The fact that the Media has long had a double standard certainly is nothing new. It has been a fact of life for Republicans for many years. Simply put, the Media will excuse most anything done by a liberal Democrat, but will demand the resignation of a Republican for even the most trivial alleged miscue. Nowadays, it is unnecessary to modify Democrat with the word “liberal,” as the only Democrats left are extremely liberal. Once upon a time, there were moderate, even conservative Democrats, but no more. Indeed, it is fair to say that, if JFK appeared today holding the same positions he held in 1960, he would be unwelcome in the Democrat party. And so, we used to complain about a double standard. Some examples? Years ago, Republican Senator Bob Packwood kissed a staffer. She complained, and the Media forced Packwood to resign. Meanwhile, Senators Ted Kennedy and Chris Dodd reportedly sexually accosted a waitress in a Capitol Hill restaurant, by making a “human sandwich” of her. The woman ran screaming from the room. The Media had the good sense never to mention that. The same Media that whispered rumors about Dwight Eisenhower having an affair with his British driver during World War II, denounced Republicans for daring to attempt to impeach Bill Clinton for engaging in an adulterous affair in the Oval Office, and then lying about it under oath in court. Need I go on? The point is that, although the Media double standard was bad enough, our so-called journalists were not satisfied that they were lending sufficient support to Democrats. As a result, the Media now has divested itself of any pretense of impartiality, of any notion of fair play or journalistic ethics, and openly and notoriously has declared war on President Trump. Now, I understand they didn’t like Trump, but so what, plenty of Republicans didn’t like him either. The Media painted Trump, from day one as a bigoted, ignorant, mysoginistic, lying blowhard. According to Media “experts” Trump was a joke, his candidacy was not serious, and of course, he could never win. Trump’s greatest sin was that he proved the experts wrong. They hit him with every negative thing they could think of, but it didn’t stick. They assured us that he couldn’t win. Trump won anyway, so the Media determined that he must be destroyed. In so doing, the Media has become so unhinged that, although most Americans no longer believe the crap they peddle as the truth, they have doubled down on crazy. First, the Media has continued its campaign obsession with Trump’s tax returns. The same Media that argued Romney was too rich to be President, suggested that Trump might not be as well off as he claimed, and thus, was not rich enough to be President. They suggested he didn’t pay taxes. As I write this, MSNBC (the More Socialist National Barack Channel) has illegally leaked part of an old Trump tax return that shows he paid $38 million in income tax that year. They’re still not satisfied. Then there are the Russians. The Media began the drumbeat during the campaign. Trump colluded with Russia to get Russia to help him by hacking into the DNC. The fact that no connection to Trump was necessary, because the Russians, having hacked Hillary’s private server in 2010, had been reading the emails of Hillary and John Podesta for 5 years before Trump announced his candidacy, didn’t matter. Exactly how the Russians, or anybody, could compel voters in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan to vote for Trump by exposing Podesta’s emails was not explained. The New York Times (Times) reported during the campaign about alleged links between Trump staffers and Russian intelligence agents. Another Media report on November 7, 2016, quoted “two separate sources with links to the counter-intelligence community” who confirmed that the FBI sought, and was granted, a FISA court warrant in October, giving U.S. counter-intelligence agents permission to examine the activities of ‘U.S. persons’ in Donald Trump’s campaign with ties to Russia. These sources claimed that the FBI re-drew an earlier FISA court request which they said named Trump, and which was denied in June, and then made a second request that was granted in October. The sources suggested that a FISA warrant was granted to look at the full content of emails and other related documents that may concern US persons. On January 19, 2017, the Times printed that “American law enforcement and intelligence agencies are examining intercepted communications and financial transactions as a part of a broad investigation into possible links between Russian officials and associates of President-elect Donald J. Trump.” The Times referred to intelligence reports that are “based on some of the wiretapped communications” and said they were provided to the White House, which at that time, was still under Barack Obama. The Times report said the FBI was leading the investigation, with the help of the NSA, the CIA and the financial crimes unit of Treasury Department. The Media descended on the “story” and ran continuous coverage of supposed collusion between Trump and Russians. Now here’s the funny part. After having been bashed in the Media over totally unsubstantiated allegations that he colluded with Russians, and was the subject of a wiretap investigation by the Obama Justice Department, Donald Trump complained about Trump Tower having been wiretapped by Obama. This set off an immediate firestorm in the Media. How dare Trump make such an accusation? Having completely lost his mind, and consumed by his hatred of Trump, John McCain even demanded that Trump offer evidence of wiretapping or withdraw the complaint. Then, the same Media that printed and broadcast the story of Russian collusion and wiretaps, turned on a dime, and declared that there was no evidence of collusion and that there had been no wiretaps. The Media challenged Trump, “where’s your evidence?” The Times backtracked. Recently, they altered the headline on their January 19 story to remove the word “wiretapped” and substituted “intercepted.” The fact that the “interception” of electronic communications is the very definition of a “wiretap” apparently sailed right over their heads. The Times even alibied, saying, “even if we did say ‘wiretap’ we didn’t claim Obama himself was doing the tapping.” Really? Obama’s Justice Department, run by an Attorney General who met secretly with Bill Clinton in that same month of June when the alleged investigation was launched, was conducting an investigation of the Republican presidential candidate, and Obama didn’t know about and approve of it? That’s like Nixon claiming “you can’t blame me for the Watergate break-in because I didn’t plant the bugs myself.” Wait, he tried that, and the New York Times didn’t buy it. So let’s recap. The Media can accuse you of anything without evidence, and if you complain, they can deny the accusation and demand that the accused produce the evidence they know doesn’t exist, while all the time pretending to be journalists in search of the truth. They have no credibility and are unworthy of belief. Journalism, rest in peace.
Leave a Reply