As Rubio left Miami’s Freedom Tower earlier in the day after rehearsing his speech, O’Donnell could be heard shouting: “Senator, you’re the youngest candidate. Are you prepared to be president, sir?”
“Why don’t we ask the DNC: Is it okay to kill a seven-pound baby in the uterus? You go back and you ask Debbie Wasserman Schultz if she’s OK with killing a seven-pound baby that is not born yet. Ask her when life begins, and you ask Debbie when it’s okay to protect life. When you get an answer from Debbie, get back to me.”
Republicans are grilled about abortion constantly by the MFM; it’s the media arm of the DNC’s way of providing grist for the mills of other Democrat activists to generate attacks against them. It’s why Democrat Media Operative George Snuffleupagus asked an inane question about contraception at a Republican debate so that his other Democrat operatives could set up the narrative that Republicans want to “deny women access to contraception” (and tampons) that many, many stupid women fell for and so voted Democrat.
The Democrat Party’s official position on abortion, according to DNC Chairhead Debbie Wasserman-Schulz is “No restrictions at all.” “Period.”
This means abortion is legal right up to the moment the foetus exits the birth canal; passage through which magically changes an undifferentiated mass of cells into a human baby eligible for welfare, according to Democrats.
This means abortion is legal for sex-selection, for disposing of a baby who is at risk of turning gay, or for organ harvesting. All legal. No restrictions means no restrictions.
This means that Planned Parenthood’s policy of not reporting the adult rapists of underage girls to law enforcement.
It means taxpayer dollars pay for late term abortions, sex selection abortions, gay abortions, and all the rest of it.
But don’t expect the Democrat Media Operatives in the MFM to ever press their Political Counterparts on those facts.
The MFM have no interest in hunting down Hillary Clintons magical disappearing emails and no interest in getting access to Emperor Obama’s college records… yet they can dig up Jeb Bush’s voting Registration from 2009 and do an in-depth examination on Scott Walker’s purchase of a sweater from Kohl’s.
Can anyone really make a case that the MFM are not Democrat operatives with bylines?
Derangement has become the default state of the left, so it’s little surprise that the left-wing media is in full derangement mode over the possible candidacy of Republican Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker. (So, apparently, is one of the losers who steered Landslide McCain’s disastrous campaign straight into the ground.)
The deranged left-wing feminist site Jezebel published a smear-piece on Scott Walker, claiming he was going to make it illegal for colleges to report rapes and sexual assaults, (reminds one of the lie that Mitt Romney was going to outlaw tampons).
the Daily Beast and the Huffington Post, the latter of which is still flogging it. NARAL and a dingbat feminist coven known as the “Women’s Media Center” also promoted the story after it was revealed to be completely false.
This is what you can expect when the media become the PR wing of one political party; there is no downside to publishing a false hit-piece on a politician whom the party wishes to destroy.
Did you guess “Racism?” Of course it’s “Racism.” With the New York Times, all criticism of Obama is always racism.
When Rudolph Giuliani said that he does “not believe that the president loves America,” he became the latest in a long line of public figures to question the loyalty or allegiance of the country’s first nonwhite president. While these criticisms are ostensibly directed at Barack Obama’s worldview, as Mr. Giuliani later said, they appear to reflect — or exploit — the tendency to associate being American with being white.
The Telegraph is a respected, conservative British paper. Except, according to ex-employee Peter Oborne, it has been going downhill – along with the rest of the media:
It is not only the Telegraph that is at fault here. The past few years have seen the rise of shadowy executives who determine what truths can and what truths can’t be conveyed across the mainstream media.
Oborne’s thought-provoking piece contains much more; I enjoyed (though was saddened by) Reading The Whole Thing. Hat tip: ZH.
MSDNC — the network solely that exists to cheerlead for Obama and attack anyone who disagrees with his policies as a racist — is experiencing its lowest ratings in a decade. No one… no one… takes MSDNC seriously as a news network, and when one of your leading hosts asks the Attorney General of the United States to quack like a duck, it is easy to see why that is.
But the point of MSDNC is not to get ratings, deliver the news, or even make money. It exists so that Comcast can ingratiate itself with the Democrat Party and receive favorable regulatory treatment.
Meanwhile, Glee, a program that exists solely to glorify gayness and attack middle American values, is also scraping the bottom of the ratings barrel as American viewing audiences grow thoroughly tired of its schtick. Although, to be honest, Glee was never really popular in the mainstream, but only among social progressives who thought it had a Very Important Lesson(TM) for middle America. See also, Girls.
The audience of people who want to be lectured at by smug, head-tilty leftists is much smaller than the progressive left would like it to be; and consists mainly of other smug, head-tilty leftists having their prejudices reaffirmed and who presume the preaching is aimed at others.
Since 1939, France has had the kind of “Common Sense Gun Control Laws” that groups financed by Mike Bloomberg claim to favor (although the laws don’t go far enough, in their view, because they still permit a small number of private citizens to own firearms.) The editorialists at the Washington Post are baffled why France’s strict gun laws failed to prevent the Charlie Hebdo massacre.
A genuinely troubling question: Why didn’t France’s gun laws save the Charlie Hebdo victims?
There is no right to bear arms for the French, and to own a gun, you need a hunting or sporting license which needs to be repeatedly renewed and requires a psychological evaluation.
You mean the Mohammedan terrorists refused to apply for gun permits or sit for psychological valuations, but decided to get guns anyway? Jamais dans la vie!
Even a dumb hick from flyover country could explain why gun control laws fail; because criminals and terrorists don’t obey gun laws. But the leftists at the Washington Post clearly are too educated to understand that.
The story of the Gang Rape of a woman named Jackie at a fraternity at the University of Virginia in 2012 is partially true. The supposed victim was a female student at the University of Virginia in 2012. Every other part of the story seems to be a complete fabrication.
The Progressive Left is not backing down, still defending the story as, essentially, “fake but accurate.” To quote an editorial in the Washington Post:
This is what we mean in America when we say someone is “innocent until proven guilty.” After all, look what happened to the Duke lacrosse players.
In important ways, this is wrong. We should believe, as a matter of default, what an accuser says. … Because Rape Culture is real.
“Rape Culture” being the name for the Narrative that the UVa story was made up to fit.
The Progressive Left, except for a few out-liars, have quietly begun abandoning defense of the story. They have resorted to the tactic of attacking those who were skeptical of the story. They are claiming that anyone who doesn’t support the notion that rapists are guilty until proven innocent, or who suggests that stories like Jackie’s should be subject to scrupulous fact-checking… is that right-wingers want to deny that rape exists.
mindset emerging on the right that because rolling stone royally effed up, all rape allegations can be ignored is super dangerous
Who on the right is saying this? Nobody, that’s who, but there is no one left but Straw men to defend the Progressive argument. When defending a lie, it’s always easiest to recruit volunteers from the voices-in-your-head.
One should very properly be skeptical when a story in the MFM fits into a left-wing narrative like the costume of a comic-book superhero.
This Washington Post article is everywhere today, and with good reason. I just want to catch up anyone who may have missed it.
It appears that the fakery we’ve been discussing in the Rolling Stone / U-Va rape case is worse than we thought, and may have come from both “Jackie” (the alleged rape victim) and Sabrina Rubin Erdely (the Rolling Stone writer who turns out to be a past writing associate of the infamous fabulist, Stephen Glass).
First, a bit about Jackie’s seeming fakery. Going by the WaPo article, it’s possible that she invented her admirer “Drew”, whom Rolling Stone identified as her rapist:
Jackie told her three friends that she accepted the upperclassman’s invitation for a dinner date on Friday, Sept. 28, 2012.
Curious about Jackie’s date, the friends said that they tried to find the student on a U-Va. database and social media but couldn’t. Andy, Cindy and Randall all said they never met the student in person. Before Jackie’s date, the friends became suspicious that perhaps they hadn’t really been in contact with the chemistry student [via text messages to "his" number which Jackie had given the friends] at all, they said.
U-Va. officials told The Post that no student with the name Jackie provided to her friends as her date and attacker in 2012 had ever enrolled at the university.
Randall provided The Post with pictures that Jackie’s purported date had sent of himself by text message in 2012. The Post identified the person in the pictures and learned that his name does not match the one Jackie gave friends in 2012. In an interview, the man said he was Jackie’s high school classmate but “never really spoke to her.”
The man said he was never a U-Va. student and is not a member of any fraternity. Additionally, he said that he had not visited Charlottesville in at least six years and that he was in another state participating in an athletic event during the weekend of Sept. 28, 2012.
“I have nothing to do with it,” he said. He said it appears that the circulated photos were pulled from social media Web sites.
The WaPo article covers much other ground, including tidbits such as Erdely having painted Jackie’s friends as callous and as having refused Erdely’s interview requests, while the friends say that they had always encouraged Jackie to report her rape story to the police and that Erdely never made the slightest effort to interview any of them.
It looks as though 2 troubled women, acting somewhat separately (or deceiving each other), managed between them to cook up a fraternity-blaming hoax that liberals rushed to believe because it fit liberals’ prejudices. Or as V says, because it fit The Narrative that liberals are out to push. Get this:
U-Va. President Teresa A. Sullivan…wants the university community to focus on prevention of sexual assault.
That may be good, but perhaps Sullivan should have the U-Va. community also focus on *prevention of hoaxes and/or witch hunts* that only punish scads of innocent U-Va. students.
UPDATE: A link to Erdely putting down Stephen Glass. Your daily dose of irony.
Jeff’s post on St. Matthew of Wyoming got me to thinking about narratives, and how the MFM is incapable of covering stories that don’t fit the narratives they believe in.
In the Matthew Shepard case, the story went national because it fit a progressive narrative: the one that goes “Red state America is filled with bigots who hate and murder gays.” The near simultaneous rape and murder of thirteen year old Jesse Dirkhising by two gay men in Arkansas was not national news; because there is no narrative that permits gay men to be portrayed as sexual predators.
We see the same thing with the national coverage of the deaths of Mike Brown and Eric Garner. These stories are not only covered because of The Narrative, but have to be carefully shaded to fit The Narrative that racist cops kill young black men with impunity because America is a racist country where black lives don’t matter. Meanwhile, three white cops have been indicted over the last four months for shooting unarmed black men — in red southern South Carolina — but this is not worthy of wall-to-wall national media attention because it doesn’t fit the Narrative. (It will become newsworthy only if they are acquitted.)
And then, there is the University of Virginia gang-rape story, which has since been revealed to be a hoax (probably), but which gained national attention because, like the Duke lacrosse case before it, it fit a feminist-promoted Narrative of colleges as rape zones where privileged white males ran amok. In 2013, a thirteen year old girl was gang-raped by illegal immigrants. But The Narrative insists that illegal immigrants are victims, not perpetrators, so that story was not covered by the national media.
Above all the other Narratives is the one the progressive left believes above all the others; that middle America is bigoted, hateful, and potentially violent. For that reason, negative stories about gays, illegal immigrants, or Muslims must be suppressed; lest Middle Americans pause from raping their sister-cousins, pick up their AR-15′s, and begin shooting everybody who talks with a lisp or whose skin is more than a shade darker than Katy Perry from the backs of their pick-ups.
To paraphrase Joe Goebbels, the progressive left believes that if they create a Narrative and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. But The Narrative can be maintained only for such time as the Media-Government complex can shield the people from its political and economic consequences. It thus becomes vitally important for the Media-Government complex to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of The Narrative, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the Media-Government complex.
This last is why the Media-Government complex is so quick to attack those who dissent from the narrative as “Deniers.”
Was it “Fake but accurate”? Or just fake? You decide. Rolling Stone’s apology, via Ace:
To Our Readers:
Last month, Rolling Stone published a story titled “A Rape on Campus” by Sabrina Rubin Erdely, which described a brutal gang rape of a woman named Jackie at a University of Virginia fraternity house; the university’s failure to respond to this alleged assault – and the school’s troubling history of indifference to many other instances of alleged sexual assaults. The story generated worldwide headlines and much soul-searching at UVA. University president Teresa Sullivan promised a full investigation and also to examine the way the school responds to sexual assault allegations.
Because of the sensitive nature of Jackie’s story, we decided to honor her request not to contact the man she claimed orchestrated the attack on her nor any of the men she claimed participated in the attack for fear of retaliation against her. In the months Erdely spent reporting the story, Jackie neither said nor did anything that made Erdely, or Rolling Stone’s editors and fact-checkers, question Jackie’s credibility. Her friends and rape activists on campus strongly supported Jackie’s account. She had spoken of the assault in campus forums. We reached out to both the local branch and the national leadership of the fraternity where Jackie said she was attacked. They responded that they couldn’t confirm or deny her story but had concerns about the evidence.
In the face of new information, there now appear to be discrepancies in Jackie’s account, and we have come to the conclusion that our trust in her was misplaced. We were trying to be sensitive to the unfair shame and humiliation many women feel after a sexual assault and now regret the decision to not contact the alleged assaulters to get their account. We are taking this seriously and apologize to anyone who was affected by the story.
Emphasis added. Once again, let’s underscore that Rolling Stone originally published their inflammatory story with zero attempt to check with the accused men. The accused fraternity is preparing to defend itself. Meanwhile, the media give minimal scrutiny to actual rapists – if they’re Democrats.
From the comments: Left-wing feminists go full-meltdown over losing The Narrative. SooperMexican has many examples of jaw-dropping Twitter illogic from Sally Kohn, Amanda Marcotte and others.
I simply must comment on one of the examples. Amanda Marcotte said “What I don’t get is if rape apologists are so sure rapes are hoaxes, why oppose investigating them and getting out that fact?” That’s mind-blowing revisionism, Amanda. The skeptics’ point was that we SHOULD investigate the UVa rape charges, thoroughly. Left-wing feminists had abandoned the duty to investigate.
One more: Melissa McEwan tweeted “I can’t state this more emphatically: If Jackie’s story is partially or wholly untrue, it doesn’t validate the reasons for disbelieving her.” Melissa, I can’t state this more emphatically: Your tweet is psychotic. The reason one would believe or disbelieve Jackie is PRECISELY IF her story happens to be true or untrue. So, the reasons for disbelieving Jackie are BY DEFINITION validated, if it turns out that Jackie’s story is partially or wholly untrue.
Update: In today’s world of smug fake-apologies, let’s give credit when we see a genuine apology. Anna Merlan wrote, “when I dismissed Richard Bradley and Robby Soave’s doubts about the story and called them ‘idiots’ for picking apart Jackie’s account, I was dead f*cking wrong, and for that I sincerely apologize.” Kudos!
If it isn’t Michael Brown or Elizabeth Lauten, it’s Eric Garner(*) or Trayvon Martin or some other media frenzy. In other words, our media “treats” us to a series of frenzies; frenzies that are stupid because – apart from many of the media claims dissolving under scrutiny – there are more important things for the nation to notice.
I’m beginning to think it’s deliberate. For one thing, over the years I’ve seen how the frenzies get nourished (or prevented) by various political fixers, special interests and even government agencies. For another thing, it’s common sense: if the phrase “powerful people” means anything, then certain people have the power to promote (or block) certain media stories to suit their interests.
Finally, whenever you’re confronted with vicious nonsense, you should ask the question “Who benefits?” And again, the series of stupid frenzies does a job: it blots out public notice and discussion of nationally-important topics. It especially blots out discussion of the scandals/failures of the Obama administration.
And that could be Gruber, the IRS scandal, Obamacare, the NSA’s blanket/warrantless spying, Fast and Furious, vote fraud, unconstitutional rule-by-decree, or any number of failures (Iraq/ISIS) for which a Republican president would be crucified. But I think the most glaring problem where President Obama needs a distraction is: his terrible economy.
And now for a little news on the economy. Black Friday retail sales were a disaster by conventional measures. According to the National Retail Federation, sales during the four-day Thanksgiving holiday period plunged by 11% (from $57.4 billion a year ago, to $50.9 billion).
NRF’s CEO Matt Shay offered an absurd explanation – he claimed that sales were down because of (1) Teh Interwebs and (2) an improving economy:
He also attributed the declines to better online offerings and an improving economy where “people don’t feel the same psychological need to rush out and get the great deal that weekend, particularly if they expected to be more deals,” he said.
But Cyber Monday was also weak. And Shay implies that, if sales had not declined (or had even been up), that would have been a sign of a *bad* economy…Riiiiiiiight.
A more sensible explanation is that Americans have less money to spend, because they are struggling to cover basic necessities:
…the Journal analyzed Labor Department data on 2013 out-of-pocket spending for the middle 60% of the population by income — households earning between about $18,000 and $95,000 a year, before taxes.
The data show they are losing ground. Overall spending for the group rose by about 2.3% over the six-year period from 2007, even as inflation totaled about 12%. At the same time, income for the group stagnated, rising less than half a percent…
There it is. The WSJ analysis did not look at 2014, but I can assure you, trends continued in 2014 (aside from our very recent decline in oil/gas prices). In Obama’s bad economy, people struggle more than ever just to cover food, rent and health care: (more…)
V’s post about the fakeness of the feminist “College is a Rape Zone” narrative is spot-on. Having said that: Assaults on women do happen and let’s look at one, recent, compare-and-contrast example of the media’s coverage.
- Obscure Congressional GOP staffer, Elizabeth Lauten, happens to notice on Facebook that Obama’s daughters roll their eyes way much: The media makes Lauten into a national crisis, even posting vans outside her parents’ house.
- Obscure Congressional Democrat staffer, Donny Ray Williams Jr., actually drugs and rapes women: No national crisis. Bare-bones media coverage of him.
It seems to me that, if the feminists really want to publicize the problem of assaults on women and/or to attack institutions that would demean women by their silence on such assaults, they could start by attacking the mainstream and/or left-wing media for its Democrat-rapist-protecting, crazy-double standards.
And if the media were a kitty, she’d say:
I guess that’s one way of looking at it.
Courtesy of ZH, a picture is worth a thousand words:
Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping stand together – away from President Obama.
Other news: Jonathan Gruber, Obamacare’s architect, brags about voter “stupidity” (his word) and how excellently he exploited it:
The conservative group American Commitment posted Jonathan Gruber’s remarks, reportedly from an Oct. 17, 2013, event, on YouTube.
“Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage,” says the MIT economist who helped write Obamacare. “And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical for the thing to pass.”
Ed Morrissey’s piece gives you the video, and Ed adds:
Gruber goes a little farther than that. He tells the crowd that the bill was written to fake out the CBO — which is the Congress’ own analytical group. “This bill was written in a tortured way to make sure CBO did not score the mandate as taxes,” Gruber tells the audience with a smile. “If CBO scores the mandate as taxes, the bill dies.”…
Democrats insisted that CBO’s initial scoring showed that the bill was deficit-neutral in its first ten years, thanks to…dodges like trawling revenue before making outlays a few years later. How much else did Democrats lie to get that initially positive scoring? How much else are Democrats still hiding about the ACA and the HHS implementation of it?
And now HHS tells us that they’re projecting Obamacare’s 2015 enrollment to be kind of a failure.
Last, but not least: Yes, the media helped Obama cover up his flailing on Benghazi.
The day after the Benghazi attack, Obama gave an interview to Steve Kroft of 60 Minutes (CBS) where he pointedly refused to call the attack terrorism. But later, in a debate with Mitt Romney, Obama claimed that he had always been prompt in calling it terrorism. Obama spoke falsely. And CBS helped him, by hiding the relevant interview clip – until after the election.
UPDATE: A report that when Democrat senators need to know White House plans or positions, they ask MSNBC. (Which shows Obama’s isolation, as well as MSNBC’s deep subservience to the White House.) Via Citizens News.
When video of Ray Rice punching and then dragging his fiancé around on the floor was released, CNN’s Carol Costello justifiably called it “disturbing” and “insane.” But when Costello played the audio of a different woman recounting a similar horrifying experience of being assaulted and dragged around by a man, she told her audience: “Sit back and enjoy.”
The difference? The woman in question happened to be the daughter of favorite liberal hate object and former Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin.
On Wednesday, Costello even teased the audio on her twitter feed at 9:45am: “This is quite possibly the best minute and half of audio we’ve come across in a long long time.” #PalinBrawl.
And after several rounds of criticism, Costello finally offered a weak pseudo-apology in the subjunctive tense, “I would like to apologize,” she said.
A rational person might wonder, why is the left wing still so obsessed with Sarah Palin so many years later? Why does it even matter.
It matters, because the left wants to make an example of Sarah Palin as a warning to any other conservative Republican woman who might seek high office in the future. It’s a warning, “If you don’t mind your place, missy, we will destroy you and attack your family for years to come.”
That’s why they keep doing it.
The Rolling Stone – that magazine that was relevant back in the boomer era - has a cover story out to convince its audience of aging hipsters that Obama is awesome. Obama toady Paul Krugman looks at the trillions of dollars in debt racked up under Obama’s stewardship, the anemic economy, the record number of Americans on food stamps, and concludes …”This is what a successful presidency looks like.”
So, if the Obama presidency is “successful,” does that mean he meant to tank the economy, destroy America’s international reputation, accelerate the growing distrust of people for their Government, and exacerbate inter-racial tensions?
The formerly reputable news network CNN picked up on the Rolling Stone piece, and asked “Is Obama one of the best presidents.” They concluded, yeah, President Boyfriend is pretty awesome.
The MFM is trying to stick up for their beloved trophy president as a response to recent reports that Obama is now toxic to his own party. Kentucky Democrat senate candidate Alison Grimes pointedly refused to answer where she had even voted for Obama for president.
And the MFM is totes horrified at the apostate for not proudly proclaiming her vote for the Lightworker. Chuck Todd at NBC (a wholly owned subsidiary of DNC, Inc.) has declared that, for the crime of disrespecting the president, Grimes is dead to him. “If you can’t find a way to stand behind your party’s president, you can disagree with him but can’t answer that basic question and come across looking ridiculous. I think she disqualified herself.”
By which he means, “Disqualified herself from getting any more support from me and the rest of the Obama Kneepads Fluffer Club.”
Update (from Jeff): Fixed the video link, hope it works now.
I come across items from time to time, of which I don’t know what to make. Conspiracy theorists make something of them. Not tending to be one, I file them in the back of my mind and await more information.
The latest is, a prominent German journalist discussing how intelligence agencies manage the media, whether by perks, bribes, help in writing stories (which are thus ‘planted’ stories), or harassment and retaliation on journalists who don’t co-operate. The implication is that our biased media is managed, not only by the political Left, but by the U.S. and other governments.
Another is this year’s spate of deaths among mid-level bankers (previously mentioned here). Most of them are officially suicides, but it’s an odd cluster; the more so as the last few years have been great for the financial sector. Whether these deaths are murders (to cover up something) or genuine suicides by the despondent, either way they would suggest a banking system much worse off than is generally believed.
Finally, there’s this chart:
The first implication is that, while the Taliban’s rule of Afghanistan in 2001 was repressive, at least they shut down heroin production. The darker-minded might also suggest that wealthy narcotics interests (and by extension, banking interests?) were particularly offended by the Taliban and eager to see them go. Which, if true, could make Afghanistan at least partly (apart from the al Qaeda/9-11 aspect) a modern-day Opium War.
P.S. If you want to help make sense of any of these in the comments, be my guest!