Jean-Claude: My salary is X. My expenses are Y. As long as my family is provided for, I do not care where the difference comes from.

Taken 2008

I was getting ready to record my podcast on Sunday when I noticed this piece on Drudge.

curious I checked out the piece from the Hill and to my surprise discovered it was apparently all based on one anonymous source who said they heard something at a party, pretty much designed to get the conversation away from the actual leaking of James Comey. Or in other words pretty much the standard way the media does things these days, but there was one thing that jumped out at me, that was the Hill piece quoting extensively from a Twitter account called “Kellyanneleaks” and had 8 tweets from that account as the basis for their story.

Curious I decided to go to twitter and check out this account this is what I saw. (emphasis mine)

And I thought: Seriously!

A so called reputable news source is basing a story on 16 tweets from an anonymous twitter account whose apparent highlight is a tweet of Kellyanne Conway’s ass.

This is supposed to be what journalism is in the 21st century?

Of course in one sense this is exactly what journalism is all about, generating hits and getting revenue. Somehow this caught the eye of Drudge and figuring it was click bait he decided to link it and it was party time all around. Drudge gets a story that catches the eye, the Hill gets a Drudge link at the top meaning they likely got more hits from that story than anything of substance they’ve written in weeks and in one fell swoop the anonymous Kellyanneleaks not only generates 21k followers in two days, more than I’ve managed in all my time on twitter but manages to get the conversation away from James Comey’s actual leaks, confirmed under oath on television or all the world to see and onto simple hearsay concerning leaks backed up by a tweeted picture of a woman’s ass with 15 other tweets or good measure.

That’s because the news business has never been about informing the public, it’s always been about getting that next paycheck and if this kind of nonsense generates it, then these guys are happy.

Bottom line, I don’t want to ever hear a single member of the MSM or anyone else for that matter question my reporting or that of any other conservative blogger after this stuff is taken seriously.

One final thought, I’m not as hard on Drudge than I am on The Hill for one reason only, Drudge unlike the others, has never pretended his site wasn’t all about the hits.


If you like a site that will tell uncomfortable truths that the MSM does not and if you think this site and our writers are worthwhile goal consider subscribing and become (if you wish) a listed as a Friend of DaTechguy blog

Remember all subscribers get my weekly podcast emailed directly to you before it goes up anywhere else.  And new subscribers will get a copy of my book coming out soon Hail Mary the perfect Protestant (and Catholic) prayer from Imholt Press.


Choose a Subscription level



And of course if you want to give a one shot hit (and help pay DaWife’s medical bills) you can hit DaTipJar




Olimometer 2.52

If you are not in the position to kick in your funds we’ll always accept your prayers.

by baldilocks

At the American Thinker, Randall Hoven compiled an extensive list of media hoax perps. A few of the fabricators/sloppy researchers/slanderers, etc. have paid the price for their errors. However, many others–individual politicians or news agencies like serial offender Reuters–have remained in positions of prominence and continue to influence American public opinion.

I realized that I need a scorecard to keep track of all the fallen journalists, journalistic mistakes and major and minor screw-ups in the media. I couldn’t find one already made, although Wikipedia came close, so I started my own. I apologize if there is a good list already out there, but I looked and could not find.

Offenses include lying and fabricating, doctoring photos, plagiarism, conflicts of interest, falling for hoaxes, and overt bias. Some are hilarious, such as an action figure doll being mistaken for a real soldier. Some are silly, such as reporting on a baseball game watched on TV. Some are more serious.

I leave it to you to judge whether the internet damaged “journalism’s ability to do its job professionally”, as Marvin Kalb accuses, or if the internet has in fact helped expose an already damaged “profession”.

I doubt if my list is comprehensive, but I think it’s a good start.

Punchline: this list was published in 2007.

We newshounds knew about Fake News back then and much earlier; isn’t that why blogs became popular?
It seems to me, however, that purveyors of manufactured news have become bolder. That’s because there is no painful consequence to building a house of lies—not yet.

Juliette Akinyi Ochieng blogs at baldilocks. (Her older blog is located here.) Her first novel, Tale of the Tigers: Love is Not a Game, was published in 2012. Her second novel tentatively titled Arlen’s Harem, will be done on April 2017! Follow her on Twitter and on Gab.ai.

Please contribute to Juliette’s JOB:  Her new novel, her blog, her Internet to keep the latter going and COFFEE to keep her going!

Or hit Da Tech Guy’s Tip Jar in the name of Independent Journalism!

baldilocks

 

President Merkin Muffley: But this is absolute madness, Ambassador! Why should you *build* such a thing?
Ambassador de Sadesky: There were those of us who fought against it, but in the end we could not keep up with the expense involved in the arms race, the space race, and the peace race. At the same time our people grumbled for more nylons and washing machines. Our doomsday scheme cost us just a small fraction of what we had been spending on defense in a single year. The deciding factor was when we learned that your country was working along similar lines, and we were afraid of a doomsday gap.
President Merkin Muffley: This is preposterous. I’ve never approved of anything like that.
Ambassador de Sadesky: Our source was the New York Times.

Dr. Strangelove or How I Learned to Stop Worrying & Love the Bomb 1964

While Donald Trump has only been in office a few weeks it’s already pretty easy to see the pattern of how he operates, he’ll put something out there, the left/media will loudly denounce/disclaim what’s been said and then within a few days or weeks events end up showing Trump right. The best example of this is Sweden where Trump talked about their problems concerning Islamic immigration. The media , which spent years ignoring stories concerning this, pronounced it all phony and right on cue a new set of riots took place for the people who had not been paying attention before to see.

The media’s decision to go all in on denials of Obama Administration wiretaping of the Trump campaign, which is notable for the phase “without presenting any evidence” following any mention of the current president’s claims highlighted by the repeated. You can’t go to a MSM site without seeing people loudly saying that Obama did not or could not have ordered the bugging of the Trump campaign.

The first problem for the MSM narrative came when Glenn Reynolds pointed out in his USA Today piece that the Obama administration has a history of this kind of thing

It’s certainly not impossible to believe that the Obama administration spied on Trump. Obama wouldn’t be the first president to engage in illegal surveillance of opposition candidates, and his administration has been noted for its great enthusiasm for domestic spying. In an effort to plug embarrassing leaks, the Obama administration spied on Associated Press reporters and seized the phone records not only of a Fox News reporter but also of his parents. Obama’s political allies even alleged that his CIA spied on Congress.

Nor is it unbelievable that under the Obama administration, supposedly non-partisan civil servants would go after political opponents. After all, the notorious IRS scandal was about exactly that.

This must have been news to USA Today’s readers who normally aren’t treated to the stories the MSM has done it’s best to ignore.

The next blow came from old friend Yid with Lid who noticed an interesting coincidence, at the New York Times

On January 19th and 20th 2017, The NY Times reported that wiretaps of people on the Trump team were passed along to the Obama White House, one of the story’s authors was Michael S. Schmidt. On Saturday that same Michael S. Schmidt was one of the reporters who wrote the story, “Trump, Offering No Evidence, Says Obama Tapped His Phones.” That’s right, the same NY Times reporter who was one of the sources for the President’s claim, said that there was no evidence for the claim.

This post noting the NYT arguing with itself got him not only the attention of Breitbart and others but the well deserved attention of Rush Limbaugh which spread this evidence even further.

And Jeffrey Lord a CNN regular put the icing on the cake at the American Spectator:

Obamagate is here.

And Mark Levin is on the case. First on his Thursday radio show and then in his appearance on Fox and Friends over the weekend, Mark laid out in chapter and verse the mainstream media’s own reporting that the Obama administration was responsible for using government agencies to spy on its political opponents — namely Donald Trump, his aides, and then-U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions, now the Attorney General of the United States.

Said the former chief of staff to U.S. Attorney General Edwin Meese III:

This is not about President Trump’s tweeting; this is about the Obama administration spying.… The issue isn’t whether the Obama administration spied on the Trump campaign or transition of surrogates; the issue is the extent of it…. Donald Trump is the victim. His campaign is the victim. His transition team is the victim. His surrogates are the victim.

To the question of whether former President Obama was involved? After noting that there were repeated stories on the government’s spying of Trump and others in the New York Times and the Washington Post — newspapers unquestionably well-read by the Obama White House — the talk radio host added: “I will tell you this, he’s more involved than he says; it’s his executive branch.”

Bingo!

It will be a fun week on CNN as the panels he’s on explain where all the “Trump Russia” stuff comes from while at the same time denying any wiretapping, of course as Andrew McCarthy noted the demise of that line of attack might be an interesting side effect of this whole business:

Here’s the most interesting part: Now that they’ve been called on it, the media and Democrats are gradually retreating from the investigation they’ve been touting for months as the glue for their conspiracy theory. It’s actually quite amusing to watch: How dare you suggest President Obama would ever order surveillance! Who said anything about FISA orders? What evidence do you lunatic conservatives have — uh, other than what we media professionals been reporting — that there was any investigation of the Trump campaign?

But have you noticed? While all this head-spinning legal jibber-jabber goes back and forth, the foundation of the false narrative we’ve been hearing since November 8 has vanished. Now that we’re supposed to believe there was no real investigation of Trump and his campaign, what else can we conclude but that there was no real evidence of collusion between the campaign and Russia . . . which makes sense, since Russia did not actually hack the election, so the purported objective of the collusion never existed.

How bad is it, so bad you have law professor & Obama voter Ann Althouse writing this short post which I quote in full

I’m tired of reading things like “President Trump’s astonishing and reckless accusation that he was wiretapped on orders from President Barack Obama should finally be the tipping point in how the country views him and his presidency.” (That’s E.J. Dionne in The Washington Post.)

From what I’ve read, “ordered” is the weasel word that allows anti-Trumpsters to make flat statements portraying Trump as out of his mind. But the notorious Trump tweets do not say that Obama “ordered” a wiretapping. They ask if it is “legal for a sitting President to be ‘wire tapping’ a race for president prior to an election?” and refer to what a court had done. Though Trump didn’t precisely say this, any “order” came from the court. He then said “President Obama was tapping my phones,” which isn’t to say that he “ordered” it. I think the story Trump is relying on is that the FISA court granted a warrant (after some funny business to get around a previous denial), not that Obama just “ordered” it. Then, Trump tweeted that Obama had gone “low… to tapp my phones during the very sacred election process.” Trump portrays Obama as doing something, not “ordering” it.

Unless the anti-Trumpsters can speak clearly avoid the safety of that word, I will not trust what they say. 

Well that’s logical, after all the MSM is apparently asserting that they’re past reporting can’t be trusted either.

Exit Question 1. How bad is it for the left when even Erick Erickson, the origonal Trump foe hitting the attacks on him.

Exit Question 2. How long before we see the first Judicial Watch FOIA Suit on the subject?

Update: There’s a reason why I perfer paper books to electronic it makes it much harder for the NYT to change this:

into this


and pretend they never said what they did.

I’d be very interested in discovering when this change took place. If it was after the President’s charge against the Obama admin then it speaks volumes about the left trying to re-write history.

On the bright side it provides an actual legit reason for a conservative to buy the dead tree version of the Times


2016 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

If you like and you trust what you see here and want to help pay for it (not to mention mitigate the costs of hospital bills and debt from work that both my wife and missing as she recovers from her “routine” surgery please consider hitting DaTipJar




Olimometer 2.52

Please consider Subscribing. You can be listed as a Friend of DaTechguy blog for as little as $2 a week. If only 130 of the 209K+ unique visitors who came in 2016 .07% subscribed at the same levels as our current subscription base we would make our current annual goal with ease. If we could boost that number to 260 I could afford to cover major events in person all over the country.

Remember all subscribers get my weekly podcast emailed directly to you before it goes up anywhere else.


Choose a Subscription level



If you are not in the position to hit DaTipJar We will be very happy to accept your prayers

Something very interesting happened to me at CPAC yesterday.

I had gotten up early for a vendor breakfast but managed to forget where it was held. After some failed searches I decided to check their booth but that required passing through the secret service check and once I did that not only was the booth empty (likely all at the breakfast) but I was disinclined to go back and have to pass through again.

So after grabbing a few interviews outside (which I’ll post later) I went into the media room. The place was packed and it was so bad that the coffee area was filled with people so we had a crowd behind us and in front of us.

I went to the line and started interviewing students 1st a group of college students going to school in VA

And then a pair of students from North Carolina

At this point batteries were getting low and the speech was near the start so I went back to my spot in the area. From the media area meaning I could see the big screens but not the stage.

When the president came and started speaking since I couldn’t see the stage I took a pan of the crowd.

I decided at this point since uploads were crawling and any post I might have scheduled on interviews would get few views during the Trump speech I decided to do a post with some highlights, writing lines as I heard them and updating as I went along. Seeing that both of my cameras were nearly out of power, after taking a shot of the screen of the president speaking I took out my batteries from so they could start charging. That proved to be an unfortunate coincidence given what happened next.

As I was trying to type in what the President said as he said it a young man came up to me and kneeled between me and the Yahoo people who were set up to my left in the aisle (I was in the end seat) and sought my attention.

I immediately noticed that he had a badge that said TBS. This seemed a tad odd to me since TBS is basically a re-run station with the exception of a few original comedies. I concluded that he must be from the Samantha Bee show as it to my knowledge was the only thing resembling news on the network (although for my money “resembling” is overstating the matter).

He then asked me what I thought was one of the oddest questions about a computer I’d ever heard inquiring if my laptop included the game solitaire.

Being old enough to remember the introduction of the commercial laptop and knowing that every laptop for the last 20 years included solitaire I thought the question foolish, but I wondered why he would ask so I answered:
“Well my wife bought me it for Christmas so I really don’t know but I imagine so.”

He then asked the question that made everything clear:

“Could you bring it up, we want a shot of someone playing solitaire during Donald Trump’s speech.”

My initial answer reaction was innocence

“But that would be dishonest.”

and then anger saying something like: Are you seriously asking me to stage something dishonest so you can report fake news?

He walked away but I was suddenly very angry. I understand that I dress rather eccentrically so he might have figured this guy was a fellow traveler but the very idea that he would ask me to help him do something dishonest and dishonorable to create fake news to hit the President. Nor did the irony that this happened just a few minutes after President Trump hit the media for staging stuff fail to hit me.

I was mad and updated my open post thus:

[Would you believe a guy from TBS asked me if I had solitaire on my computer and asked me to bring it up so he could get a shot of someone playing solitaire during Trump’s speech. HOW DARE HE! HOW DARE HE EXPECT ME TO SET UP A PHONY SHOT FOR A PHONY MEME! That’s so dishonorable!]

and added this to the title:

UPDATE TBS asks me to setup a fake meme how DARE they!

I was angry and realized I needed to let people know what just happened. I immediately walked over to the four students I had just interviewed and told them what had happened. I was really angry and kinda loud (ironically a blogger thought I was chewing them out for heckling the press and tweeted that out. I saw that tweet three hours later and tweeted what really happened and he apologized and corrected himself promptly


I was so impressed I followed him on the spot but that was a few hours later.)

I then went straight over to Cynthia Yockey and Emille who I’m sharing a room with. They were two tables down. Cynthia had been kind enough to bring me my battery stuff to charge my cameras when she came down so I knew where they were and told them what happened. I then saw Kurt Schlichter & Stephen Kruiser behind them and told them on the spot, I saw Ed Morrissey but he didn’t have time as he was trying to live blog the President’s speech.

Then it hit me that I had stopped doing that and headed back to continue but I was still angry.

When everything was done I saw Byron York who had said hi earlier and called him over to tell him what happened as I was packing up and mentioned it to Yid with Lid. A pair of CPAC people asked about this wanted to know who the guy was and A young lady from Breitbart came over and wanted some details on the story (ironically she was a friend of Yvonne who I had interviewed on day 1) after a few false starts we found a suitable place with less noise and I told my story.

Unfortunately I had fixated on the TBS badge and not the features of the fellow although I thought I would be able to recognize him if I saw him again, not having the batteries in the camera really hurt me here.

I was however running late for Anita Moncrief’s Innis dinner which I had promised to attend at 12 so I excused myself. I had forgotten the location which was on my older laptop back in the room where my uploads were continuing from so after some false started I ran back to my room up, got the location while Stacy was typing next to me and headed out.

I ran into Patrick Howley on the way who wanted the story for the Daily Caller. I told him what happened and he asked if he could us my laptop to write it. I declined saying I might need it at the event but he was welcome to go to my room and use my other one, Stacy could let him in. He asked for the key but I told him to knock as I wasn’t comfortable with loaning the key to a room in someone else’s name out.

When I got back I got a call from Alex Pfeiffer who was doing the writing proper and answered any questions he had. That’s when I noticed those other tweets. Additionally Stacy McCain had Fox news on with Shep Smith who was going on about how the press doesn’t make fake news, that pissed me off so I tweeted this:

Now you might be asking yourself: Hey DaTechGuy why didn’t you tweet or gab this out on your new laptop?

Well it’s because until CPAC I had been using the new laptop exclusively for playing Civilization VI. In fact DaWife bought it based on my son’s specs or optimum gameplay. Not only did I not have Gab or twitter on it, but I hadn’t set up email their either so if I tried to reset my passwords I wouldn’t see the emails.

Remember I’m “DaTechGuy” because I used to do Tech Support and majored in computers in the Fortran/ccl years and worked at Raytheon with clearance during the cold war, not because I like gadgets. I haven’t even connected the phone dawife bought me to the net because I don’t want hackable data on my phone, I just want the ability to make calls while traveling.

The first place I saw the story reported was at Jeff (Yid’s) site

And the president was right. After his speech was over, my friend Peter, DaTechguy wrote:

Would you believe a guy from TBS asked me if I had solitaire on my computer and asked me to bring it up so he could get a shot of someone playing solitaire during Trump’s speech. HOW DARE HE! HOW DARE HE EXPECT ME TO SET UP A PHONY SHOT FOR A PHONY MEME! That’s so dishonorable!

I wonder if the TBS guy made the request as a favor because TBS is owned by the same company as CNN.

I then saw the story at the daily caller titled:
Blogger Claims TBS Tried To Stage Fake News At CPAC
Alex managed to spell my name wrong “Injimi” and I didn’t like “claims” at first but after thinking about it, without the name of the person and not having been there it was not an unfair characterization. However he did manage to confirm a suspicion of mine:

TBS does not have a news program, however, the network hosts the popular news satire show “Full Frontal with Samantha Bee.” A CPAC spokesman told TheDC that TBS was credentialed for the event and in relation with the Samantha Bee show.

and I liked being called a “popular” blogger. One hopes people like the site but it was nice to hear someone else write it.

TBS wisely refused comment, a denial risks the story being corroborated by any of the folk next to me like the Yahoo crew, while admitting it would confirm unethical behavior.

Now as anyone who reads this site knows I was a Cruz Supporter who endorsed Trump just before the convention and rather famously doubled down on my support of him after the Bush tape came out. If you are a member of the left who doesn’t know me and you choose not to take my word without further evidence that’s certainly your prerogative and not an unreasonable decision to make.

Although I would inquire of the Samantha Bee show and ask if they did this or not if I was you.

As for myself, I didn’t care for her before and I care for them less now.

A postscript. as I was returning from the Innis event I ran into the college kids I interviewed. They were downcast, they had been interviewed by a leftist site and figured they had been played by them to make them look foolish and asked my advice. I told them if approached by anyone you don’t know or trust in that way agree to interviews on the condition that you are able to film them as they film you.

If they decline presume dishonesty and decline as well. I’d certainly give that advice to anyone approached by TBS at CPAC or elsewhere.

Update: Instalanche Thanks Glenn, it will take a few weeks to post all the interviews I did at CPAC but you might want to check out this post about a historic CPAC 1st and this one about the latest comedy from Evan Sayet that the late night hosts will ignore.


DaTechGuy at CPAC 2017 (all videos not blogged about yet here). Be aware that due to the sheer volume of videos to upload if I interviewed you it might be days before you see it here

2/25
Voices of CPAC 2017 Author Matt Margolis On DaTechGuy’s Midnight Court

2/24
Voices of CPAC 2017 Tom Wenzel of EWTN & Alberto Calamaro of Radio Maria
The Media Narrative Hunt at CPAC
Voices of CPAC 2017 Donald Trump Single lines from CPAC speech as he makes them
Voices of CPAC 2017 the Indefatigable Kira Innis

2/23
Voices of Cpac 2017 Steve & Shen, Ed Morrissey of Hotair and a Kellyanne Conway Cannoli Story
Voices of CPAC 2017 Radio Row Sharon Angle & Rick Trader Daria Novak & Frank Vernuccio
CPAC 2017 Photos & Brief videos from the Sean Hannity Taping

Voices at CPAC 2017 Advocates: Melissa of Able Americans, Matt of American Majority
Voices at CPAC 2017 Yvonne (from almost #NeverTrump to Evangelical Coordinator) & Michael
Voices of CPAC 2017 Joe on Life behind the Berlin Wall

2/22

Voices at CPAC 2017 Liz a Cook County Republican (and Kasich delegate)
CPAC 2017 First Interviews Theresa an Attendee and Rob Eno of Conservative Review

2/21
Some Quick pre-cpac video and thoughts

2016 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

If you like the work I have done at CPAC and wish to support it (along with paying for the ER & Surgery bills for DaWife’s illness that our insurance doesn’t anymore (thanks Democrats and Obamacare!) and help make up for the two weeks of unpaid work I’ll miss during her recovery please consider hitting DaTipJar




Olimometer 2.52

Please consider Subscribing. You can be listed as a Friend of DaTechguy blog for as little as $2 a week. If only 130 of the 209K+ unique visitors who came in 2016 .07% subscribed at the same levels as our current subscription base we would make our current annual goal with ease. If we could boost that number to 260 I could afford to cover major events in person all over the country.

Remember all subscribers get my weekly podcast emailed directly to you before it goes up anywhere else.


Choose a Subscription level



Well NH, you decided that you didn’t want Kelly Ayotte as your senator so you sent governor Maggie Hassan to the US senate and on her first day in the sunlight she manages to beclown herself.

Here is the Daily Caller story:

New Hampshire Sen. Maggie Hassan appeared to be unaware during a Senate confirmation hearing on Tuesday that a Washington Post story about Russian hacking into the Vermont power grid has been completely debunked and retracted.

“Two weeks ago The Washington Post reported that a hacking group connected with the Russian government managed to infiltrate the Burlington Electric power company in Vermont,” Hassan said to retired Marine Gen. John Kelley during his confirmation hearing to head the Department of Homeland Security.

Hassan, who took office this month after serving as governor of New Hampshire, showed no indication during the questioning that she was aware that The Post’s story has been found to be “fake news.”

The retractions on that story were rather epic and it’s quite an embarrassment for Senator Hassan and her staff.

Then again did anyone familiar with Senator Hassan’s record as NH governor or her campaign against Senator Ayotte really expect her to know or care about the difference between the truth and falsehood?

Chicago’s Northwest Side
The proliferation of fake hate crimes propagated by the left should be a warning sign to places like the MSM and Facebook that claim to be weeding out fake news but seem incapable of questioning anything that affirms their biases.

So I suggest a simple rule driven by the fact that with the exception of myself most of the world seems to carry smart phones many of them with direct links to the net so they can upload video & audio in a heartbeat, therefore:

If there is no video, there is no hate crime.

If there is only a video of graffiti and no video of who put it up or, as in the black church case in Greenville, a fire but no video of who set the fire

Last month, someone burned down a black church (Greenville’s Hopewell Missionary Baptist) and wrote “vote Trump” on the side of the structure. Obviously, it was a racist, white Trump supporter! This individual wanted to intimidate black people! CNN even wondered if it was an attack directed specifically at the black community.

Just one problem. It wasn’t a white dude. Or a stranger to the church. And I have my doubts that this guy even supported Trump. As it turns out, it was a black member of the church!

Andrew McClinton, 45, has been charged with first-degree arson of a place of worship. The church’s bishop confirmed that he is, indeed, a member of the congregation.

State officials don’t believe it was politically motivated either. Rather, it was made to look politically motivated. As in, it was another lame attempt to make Trump supporters look like intolerant, racist bigots.

then there is no hate crime.

If the press is really interested in the truth they will follow these simple rules, which leads me to conclude they will not.

Closing thought: For myself I don’t believe in “hate” crimes any more than I believe in “thought” crimes, if we simply treated crime and “crime” this wouldn’t be an issue.


We are on a pace to miss our 2016 goal by over $12,000 and 60%.

That being said if you’d like to help support independent non MSM journalism and opinion from writers all over the nation like Baldilocks, RH, Fausta, JD Rucker Christopher Harper, Pat Austin, and John Ruberry plus several monthly & part time writers working here and want to help pay their monthly wages (and the Cartoonist I’m looking to hire, details here) please consider hitting DaTipJar.




Olimometer 2.52

Please consider Subscribing. Right now our subscribers consist of 1/50 of 1% of our total unique visitors based on last years numbers.

If we can get another 150 subscribers at $10 a month (another 1/10 of 1% of those who have visited this year) We can meet our annual goals with no trouble, with the same number of subscribers at $20 a month I could afford to cover the continual post presidential campaign meltdown of the left outside of New England firsthand and maybe hit CPAC this year

And of course at that price you get the Da Magnificent Seven plus those we hope to add on and all subscribers get my weekly podcast emailed directly to you before it goes up anywhere else.


Choose a Subscription level



Hate is a real issue. Americans have plenty of it. They demonstrate it all the time. The difference between hate today and hate in the recent past is that it’s now manifesting in the form of hoaxes perpetrated mostly by the left. They don’t want to be seen as hateful, so they turn their own hate into “clever” ruses to paint the right as the “real “haters.

Fake news is a real issue. As an obsessive consumer of political media, I’m a fake news hipster. I’ve been calling it out since before it was cool.

Today, we’re seeing the two collide in spectacular fashion. They’ve always had a secondary relationship in that hoaxes would be perpetrated and the media would investigate and report if necessary, but the boundary that separated them has collapsed. Today, the media’s standard operating procedure is to report the hoax first, investigate (or maybe not) later.

Why did this happen? Did the media become suddenly more gullible? No. This is willful. Ever since about a month and a half before the election, mainstream media started their “ready, fire, aim” stance on hate hoaxes because they realized they needed it to propagate their narrative agenda. They’ve learned two important things: falling for a hoax will not decrease ratings/readership, and they can source each other rather than investigate in order to justify their choices.

Here are four major hate hoaxes that have been reported in the last 24 hours:

In all four cases, there were reasons for the media to doubt the stories. In all four cases, the narrative of white and/or conservative and/or Trump-supporting and/or bigoted “people of privilege” persecuted and/or harassed and/or discriminated against some variation of minority. In all four cases, the hoax was reported before confirmed and later it was revealed by law enforcement or conservative media that we had all been duped.

Here’s the core of the problem. Mainstream media has a narrative agenda that has failed miserably. They did everything they could to hand the White House and Senate to the Democrats. In the past, that’s all that needed to happen; if the media united behind a cause, they could bend the will of the people. In the case of the 2016 election, their agenda backfired, so they now have two choices. They could learn their lessons and return to a bygone day when reporters actually reported and commentators made absolutely certain their perspectives would not be confused with news.

Predictably, mainstream media has chosen option two. They’re doubling down. The lesson they think they learned from their mistake is that they can’t allow a sliver of doubt to creep in. They actually think they were too easy on Donald Trump. They think they didn’t push enough of their narrative on Senate races. They think they now need to promote their agenda in full force, working overtime if necessary.

They’re going to get away with it, too, if we let them. Nobody calls out the original source. All it takes is for one media outlet to report something as real and the rest will jump on the bandwagon rather than investigate if for themselves. It’s not that they believe it to be true. It’s that they hope for it to be true. That’s enough. They’ve lost their way.

As conservatives, we need to take two stances. We need to call out the media when hate is faked and we need to call out the real haters. We’re not innocent in this. Many conservatives will turn a blind eye or even mount a feeble defense when real bigotry or hatred is present. To stay consistent, we have to stick with the truth regardless of whose side is to blame. The only way we can defeat the liberal media narrative agenda is if we take the high road every time.

Media outlets across the country have been buzzing about “fake news” being a problem ever since the Democrats’ plethora of losses on election day. This problem didn’t pop up because of the election. It was rampant well before the first batch of candidates announced they were running in early 2015. In fact, it’s been around since the early days of the internet. The fact that it has such a prominent spotlight on it today is a bitter response by the left to point a finger at anyone other than Hillary Clinton and Democratic leaders.

That’s not to say that the problem isn’t real. As someone who reads every headline from over a hundred sources every day for my conservative news aggregator, I can verify that fake news has been an actual problem for a long time. It comes in different forms, the most prominent being the spinning of minor news into apocalyptic click-bait headline writing by sources desperate for advertising dollars, but the core problem is universal: the only way for smaller publishers to compete with bigger ones is to be very aggressive with their bullhorns and quite loose with the truth.

The biggest problem is that it works. Medium-sized sites like Salon and Conservative Tribune are building little empires from it. Bigger outlets like Buzzfeed and Breitbart are getting rich from it. While I’m personally not crazy about the technique, it’s effective and as a small-government Federalist I will defend their right to present their version of the news any way they wish. That doesn’t mean that it isn’t a problem.

Our society has been conditioned to search for solutions whenever there’s a problem to be solved. That’s natural, but for whatever reason most have missed the obvious one. It shouldn’t require sites like Facebook or Google to censor news from this site or that one, though as private businesses it’s their prerogative to do so if they wish. There’s no need for people to publish blacklists to help “victims” avoid the embarrassment of sharing stories that aren’t completely true. It definitely doesn’t require the government to step in and decide what to consider fake news and what to consider real. That’s a form of censorship that would take us all down a very dark road.

The solution is simple. Just like we should let the business world work out its problems through free market capitalism, we should allow the media to work out its own problems with free speech journalism. Let the media police the media. Let the people make decisions based upon trust and research. Just as someone can choose whether or not to buy at Walmart or Target, they can also choose whether they want to read their news on the New York Times or Infowars.

Sites like Newsbusters and Media Matters work the “truth beat” for their respective ideologies. Newsbusters points out the flaws of mainstream media and leftist media propaganda. Media Matters highlights every conservative perspective and tries to spin it as evil. That’s free speech journalism. That’s how it’s supposed to work.

Instead of trying to find solutions to the fake news problem, the media needs to police itself and the people need to be discerning. Just as “caveat emptor” has been a call of prudence for consumers, perhaps “inspectoris discernerem” should be the rallying cry for news consumers to be more careful with what they read and share.