Fake News 101

Frequently the American Media Maggots are so daft as to defy human ken.

This is one recent example from the past day that is altogether too chock full of buttery idiocy that even I cannot fail to make an immediate post about it.

Look at the above pictures. Stir, and add sarcasm to taste.

Then draw your own conclusions.


Don’t forget this.


Leftist Washington Post wrong AGAIN

I think I’m starting to see a pattern here.

The Washington Post is Fake News.

The Washington Post is biased news.

The Washington Post is aligned with and carries the water for Demorats and Leftists across the nation. Of that there is no doubt. They don’t mind attributing stories to completely anonymous sources which means that, essentially, unless challenged in court, an anonymous source could be no more than an artful but unauthenticated fart at lunch.

That is to say: the Russian narrative is dying. The Demorats are discovering the door they insisted be opened is leading primarily back to themselves.

That said, from FoxNews.com:

Embarrassment as Washington Post corrects its ‘scoop’ about Obama, Facebook and Russia

by Brian Flood

The Washington Post has made a correction to an explosive cover story that undermines the entire premise of Monday’s front-page article headlined, “Obama sought to prod Facebook on Russia role.”

The problem, according to a Facebook executive, is that when Obama reached out to the social media giant in 2016 to discuss political disinformation spreading on the site, he didn’t actually call out Russia – essentially making the Post’s headline misleading and inaccurate. Or, as President Trump would call it, “fake news.”

As first reported by Axios, the Post added significant information to the digital version of the story with the disclaimer, “This story has been updated with an additional response from Facebook.” The response from Facebook that didn’t make the paper’s print edition is vital and changed the story enough that the word “Russia” was removed from the updated headline.

The story detailed how then-President Obama gave Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg a “wake-up call” regarding fake news spreading on his social media platform. After reporting that Obama “made a personal appeal to Zuckerberg to take the threat of fake news and political disinformation seriously,” the paper has added that Obama “did not single out Russia specifically.”

There might be a problem with that.

Oh but wait; there’s more. And its buttery goodness is both simultaneously salacious and satisfying in terms of, well, schadenfreude.

From ZeroHedge.com:

Leaked Descriptions Of Infamous “Russia Ads” Derail Collusion Narrative “They Showed Support For Clinton”

by Tyler Durden

That was quick.

Less than a week after Facebook agreed to turn over to Congressional investigators copies of the 3,000-odd political advertisements that the company said it had inadvertently sold to a Russia-linked group intent on meddling in the 2016 presidential election, the contents of the ads have – unsurprisingly – leaked, just as we had expected them to.

Congressional investigators shared the information with Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team, which has repeatedly allowed information about its investigation into whether members of the Trump campaign actively colluded with Russian operatives to leak to the press. Once this happened, we knew it was only a matter of time before the ads became part of the public record.

Uh-oh. Are we about to destroy a narrative? A Leftist narrative?

And, shockingly, descriptions of the ads provided to the Washington Post hardly fit the narrative that Democratic lawmakers have spun in recent weeks, claiming the ads – which didn’t advocate on behalf of a specific candidate, but rather hewed to political issues like abortion rights – were instrumental in securing Trump’s victory.

After initially denying the story this spring, Facebook came clean earlier this month, saying its investigators had discovered that the company sold at least $100,000 worth of ads – and possibly as much as $150,000 – to Russia-linked group that bought the ads through 470 phony Facebook pages and accounts.

WaPo reports that the ads represented issues on both sides of the ideological spectrum, which would suggest that the buyers didn’t intend to support a specific candidate, but rather their own unique agenda.

Oh damn. Kablooie. Narrative blown up. Insert your favorite sound effect here.

The batch of more than 3,000 Russian-bought ads that Facebook is preparing to turn over to Congress shows a deep understanding of social divides in American society, with some ads promoting African-American rights groups including Black Lives Matter and others suggesting that these same groups pose a rising political threat, say people familiar with the covert influence campaign.


The Russian campaign — taking advantage of Facebook’s ability to simultaneously send contrary messages to different groups of users based on their political and demographic characteristics – also sought to sow discord among religious groups. Other ads highlighted support for Democrat Hillary Clinton among Muslim women.

Of course, support for Hillary Clinton among minority groups was less enthusiastic than it was for Barack Obama, suggesting that the ads perhaps weren’t as effective as some Democratic lawmakers would have voters believe. Despite the innocuous description, WaPo insisted on reporting that the ads were meant to “sow dischord” among different voting blocs that supported Clinton. The paper of record also reported that the targeted messages “highlight the sophistication of an influence campaign slickly crafted to mimic and infiltrate US political discourse”…again without explaining exactly how they accomplished this.

With little else to cling to, it appears that investigators – not to mention Trump’s critics – have invested so much in the Facebook interference narrative (not to mention Paul Manafort’s dealings with pro-Russian oligarchs), that admitting they were wrong would just be too damaging.

Thank you.

But wait; there’s more buttery political goodness.

From McClatchyDC.com:

Congress might not be able to protect Mueller from firing

by Brian Murphy

Congress may be unable to provide any job protection legislatively for special counsel Robert Mueller, whose wide-ranging investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election continues to anger President Donald Trump.

While Trump confidant Roger Stone was defending himself in front of a separate committee elsewhere on Capitol Hill, legal scholars offered competing views on whether two Senate bills designed to protect Mueller from firing by Trump or someone in the Justice Department would pass constitutional muster during a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

I’ve said this before and I’ll repeat.

The Demorats will rue the day they ever began the “Russia” narrative.

They managed to open a door that led not necessarily to Republicans, but to the arcane, deceptive and corrupt machinations of Demorats themselves.

You and I both know that had Mueller found incredibly-damaging material about Donald Trump or associates showing clear and utter linkage with Russia in terms of, say, cash influence or — better yet, just like the Clintons and the Clinton Foundation — influence and decisions for cash or “donations” you know that leak would already have occurred.

Silence in and of itself can sometimes be a massive clue.



Leftists cannot identify fake news

The “Women’s March” wasn’t that; it was actually an anti-Trump march.

If you can’t agree what constitutes “fake news,” how can you possibly hope to identify “fake news”?

And trust me, Leftists cannot agree on what is fake news.

First, from the NYTimes.com:

Billionaire George Soros has ties to more than 50 ‘partners’ of the Women’s March on Washington

by Asra Q. Nomani

What is the link between one of Hillary Clinton’s largest donors and the Women’s March? Turns out, it’s quite significant

As someone who voted for Trump, I don’t feel welcome, nor do many other women who reject the liberal identity-politics that is the core underpinnings of the march, so far, making white women feel unwelcomenixing women who oppose abortion and hijacking the agenda

To understand the march better, I stayed up through the nights this week, studying the funding, politics and talking points of the some 403 groups that are “partners” of the march. Is this a non-partisan “Women’s March”?

Ah, I see, things are becoming more clear to me.

By my draft research, which I’m opening up for crowd-sourcing on GoogleDocs, Soros has funded, or has close relationships with, at least 56 of the march’s “partners,” including “key partners” Planned Parenthood, which opposes Trump’s anti-abortion policy, and the National Resource Defense Council, which opposes Trump’s environmental policies. The other Soros ties with “Women’s March” organizations include the partisan MoveOn.org (which was fiercely pro-Clinton), the National Action Network (which has a former executive director lauded by Obama senior advisor Valerie Jarrett as “a leader of tomorrow” as a march co-chair and another official as “the head of logistics”). Other Soros grantees who are “partners” in the march are the American Civil Liberties Union, Center for Constitutional Rights, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. March organizers and the organizations identified here haven’t yet returned queries for comment.  

Then, from Politifact.com:

Pants on Fire claim that George Soros money went to Women’s March protesters

by Jan Greenburg, January 25th

According to several blog posts, the women’s marches around the country did not reflect grassroots concern over the policies of President Donald Trump. Rather, they were the work of the liberal billionaire philanthropist George Soros.

In this fact-check, we focus on whether Soros money went into the pockets of protesters.

There is no evidence that’s true.

Politifact attributes the lie to “bloggers.” The last time I checked, the New York Times wasn’t “some blogger.” Politifact’s foundational objection is that the author isn’t a Lockstep Leftist but a woman who has done her research. Please read her entire article.

Leftists cannot even agree on the facts.

That’s no real shock. Facts are challenged every day. Facts should be challenged every day. Hence, individuals themselves can now be, in their own small way, journalists with the video and camera options they have in their phones.

The point is, “fake news” is another meme created by Leftists to benefit Leftists in the face of so many possible sources of news today. The biased American Media Maggots are losing their tenuous grip on what comprises “real news” and, simultaneously, they are literally hemorrhaging cash and readers. They are petrified with fright because they are losing their “gatekeeper” status on the news. That is a loss of money and power.

When the ship is capsizing and you are facing the possibility of drowning, you’ll do anything to stay alive.

Lying is the least of it.



CNN is fake news: story about Hannity refuted by Juan Williams

CNN and the rest of the mainstream media — whom I term the American Media Maggots — just don’t get it. Nor will they ever.

First, the story from CNN:

Sources: Sean Hannity once pulled a gun on Juan Williams

by Dylan Byers

Sean Hannity is surrounded by jackasses.

The Wall Street Journal columnist who called Hannity the “dumbest anchor” on Fox News is a “jackass,” according to Hannity. The forensic psychologist who suggested a blood vessel had popped inside Hannity’s brain is a “jackass.” Even the conservative MSNBC host who sometimes criticizes President Donald Trump is a “jackass.”

If you criticize Hannity, or the Trump administration, there is a fair chance he will call you a “jackass” on Twitter. The chances of being called a “jackass” by Hannity are significantly higher late at night. Of the 21 people Hannity called a “jackass” in the last year, nearly half were told off between 9 p.m and 2 a.m.

Seems to me that Byers is calling Hannity a “drunk Twitterer.” Isn’t that what you make of it as well?

Hannity, Trump’s biggest backer on television, has said this is entertainment for him: “I am a counterpuncher,” he told one Twitter user who asked why he was so antagonistic. “I do not start fights but I finish them. This is pure entertainment for me. If people take cheap shots I hit back.”

Still, Hannity’s version of entertainment can go too far. Last year, after ending one of his many spirited on-air arguments with liberal contributor Juan Williams, Hannity pulled out a gun and pointed it directly at Williams, according to three sources with knowledge of the incident. He even turned on the laser sight, causing a red dot to bob around on Williams’ body. (Hannity was just showing off, the sources said, but the unforeseen off-camera antic clearly disturbed Williams and others on set.)

So is this true? And did the author, Dylan Byers, go directly to the first-hand source, Juan Williams himself? I would have. I’m certain you would have. I was a journalist at one time in my callow youth, working for McClatchy Broadcasting and also stringing as a photographer for the Sacramento Bee.

Williams issued a statement. Hannity issued a statement. But as a CNN journalist or, hell, any journalist in general, wouldn’t you want to get a statement yourself directly from the sources involved? Who knows what you’d get?

Because, after all, what an amazing “get” it would be to have Hannity refuse to make a comment and, simultaneously, after a bit of time had passed, Juan Williams decide to actually open up to you. An admission. Perhaps a confession.

But no. CNN is just pleased as punch that Mr Byers stopped being inquisitive. As George Bush was accused of, so possesses, apparently, Mr Byers. An incurious mind.

But wait; there’s more. From Breitbart.com, I found these copies of associated Tweets.

These are the Tweets written by Juan Williams.

Williams refutes the nature of the incident. Further, this is Juan Williams supporting and defending Sean Hannity.

If it were true that Hannity pulled a gun on Juan Williams as alleged, after all, how grand would it be to have Williams completely confirm the story of Dylan Byers, tell all that he was forced to support Hannity by the Fox administration if he wished to keep his job, and then leave Fox News for refusing to play along?

Trust me: it would make Juan Williams the new darling of Leftists, Demorats and the American Media Maggots nationally. The story would be covered for weeks, non-stop.

Williams would be able to name his network, name his show and name his salary.

But it didn’t go that way.

Why not?



Media lies again: Trump did not remove MLK bust from Oval Office

The bust of Winston Churchill rests on the table at left.

I documented yesterday how the American Media Maggots — specifically CNN — the very day of Donald Trump’s inauguration, lied twice to the public. You can read the post, I won’t re-hash the situation.

The very next day the lies commenced once more, this time via Time magazine. From Breitbart.com:

FAKE NEWS on Day One: Spicer Scolds Press for TIME Reporter’s False Martin Luther King Bust Story

by Jerome Hudson

White House press secretary, Sean Spicer, scoldedTIME magazine White House pool reporter Zeke Miller on Friday for falsely reporting that the Martin Luther King Jr. bust had been removed from the Oval Office after President Donald Trump moved in.

Miller had initially tweeted Friday that the MLK Jr. bust, which then-President Obama put in the Oval Office after removing a bust of former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill in 2009, had been removed from the Oval Office.

Certainly an interesting and salacious news story, one that should have resonated throughout the cosmos with an undeniably-attractive theme that the American Media Maggots want desperately to be true: Donald Trump is so overtly racist that he couldn’t wait even one day to exhibit his true colors.

Please watch the Sean Spicer briefing.

One problem: it was incorrect. Fake news. Zeke Miller at least had the stones to admit his mistake; I thank him for that.

Concurrently, what Mr Obama has done, President Trump is undoing. That would also include returning the bust of Sir Winston Churchill to the Oval Office. The bust was a gift to President George Bush in 2001. Obama removed the British gift from his sight directly after he was inaugurated in 2009, as he was raised to believe the British were repressive colonialists and imperialists responsible for the persecution and subjugation of his grandfather, Hussein Onyango Obama.

A final note with regard to President Trump’s undoing of some of Mr Obama’s inclinations. It is no secret that Trump has said he will begin cutting budgets in various federal departments. Two of those departments are grand favorites of Hollywood Leftists everywhere: the National Endowment for the Arts, and the National Endowment for the Humanities.

The plan is to eliminate them wholesale.