Lion of the Blogosphere

Biased mainstream media reports that 46 prosecutors fired

NY Times reported and so did every other mainstream news organization. This is an example of a biased news story. Obama also fired the Bush-era prosecutors, but there was never a big headline story.

On March 11, 2009, the only Obama story on the front page shows an angelic picture of Obama with the caption “A Call for a New Education Policy”

In contrast, today’s paper has two other Trump-related stories in addition to the 46 prosecutors being fired, both of them also with a negative tone to them.

“Even Before the Wall, Migrants Find the U.S. Forbidding”

“Michael Flynn Was Paid to Represent Turkey’s Interests During Trump Campaign”

The NY Times is completely incapable of being anything but negative negative negative on Trump.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

March 11, 2017 at 2:07 pm

Posted in Uncategorized

75 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Bush’s firing of US prosecutors set of a two year long “scandal.” Did Bush fire these US attorney’s because of political reasons? Why yes, they’re political appointments, and they were refusing to prosecute voter fraud cases. Obama however, had no problem firing them. I’m sure The New York Times just regarded that as taking out the trash.

    Mike Street Station

    March 11, 2017 at 2:14 pm

    • Voter fraud was rampant in the 2004 Washington State gubernatorial election when 1500 invalid ballots were mysteriously introduced into the ballot stream in King County, ballots that had been locked away behind a cage accessible only to election workers (most hired by Ron Sims, onetime Obama appointment) yet somehow migrated to the ‘valid’ ballots cage. This was during an election that was decided by approx 100 or so ballots and King County had an R-D ballot distribution split of 30-70. Those 1500 ballots easily won the election for the Ds.

      An election challenge went to court (pursued by the R party) where a ruling that it was impossible to determine whether that 30-70 split could be applied to the 1500 ballots, and therefore determine the election hopelessly flawed, was reported by the lying press as proof there was no fraud. The US AG for Washington (an R appointee) had ambitions, some say, for a judgeship which would have required support from the Democrat senatorial delegation. He did nothing at all to investigate, apparently putting his personal ambitions ahead of fighting crime. He’s since shown his real self as a Lowell Weicker type pushing marijuana legalization and being the go-to Republican who criticizes his own party to make Ds feel superior. Here’s a fawning article about him in a Seattle Left wing rag. http://archive.seattleweekly.com/2011-09-28/news/the-evolution-of-john-mckay/

      Curle

      March 11, 2017 at 7:13 pm

    • The NY Times is completely incapable of being anything but negative negative negative on Trump.

      According to the Times Trump ruined the Batchelor ttv show for this poor old lady.

      “[I]n a post-Trump world, it doesn’t feel entertaining. Or maybe it’s that I don’t think I can allow myself the luxury of escape…”

      Sad.

      Rifleman

      March 12, 2017 at 8:07 am

  2. And then they hate him a little bit extra for refusing to roll over and accept their authorita. It’s positively un-American to not just give up and let the media compare you to Hitler!

    Greg Pandatshang

    March 11, 2017 at 2:32 pm

  3. Every administration replaces US Attorneys appointed by the previous administration. For the NYTimes to portray this as anything but standard demonstrates beyond any doubt that they’re a propaganda mill. And this isn’t the first time they’ve pulled this crap either. Every time a GOP president does it they scream. But when a Dem president does it all you hear is crickets.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S._attorneys_controversy#Issues_in_brief

    By tradition, U.S. Attorneys are replaced only at the start of a new White House administration. U.S. Attorneys hold a “political” office, and therefore they are considered to “serve at the pleasure of the President.” At the beginning of a new presidential administration, it is traditional for all 93 U.S. Attorneys to submit a letter of resignation. When a new President is from a different political party, almost all of the resignations will be eventually accepted.[11] The attorneys are then replaced by new political appointees, typically from the new President’s party.[12][12][13] Despite this, their political impartiality in deciding which cases to prosecute and in arguing those cases before judges and juries with diverse views is essential.[14]

    destructure

    March 11, 2017 at 2:53 pm

  4. Never, ever let the liberals in your life forget that the first president to fire all the US Attorneys was “Slick” William Jefferson Clinton. It was the beginning of a precedent that each successive person to hold the office has maintained.

    Two in the Bush

    March 11, 2017 at 3:02 pm

    • Good point. Clinton fired all 93 US attorneys, including Charles A. Banks, of the Eastern District of Arkansas, who was involved in investigating the misdeeds of the Clintons in that state. Some say the mass firings were just cover for getting rid of Banks. In any event, US attorneys are political appointees and are routinely replaced when an administration of the other party takes power.

      Black Death

      March 12, 2017 at 4:10 pm

  5. OT: Everyone knows there’s a struggle to influence trade policies. The globalists want free trade and the nationalists want protectionism. It’s still too early to tell what’s really going on. But this article suggests the globalists from Goldman Sachs, Wall Street, etc may be gaining ground.

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-03-10/civil-war-breaks-out-white-house-over-trade

    Some may be tempted to bash Trump. I would cut him some slack and wait and see. Since piling on a president who’s caught in a squeeze will only undermine him and shoot ourselves i the foot. I’d also point out the enormity of the forces arrayed against him on trade i.e. the entire Democrat party, the GOP establishment, the TruCon libertarian faction of the Republican base, the entire business community and the msm as well as most foreign countries. About the only people backing him on trade are the trade unions, working class and some of the middle class. And none of those can match the money or influence of the opposition. We’ve already seen how nasty they’re willing to be to get their way. This only goes to show that even when you have a president who wants what we want it’s extremely difficult to overcome those who don’t. If he’s not able to get his way then I’ll be disappointed, If it’s a betrayal then I’ll be furious. But I think he’s already shown tremendous good faith in trying to fulfill his promises. So I won’t hold it against him if he’s forced to do something against his will. Sometimes that’s just the political reality.

    destructure

    March 11, 2017 at 3:20 pm

    • Agree w/you on the big picture in this, and the NY Times sucks, yeah, yeah, BUT do you think Bharara was fired because of the globalists? He’s a good guy.

      (Note, I never had a problem using the coinage, “cuck,” but “globalist” sticks in my craw a bit. Even so I can’t think of a better word. Just saying.)

      gothamette

      March 11, 2017 at 3:55 pm

      • The Schumer connection bothers me more than that.

        BTW there was a link at Reason to an article about what terrible things Trump is doing to the Republican party (like making people enthusiastic, giving people hope, and stuff).

        Libertarians. Sigh.

        gothamette

        March 12, 2017 at 8:18 am

      • I just looked it up and do you know what Bharara was doing before Obama appointed him? He was one of Schumer’s staffers! Schumer was the one who got Obama to appoint him. It doesn’t matter how good a job he was doing. That guy had to go.

        destructure

        March 11, 2017 at 6:50 pm

      • I knew he was a Democrat, but I didn’t know that he was a Schumerite. Yeah, had to go.

        When is the Weiner hearing coming up? Here’s what I want to know. We never saw one of Hillary’s emails, which of course were all about yoga and weddings.* But didn’t they end up on Weiner’s faptop? Will we finally get to read the yoga emails?

        *I can never, and I mean, ever get over Hillary’s complete and utter annoyingness. She’s supposed to be Wonder Woman, and yet she tries to squirm out of accountability by fluttering her eyelashes and claiming her emails were about feminine things like yoga, and weddings. Barf. Why didn’t she mention makeup tips?

        gothamette

        March 12, 2017 at 8:16 am

      • What did Boohaha really do when he was the DA for the Southern District of NY? He was in close proximity to these “parasites” on Wall St.

        JS

        March 11, 2017 at 7:12 pm

      • He’s a good guy.

        Probably wishful thinking.

        Rifleman

        March 12, 2017 at 8:09 am

      • “What did Boohaha really do when he was the DA for the Southern District of NY? He was in close proximity to these “parasites” on Wall St.”

        I had to wonder that myself after hearing him lavishly praised on NPR by the author of a new book called “Wall Street Matters,” which its publisher’s website heralds as “a timely, counterintuitive defense of Wall Street and the big banks as the invisible—albeit flawed—engines that power our ideas.”

        Richard

        March 12, 2017 at 10:54 am

      • He put a lot of Wall Street malefactors in jail. OK, that was his job. But he did it.

        gothamette

        March 12, 2017 at 9:20 pm

      • Google News won’t shut up about Preet Bharara. He’s apparently the most important person in the country, I guess.

        Greg Pandatshang

        March 12, 2017 at 9:51 pm

      • Google News won’t shut up about Preet Bharara. He’s apparently the most important person in the country, I guess.

        Google is loaded with Indians so maybe they see Preet as “one of their own” and are outraged that he was fired.

        Rifleman

        March 12, 2017 at 11:07 pm

      • I know. Enough already, he’s history.

        Look on the bright side. There’s no news for them to report, so they fill it up with garbage like this.

        Meanwhile real things are going on like Rotterdam and the Turkey constitution but the only thing they can write about is Bharara.

        Some Indians hated him. India is a religion and caste divided country and they take those divisions with them.

        gothamette

        March 13, 2017 at 2:15 pm

      • Wall St should be reigned in totality.

        America needs to set laws to prevent value transference parasites from sucking more than they deserve. It’s call salary caps in laymen terms.

        However, you must take care of the foxes (our DC politicos), before you take care of the fleas!

        JS

        March 12, 2017 at 11:36 pm

      • Wow miracles occur. I agree w/JS.

        gothamette

        March 13, 2017 at 2:15 pm

      • American employers suck anyway. They really do. I have a few American friends who work in the states and are lucky to work for French, German or Spanish employers, and not the typical prole company with 2 wks off and a 40+ hr work/wk, and a meager salary relative to their hours vested.

        Now that Americans are out of money and the consumption fix have stopped, I expect many of them to get sick from being bored. You can literally die from boredom and loneliness.

        JS

        March 13, 2017 at 11:43 pm

      • It’s true.

        gothamette

        March 14, 2017 at 11:16 am

    • Bharara may well be a good guy. But it’s irrelevant. US Attorneys are a political appointment. You wouldn’t expect Trump to keep Obama’s old Attorney General and Secretary of State would you? He’s also a close friend and ally of Schumer. They go way back. He’s also foreign born and likely has deep objections to Trump’s trademark policies on immigration and trade. Moreover, he’s US Attorney for the Southern District of New York. An incredibly important position given it contains the financial center of the country. And a lot of Trump’s policies will affect those in finance. There’s no way Trump could allow him to remain in that position. He had to go. That he refused to resign and throwing a stink now only shows it was the right choice.

      Some terms and phrases irritate me, too. Usually because I dislike the type of people I associate with using them. But I don’t mind the term “globalist”. I just wish there was a more insulting epithet for them.

      destructure

      March 11, 2017 at 6:46 pm

      • ” But I don’t mind the term “globalist”. I just wish there was a more insulting epithet for them.”

        How about “transie” or “transnationalist” ? Obama was a transie.

        Joe

        March 12, 2017 at 1:05 am

      • ‘But I don’t mind the term “globalist”. I just wish there was a more insulting epithet for them.’

        The Vampire Squid.

        Or I just use the long-form, “Globalist nation wreckers,” because that’s what they are.

        peterike

        March 12, 2017 at 10:39 am

      • Is “globalist” really accurate? If they are loyal only to other members of the global elite, yes. But I wonder if even that’s true. I just think they want to make money, and they have no further ideas than that.

        Is Buffett a globalist? Strikes me he’s very Omaha. I think he’s got a pad in San Fran, and doubtless something in NYC, but I think he’s still based on Omaha. Based in the old fashioned sense of the word.

        But he’s with the globalists in every meaningful way.

        gothamette

        March 12, 2017 at 11:10 am

      • But I wonder if even that’s true. I just think they want to make money, and they have no further ideas than that.

        Technocrat or Dictatorial Sociologists/Bureaucrats are the correct terms because the Civil Servant class is the class they want installed in power.

        Soviet style Socialism is extinct because it was Proletarian Socialism:

        https://pragmaticallydistributed.wordpress.com/2017/02/07/how-comte-overthrew-marx-part-ii/

        But Proletarian Socialism never fully took root in Protestant Europe or the Anglo diaspora. The Protestant tradition (especially the Anglo-Saxon tradition) of property rights left their proles unwilling to gamble their expanding wealth with full scale revolution. They did, however, respond well to Communist rhetoric if for no other reason than the leaders of proletarian revolution looked like themselves – if you can’t trust yourself to be dictator who can you trust?

        Both moderate Socialist parties and Technocrats that co-opted radical Proletarian slogans were the preferred parties of working class Protestants. The electoral gains of truly Communist and radical Proletarian parties with Protestant workers was negligible.

        For elite Protestant Liberals the debate about industry took place within the context of an abundance of wealth and rapid technological innovation. Because prosperity (although not universal) and science were widespread the question for the establishment Left centered more around how to manage wealth and technology than nationalizing them outright. Liberals of a radical bent preferred the “Corporatist” compromise first proposed by Comte and later refined by numerous sociologists, academics, and economists such as Lord Keynes. In this hybrid scheme Capitalism is heavily regulated by centralized bureaucrats, manipulated to fund and implement social engineering projects, but Capitalism is not terminated.

        Thus, geography has been of the greatest advantages Comte’s system enjoyed over Marx’s in the battle for the loyalty of Western elites. Comte discovered a formula to recruit to Technocracy a segment of the Protestant bourgeoisie already operating in the halls of government, albeit a segment initially serving the state only as paper pushers not decision makers. When those bourgeoisie Sociologists collectively attained decision making power they brought over to the cause of Comteian Progressivism the great wealth and resources of Protestant Capitalism. This wealth was by itself enough to ensure Comte’s Liberalism would outlive Marx’s.

        It cannot be emphasized enough that history before 1932 is without precedent for an aristocracy of bureaucrats; Comte’s priesthood is a complete historical aberration.

        The classes making up the Technocratic elite were more able than the proletariat, yet still only dull, gray, members of the bourgeois and upper classes. However numerous were the advantages Technocracy held over Communism thanks to drawing leadership from the bourgeois, these were overwhelmingly the mediocre or even failed portions of the bourgeoisie. They consist of sociologists, academics, scientists, pseudo-scientists, government bureaucrats, media hacks, ‘artists’, ‘experts’, celebrities, non-profit workers, quacks of every type, writers, philosophers, economists, environmentalists, feminists, public and private sector unions, and international organizations.

        Little though they would agree about anything else, both Engels and conservatives of any type would agree that these elements of society were unfit to serve as a ruling class. Traditional conservative ruling classes were drawn from the aristocracy, military, priesthood, and merchant classes (the class that met Alexander Hamilton’s ideal of a ‘natural aristocracy’), and, to varying degrees of flexibility, with room made for admission into the elite of the occasional parvenu of great ability.

        The leadership of Soviet Russia, as well, did not consist of Technocrats. Soviet rulers overwhelmingly came from the founding revolutionaries, the military high command, economic management, and intelligence agencies. As in Conservative systems, the Civil Service in Communist nations served a purely advisory role to the Communist elite.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        March 12, 2017 at 12:44 pm

      • https://pragmaticallydistributed.wordpress.com/2017/02/07/how-comte-overthrew-marx-part-ii/

        Comte at this time was clarifying and expanding his account of the three stages of historical development. Six of these articles were later republished as his fourth and fifth opuscules. In these works we see Comtes ideas about the structure of his positivist society solidifying. Gone is any remnant of his old libertarian and egalitarian principles. In place of the existing institutions Comte now envisaged a fixed social hierarchy strictly controlled by a positivist elite. Expressing an admiration for primitive societies because of the absolute power held by the spiritual leaders, he proposed a form of theocracy with a clergy made up of his social scientists. The spiritual authority would have an explicitly repressive function, playing the role that the Catholic Church had played in the Mediaeval period, but more powerful. His positive clergy would be moral and political philosophers, men with general knowledge of all the sciences backing their social science. Control over ideas would be an essential element of the state. Thus education would be a key tool, helping to link theory and practice, and teaching people to know their place in the social order.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        March 12, 2017 at 12:48 pm

      • https://pragmaticallydistributed.wordpress.com/2017/02/07/how-comte-overthrew-marx-part-ii/

        In particular, his presentation of history in terms of ordinary people as opposed to the rich and powerful is still influential today. However, despite this, and despite his extensive knowledge of Enlightenment thought, his vision is peculiarly devoid of a sense of agency. He was convinced from an early stage that theory had to precede practice and really believed that the social scientists, the generalists trained by his Cours, would provide a blueprint for a perfect society. It is this that led Karl Marx to be so disparaging of Comtes ideas, who denied ever trying to write Comtist recipes for the cookshops of the future. Marx, in contrast, extended the notion of agency to the common people for him the proletariat the new class that emerged from the industrial revolution and the establishment of capitalism were the people with the history making potential for the future. Comte, as we have seen, had a deep distrust of the masses, and thus, while he started out as a proponent of freedom of speech, he ended up proposing a system in which people were told what to think by an intellectual elite. The very idea of Marxs dictatorship of the proletariat would have been truly terrifying for Comte.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        March 12, 2017 at 12:50 pm

    • First, this is coming from the Financial Times, so, naturally, they will want to spin this as the globalists winning. I would not trust their opinion at all.

      Second, the media strategy is to drive a wedge between Trump and his supporters. If he caves, then Trump loses popular support and will be far more vulnerable to attack. There is nothing the globalists can offer him that could compensate for that kind of public betrayal.

      Third, that would go against Steve Bannon and Steve Miller.

      It’s probably Trumps style to have his opposing teams battle each other out. This gets him quickly up to speed on all of the relevant issues.

      map

      March 12, 2017 at 1:23 am

  6. What do you think about the firing of Bharara? Woukdn’t if have been better to keep him on as an example of willingness to go after Wall Street?

    marty

    March 11, 2017 at 3:52 pm

  7. Most presidents replace all the prosecutors. Many of them resign when a new president comes into office. Usually those that do not resign are asked to resign when they have replacements ready. In this case about half of the prosecutors had already resigned. Trump just asked all the remaining ones to resign or be fired.

    The only thing unusual here is most administrations wait until they have replacements ready to fire the remaining prosecutors. Firing all the US Attorney’s just adds to the appearance of disorganization in the Trump administration.

    This also feeds the conspiracy theory mill that this was done to cover something up. Perhaps one or two of these prosecutors was starting an investigation Trump wanted killed, so he fired all the prosecutors as a cover.

    mikeca

    March 11, 2017 at 4:16 pm

    • Perhaps one or two of these prosecutors was starting an investigation Trump wanted killed,

      Trump is not following the Obama-Comey rule of burying criminal activity (such as paying Iran money to fund terrorists, Clinton’s illegal State Dept server setup, or creating ISIS) for political reasons because Trump has not done anything illegal.

      The Undiscovered Jew

      March 11, 2017 at 5:07 pm

    • “The only thing unusual here is most administrations wait until they have replacements ready to fire the remaining prosecutors.”

      What’s unusual here is that the Democrats are running a shadow government to sabotage Trump’s administration. It would be foolish to let Dem appointees hang around after all the crap they’ve pulled. I’m sure you’ve thought of that but wanted to spin it as an attempted cover up in your typical passive aggressive style.

      destructure

      March 11, 2017 at 9:49 pm

      • “It would be foolish to let Dem appointees hang around after all the crap they’ve pulled.”

        I agree.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        March 11, 2017 at 9:58 pm

  8. Comey should go next if he signed a questionable FISA order to investigate the Trump campaign:

    Shallow State – The Progressive Pussyhat Unravels

    https://pragmaticallydistributed.wordpress.com/2017/03/10/the-unraveling-of-the-progressive-pussy-hat/

    He has good justification to remove the thoroughly untrustworthy James Comey as FBI Director and replace him with a Trump loyalist (Rudy? Christie?) because, if there were questionable wiretaps, Comey stands to be liable since his approval would have been involved in the investigative process.

    Trump also has the option of pursuing a full scale investigation into the wiretaps, or, instead, holding out the threat of an investigation to keep the Progressives off balance.

    Meanwhile, the Progressives are left anxious wondering what his intentions are about other potentially illegal actions of the Obama administration such as the former administration’s very close connections with Islamic terrorism, the Fast and Furious scandal, or the response to the Benghazi siege.

    But the most worrying item for the Left is the feeble state of its vaunted “Deep State” which in reality looks to be a toothless Shallow State staffed with bumbling Civil Servants.

    Judged by the standards intelligence operations the Shallow State has proven a total failure and it leaves the observer with no reason to believe it will be more successful in the future.

    The Undiscovered Jew

    March 11, 2017 at 5:11 pm

    • Now the new line is that FISA warrants weren’t even necessary. I don’t have time to provide links but even Ann Coulter is tweeting that. She’s usually pretty careful when it comes to legal matters.

      gothamette

      March 12, 2017 at 11:12 am

    • Now the new line is that FISA warrants weren’t even necessary.

      Whatever the extent of the investigation was, the Obama admin didn’t find anything criminal or even suggesting a non-criminal close relationship between Trump and Russia.

      Congressional Democrats are already blaming Republican Committee Chairs if nothing incriminating is found. I think they’re getting ready to retreat now that they see this could backfire on Obama officials with, potentially, DoJ indictments and without them being able to connect Trump to something substantive.

      As for how the investigation was conducted Trump should investigate whether the paperwork adds up. I wouldn’t be surprised if the former administration falsified evidence to the FISA court since they weren’t expecting Trump to win.

      The Undiscovered Jew

      March 12, 2017 at 12:34 pm

  9. What’s going on with Preet Bharara? A lot of the right people seemed to like him, Trumpists explicitly talked to him about staying on, but he was just fired. There was some unanticipated development but nobody is saying what.

    bobbybobbob

    March 11, 2017 at 6:20 pm

  10. Free trade is a good thing and even if it wasn’t, it wouldn’t be going anywhere. Even uber nationalists countries like Japan have relatively free trade.

    The only thing that matters is the destruction of the immigrant community. Keep your eye on the prize. That is what Trump is doing. The protectionism stuff is just empty rhetoric, although Trump certainly actually believes it.

    Otis the Sweaty

    March 11, 2017 at 6:46 pm

    • I agree that immigration is the top priority. But trade is a close second. We’re hemorrhaging hundreds of billions per year in trade deficits with China. Which they then use to buy up our companies and build up their military. Even if they weren’t we couldn’t continue the way we are.
      http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/letters/growing.pdf

      I agree that Trump believes it. But I’m not convinced it’s empty rhetoric. He’s been saying it for 30 years.

      destructure

      March 11, 2017 at 10:44 pm

      • Free trade with Europe is good. Free trade with rival militaristic civilizations with megamaniacal ambitions is horrible.

        The only thing we should be trading China is Napa wine for wonton soup.

        Plus China just steals our copyrights and patents with zero respect for our IP law.

        Paul Ryan's Sickly Old Lapdog

        March 13, 2017 at 3:16 pm

    • We don’t need free trade at all. There isn’t anybody that can produce things more efficiently than the United States. The only thing free trade is, is a back door to circumvent labor and environmental regulations for globalist filth.

      The globalists must be destroyed just as much if not more than the immigrants. The generals have nearly limitless armies and must go along with their foot soldiers or else they will continue fighting for their evil plans. They know they are going to prison/obscurity if they lose.

      Paul Ryan's Sickly Old Lapdog

      March 13, 2017 at 3:18 pm

  11. It is unfortunate that the term lugenpresse is associated with the German National Socialists because it conveys a better sense of what is going on than does bias. ‘Bias’ is too weak a term. All people have biases but can act fairly regardless. The American mainstream press is engaged in a determined propaganda campaign.

    Apparently, the term lugenpresse dates back to the 19th century. From the wikipedia page ‘Lying Press’:

    The term [Lugenpresse] gained traction in the March 1848 Revolution when Catholic circles employed it to attack the rising, hostile liberal press. In the Franco-German War (1870–71) and particularly World War I (1914–18) German intellectuals and journalists used the term to denounce what they believed was enemy war propaganda.[citation needed] The Evangelischer Pressedienst (de) made its mission the fight against the “lying press” which it considered to be the “strongest weapon of the enemy”.[3] After the war, German-speaking Marxists such as Karl Radek and Alexander Parvus vilified “the bourgeois lying press” as part of their class struggle rhetoric.

    Curle

    March 11, 2017 at 6:54 pm

    • Why not just call it Lying Press, then? We do have English equivalents. The people who use Lugenpresse (capital L, no less) are neo-Nazis.

      gothamette

      March 12, 2017 at 11:13 am

      • Fake New will do, for now.

        fakeemail

        March 12, 2017 at 1:59 pm

      • Thus my comment about the National Socialists. If not for the Nazis the term would have the benefit of (mostly) being identified as part of an historic battle between Rightests and Leftists with the Leftists exercising their media advantages to advance a propaganda effort with the exception of that period when Marxists felt they were on the receiving end.

        I also object to WWII operating as an historical cleansing agent such that any history preceding it becomes off limits if viewed as having been exploited by Nazis past or present.

        Curle

        March 12, 2017 at 3:31 pm

      • You obviously didn’t read what I wrote. Lugenpresse was a specific phrase used in the Nazi era, by Nazis. Allegedly. I’ve only read about it (approvingly) on alt-right sites, never heard about it before. They use it specifically to troll.

        Otherwise why not use “lying press”?

        gothamette

        March 12, 2017 at 9:21 pm

      • ” Lugenpresse was a specific phrase used in the Nazi era, by Nazis. Allegedly. I’ve only read about it (approvingly) on alt-right sites, never heard about it before. They use it specifically to troll.

        Otherwise why not use “lying press”?”

        That phrase came back into use in Germany after the New Years rape-a-thon that wasn’t reported on until days and weeks later. It sounds perfectly legitimate to use to me. Just because it’s German and Nazi’s were German…No German Language! It’s Nazi Talk!

        Mike Street Station

        March 13, 2017 at 9:01 am

      • In Germany it’s perfectly legitimate because (a) true and (b) they speak German in Germany.

        Nor did I mind using it here at first, because it was a foreign coinage that expressed a concept that we weren’t accustomed to. But there’s such a thing as overdoing it, and I think that Lugenpresse is now overdoing it.

        I no longer read alt-right sites. I just got sick and tired of their nastiness, vulgarity and Jew-hatred. But I do read some sites that are on the fringe of alt-right-HBD, and they are getting more extreme on the Jewish issue. That’s when I noticed that Lugenpresse really has taken on a pro-Nazi coloration.

        Another word that is now getting on my nerve is “goyim.” Scouts honor, I wasn’t raised to use this word. It’s something my grandparents might have said, except that they didn’t. So it’s a turnoff to me.

        I really think that I’ve proven many times I’m not oversensitive on Jewish issues. But I don’t like Lugenpresse or goyim.

        gothamette

        March 13, 2017 at 2:21 pm

      • But I do read some sites that are on the fringe of alt-right-HBD, and they are getting more extreme on the Jewish issue.

        The altright was almost as happy to see Milo taken down (Spencer turned on him) as the Progressives.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        March 13, 2017 at 5:32 pm

      • Yeah. I’ve forgiven Milo and I would be willing to consult with him to give him pointers on his comeback. Milo: if you are reading this….

        But what does Milo have to do with the growing anti-Semitism of the alt-right fellow travelers?

        gothamette

        March 13, 2017 at 7:32 pm

      • Was it Spencer that caused Milo to resign from Breitbart? Does Spencer have so much power that he can cause Milo to do something like that? I thought that you think Spencer is a nobody.

        gothamette

        March 13, 2017 at 11:12 pm

      • “Nor did I mind using it here at first, because it was a foreign coinage that expressed a concept that we weren’t accustomed to. But there’s such a thing as overdoing it, and I think that Lugenpresse is now overdoing it.”

        Maybe I’m just not reading enough alt-right sites to think the term Lugenpresse is being over used. That’s not to preclude that I won’t tire of it in the future.

        Mike Street Station

        March 13, 2017 at 6:10 pm

      • Yeah. I’ve forgiven Milo

        Why?

        But what does Milo have to do with the growing anti-Semitism of the alt-right fellow travelers?

        The altright largely applauded his downfall because he is a Jew.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        March 13, 2017 at 8:27 pm

      • What do you think the future has in store for Milo?

        gothamette

        March 14, 2017 at 11:17 am

      • “Yeah. I’ve forgiven Milo

        Why?”

        I’m a charitable, forgiving sort. Really, I am…..stop laughing, it’s true. But my reasons…I feel that when Milo was pilloried, he was blindsided and didn’t react well. Not that anyone would have. I’m not going to say here what I think he should have said. I only do consulting for money. (If Milo contacts me personally I will say exactly what he should have said, but I feel that his response was the reason for his downfall, rather than his true sentiments, which I believe are anti-pederasty.)

        “But what does Milo have to do with the growing anti-Semitism of the alt-right fellow travelers?

        The altright largely applauded his downfall because he is a Jew.”

        Right, I understand that, although he is a practicing Catholic, I just didn’t understand what it had to do with the particular point I was making about usage of Lugenpresse and the word “goyim,” but it doesn’t matter. My point is that the slighting language and hostility towards Jews has moved well beyond the core alt-right circle. Plenty of otherwise sane people use Shoah as a verb, and “goyim” unironically, as if the latter word were part of my daily vocabulary.

        I’m very turned off to the whole alt-right, just as their ideas are about to become mainstream. Ironic.

        gothamette

        March 13, 2017 at 11:06 pm

    • Yes, this goes way beyond bias and it *always* has. It goes beyond mere lying; lying is an understatement. It’s more akin to Satan or a trickster god who is able to make endless false realities/visions to confuse a hero and tempt him into destruction. This is a methodical form of psychological warfare, tyranny, and yes, even genocide. The action of the media are premeditated, cold and calculating acts of aggression done in bad faith. It’s a ruthless struggle for power and control and America has been a lamb to the slaughter with it’s (once) basically decent and fair-minded people who naively once thought that journalist was merely about reporting the facts.

      The media in this country has always been nothing less than a Shadow/Enemy Government arm of the Leftist/Globalist/Corporate Complex. Perception is reality and it makes reality whatever it wants it to be for the benefit of the few despotic rulers who stop at nothing to screw the country and make *limitless* fortunes for themselves. Bring in cheap labor and cheap votes by the millions. . .what do they care? They can externalize the costs and the suffering to the taxpayer!

      Everything most people believe is a lie put in their head by the dozen or so men who rule the conglomerates. War is a racket (Gen. Smedly Butler). Multiculturalism is a racket. Feminism is a racket. Pornography is a racket. And one must always ask not only who benefits, but who pays the bills and suffers.

      “The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of.”—Edward Bernays, the “father of public relations” and nephew of Sigmund Freud.

      fakeemail

      March 12, 2017 at 1:59 pm

  12. Trump initially asked Bharara to say

    That aside, they don’t have replacements ready and it was sudden.

    Kaz

    March 11, 2017 at 6:56 pm

  13. Do remember that Clinton fired and replaced all 92 federal prosecutors when he first took office in 1993.

    Abelard Lindsey

    March 11, 2017 at 9:06 pm

    • I do remember, and I remember the Republicans raised a stink. They did. Which was quickly cleared up by pointing out exactly that these guys serve at the pleasure of the president. Honestly, this is such a nothingburger, we should be happy that the Dems are squawking about it because it has no merit and everyone knows that.

      At the bottom of this is that Our Side thinks people get affected by this, when in reality no one does. Calm down everyone.

      gothamette

      March 13, 2017 at 2:24 pm

  14. NeoGaf thread highlighting a particular example of Trump’s destruction of the immigrant community: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1351857

    Otis the Sweaty

    March 11, 2017 at 11:59 pm

    • July 11 set as deportation date? Makes no sense. They should have put her on the plane immediately and billed her family for the ticket. Who thinks she’ll show up on the 11th with suitcases and a ticket in her hand? Not me.

      Yakov

      March 12, 2017 at 9:32 am

      • You want to make America great? The politicians are already doing it with Darwinism. They deport the illegals and eliminate the dumb proles and blacks with slow die. Smart people can adapt to most situations, but stupid people cannot.

        Your job is to support polices to enable this policy, and at the same time by being a hypocrite. There is no other way. So yes, I encourage you to work off the books, but this does not make America a great country in the long run.

        JS

        March 12, 2017 at 12:41 pm

      • @JS

        There is no such thing as hypocrisy when it comes to natural selection and evolution. What are you talking about? What, a rabbit escaping a fox or a vulture is a hypocrite now? Think before you write.

        Yakov

        March 12, 2017 at 9:46 pm

    • OMG, for the first time I “went there.” I read about five of the nappy wetting, cry baby, “I’m soooooo morally superior to Trump!” posts before my hair stood on end and I had to stop. How on earth do you stand it?

      Also, were I to create an account and counter-post, how long would I last? Five minutes? I was tempted to post on that thread, “Nobody is stopping her family from going with her.” That’s all. Just to see the heads explode.

      peterike

      March 12, 2017 at 10:44 am

  15. Off-topic: Immigration invasion works both ways as Whites/SCOTUS seek to flood Guam, take away native privileges http://ballot-access.org/2017/03/09/u-s-district-court-strikes-down-guam-special-voter-registration-list-for-theoretical-future-vote-on-status-of-guam/.

    Robert

    March 12, 2017 at 12:23 am

    • In the 1940 census the indigenous Chamorros were 91% of the Guam population. Last census? Down to 37%, and they look set to eventually be overtaken by Filipinos, the next largest group at 26%.

      Richard

      March 12, 2017 at 11:12 am

      • Does anyone know why Filipinos are such incredible breeders? Other southeast Asians don’t have a bazillion kids. What is up with the Philippines?

        no too late

        March 12, 2017 at 1:33 pm

      • How are there 1 billion people in India and 1.3 billion people in China if people in Asia didn’t have a lot of kids at some time in the past? And there are also 250 million in Indonesia, that’s a lot of people for a bunch of islands.

        It’s the white people in Australia who don’t have kids, only 23 million Aussies.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        March 12, 2017 at 1:37 pm

      • The Phillipines has a birth rate of only 3.0 children per women, which is high by Western standards but not especially prolific. By comparison the Guam birth rate (which includes everybody) is 2.4.

        The reason why there are so many Filipinos on Guam is because the US government imported them after World War II as construction labor for some military projects, and that started a habit that the island’s moneyed class never broke.

        This article, about a Congressman’s attempt to put a cap on Guam’s use of foreign workers, gives you insight into the state of mind among the political establishment there:

        http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/171329/news/filipino-workers-assured-of-more-jobs-in-guam

        Richard

        March 12, 2017 at 3:59 pm

    • Philippines is 86% Catholic

      steve@steve.com

      March 12, 2017 at 2:24 pm


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: