Archive for the ‘News’ Category
I have no way to judge Flynn because I have no idea what he talked about with the Russian ambassador. We only have the word of leakers, who committed felonies by talking about the details of secret intelligence gathering operations with the Washington Post, that Flynn “talked about sanctions” with the Russian ambassador. That’s an interpretation of leakers who are clearly out to get either Trump or Flynn and should not be believed as the gospel truth. There’s no recording of the conversation to listen to, so there is no way to independently gauge the true intent of the phone call.
The sudden invocation of the Logan Act is complete bogosity. No one has ever been prosecuted under the Logan Act which is probably unconstitutional for several reasons, and has been ignored by the media when Democrats frequently go off on their own authority to talk to foreign governments. And furthermore, as someone working under the direct authority of the President-Elect, I don’t see how Flynn falls into the category of someone who isn’t authorized to be talking to the Russian ambassador.
* * *
I suspect the true intent of the phone call was for Flynn to convey to the Russian ambassador, “when Trump takes over in a month we want better relations, so don’t do anything rash in retaliation for what Obama has done that would poison the possibility of future reconciliation.”
That sounds reasonable to me. Does it technically violate the Logan Act, an act under which no one has ever been prosecuted and has never been considered by U.S. Courts, so we don’t really know for certain what the Act allows and doesn’t allow?
* * *
And I still believe (see my previous post) that Trump fired Flynn primarily because he wasn’t the right person for the job and this was an opportunity to to fire him. Even though the means by which leakers and the mainstream media attacked him is outrageous.
Based on a burst of news stories, that seems to be the case. But the real truth is more likely found in this New York Times article reporting that this week of raids is really just business as usual at ICE, and stuff like this was happening under the Obama administration, but it just went unreported.
What has likely happened is that the left has decided (either through a mysterious central authority or by undirected osmosis) that reporting on tough enforcement by the Trump administration advances their bigger narrative.
But it seems to me that the left has made a miscalculation. The majority of Americans want less immigration, not more. These fake news stories about sudden increased enforcement of immigration law creates the impression that Trump is accomplishing things and fulfilling his campaign promises. And even more importantly for those who want fewer illegal aliens in this country, theses news stories create a climate of fear among the illegal immigrant community and would-be community resulting in increased self-deportation and fewer people from outside the country wanting to come here illegally. Thus the mainstream media is inadvertently accomplishing what those of us on the right have always wanted, and it’s not costing the government any money at all!
Twitter banned a Reuters parody account after The Daily Beast cited its tweet as an authoritative source for claiming that the shooters in Quebec are white supremacists.
The lesson here is that leftist journalists (who are supposedly expert fact-checkers dedicated to only reporting the truth) are as easily fooled by hoaxes that seem to confirm their worldview as are Trump supporters. Even though it should have been obvious that it was not the real Reuters based on the misspelling of Reuters News Break.
Before the account was banned, the account owner posted the following self-congratulatory tweet:
At press conference, Trump successfully used two anti-Trump memes, "fake news" and "Nazis" in a way that effectively neutralized them.
— Lion (@LionBlogosphere) January 12, 2017
I tweeted that after Trump’s press conference.
I was reading through Scott Adams’ blog this morning, and came across his post about Trump’s use of “Nazis” to describe the intelligence agencies, and I see that he agrees with me, although his blog post is full of mumbo jumbo about “3D persuasion.”
Since Wednesday, in the mainstream media there was outrage about how Trump dared to call our patriotic intelligence agencies “Nazis,” even though liberals themselves used to call the CIA Nazis.
Yes, remember a time when liberals loved Russia and hated the CIA? How that has reversed!
Also, we see that the mainstream media has gone cold turkey on using the term “fake news,” a term they fell in love with two months ago because they thought that by using it they reduced Trump’s legitimacy.
* * *
Hopefully, the next step in Trump’s reframing will be to turn the word “racism” against the liberals.
It has been reported that Esteban Santiago, in November 2016, walked into an FBI office in Anchorage claiming that he heard voices in his head telling him to fight for ISIS and was sent to a psychiatric hospital.
Internet rumors are that he posted on an Islamic jihadi forum in 2007.
I mentioned back in my old blog the possibility that Islamic missionaries could convert the Hispanics. We see this happening. If you recall, Farook, the terrorist from San Benardino, had a Hispanic friend who converted to Islam and who helped him. (Although I also pointed out that the Hispanic friend was a loser with a low IQ who was manipulated by Farook’s more dominant personality.)
* * *
How do we know that Islam isn’t the true religion, and that the voice in Santiago’s head wasn’t Allah himself?
This story has finally made the New York Times, although it’s way down at the bottom of the homepage and not a top story. We can be sure that if four whites had tortured a black man, made him say anti-black “racist” stuff, and posted it live on YouTube, it would be the NUMBER ONE story and it would be all you’d be hearing about.
This story was broken a day ago by Infowars, a website that the mainstream media derides as “fake news.” But in this case, the real news appeared at Infowars a day before it was reluctantly reported by the New York Times.
The media wonders why conservatives don’t trust them and seek other sources for news? It’s because conservatives know that when a story goes against the liberal narrative, it is ignored by the mainstream media, or if it’s too big to ignore it’s downplayed as much as possible.
* * *
If anyone is hoping this story will change the liberal narrative, I promise you that’s not going to happen. The mainstream media will drop it after one day, but the next time some black criminal is shot by a cop it will be hyped for weeks.
Republicans never blamed the hacker for losing the election.
And this is what I wrote about it back in 2008:
My thoughts on email hacking: I bet that the KGB is regularly reading emails of important Americans. If some teenage hacker can get at an important person’s email, why not a big hostile foreign agency supported by billions of dollars of funding? This should be a wake up call of some sort.
I guess no one heeded the wake up call. People really ought to read my blog.
In a comment a while ago, someone said “Lion, if the Republican candidate was hacked you’d feel a lot differently.”
Well actually, it happened in 2008, and back then I quite enjoyed being able to see some of her emails. I think I’m pretty consistent in enjoying the public viewing of important people’s emails.
I will once again state my opinion that publishing these emails is more like a college prank than a grave threat to the American Way of Life.
* * *
I believe I was right that the KGB was reading people’s emails. Do you think the KGB was reading Hillary Clinton’s emails on her unprotected server? I sure do.
But this doesn’t mean that the KGB gave the emails to WikiLeaks. WikiLeaks says that the DNC emails came from an insider, and we know that Podesta’s emails were stolen with a simple phishing scam which didn’t require a sophisticated malware programmed by the KGB’s top hackers.
Julian Assange personally hates Obama and HRC, and I also believe that hackers, even hackers in foreign countries, wanted Trump to win the election because hackers are prole and proles all over the world love Trump. Even proles in Russia love Trump. That proles love Trump is something that the SWPLs working for the CIA just don’t get.
* * *
And even if our government has rock-solid proof the release of the emails was directed by the Russian government (which it clearly doesn’t), the big hissy fit being thrown over it seems more like a last-ditch attempt to hurt Donald Trump then a reasonable response to a very minor public release of emails, especially considering that whomever hacked the emails did Americans a huge favor if they in any way helped to elect Trump (although I don’t think they helped at all because in retrospect no one paid any attention to the emails who wasn’t already a Trump fan, thanks to the MSM not reporting about them in any way that would be negative for HRC). And they also did us a favor by alerting people to take cybersecurity more seriously.
“Curle” asks in a comment:
Why hasn’t a single word been popularized yet representing the journalistic practice of hiding the race of perpetrators?
A lot has been written about this, and the late Lawrence Auster had a lot to say about that in his blog.
Once upon a time, it was standard practice for the New York Times to mention the race of criminal suspects. But today, the mainstream media believes that racism is the greatest evil imaginable, and that it’s their job as responsible gatekeepers to hide any news that might cause Americans to become more racist. Drawing attention to the fact that blacks commit crime at approximately ten times the rate of whites is one such thing that the mainstream media believes would make Americans become more racist, and therefore must be hidden.
All the fake news that’s fit to print?
The history of “fake news” is that yes, there were some guys in the former Soviet Union, who were NOT working for the KGB but were just independent scammers making money by getting people to link to their fake news sites, which then served up ads which they got paid for.
If the term “fake news” had simply been limited to those people, we wouldn’t be having this blog post. But the mainstream media fell in love with the term “fake news,” and everything else that the MSM didn’t like, but which traditionally had other names (like “conspiracy theories” or “biased stories”) they started calling “fake news,” but only when the MSM perceived these things to have a right-wing bias.
The MSM has a long history of serving up misleading and biased stories when it fits into their left-wing narrative. For example, leaving everyone with the impression that George Zimmerman shot some 12-year-old kid in the back who was running away from him when in reality he shot a much older teenager who was taller than him and surely stronger and more experienced at fighting, after getting into a fight that Zimmerman was losing. Giving the biased mainstream media some benefit of the doubt, it’s not clear who started the fight, but of course the biased MSM, when they do acknowledge that there was a fight, blame Zimmerman for starting it.
The MSM reported the “hands up don’t shoot” narrative when all the weight of the evidence points to Michael Brown starting the fight with the cop who arrested him after Michael Brown robbed a convenience store, and he never had his hands up or said “don’t shoot.”
When it was clear that the MSM was trying to use the term “fake news” to try to shut down the freedom of speech of people whom the MSM disagree, the conservatives successfully fought back on twitter, labeling all of the misleading and biased MSM news as “fake news” also. The success of this grass roots campaign is demonstrated by this story in today’s NY Times, which like most stories in the MSM this year is extremely misleading and slanted. The story leaves out all of the background explained above (except for the part about the scammers in the former Soviet Union). In the alternate universe of the New York Times, conservatives out of the blue just started using the term “fake news” to attack the righteous and truthful reporting of the MSM.
I label this story about fake news to be fake news, because by eliminating the important background of what really happened, a valid story of grassroots conservative opposition to pervasive liberal propaganda and threatened suppression of free speech becomes just more liberal propaganda to attack anyone who disagrees with their narrative.
* * *
Mike Street Station writes in a comment:
From the article, “Until now, that term had been widely understood to refer to fabricated news accounts that are meant to spread virally online.”
That term fake news has only been in common use immediately after the election when the media went on a 10 day fake news spree to blame the election results on viral online stories. The premise was ridiculous of course, no, Trump did not when because of a fake story that the Pope endorsed him. Blaming these type of stories for Trump winning the election is the very definition of fake news in my opinion.
And the term quickly expanded from viral stories with fake facts, to anything that the MSM considers right-wing propaganda even if the facts are true. (Of course the MSM, masters of propaganda themselves, understand that true facts can be cherry picked and distorted to present a very false impression of reality.)
* * *
Also, it continues to annoy me that #pizzagate is called “fake news” when that is something that has always been called a “conspiracy theory.”
There’s a liberal conspiracy theory out there that Donald Trump is a Russian intelligence agent, and that has never, to my knowledge, been called “fake news” by the mainstream media, or cited as a reason for why HRC won the popular vote instead of Trump.
There’s an investigation in the Washington Post which says that the Pentagon buried a report which showed that there was $125 billion of bureaucratic waste (over a five-year period).
I believe it. I worked for a year as a government contractor for the U.S. Army, and the project I was working on was a complete waste of the taxpayers’ money. Plus in the building where I worked, none of the government employees there seemed to be doing anything useful, if they were doing anything at all.
But I wouldn’t take this to mean that the entire government is like that. Before the U.S. Army job, I worked for a division of another government agency which was running a pretty tight ship in fulfilling its mission, and was providing good value for the taxpayer. It was more efficient than the private company I worked for in New York City which had a bloated and inefficient IT department staffed mostly by Indians, and customer service and marketing which had no clue what they were doing. But the company was profitable because they had a monopoly, and monopolies don’t have to be efficient or well run to be profitable.
Going back to the military bureaucracy, it’s probably the most inefficient bureaucracy in government because it’s the largest bureaucracy in government and the bigger a bureaucracy gets the more inefficient it becomes. And there’s less of a political check on Pentagon waste because the Republicans, who are normally suspicious about government spending, love government spending when it’s being done by the military; this is a point of view that’s a remnant of the politics of the Cold War which those of you under the age of 40 don’t remember.