feminism, Free Speech, Gender, Individualism Vs. Collectivism, Media, Political Correctness, Sex

No different to liberals, mainstream conservatives are a party of isms, not individualism. Like liberals, conservatives diligently examine controversial speech for signs of the prohibited “isms”: sexism, racism, ageism, etc. Were they devoted to the principles of freedom; conservatives would refuse to even debate the legitimacy of impugning a man’s character, or expunging him from polite company, for the words that roll off his tongue.

Yet any debate these characters conduct on speech is never a principled debate about debate. Self-styled, mainstream conservatives seldom recuse themselves from the act of policing speech. Rather, they join in dignifying the media circle jerk.

James Rosen is best known for having been the victim of the head of Barack Obama’s Justice Department, Attorney General Eric Holder. For doing his job as a reporter, this Fox News Channel reporter was framed by the same department for the crime of conspiracy to leak classified materials.

Now, from being a credible reporter at Fox News, Rosen has gone on to reinvent himself as a sometime commentator.

State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki and her deputy, Marie Barf, are studiously dumb chicks. Bill O’Relly was quite diplomatic when he said about the first that she was “way out of her depth” and lacked the “the gravitas for that job.”

Rosen could not let that stand. Via Mediate:

On Fox News yesterday, reporter James Rosen defended State Department spokeswomen Jen Psaki and Marie Harf from what he deemed vicious attacks that would never be directed their way if they were men. Harf in particular has gotten lots of conservative ridicule (to put it mildly) over her comments last week that 1) the U.S. can’t just kill its way out of war with ISIS; and 2) factors like job opportunity should be considered when examining the root causes of terrorism.

Rosen said, “It won’t please my social media followers to hear me say it, but I’ve been dismayed by the treatment of Marie and Jen on Twitter and other social media.” And not only are they mocked online, he said, but it’s done “in intimately person [sic] ways that I think bespeak a certain amount of sexism.”

Rosen went on to call Tweedledum and Tweedledumber very accomplished women.

American Thinker is insufficiently scathing about the quality of Tweedledum and Tweedledumber’s accomplishments—the two embody everything that is repugnant about womanhood in America—but it’ll do:

… Marie Harf sounded like a cheesed-off sixteen-year-old the morning after the big party when she dissed O’Reilly for saying, “…that woman [Jen Psaki] looks way out of her depth.”

For teenage girls the clique is of utmost importance. When they go all panties in a wad it’s often for their BFFs. Harf don’t stand on her jays, she stands behind her blud, Psaki. Harf not only lacks gravitas, she appears to lack conscience to grasp the international purpose and life-and-death seriousness of her job, that people live or are murdered on the turn of her flippant, self-referential phraseology. Stop the world! O’Reilly called my BFF “that woman.” It is hideous that she wasted one second in these desperate times ranting about imaginary sexism. Her bosses want Harf to spout domestic sex politics. And after all, that is the only item on her resume.

Harf is indeed hideous to behold.


like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

More Thematic, Media Spin From CNN

Critique, Europe, Free Speech, Islam, Jihad, Left-Liberalism, Media

A previous post, “In The Media, It’s All About The Angle, The Spin,” alerted you to the need to be aware of the overarching themes that generally infest each and every news story in mainstream media. This is the media’s meta-narrative. Be hip to it.

To add to the example given in the post I offer up another story with a particular “angle,” spun by CNN retard Fredricka Witless (whose intellectual prowess I chronicled in “Joan Rivers: Antidote to PC Totalitarianism”). Ms. Witless asks leading questions of a man she introduces as “controversial Swedish artist Lars Vilks” (who in a free society, would never be considered controversial for harming no one in the fulfillment of the requirements of his benign profession).

… He survived Saturday’s deadly shooting at a Denmark forum on freedom of expression. Vilks is no stranger to threats. He has survived two previous attempts on his life after his controversial sketch depicting the prophet Mohammad with the body of a dog in 2007. Al-Qaeda placed him on their most wanted poster, and since then, Vilks has had to travel with bodyguards and check his car for bombs. I spoke to him exclusively about the attacks in Denmark.

Essentially, Witless wants to know if this innocent cartoonist feels responsible for crimes perpetrated by others, in response to his drawings.

WHITFIELD: And I realize as an artist, your drawing of the prophet Muhammad was many years ago in 2007, and there are other artists who have rendered pictures of the prophet Muhammad and angered many in the Muslim community. There are authors, Salman Rushdie among them, and then of course, the most recent with Charlie Hebdo being targeted as a result of the same sentiment. Do you feel responsible or do you feel that you have contributed to the sentiment that have inspired some people to resort to violence, to express their anger about how the prophet Muhammad has been depicted?

MORE Witless.


like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

In The Media, It’s All About The Angle, The Spin

Anti-Semitism, Europe, Islam, Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, Media, Reason

You ought to take note of the media’s meta-narrative on the issues, by which is meant the overarching theme that infests each and every news story. You’ll discover that there’s an angle, a spin. Thus, bimbo Brooke Baldwin (transcript not up yet), a CNN anchorette, framed a perfectly logical statement made by ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER BENJAMIN NETANYAHU as “controversial,” in Baldwin’s words. Said Bibi:

“I would like to tell all of the European Jews, and all Jews wherever you are, Israel is the home of every Jew.”

Because the thought process of the ubiquitous bimbo is so obtuse (blunt, not sharp); it’s hard to discern what is meant by such utterances. In other words, why is what Bibi said controversial? This is unclear to the rational individual.

The truth is that the subordinate satellites states that make up Europe refuse—and no longer have the power—to properly and vigorously defend their innocent citizens, Jewish and Christian, from an identifiable threat:

… the Monster State is inherently both stupid and evil. Like a primitive organism, it answers to nobody and nothing but its reflexive need to grow.

To wit, the Monster State refuses to protect its people from plagues. It welcomes high-risk travelers from the Ebola hot-zones. Simultaneously, it quarantines aspiring fighters for Jihad here at home, in the West, so the homeland is the only arena in which they can act-out.

The nightwatchman state of classical liberalism would keep killers out of the country, not in the country.

What Bibi said follows from an irremediable reality articulated in “A Modest Libertarian Proposal: Keep Jihadis OUT, Not IN.”


like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint