×
↓ Freedom Centers

Media Corruption & Bias

It’s Not In Your Head: The Left Really Has Become This Miserable

New York Times columnist Michelle Goldberg has declared the left ‘stagnant,’ but what she really means is that it’s miserable.

By Eddie ScarryThe Federalist

miserable left-wing activists holding transgender flags
FOX 5 ATLANTA/YOUTUBE

Dear Abby: I’m a liberal Democrat and my entire political party is full of insufferable nags. What do I do?!

That was the entire point of New York Times columnist Michelle Goldberg’s article this week wherein she fretted that normal Americans are perhaps drifting to the political right because the left has become so indefensibly annoying.

“For those who get most of their politics online, this can be what the left looks like — a humorless person shaking her head at others’ insensitivity,” she wrote. “As a result, an alliance with the country’s most repressive forces can appear, to some, as liberating.”

Without saying it outright, Goldberg was getting at the left’s defining qualities today. Its allies have become so miserable, so toxic, so angry and weird that it’s repulsing voters. They call people “racist” for any reason at all. They push for the sexualization of children in public schools. And they shut down all discourse that threatens their delicate ideology.

Look what’s happening with the Elon Musk-Twitter drama. A billionaire wanted to buy a publishing company — not something unheard of — and it was an unnecessarily drawn out, messy fight for him to do it because the left wing and Democrats believe they alone dictate what counts as fair discourse.

Goldberg declared the left “stagnant,” but what she really means is that it’s miserable. It’s stuck in a rut because its activists are singularly motivated by negative emotions now. What do they talk about these days? Persecuting Trump supporters who were in Washington on Jan. 6, Covid as a means of controlling the populace, and “equity” for anyone who claims to be oppressed (i.e. the Democrat voter base).

“When the left becomes grimly censorious, it incubates its own opposition,” wrote Goldberg. “The internet makes things worse, giving the whole world a taste of the type of irritating progressive sanctimony…”

She says this like it’s a problem created by the right, or even unassuming independents who must not be able to distinguish between the “online” left from the real left. It’s not. It’s people like Goldberg who wanted to teach children about transgenderism and how it sucks to be white. That people were repulsed by their weird fixations isn’t their own fault. It’s the fault of the left for being so creepy, unhappy, and maladjusted.

Look at Florida. The hottest controversy there now is whether kindergarten teachers should be able to explain to students what it means to be “gender queer.” Leftists are adamant that they get to talk about sexual identity with kids. It’s dumb. Even a majority of Democrats in that state know it’s dumb.

Look at the reaction to the district judge in Florida who struck down the airline mask mandate. Leftists are furious that they can’t tell people to cover up their noses and mouths anymore (at least for now).

Look at the election of GOP Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin. His central campaign theme was that public school kids shouldn’t be instilled with the idea that being white is an irredeemable sin. The left nearly needed an exorcism.

Look at your own encounters with these people. The funny thing about left-wingers is that they feel absolutely no reservation about showing up to a social function and popping off with their political opinions on race, sex, and equity.

Any normal person thinks to himself, “I’d rather not.” Leftists don’t. They see it as their duty to ensure that everyone knows how they feel (miserable).

You don’t like it? Tough.

Goldberg knows her movement is an emotional and mental mess. She just can’t bear to break the news.

They’re always angry. They’re always upset. They’ve lost their grip. Goldberg could have just said that, but instead, she whined about conservatives and independent Americans who aren’t into the gross and distasteful things that the movement she belongs to has produced.

“In the short term, however, it’s frightening to think that backlash politics could become somehow fashionable, especially given how stagnant the left appears,” she continued.

The left doesn’t “appear” anything. It’s undeniably vulgar, and fewer people want to be part of it. Maybe Goldberg should just admit it and stop making excuses for how awful the left-wing Democrat movement is.


Mainstream media’s ‘independent fact-checkers’ are in lockstep and they always tilt left, never right

Checking liberals and Democrats is apparently not listed among their job duties

By Tim GrahamFox News

Now that the Ketanji Brown Jackson hearings are complete, we have collected another fascinating exhibit of the leftist tilt of “independent fact-checkers.” Just try to find a single fact check on anything Jackson said. Try to find a single evaluation of any statement by a Democratic politician touting Jackson — from President Joe Biden to Dick Durbin and on down.

Checking liberals and Democrats is apparently not listed among their job duties.

On March 28, White House deputy press secretary Andrew Bates addressed Jackson’s qualifications. Bates claimed what speaks to the strength of her public record “is the multitude of fact checks from the press, from retired judges and from former prosecutors who have dismantled attacks brought by a small group of GOP senators.”

“Dismantling” Republican critiques is the job of the Fact Check community? That’s what it looks like.

Bates applauded the nation’s largest Democrat rags for their efforts. He touted The Washington Post Fact Checker article by Glenn Kessler titled “These Trump Judges Failed Hawley’s Sentencing Test for Jackson.” He also cited New York Times fact-checker Linda Qiu’s article, titled “Critics of Jackson’s Child Sex Abuse Sentences Backed Judges with Similar Records.”

FILE --The Washington Post has published at least 18 negative opinion headlines about Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin in roughly three weeks and an editorial cartoon even portrayed him in a "dunce" cap. 

FILE –The Washington Post has published at least 18 negative opinion headlines about Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin in roughly three weeks and an editorial cartoon even portrayed him in a “dunce” cap.  (ERIC BARADAT/AFP via Getty Images)

The Biden press aide correctly noted, “This was all on top of a raft of other fact checks already establishing that the basis of these criticisms was dishonest.” Democrats can float on a raft of “fact checks” attempting to censor or downgrade the reach of Republicans.

The targeting tilt was unanimous.

The Associated Press team offered three “checks” with a self-evident aggression: “Republicans twist Jackson’s judicial record,” “Republicans skew Jackson’s record on crime” and “Senators misrepresent Jackson on abortion.” Why they left “Republican” out of the third one is anyone’s guess.

  • nextImage 1 of 3FILE – -Ketanji Brown Jackson, associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court nominee for U.S. President Joe Biden, departs a Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing in Washington, D.C., U.S., on Wednesday, March 23, 2022. (Photographer: Julia Nikhinson/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

Reuters offered two “fact checks” defending Jackson, claiming that it was “missing context” when she attacked loud anti-abortion protesters and that it was “misleading” to say she accused President George W. Bush and Donald Rumsfeld of being “war criminals” when she complained terror suspects were tortured at Guantanamo.

CNN’s Daniel Dale offered one fact check on the “war criminals” complaint.

FactCheck.com offered three “checks” that energetically explained why Jackson was unfairly maligned, including her views on critical race theory.

Snopes.com wondered, “Was Ketanji Brown Jackson Drama Scene Partners with Matt Damon in College?” The verdict was “Research In Progress,” which shows you Snopes wants the clickbait before the research is even completed. That’s not a fact check at all.

It’s absolutely shocking that Bates didn’t bask in the glow of PolitiFact. Since March 22, these transparently partisan servants offered eight “fact checks” attacking conservatives and Republicans in defense of Jackson.

Add to that one bizarre attack on a Trump fan on Facebook with 2,700 friends. He was ruled “False” when he claimed the Kavanaugh hearings drew more live coverage than the Jackson hearings. That is “True,” and PolitiFact is “False.” Once they started throwing around shoddy rape claims, “The Price Is Right” and “The View” had to take a hike.

This is why Jacob Siegel of Tablet magazine proclaimed, “America’s new public-private ‘Ministry of Truth’ mainly serves the interests of the tech platforms and Democratic Party operatives who underwrite and support the fact-checking enterprise. This, in turn, convinces large numbers of normal Americans that the officially sanctioned news product they receive is an ass-covering con job.”


The Sudden Biden Epiphany at the Washington Post

By Tim GrahamTownhall

The Sudden Biden Epiphany at the Washington Post
Source: New York Post

Just when you thought the Hunter Biden scandals had died in darkness, The Washington Post published more than 6,300 words on March 30 admitting that a notable fraction of his laptop contents was authentic.

Why now? Why not last year? Why did liberal outlets act like everyone expressing concern about Biden was a Trump-adoring kook? We reported at NewsBusters that the broadcast network morning and evening newscasts went 260 days without mentioning Biden. (And it was more like 11 months of silence at ABC.) These were the same networks that frantically obsessed over one brief and failed meeting Donald Trump Jr. hosted in Trump Tower in 2016 to discuss negative information on Hillary Clinton.

The one consistent thread in the liberal media’s approach was the notion that all attempts to dig up negative information on Democrats during a campaign are a scandal. But all attempts to dig up negative information on Republicans during a campaign are always the best and the brightest journalism one could find.

Suddenly, the Post reported that Steve Bannon associate Jack Maxey had given the Post a hard drive from Biden’s laptop contents in June of last year. Maxey told the London Daily Mail that the Post accidentally deleted it, and he provided it again in October of 2021. So, it looks like they weren’t overly eager to confirm the documents, certainly not in the way they confirmed the Donald Trump “Access Hollywood” tape contents in one afternoon.

The Post is also very late to acknowledge the truth in a report from Republican Sens. Charles Grassley and Ron Johnson in 2020 on the Biden family’s secretive deals in Communist China. We’re now told that “a Washington Post review confirmed many of the key details and found additional documents showing Biden family interactions with Chinese executives.”

Over the course of 14 months, the Chinese energy conglomerate CEFC China Energy and its executives paid $4.8 million to entities controlled by Hunter Biden and his uncle, James Biden. How many news anchors have talked about James Biden?

This bundle included a $1 million retainer for Hunter Biden to represent Patrick Ho, a shady CEFC official who was under investigation for a multimillion-dollar scheme to bribe leaders from Chad and Uganda. Ho was later convicted, but the Post reported that Hunter Biden “appeared to have little role representing Ho in the federal case.” So, why the million bucks?

But back in September of 2020, the Post sounded like a partisan bulletin board on this report. It began one story by reporting Grassley and Johnson “revived attacks” on Joe Biden’s son and “argued his position with a Ukrainian energy company was ‘problematic,’ but the report did not show that it influenced the then-vice president’s behavior or changed the Obama administration’s policy toward Ukraine.”

They don’t use this “no proof” standard as they obsess over every leak from the Jan. 6 congressional kangaroo court. The Post sounds like a prosecutor when they report on Trump scandals, and they have routinely sounded like defense lawyers on the Biden family buck-raking.

The obvious gossip about why the Post and the New York Times would suddenly accept and confirm the reality of Hunter Biden’s laptop is because they’ve heard that the Justice Department has confirmed its reality, and they don’t want to look ridiculous if federal charges are lobbed in the probe of Hunter Biden’s finances. But maybe, just maybe, these papers ought to grant the New York Post some respect for what they reported as reality in real time.


4 Big Takeaways From The New York Times’s Attempt To Control The Hunter Biden Narrative

A closer look at The New York Times’ reporting on Hunter Biden shows Biden’s team may be laying the groundwork ahead of an even bigger story.

By Margot ClevelandThe Federalist

hunter biden talks on late night show
JIMMY KIMMEL LIVE

Last Wednesday, The New York Times reported on the continuing criminal investigation into Hunter Biden, and in doing so finally acknowledged the emails recovered from the laptop abandoned at a Delaware repair shop were authentic. Since then, much of the media’s coverage has focused on the corrupt press’ burying of the laptop scandal The New York Post broke shortly before the 2020 election.

There is much more to be gleaned from the Times’s article, though, including these four takeaways.

1. If the Laptop Is Legit, So Are the Scandals the Laptop Exposed

The first key takeaway from The New York Times article concerns what it means for the scandals spawned by the October 2020 release of the emails and text messages contained on Hunter Biden’s MacBook. The supposed standard-bearers of journalism ignored those scandals for the last year-and-a-half by framing the material “Russian disinformation.”

Now that the Times has acknowledged that the Biden-related emails and other documents recovered from the abandoned laptop are authentic, that means the scandals they exposed are also legitimate. As summarized at The Federalist here, there are eight Joe Biden scandals that deserve investigation.

2. The Times’s Record of ‘Getting Ahead of the Story’ Suggests More Developments Are Coming

Beyond what Wednesday’s article on Hunter Biden means more broadly related to the scandals exposed by the abandoned MacBook, the substance of the Times’s coverage suggests a huge story about the president’s son is about to break. Here, it is helpful to remember that the Times is the newspaper of record for stories needed to soften the landing for Democrats embroiled in scandal. In this case, the tells are all there that the Times is offering an assist to the Bidens by getting ahead of the story to come.

Just as Press Secretary Jen Psaki smooths her copper coif before dropping a doozy, the Times alerts observant readers to the real story when it identifies its source for information harmful to a Democrat as a “person familiar with the investigation.” The Times used that technique ten times in its coverage of the Hunter Biden case.

Another sure give-away is the Times’s burying of the lede. That is an understatement of what the Old Grey Lady did when it titled its coverage of the investigation into Hunter Biden as “Hunter Biden Paid Tax Bill, but Broad Federal Investigation Continues.” The article then opened with:

In the year after he disclosed a federal investigation into his ‘tax affairs’ in late 2020, President Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, paid off a significant tax liability, even as a grand jury continued to gather evidence in a wide-ranging examination of his international business dealings, according to people familiar with the case.

With a proper title, such as, “Prosecutors Find Evidence Hunter Profited by Selling Access to Vice-President Father,” serious reporting would open by alerting the audience to damning evidence accumulated by federal prosecutors that suggests Hunter Biden criminally profited from his dad’s position as Barack Obama’s vice president.

The Times’s tactic of preemptively providing defenses to hypothetical criminal charges should also alert readers to the inevitability of an indictment against Hunter. For more on the preemptive defense of Hunter see point 4 below.

3. Prosecutors are Investigating Some Serious Stuff

So, what might those inevitable charges be? Of course, it is impossible to know for sure unless and until an indictment drops, but it is inconceivable that the Times would air the Biden family’s dirty laundry unless the reporters believed the entire household hamper was soon to be dumped in the middle of town.

Revisiting the Times’s article from last week, then, with the premise that the reporting seeks to “get ahead of the story,” suggests federal prosecutors may have some serious charges in mind for the president’s son. Tax evasion seems the most likely charge Hunter will face, given that the Times reported that the president’s son paid more than $1 million in tax liability while spinning any such criminal offense as Hunter’s mere “failure to pay all his taxes.”

A second charge floated by the Times concerns violations of “the Foreign Agents Registration Act, or FARA, which requires disclosure to the Justice Department of lobbying or public relations assistance on behalf of foreign clients.” Here, the Times’ efforts to frame Hunter’s potential violations of FARA as unintentional — and thus not criminal — suggests the Delaware U.S. attorney has a solid FARA case in the works.

The Times’s coverage, however, indicates federal prosecutors are looking at much more serious charges related to payments Hunter Biden received from the Ukrainian energy company Burisma, as well his financial interests in Kazakhstan and China. Publicly available evidence already suggests Hunter Biden profited from these, and potentially other foreign interests, by selling access to his father when the elder Biden was vice president, which the Times casts as possibly allowing for a “money laundering” charge against Hunter.

In last week’s article, the Times reveals that prosecutors have accumulated significantly more evidence suggesting Hunter profited from these relationships, with prosecutors allegedly investigating “payments and gifts Mr. Biden or his associates had received from foreign interests, including a vehicle paid for using funds from a company associated with a Kazakh oligarch and a diamond from a Chinese energy tycoon.” The Times also reported that prosecutors have “sought documents related to corporate entities through which Mr. Biden and his associates conducted business with interests around the world.”

The Times further revealed that federal prosecutors have “issued scores of subpoenas,” related to “Hunter Biden’s foreign work and for bank accounts linked to him and his associates.” They even traveled to Little Rock, Arkansas, according to The Times, to interview Ms. Lunden Alexis Roberts, who sued Hunter for paternity payments, questioning her about Hunter’s business dealings. As for the emails recovered from the abandoned MacBook, federal investigators have authenticated those as well.

All of these details the Times reported in its article purportedly focused on the tax case against Hunter Biden. Other than the details confirmed by Roberts’s lawyer, the information came principally from “people familiar with the investigation,” which means one of two things: someone with the prosecutor’s office talked, or someone connected with Hunter Biden did.

History provides a pretty good hint of the answer — and its reason: Hunter Biden’s team likely gave the Times the heads-up to the case being crafted against the president’s son to allow the liberal mainstay to massage a narrative before any potential charges became public. Given the details shared with the Times by people familiar with the investigation, then regurgitated by the Times for the public, it seems some pretty serious charges may be in store for Hunter.

4. Downplay the Charges, Build the Narrative, and Beta-Test the Defenses

As noted above, the Times’ preemptive countering of several hypothetical criminal charges indicates the leftist paper’s coverage of the Hunter Biden case seeks not to inform the public but to form a gentle narrative on which the president’s son can land when the expected indictment drops. Here it is not merely the many defenses the Times lays out, but the entirety of the article that also downplays the potential charges and paints the most sympathetic scenario possible for Hunter Biden.

Consider, for instance, the Times’s framing of Hunter Biden and his apparent pay-to-play scheme. “Hunter Biden is a Yale-educated lawyer,” the article notes early on, claiming that the “broader investigation” stems “from work he did around the world” that “intersected with his father’s public service.”

It seems unlikely, though, that prosecutors are investigating “work” Hunter Biden did around the world, although not as unlikely as the claim that President Biden’s lifelong political career parlayed to his family’s financial advantage is “public service.”

The Times also succeeded in presenting the Hunter Biden-Burisma scandal as one really about Trump, writing: “Hunter Biden’s work for Burisma Holdings, the Ukrainian energy company, became a flashpoint in his father’s race in 2020 against President Donald J. Trump and helped set off the events that led to Mr. Trump’s first impeachment.”

Apparently, the Times will need another year or two before it can also acknowledge Donald Trump’s concern about Biden family corruption in Ukrainian was legitimate and that Trump’s impeachment was pure politics.

Then there was the Times’s reference to Hunter’s “serious drug addiction and other problems during the period” the potentially illegal conduct took place. Add to those facts that Hunter was also “dealing with the illness and death of his brother Beau,” and the Times seems to suggest these sad circumstances mitigate the seriousness of any forthcoming charges.

The remainder of the article presents various counters to the charges, such as that Hunter repaid the back taxes by taking out a loan — oh, the horror. The Times then pretends paying the government back lessens the import of a tax evasion case.

On a potential FARA charge, the Times suggests Hunter attempted to comply with the law and that any violation was unintentional, meaning at best he should be held only civilly responsible. And on the most serious charge floated by the Times, money laundering, the paper presents that case as connected to the FARA charge, suggesting it would be inappropriate to charge the president’s son with money laundering if he is innocent of violating FARA.

Until the Delaware U.S. attorney announces charges, if any, against Hunter Biden, it is impossible to know the criminal jeopardy the president’s son may face. But, given that when the Times reports on stories harmful to Democratic interests it proves prescient, odds are good that some serious charges are in the works.


Grassley: We Wouldn’t Have Such a Censorship Problem ‘If More Journalists Did Their Job’

‘Simply put we deserve better than woke monopolists and their liberal lapdogs deciding what we can discuss.’

By Kylee ZempelThe Federalist

Chuck Grassley

IMAGE CREDIT U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION/FLICKR

Some things never change. The corrupt media peddles false narratives, Big Tech censors conservatives for “disinformation,” and Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley absolutely takes them to town for it.

That’s what happened during a floor speech on Thursday when the Iowa lawmaker tore into tech companies and the corporate media for colluding to censor conservative viewpoints, especially those that threaten Democrat narratives such as the Russia collusion hoax. Grassley was personally irked after Facebook flagged one of his posts linking to a Fox News article as “false information.”

It was an article about new allegations against the Hillary Clinton campaign and its associates that were brought to light in Special Counsel John Durham’s Feb. 11 federal court filing. It cited Durham’s filing directly, as well as a former chief congressional investigator who became acutely knowledgeable about the situation while working on the Trump-Russia probe for the House Intelligence Committee under California Republican Rep. Devin Nunes.

“Why does Facebook and one of its third-party fact-checker partners get to make the decision that this news article is considered false information?” Grassley asked. “That decision should be made by the American people who should be able to view that content and decide for themselves. It shouldn’t be decided by our Big Tech overlords who seem to only find fault with content that is conservative or goes against the liberal narrative.”

Though useful idiots will retort that Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and the like don’t single out conservatives for censorship, the evidence suggests otherwise. Just this week, Twitter allowed the private information of people who had donated to the Canadian Freedom Convoy to spread on its site after a leftist hacked GiveSendGo and doxxed them. Yet Twitter cited its hacked materials policy as the justification for censoring the bombshell Hunter Biden laptop story right before the 2020 election, despite no evidence of hacking.

As Grassley mentioned, these are also the same tech and media companies that amplified the Steele dossier and broader fake Russia collusion narrative for years, and that are now “doing the bidding for the Clinton camp.”

“Why are they so afraid of reporting that exposes the Russia collusion hoax?” Grassley asked the question to which we already know the answer. It’s the massive hoax they staked their reputations and careers on and which has since unraveled piece by piece.

“This wouldn’t be an issue today if more journalists did their job of being the police of our society and reported on all investigations not just ones that appeal to a certain political party,” Grassley said. “What kind of message does this censorship send to a reporter who does take on the new allegations against the Clinton campaign and its associates and its labeled disinformation?”

It’s time to rethink Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, Grassley prescribed, referring to the provision that grants tech monopolies immunity regarding its users’ content. Big Tech has weaponized the provision, however, using it in its ideological purges of what it calls “misinformation” and “dangerous” content.

“It has become increasingly clear that these dominant platforms controlling discussion and dialogue are more beholden to cancel culture and not to the fundamental free speech principles that this country was founded upon,” Grassley said. “…Simply put we deserve better than woke monopolists and their liberal lapdogs deciding what we can discuss.”


The Media Blackout of Durham’s Bombshell Report Alleging Clinton Campaign ‘Infiltrated’ Trump Tower

By Rick MoranReal Clear Politics

Townhall Media/Katie Pavlich

A filing by special counsel John Durham — alleging Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign paid a technology company to establish an “inference” that the Trump campaign was colluding with Russia so he could win an election — has not generated much excitement in the mainstream media.

Perhaps because the story is somewhat complex, the media has decided not to report on it? Indeed, naming all the players and their actions is a chore, if you read the few media outlets on the right that are covering it.

It’s sort of boring — until you realize the staggering implications of what’s being alleged.

Durham is saying that the Democratic candidate for president in 2016 engaged in a criminal conspiracy to infiltrate the opposition’s most sensitive, compartmentalized information and tried to manipulate data and information to politically damage her opponent.

Nothing to see here. Move along.

CNN is full of stories about Donald Trump’s clogged toilet, but nothing about the Durham probe. The Washington Post is equally silent. As are The New York Times and the Associated Press.

Will these brave, courageous purveyors of truth cover the fact that Trump special prosecutor Robert Mueller was hoodwinked by these shenanigans? That Mueller was kept in the dark about the surveillance from which some of his “evidence” was obtained?

Donald Trump was livid.

Fox News:

Former President Trump reacted to the filing on Saturday evening, saying Durham’s filing “provides indisputable evidence that my campaign and presidency were spied on by operatives paid by the Hillary Clinton Campaign in an effort to develop a completely fabricated connection to Russia.”

“This is a scandal far greater in scope and magnitude than Watergate and those who were involved in and knew about this spying operation should be subject to criminal prosecution,” Trump said. “In a stronger period of time in our country, this crime would have been punishable by death.”

Trump added: “In addition, reparations should be paid to those in our country who have been damaged by this.”

My PJ Media colleague Matt Margolis covered the story in detail yesterday, including this quote from Kash Patel, lead GOP investigator on the House Intelligence Committee for the Trump-Russia probe.

Kash Patel, the former chief investigator of the Trump-Russia investigation for the House Intelligence Committee under former Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), told Fox News that the filing “definitively shows that the Hillary Clinton campaign directly funded and ordered its lawyers at Perkins Coie to orchestrate a criminal enterprise to fabricate a connection between President Trump and Russia.”

“Per Durham, this arrangement was put in motion in July of 2016, meaning the Hillary Clinton campaign and her lawyers masterminded the most intricate and coordinated conspiracy against Trump when he was both a candidate and later President of the United States while simultaneously perpetuating the bogus Steele Dossier hoax,” Patel said.

Republicans can do nothing as long as they’re in the minority. And even if they were to hold hearings after regaining the majority to try to get to the bottom of this swamp, it still wouldn’t be news.

For Democrats, it simply never happened, because it won’t be reported. This is especially true as long as Trump clogging up the White House toilet is repeated again and again as “breaking news.”


The Biden Administration Thinks You’re Stupid

… and the fact-checkers actually are

By The EditorsThe Washington Free Beacon

Getty Images

The Biden administration thinks you, the American people, are stupid. That much is clear given its response this week to a Washington Free Beacon report exposing the administration’s plan to “fund the distribution of crack pipes to drug addicts as part of its plan to advance ‘racial equity.'”

Despite confirming the details of reporter Patrick Hauf’s story, the Department of Health and Human Services subsequently determined—more than 24 hours after publication—that the story was “blatant misinformation.” A spokesperson offered no evidence to support this claim. Asked for clarification, the spokesperson responded 10 hours later to denounce once again the report as “misleading and misinformed” but offered no evidence as justification.

Media “fact-checkers” willingly repurposed the administration’s talking points in an attempt to discredit our reporting. Not surprisingly, the result was an incoherent messSnopes, for example, said our story was “mostly false” because crack pipes were “just one of around 20 components of the grant program.” (We know, because we listed several others in the report, such as “syringes, vaccinations, disease screenings, condoms, and fentanyl strips.”) Not a single word contradicted what the Free Beacon reported.

Another “independent” “fact-check” by a website called Lead Stories (we’ve never heard of it, either) resulted in Facebook censoring the report for containing “false information.” The site was co-founded by a former CNN journalist and a Colorado personal injury attorney who has donated thousands of dollars to Democrats and zero dollars to Republicans, so it must be a reliable source.

Both fact checks have been updated after the administration announced on Wednesday that “no federal funding will be used” to distribute crack pipes to underserved communities in an effort to promote racial equity. White House press secretary Jen Psaki insisted that crack pipes “were never a part” of the “safe smoking kits” described in government documents. She blamed “inaccurate reporting” for the confusion.

The Drug Policy Alliance was also confused, and understandably so. The group’s executive director, Kassandra Frederique, accused the administration of “backtracking” and expressed disappointment that “they will no longer allow federal funding to go towards putting pipes in safer smoking supplies.”https://3675ec6066ba5383f948888a8eac51e0.safeframe.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-38/html/container.html

Got that? The administration “will no longer” provide free crack pipes that “were never a part” of the taxpayer-funded smoking kits. Because the right-wing media are publishing “inaccurate reporting” and spreading “blatant disinformation.” It’s almost as if the White House is full of shit and thinks you’re stupid. (Fact check: They are and they do.)

That’s the only reasonable conclusion. The administration’s story is utter nonsense. Existing harm reduction programs across the country include pipes in the smoking kits they give to crack addicts. Take, for example, a program from California’s Department of Public Health, which openly advertises glass pipes. Other programs in cities such as Annapolis, Md.New Haven, Conn., and Seattle, Wash., all include crack pipes in their smoking kits.

These are exactly the sort of cities the administration was targeting when it announced the funding opportunity, and there is nothing in the announcement that tells these communities they would have to modify the contents of their smoking kits to qualify for funding. In fact, the HHS spokesman told the Free Beacon that the department does not specify what is in the kits, leaving that detail to program participants at the local level.

Even after the White House denial that crack pipes will be funded, the administration still won’t say it never planned to include them. “The department did not respond when asked by the New York Times if glass pipes were ever allowable under the grant provisions,” the paper wrote on Thursday evening.https://3675ec6066ba5383f948888a8eac51e0.safeframe.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-38/html/container.html

Like most Democratic institutions, the Biden administration has a habit of dismissing inconvenient stories as “misinformation” without actually refuting them. Administration officials tend to lash out at anyone who questions their authority or expresses an ounce of skepticism. Last week, for example, journalists who requested evidence to back up the administration’s claims regarding a military strike in Syria or the situation in Ukraine were accused of siding with the enemy.

It makes sense that the Biden administration would be especially sensitive when it comes to inconvenient stories about crack pipes. But that doesn’t excuse the blatant misinformation or their shockingly low opinion of the American public’s intelligence. You deserve better and, at least according to the supporters of this administration’s original plan, so do America’s crackheads.


Conservative Coalition Urges Senate To Reject Biden’s FCC Nominee Over ‘Questionable Ethics’

Advocacy groups point to Gigi Sohn's conflicts of interest, attacks on conservative networks

By Haley StrackThe Washington Free Beacon

Gigi Sohn (Photo by Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images)

A conservative coalition is calling for senators to reject President Joe Biden’s nomination of Gigi Sohn to the Federal Communications Commission, citing her criticism of conservative networks and alleged conflicts of interest with businesses she would oversee as an FCC commissioner.

In a letter sent on Monday to Senate Commerce Committee chairwoman Maria Cantwell (D., Wash.) and ranking member Roger Wicker (R., Miss.), the coalition of 13 advocacy groups raised alarm over Sohn’s involvement with Locast, a now-defunct nonprofit streaming service that major broadcast networks sued for illegally streaming their content. The Washington Free Beacon reported last week that Locast skirted a hefty $32 million payout to the networks just one day after Biden announced Sohn—one of the company’s three directors—as his FCC pick. Following Sohn’s nomination, Locast settled with the networks for just $700,000.

Wicker last week said Locast’s settlement raised concerns over Sohn’s “future financial liability to a number of companies regulated by the FCC.” The conservative coalition agreed, arguing Sohn’s “sweetheart settlement” with networks she would regulate on the FCC marks a “pattern of questionable ethics.”

“We agree with [Wicker’s] concern regarding Sohn’s involvement with Locast streaming services, and the possibility of her future financial liability to several companies regulated by the FCC,” said the coalition, which includes free market advocates and fiscal conservative groups such as the Center for a Free Economy and the Institute for Liberty. “Even the National Association of Broadcasters publicly noted, ‘the ethics agreement that Ms. Sohn submitted to the Senate currently does not adequately address the inherent conflict presented by her recent leadership position at Locast and her potential role as an FCC commissioner.’”

The conservative groups also slammed Sohn for her incendiary remarks targeting conservative networks.

“Sohn has repeatedly called on the shuttering of conservative networks, going as far as calling Fox News, ‘state-sponsored propaganda,’” the coalition said. “Then as the New York Post faced suspension for their reporting on Hunter Biden, she publicly claimed, ‘anti-conservative bias on online platforms … is a bunch of BS.’ This is not how our nation’s top regulatory officials should conduct themselves.”

The coalition argued Sohn’s comments and her connection to the Locast settlement suggest she would not be an impartial commissioner on the powerful agency overseeing communications.

“The FCC is the enforcer of American media and allowing someone with extreme public biases and conflicts of interest to oversee this vital agency is a threat to our country’s basic principles of freedom,” the conservative groups said. “Americans deserve better.”

Sohn’s confirmation would give Democrats a 3-2 majority in the FCC, which could swing a vote on net neutrality, the Internet regulations that Trump administration FCC chair Ajit Pai repealed in 2017 and which Democrats have vowed to restore.


Right Responds To Cancel Culture By Building Its Own Infrastructure, And The Left Goes Nuts

By Margot ClevelandThe Federalist

White House Devin Nunes and Donald Trump

Last week the corrupt media’s penchant for spinning all things conservative caused a near-fatal case of whiplash.

The left began by chastising conservatives for supposedly building “its own echo chamber,” but by the next day, when news broke that Devin Nunes was resigning from Congress to serve as the CEO of Donald Trump’s new media company, the complained-of conservative ecosystem merely represented grift. Both narratives are false, however, which is precisely why leftists peddled them so hard.

Axios launched the “echo chamber” accusation with its article titled, “Right wing builds its own echo chamber.” “Conservatives are aggressively building their own apps, phones, cryptocurrencies and publishing houses in an attempt to circumvent what they see as an increasingly liberal internet and media ecosystem,” the Axios article began.

The article then highlighted plans for the YouTube alternative Rumble and Trump’s social media company, Truth Social, to expand their reach by taking the companies public. Also highlighted was the social app Gettr that former-Trump aide Jason Miller launched, as well as conservative efforts to compete in cryptocurrency, phones, cloud storage, and book publishing.

“The bottom line,” Axios closed, was that, “Conservative media has been a powerhouse for a long time, but this phase of its expansion isn’t just about more or louder conservative voices — it’s about building an entire conservative ecosystem.”

The refusal by conservatives to continue “to consume” the product of the increasingly “deranged and unaccountable lefty media” is not about building an echo chamber, however: It is about competition and choice. And branding these new business ventures an “ecosystem” and “echo chamber” merely reveal the left’s panic over their inability to control the narrative.

The corrupt media quickly put a brake on the echo-chamber attack when the day after Axios bemoaned the loosening of the left’s stranglehold over corporate America came news that Nunes would retire in January to serve as the new CEO of Trump’s Truth Social company. No longer was the story about an “ecosystem,” it was now about “grift.”

“How Devin Nunes’s new media job for Trump explains the GOP grift machine,” the Washington Post headlined an op-ed by columnist Paul Waldman. Waldman supported his thesis by pointing out that “with Republicans poised to win the House, Nunes was in line to become the chair of the Ways and Means Committee, which writes the nation’s tax laws.”

“There was a time when the Ways and Means chair was considered second only to House Speaker in prestige and power,” the Post opinion piece continued. Leaving behind that likelihood, Waldman reasoned, showed Nunes’s supposed desire to “get in on the grift.”

Leave it to a liberal to think grift is foregoing the second most powerful position in the U.S. House of Representatives to accept a position in the private sector in a fledgling organization.

In reporting on Nunes’s announcement, The New York Times’s Jonathan Weisman likewise focused on the fact that if the California representative continued his congressional career, he would “assume the help of the powerful Ways and Means Committee if Republicans took control of the House, as they are favored to do.” This move, Weisman declared, represented a signal by Nunes to “where he thinks power lies in the Republican Party and the conservative movement.”

Nunes’s decision to leave Congress to become Truth Social’s CEO does represent a signal—just not the one Weisman claims. To see the reason behind the move, the Times’ congressional correspondent need only have re-read his article, where a handful of paragraphs later, Weisman wrote:

From his perch on the Intelligence Committee, he ran interference for Mr. Trump against accusations that his 2016 campaign had collaborated with Russian intelligence. Mr. Nunes also organized a united Republican front opposing the first impeachment of the president for withholding military assistance to Ukraine to pressure its government to dig up dirt on Mr. Biden.

That a longtime congressional correspondent could pen those lines and The New York Times could unironically publish them shows exactly why Nunes left Congress to lead Truth Social.

Having lived through the heyday of the Russia-collusion hoax, as chairman of the House Intelligence Committee Nunes fought to expose the truth of the Crossfire Hurricane disaster to the American public. Yet the corporate press fed the lies of the Democrat ranking member to the country instead. The California Republican saw a repeat of this ploy with the Ukraine impeachment proceedings. Hatred for Trump proved the breaking straw to the already biased establishment press.

Then came the censorship, limiting conservatives’ ability to counter the corrupt media. Again, Nunes experienced that firsthand, being shadow-banned by Twitter in 2018.

And if any more proof were needed of corporate cronies’ ability to control information, the burying of the Hunter Biden laptop story that implicated then-candidate Joe Biden in a pay-to-play scandal right before the 2020 election handed Nunes—and our country—the final piece of evidence.

So Nunes had a choice: Stay in Congress and chair the House’s most powerful committee as a Republican, limited by the Democrat-controlled executive branch, or surrender the cozy conclave and create an enterprise to counter the slant and censorship that over the last five years has grown exponentially. The left might not understand Nunes’s decision, but here’s hoping it learns his reason soon—and the hard way.


Frontiers of Freedom Makes Major TV Buy in DC-Northern Virginia Market with 2-Minute Spot Saying Candidate McAuliffe Made “Corrupt Political Bargain” with Extreme Left and Asking that He Disavow Radical Agenda — Especially His Plan To Destroy Single-Family Neighborhoods and Suburbs

Terry McCauliffe’s Horrible Vision for Virginia

Long format, story-telling TV SPOT IN  DC-Northern Virginia market SAYMCAULIFFE IS CHOSEN CANDIDATE OF MEDIA AND TECH GIANTS WHO ARE PROTECTING HIM. SO VIRGINIANS MUST QUESTION MCAULIFFE ABOUT:

“CORRUPT POLITICAL BARGAIN” WITH LEFT WING OF HIS PARTY TO DESTROY SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS

MCAULIFFE PLAN WOULD END SINGLE-FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS AND CRAM HIGH DENSITY HOUSING INTO SUBURBS

Ties McAuliffe to liberal extremists and says he would also support:

    •  Critical Race theory teaching ugly Anti-American falsehoods to school children

    •  Defund the Police

    •  Continuing illegal immigration crisis ….influx of MS-13 gangs in Northern Virginia

    •  Persecution of Catholic religious orders

    •  ACLU anti-religious extremism and attacks on Church tax-deductions

CONSERVATIVE GROUP ASKS WHY MCAULIFFE WON’T DISAVOW HIS EXTREMIST ALLIES – THE RADICAL LIBERALS AND THEIR BIG BUSINESS ALLIES AND THE WALL ST. BARONS

The people of Virginia won’t stand for it..”

Ask Terry McAuliffe and the liberal extremists and their billionaire allies why they don’t know  …. THEY CAN’T HAVE AMERICA.  THEY CAN’T HAVE VIRGINIA.”

….

****                                               ***                                       ****

………

STATEMENT GEORGE LANDRITH, PRESIDENT, FRONTIERS OF FREEDOM FOUNDATION

………

For further information — George Landrith at 703-246-0110, ext. 1302 

………

Washington D.C.  —  George Landrith, President of  the Frontiers of Freedom Foundation, announced today his group is running long format, 120 second (2 minute) spots on TV news shows in the DC Northern Virginia media market to “make Terry McAuliffe come out from cover and face the crucial questions the media is protecting him from having him to answer.”

The tv spot was shown for the first time Sunday night on Fox affiliate  WTTG’shighly-rated 10 pm news and will run through the week on that channel and other local DC-Northern Virginia channels. 

DESTROYING THE SUBURBS — The spot’s major focus is on McAuliffe’s plan to destroy single family zoning by empowering the federal government to dictate local zoning decisions.

In showing  pictures of Black and Hispanic families well as young people seeking a first home, the spot says such a plan would destroy the aspirations of many Americans who now have a chance to live in safe, family-friendly neighborhoods. 

WALL ST.  GREED  — We also highlight the fact that ‘the woke’ management of Wall St firms are buying suburban properties because they think they can make money eventually off this Washington land-grab.”

MCAULIFFE CORRUPT POLITICAL BARGAIN — Terry McAuliffe got the Democratic nomination for governor by pushing aside promising young leadership in his own party and making a corrupt political bargain with the Left wing extremists to support their radical agenda.”

THE REST OF THE EXTREME LEFT AGENDA — “Terry McAuliffe needs to be asked if he will disavow the support of his other liberal allies who support a radical agenda.”

Our spot shows these issues and provides back up about them including Critical Race theory teaching ugly Anti-American falsehoods to school children, defund the police, continue the illegal immigration crisis and influx of MS-13 gangs in Northern Virginia, the persecution of Catholic religious orders, and ACLU anti-religious extremism and attacks on Church tax-deductions. 

NOT ATTACK ADS — “These are not 30 second attack ads that try to manipulate people, but heavily informative narrative ads that tell the story of Terry McAuliffe’s extremist views and plans.” Landrith said. 

Landrith notes his group’s TV spot asserts that McAuliffe is “the chosen candidate of the media and tech giants” and that Virginians must ask him the questions the liberal media will not.

BACKUP TO ALL ALLEGATIONS —  The spots shows newspaper articles about the controversy and argues that McAuliffe’s plan is essential that of President Biden and features a large picture of former HUD Secretary Ben Carson who wrote a Wall St op-ed saying the Biden plan would destroy suburban neighborhoods.

Virginians need to ask McAuliffe why he endorses the Biden-Schumer – Pelosi plan that has already been enacted in some places like California and Minnesota that would permit federal bureaucrats to dictate to local towns and cities and destroy the American dream of single-family neighborhoods.”

WHAT ASKING MCAULIFFE THE TOUGH QUESTIONS WILL DO — “By making McAuliffe answer these questions, Virginians will be sending a strong message.  They will be telling the radical liberals and their big business allies, and the Wall St. barons that the people of Virginia won’t stand for it.  And Terry McAuliffe and the liberal extremists and their billionaire allies will discover theycan’t have America. They can’t have Virginia.”

HERE IS THE SCRIPT OF THE TWO-MINUTE TV SPOT

Terry McAuliffe… chosen candidate of the media and tech giants…helping him hide from the people of Virginia

McAuliffe’s plan? override local zoning and force the construction of high-density, low income housing projects in residential neighborhoods.

Under the McAuliffe plan, federal bureaucrats would dictate to local towns and cities…cramming apartment complexes into single- family neighborhoods. 

This plan is opposed by:

— The majority of Blacks and Hispanics — once shut out of single family neighborhoods – who now want the right to live in one.

— Young Americans who aspire to the American dream of a single-family home in a family-friendly neighborhood.

— People now fleeing the crime and disorder of Democrat run cities.

Terry McAuliffe’s threat to the suburbs is no exaggeration.  

The Biden-Pelosi-Schumer-McAuliffe plan is already underway. Newsom in California recently moved to abolish zoning.

Former HUD Secretary Ben Carson warned against this ugly liberal power-grab.  

A Clinton-era grifter…Wall St money mover… pushing aside young leadership in his own party to help extremist climate liberals who hate the suburbs 

the McAuliffe plan helps Wall St barons gobble up suburban property and profit off of high-density housing    

Terry McAuliffe made a corrupt political bargain with the extremist left wing of the Democratic Party giving him the party nomination

He has allied himself with those who support:

Destroying Virginia’s suburbs…

Critical Race theory – teaching ugly Anti-American falsehoods to school children

Defund the Police

Continuing the illegal immigration crisis and influx of MS-13 gangs in Northern Virginia

The persecution of Catholic religious orders

ACLU anti-religious extremism and attacks on Church tax-deductions

Terry McAuliffe will never face these questions from the media who favor him

So ask Terry McAuliffe why he wants to use Virginia to pay off his extremist allies… destroy suburban neighborhoods…and Destroy the American dream of a single family home.

Ask him about his ties to THE EXTREMIST LIBERALS, HIS BIG BUSINESS ALLIES AND WALL ST. BARONS

Ask Terry McAuliffe if he understands the people of Virginia won’t stand for it

That the extremists and their billionaire allies

… CAN’T HAVE AMERICA

 THEY CAN’T HAVE VIRGINIA.

……..

……..


Voters: Media the Enemy of the People

By Peter RoffAmerican Action News

Ajay Suresh from New York, NY, USA / CC BY (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0)

An overwhelming number of Americans likely to vote in the November 2022 election said they were troubled to one degree or another by the problem of “fake news,” a survey released Friday said, likely prompting them to view the information they are getting from traditional media outlets with a degree of distrust.

The poll conducted by the firm Rasmussen Reports found a vast majority of the 1,000 likely voters questioned – 83 percent – called “fake news” was a serious problem. A clear majority – 55 percent – defined it as “very serious.”

“Only 37 percent of voters say they trust the political news they’re getting, while 43 percent say they don’t trust political news,” the polling firm reported, calling it a “slight improvement” since April 2021 when a similar survey found only 33 percent of respondents said they “trusted political news.” That same poll had 54 percent of those participating saying they thought “most reporters, when they write or talk about President Joe Biden, are trying to help the president pass his agenda.”

Distrust of media, the poll showed, is widespread across all demographic categories, with 54 percent of whites, 56 percent of black voters, and 60 percent described as “other minorities” believing “fake news” is a “very serious problem in the media.”

Alarming as those numbers might be, even more shocking – but perhaps not unsurprising – is the number of respondents in agreement with the characterization of the media as “truly the enemy of the people,” an accusation made by former President Donald J. Trump that was widely criticized even by some journalists who are not considered members of the media elite.

The Rasmussen Reports survey found a majority of those surveyed – 58 percent — saying they agreed “at least somewhat” with Trump’s description including 56 percent of whites, 63 percent of blacks, and 60 percent of other minorities considered likely to vote in the next election.

“As might be expected, Republicans are more likely to agree with Trump’s description,” the firm said of its findings while cautioning that “37 percent of Democrats and 61 percent of voters not affiliated with either major party also at least somewhat agree.” 

The poll finds members of the GOP also more likely to identify “fake news” as a problem but, incredibly, 74 percent of Democrats and 82 percent of unaffiliated voters also thought it was “at least a somewhat serious problem in the media.”

The numbers concerning Democrats and independents are surprising considering that, as Rasmussen Reports found, it’s President Joe Biden’s strongest supporters who “have more trust” in the media than those who are not satisfied with the direction his presidency is taking. 

“Among voters who strongly approve of Biden’s job performance as president, 72 percent trust the political news they’re getting,” Rasmussen Reports said. “By contrast, among voters who strongly disapprove of Biden’s performance, 74 percent don’t trust the political news they’re getting.” 


The Concierge of Decline

The Biden Administration serves up complacency in the face of deterioration.

By Paige WilleyThe American Mind

US-politics-economy-BIDEN

Joe Biden’s handlers and media friends continue to delude nobody but themselves that his legacy will land him in the history books alongside FDR and LBJ as a beloved, era-defining Progressive hero. His supposedly moderate priorities—infrastructure, family policy, and voting “rights”—have readily been exposed as deceitful partisanship and wasteful graft, and laden with power grabs so objectionable a senator of his own party had to distance himself to save face.

Further complicating his aspirational legacy, Biden is beholden to an eye-popping amount of dark money from leftist sources that propelled him to the White House in the first place. A careerist chameleon who knows the ultimate currency of the Washington favor economy is obedience to donors, he is obligated to indulge fringe priorities so repellent to the public that anti-police interest groups begged the White House to dial them back. Even with his public image plummeting from the self-made border crisis—now on pace to allow over 2 million illegal immigrants to enter and stay in the country every year—Biden acquiesced to bullying from activist groups (and NGOs whose lucrative business models depend on the public funding associated with high volumes of immigration) and raised the annual refugee cap.

As Biden’s early months lurched from one failure to stand up for our country to the next, it became clear that he is indeed era-defining, but not in the way his consiglieres would have hoped. Weak and negligent, derelict in the most basic duties a leader has to his people, licking ice cream to delight reporters as his homeland falls apart, Joe Biden is happily at your service as the concierge of decline.

The leader of the Free World routinely confounds with public with gibberish and outlandish assertions that the national press pretends not to notice. Last week, he attributed lower vaccination rates among black Americans to traumatic memories of “the Tuskegee Airmen,” apparently conflating the subjects of an infamous experiment conducted at the Tuskegee Institute with the squadron of World War II Army pilots. One day prior, he delivered a meandering disavowal of the Second Amendment, dismissing it as a gratuitous formality by insinuating the government could simply deploy “nuclear weapons” against rebellious armed citizens. The public, beseeched by the press to view Biden’s regime of managed decline as a return to normalcy, could be forgiven for wondering whether successful stewardship of a nation typically involves overt rationalizations for nuking one’s own citizens.

Essential elements of nationhood, including our borders, rule of law, energy pipelines, and food supply chains are disintegrating. Biden routinely appears apathetic, croaking “no comment” when a cyberattack took 45 percent of the East Coast’s energy supply offline—a response so lethargic it may have emboldened the cybercriminals who downed countless American facilities operated by the world’s largest beef supplier a few weeks later. With a resource as crucial as the food supply at risk, and minimal discussion on how to guarantee protection from such threats in the future, the White House again responded in almost ludicrously diffident fashion, weakly insisting they were “delivering a message” to Russia that if the hackers originated with them, that was very naughty indeed. The diplomatic decorum of managed decline forbids advocating too vociferously for our country’s interests. As its primary practitioner, Biden travelled halfway across the world to meet Vladimir Putin at the G7, handing over a list detailing our critical infrastructure sectors and politely requesting that he be kind enough not to hack those.

Back home, his staff obfuscates the fact that inflation is rising faster than nominal wages—meaning real wages are declining—and dismisses the higher prices burdening small businesses and families as a public relations inconvenience, even releasing a statement instructing the public to stop blaming them for high gas prices. Cities across the country are plagued with stomach-churning random assaults and open-air drug bazaars to such a degree the Democrats’ traditional media apologists are nervously signaling they cannot furnish effective propaganda to stave off a political backlash. Microchip shortages are roiling auto manufacturing and necessitating layoffs. In the face of record drug overdose deaths, his administration is offering subsidized drug paraphernalia to facilitate addicts’ injection of deadly narcotics. As the border crisis continues, the federal government rewards illegal border crossers with taxpayer-funded plane tickets to destinations across the country. Meanwhile, for citizens, the Biden administration is fixated on maximizing extractive, redistributive, and vengeful policies to “address” abstractions such as climate change, systemic racism, and the intelligence community’s latest absurd fiction designed to increase their budget, “terrorism from white supremacy.”

Despite his media portrayal as a great uniter, Biden cynically embraces talking points to divide Americans by race, encouraging citizens to blame each other for difficulties getting ahead instead of the destructive effects of policies he spent half a century voting for and now aims to revive. A long-time proponent of trade policies that dismantled our industrial base—sending millions of working-class jobs abroad—and of unfairly flooding the labor market with foreign workers, he appears committed to the belief that the inevitable decline in economic opportunity afflicting Americans of all races was in fact due to insufficient commitment to those policies instead of the other way around. Deploying theories of “systemic inequities” is a convenient pre-emptive strike for a man whose administration is officially forecasting economic decline.

In a demonstration of the sincerity of his administration’s commitment to black Americans’ success, his appointees congratulate themselves for frivolous interventions such as banning menthol cigarettes, but have little interest in addressing the fact that our public school system graduates a mere 7 percent of black 12th graders proficient in math. In fact, Biden’s most definitive contribution to the pitiful state of public education has been to assert in his State of the Union address that, when it comes to public education, “12 years is no longer enough” and “that’s why my American Families Plan guarantees four additional years of public education for every person in America.” Our concierge of decline does not demand higher-quality education—rather, he instructs Americans to spend four more years of their lives with the government’s educators, devoid of any obligation to the public to improve.

Such complacency in the face of deterioration is not only dysfunctional, but dangerous. Our adversaries are well aware: China’s delegation humiliated Biden’s Secretary of State and National Security Advisor to their faces on our own soil, asserting, “the United States does not have the qualification to say it wants to speak to China from a position of strength.”

To many Americans, the Biden Decline feels distinctly wrong. Do leaders who love their country typically stand idly by while so many urgent problems accumulate for their citizens? A president who supplants his obligations to the people with wildly impractical ideological fixations does not seem motivated to steward our country to success. He seems intent on ushering in an era of weakness that puts our country’s safety, prosperity, and future at risk. The American people are resilient, but the lengths to which our leaders have gone to subvert our country’s strength will require serious course-correction to return to fighting weight.


Ethics Concerns Grow as Michigan’s Whitmer Caught in Lie

By Peter RoffAmerican Action News

Julia Pickett via Wikimedia Commons

Michigan Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, whose poll numbers continue a downward slide over her handling of the COVID crisis, faces new questions after it was learned an outside entity has paid for her use of a private jet owned by influential businessmen to visit her father in Florida during the lockdown. 

Whitmer aides have carefully stated repeatedly that no taxpayer dollars were used to pay for the chartered flights, which occurred during a period she was discouraging Michigan residents to stay in their homes because of COVID and while emergency rules kept families from visiting hospitalized loved ones.  

“It’s been 62 days since the secret trip. The story from the governor’s office keeps changing,” said GOP Communications Director Ted Goodman. Previously the governor has said she paid for the flight out of her own pocket. Now, her office admits, she only paid for her seat, leaving others to cover the rest of the expense. 

No one is yet suggesting Whitmer broke any laws by taking the $28,000 trip which is becoming a continuing political embarrassment. According to several sources, the flights were paid for by a social welfare not-for-profit group – Michigan Transition 2019 – to handle expenses related to her 2019 gubernatorial inauguration. In general, the use of funds by politicians coming from groups designated 501c(4) by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service to cover expenses like non-official travel is generally frowned upon.

Complicating matters more, the Detroit Free Press published Monday a report revealing Air Eagle, LLP – the air travel company operating the plane Whitmer used to visit her father in Florida – is not authorized by the Federal Aviation Administration to offer charter flights. Agency spokesman Elizabeth Isham Cory told the paper companies seeking to operate such flights must have a Part 135 certificate.

“The Gulfstream G280 Whitmer’s office confirmed she flew on ‘is not on a 135 certificate and Air Eagle does not have a Part 135 certificate,’” the Free Press reported, citing an email from Cory.

Whitmer and her staff have repeatedly attempted to tamp the scandal down by asserting extraordinary accommodations must be made to keep her safe because of threats made against her in the last year. “I have received an incredible number of death threats over the last year and a half. There are a lot of reasons we don’t discuss how I travel and when I travel,” the governor previously said. 

This is not the first incident to raise questions about Whitmer’s management of state affairs during the pandemic. Michigan First Husband Marc Mallory reportedly tried to have his boat placed in the water before Memorial Day weekend in 2020 in violation of what some called “the most draconian stay-at-home orders in the nation.”

Her apparent fall from grace may not be as precipitous as New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s but it is just as self-inflicted. Before last summer’s BLM riots, Whitmer was believed to be atop Joe Biden’s list of potential running mates. Now she finds herself peppered with questions about why she went to Florida unvaccinated despite the number of times she expressed concern that residents there were not taking proper safety precautions and bringing the virus to Michigan. As issues of this sort mount, strategists in both parties are wondering how vulnerable she’ll be when seeking a second term in November 2022. 


Some Real Truths About Fake News

By Peter RoffIssues & Insights

The folks who came up with the term “fake news” – no one has ever claimed credit for it – probably rue the day they did. Originally the term was going to be used to discredit anything that appeared in an outlet that wasn’t part of the media elite which contradicted the dominant liberal narrative or painted progressives and their policies in an unfavorable light.

Oh, for the schemes of mice and men, as Robert Burns put it.

Before those behind this grand experiment in thought control could get all the fact-checkers, news outlets, and academics ready to make it work, Donald Trump appeared on the scene and expropriated the term. In the blink of an eye, what was supposed to be an ad hominem attack on Fox News and other conservative outlets came to be synonymous with liberal media distortions of the day’s news. 

Now, say published reports, it appears “fake news” is a real thing and, just as the liberals alleged, there are a couple of Murdochs behind it all. Only it’s not Rupert. It’s his younger son from his first marriage James who, along with his wife Kathryn reportedly made significant contributions to a political action committee linked to a genuinely fake news operation allied with the Democrats.

The younger Murdoch, who at one time occupied senior management positions in companies owned by his father as well as a member of the News Corp. board of directors, severed his ties with the family business several years ago, allegedly over concerns of information bias. How odd it is then that he and his wife are now linked to a $500,000 contribution to Pacronym, a super PAC that, according to its website is “affiliated with ACRONYM” – a group that Federal Elections Commission records indicate funded a pseudo-news outlet called “Courier Newsroom,” which circulated Democratic Party and anti-Trump propaganda disguised as legitimate reporting.

The “Courier Newsroom” operated what one newspaper called a network of “impostor news outlets” in electorally critical states such as Arizona, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. Democratic Party talking points and candidate press releases were rewritten by the outlets and uploaded to the web as though they were legitimate news stories. It was essentially a political operation, National Republican Congressional Committee spokesman Michael McAdams told National Review last October, “funded by a host of liberal billionaire donors” and “poster child for House Democrats’ complete and total hypocrisy when it comes to dark money and fake news.” 

It’s a remarkable turn of events given the younger Murdoch’s outrage, purportedly shared by his wife, at the way so-called disinformation propagated by media outlets like those controlled by News Corp. created an atmosphere leading to events like Trump’s 2016 election, the contest of his 2020 loss, and the disturbance at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 – which led directly to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., launching an effort to impeach the 45th president of the United States for a second time and have him removed from office before the end of his term. 

“Spreading disinformation — whether about the election, public health or climate change — has real-world consequences,” the younger Murdochs recently said to the Financial Times. “Many media property owners have as much responsibility as the elected officials who know the truth but instead choose to propagate lies. We hope the awful scenes we have all been seeing (at the U.S. Capitol) will finally convince those enablers to repudiate the toxic politics they have promoted once and forever.”

One is tempted to shout “physician heal thyself’ at James and Kathryn Murdoch but it would likely do little good. Whether the contempt he’s shown for honest reporting through this and potential other contributions – neither are talking about how they’ve been spending their political money – is driven by a familial dispute, ideological concerns, or the kind of liberal social consciousness commonly found among the members of the second and third-generation descendants of those who built great companies of tremendous value is not important; sad perhaps, but not a critical component of a drama that some might say has hints of Shakespeare about it. 

What truly matters is the shameful way the younger Murdochs have allegedly used resources at their disposal thanks to their father’s success to distort both the news and the political process.

Thanks to the technological advances that have made the Internet the main source of news about global current, it is easier than it once was to pull the wool over the eyes of the people. And, because P.T. Barnum’s still not been proved wrong, information that appears on the web that looks real is too often mistaken as being real. 

James Murdoch and his billionaire cohorts who allegedly funded it all and the political operatives who came up with the idea for who knows how many pseudo-news platforms ought to be ashamed of their actions. They cheapened the process and the news business, a vocation some of us still consider to be an honorable profession. 


Federal Judge: ‘One-Party Control Of The Press And Media Is A Threat To A Viable Democracy’

In a blistering dissent, Judge Laurence Silberman said The New York Times and Washington Post are 'Democratic Party broadsheets.'

By Mollie HemingwayThe Federalist

The control of major media by one political party is a dangerous threat to the country, a federal judge warned in a blistering dissent that called for courts to revisit libel laws that generally protect the press from being held liable for their reporting.

“It should be borne in mind that the first step taken by any potential authoritarian or dictatorial regime is to gain control of communications, particularly the delivery of news,” wrote Judge Laurence Silberman of the D.C. Circuit for the Court of Appeals. “It is fair to conclude, therefore, that one-party control of the press and media is a threat to a viable democracy.”

Silberman argued that it’s time for courts to revisit New York Times v. Sullivan, which has shaped press law in favor of media outlets for more than five decades. The New York Times and the Washington Post “are virtually Democratic Party broadsheets. And the news section of The Wall Street Journal leans in the same direction,” Judge Silberman wrote in his March 19 dissent.

He said that orientation also controls the Associated Press and most large papers in the country, including the Los Angeles Times, Miami Herald, and Boston Globe. “Nearly all television—network and cable—is a Democratic Party trumpet,” Judge Silberman added.

Silicon Valley also has “enormous influence” over the distribution of news and it “similarly filters news delivery in ways favorable to the Democratic Party,” wrote Judge Silberman, highlighting the shocking suppression of stories about Joe Biden and his family when he was running for president.

In that case, Twitter and Facebook censored media outlets that reported accurately about the Biden family’s dealing with foreign entities. Twitter suspended users, including sitting White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany, for merely sharing accurate information, and prevented people from sharing the information privately on its platform. Facebook said it would censor coverage of the Biden family corruption pending a “fact-check,” an unprecedented privilege given to Biden in the closing days of one of the closest presidential elections in history.

Only a few major media outlets are not controlled by the left, Silberman noted, citing Fox News, where this reporter is a contributor, the New York Post, and The Wall Street Journal. “It should be sobering for those concerned about news bias that these institutions are controlled by a single man and his son. Will a lone holdout remain in what is otherwise a frighteningly orthodox media culture? After all, there are serious efforts to muzzle Fox News,” he wrote. CNN hosts and other leftist activsts are currently on a campaign to deplatform their rival.

“Admittedly, a number of Fox’s commentators lean as far to the right as the commentators and reporters of the mainstream outlets lean to the left,” Silberman wrote in a footnote, in a dig at reporters inserting their extreme partisan views into news stories.

A New York Supreme Court judge last week ruled against The New York Times’ effort to get a defamation suit against it dismissed. The Times had said that its reporters were inserting opinion into news stories, and that opinions are not actionable for defamation. The argument didn’t hold sway with the judge, who critiqued the blending of news and opinion in purported news stories.

Another footnote critiqued the tepid response of some to “big tech’s behavior” censoring conservative speech. Silberman called repression of political speech in large institutions with market power “fundamentally un-American.”

“Some emphasize these companies are private and therefore not subject to the First Amendment. Yet—even if correct— it is not an adequate excuse for big tech’s bias. The First Amendment is more than just a legal provision: It embodies the most important value of American Democracy. Repression of political speech by large institutions with market power therefore is—I say this advisedly—fundamentally un-American,” Silberman wrote.

He then cited Tim Groseclose’s book, “Left Turn: How Liberal Media Bias Distorts the American Mind,” which empirically argued that media bias even a decade ago gave Democrat candidates an 8-10 point advantage. “And now, a decade after this book’s publication, the press and media do not even pretend to be neutral news services.” Silberman noted.

“The First Amendment guarantees a free press to foster a vibrant trade in ideas. But a biased press can distort the marketplace. And when the media has proven its willingness—if not eagerness—to so distort, it is a profound mistake to stand by unjustified legal rules that serve only to enhance the press’ power,” Silberman concluded.


WP2Social Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com