Blogger at the home of a Forgotten Man

By John Ruberry

Donald J. Trump’s presidential honeymoon with the media lasted sixteen minutes, which was, not coincidentally, the length of his inauguration address.

Since then, the media, with a few exceptions, has been relentlessly attacking the president, and by media, I’ll use the definition Rush Limbaugh gave this morning to Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday, which is ABC, CBS, NBC, the New York Times, the Washington Post and USA Today.

I’ll add one more–a big one, CNN, sometimes called the Clinton News Network.

The media is striking back with an assault on the presidency not seen since the height of the Watergate scandal.

And Donald Trump is fighting them–and the media can’t ascertain why much of the public, their public, is siding with the president.

Because conservatives don’t like cheaters.

Among the damning revelations from the John Podesta emails hacked by WikiLeaks was clear evidence of collusion by some of these allegedly neutral outlets during the 2016 presidential campaign, most notoriously when CNN analyst Donna Brazile twice supplied a planned question to the Hillary Clinton campaign prior to a CNN-hosted debate with Bernie Sanders.

Viewers of those two CNN debates were cheated by CNN, which employed Brazile, as they rightly expected the Clinton-Sanders matchups to be, let’s use a popular term from the time when several Chicago White Sox players conspired to throw the 1919 World Series, “on the square.” Sure, Brazile, was fired, but only after she was caught the second time feeding a debate question to the Clinton machine. That says a lot. Oh, where did Brazile learn of these questions? Did they come from a low-level CNN staffer?

Liberals, with the possible exception of the most ardent members of the growing socialist wing of the Democratic Party, dismissed Brazile’s cheating as just the way the game is played, which is not how White Sox fans greeted news of the 1919 fix broke a year later.

Before there was fake news there was a fake World Series.

Here is my conservative-or-liberal litmus test: If you were angry–or still are angry–about media collusion with the Democratic Party during the 2016 campaign, they you are a conservative. If you are not, they you’re a liberal. It’s that easy.

Which explains why the media, again using the definition I gave earlier, is astounded that Trump not only attacks them millions of Americans are cheering him on.

After dutifully reporting on media collusion immediately after it was revealed, the media promptly ignored the scandal–their scandal–which is not the case with Russian interference, and yes, alleged hacking of the election by Russia of the presidential election, whatever that entails. It probably entails nothing. WikiLeaks’ founder, Julian Assange, repeatedly insists that Russia was not the source of the hacked Podesta emails.

Okay, you skeptics out there, you are probably thinking to yourselves that I am citing only two examples of CNN collusion, and that done by an analyst, not a reporter.

Still still for a moment. CNN’s Wolf Blitzer and Jake Tapper, both of them anchors, the latter is the network’s Washington correspondent, were caught colluding by WikiLeaks. Other colluders captured in the WikiLeaks net were the New York Times and CNBC’s John Harwood, the Washington Post’s Dana Milbank, Glenn Thrush, then of Politico and now of the New York Times, and Brent Budowsky of The Hill.

When Trump said on the stump “the system is rigged,” the colluders proved him right.

The Forgotten Man and the Forgotten Woman, that is, the people who play by the rules and try to make an honest living under increasingly daunting odds, elected Trump, despite the rigging.

John “Lee” Ruberry of the Magnificent Seven

And the cheating media still can’t figure out why most Americans despise them.

You Democratic cynics are probably still thinking, “Everyone does it.” No they don’t. Very few media outlets are conservative ones, so the opportunity simply isn’t there for Republicans to collude. The only instance of GOP collusion in a presidential campaign I can recall is George Will’s vague self-described “inappropriate” role in the 1980 Debategate micro-scandal.

John Ruberry regularly blogs at Marathon Pundit.

John ruberry
John “Lee” Ruberry of the Magnificent Seven

By John Ruberry

The leftist group MoveOn got its start as Bill Clinton was being impeached. Their initial message was along the lines of, Bubba has done a great job running the country, his affair with Monica Lewinsky was inappropriate, and now it’s time for Americans to, well, move on.

Now if only the cheerleaders in the media for the Democratic Party could do the same.

There’s a book’s worth of material out there for this post, but I’ll zoom in on just a few today. Dahleen Glanton, an African American Chicago Tribune columnist, puts the blame on the Democrats failure to keep the White House on where she feels it belongs. Yes, the headline gives the ending away, “White women, own up to it: You’re the reason Hillary Clinton lost.” Yet the first sentence of that column betrays how foolish she is, “I don’t understand women.” Her dazzling display of ignorance continues for another two dozen paragraphs.

There must be vile fumes from the Chicago River poisoning the minds of Chicago newspaper columnists, as ignorance begets insanity. I had to read Neil Steinberg’s Nazi-drenched column about Donald Trump and his advisor Steven Bannon, who, by the way, is not an anti-Semite, three times before I gave up trying to make sense of it. Well, almost.  When I am confronted with Nazis and insanity I do one thing and that is listen to avante-garde rockers the Residents’ masterpiece, “The Third Reich and Roll,” only this time I did so while trying to block out of my memory all of my knowledge of the 1960s garage pop classics that are satirized in this work, as a possible gateway into Steinberg’s rambling mess. That didn’t work either. But hey, I tried.

At the end of his column he all but claims that it will be followers of a religion who have been scapegoated for centuries who will be blamed if Trump’s economy doesn’t take off as he promises it will.

Oh, do newspaper columnists have editors anymore?

Dana Milbank of the Washington Post, who was exposed as a colluder with the Democratic National Committee by WikiLeaks, is calling the incoming Trump administration “the fake news presidency.” Yet two months ago Milbank was covering for Clinton’s “deplorables” gaffe by claiming that “she might have low-balled the number.”

Wrong.

Perhaps what these mainstream media hacks really need is a good cry, which is something the Residents have done as they confide in “Hitler Was a Vegetarian.”

Yes, it’s your party, I know it’s your party
And, you know that you can cry, and, it’s cool
But you have to remember that I too cried my 96 tears
And… it’s just something we all have to go through some time or another.

Get to it.

And then move on.

John Ruberry regularly blogs at Marathon Pundit.

Blogger outside of Wrigley Field
Blogger outside of Wrigley Field

By John Ruberry

“Bias has always been a factor in journalism. It’s nearly impossible to remove. Humans have their thoughts, and keeping them out of your work is difficult. But 2016 saw the remaining veneer of credibility, thin as it was, stripped away and set on fire.” Derek Hunter, Townhall, October 23, 2016.

“A free press can, of course, be good or bad, but, most certainly without freedom, the press will never be anything but bad.” Albert Camus.

Both men are right.

I’ve known for many years that the mainstream media, consisting mostly of leftists, is biased, but I’ve also long suspected that these leftists have been colluding with the Democrats. Thanks to WikiLeaks we know that to be true.

The 2016 World Series, an intriguing matchup between the Chicago Cubs–of whom Hillary Clinton used to be a fan of–and the Cleveland Indians, begins Tuesday.

Which got me thinking: What if the self-righteous media guardians, umpires you might say, were in charge of baseball’s fall classic?

When the Chicago Clintons come to bat, their batters will earn a walk after three balls, Cleveland, Donald Trump’s team, will need five balls to gain a base on balls, and they’ll strike out after two strikes.

The media umpires, when the Clintons are in trouble, will take out their smartphones during the games and pass on actionable advice to their manager, who will quickly reply and request more pointers. Player after player for the Trumps will be ejected because the umpires will reveal decades-old sexual assault allegations just as the Cleveland team takes the field. Another Cleveland Trumps player will be ejected because he may not have paid federal income taxes. The umpires will claim it was only just then that they learned about about this tax issue.

Meanwhile charges that the Clintons are taking large cash payments from outsiders that could destroy the integrity of Major League Baseball are for the most part ignored–and not acted upon. And even though the umpires know that the Clintons destroyed evidence of their improprieties, they’ll deem it “old news.” The umpires will overlook the lies from the Clintons about their crimes.

When the fans in the ballpark complain, they’ll be rudely dismissed by the umpires as morons who don’t know how the contest is played.

But the truth is the public knows all too well that the game is rigged.

As Walter Cronkrite used to end his CBS Evening News broadcast, “That’s the way it is.”

And the way it is stinks. We need a new media.

John Ruberry regularly blogs at Marathon Pundit.

By John Ruberry

A couple of headlines caught my attention this afternoon. Here’s one: “WikiLeaks Releases More Purported Emails, Bringing Total To More Than 11,000,” comes from NPR. Wow. This federally funded news outlet I guess “forgot” that the victim of the hack, Hillary Clinton campaign chair John Podesta, admitted that his private emails were illegally breached. But he added, without evidence, that some of that correspondence may have been altered. Bloomberg writes, “WikiLeaks Releases More Alleged E-Mails From Top Clinton Aide.” Bloomberg: Are you paying attention?

So yes, Podesta’s emails were hacked. By whom? The Clinton campaign is blaming the Russian government, offering little in proof, although this morning on Fox News Sunday, Donald Trump’s running mate, Mike Pence says “the evidence continues to point in that direction.” The Clinton campaign, outside of Podesta, refuses to acknowledge the legitimacy of these emails, claiming that the Russians are trying to sway the results of this autumn’s election, while deflecting findings from those emails, which include Bill Clinton receiving a $1 million birthday check for the Clinton Foundation–the charity is really a slush fund, by the way–from the government of Qatar, which we learn from another email, is funding ISIS, or at least Hillary Clinton believes so.

Did Russia write that $1 million check?

John ruberry
John “Lee” Ruberry of the Magnificent Seven

Also learned from those purported emails was that there was an anti-Catholic email exchange between Podesta, Jennifer Palmieri, communications director of the campaign, and John Halpin of the leftist Center for American Progress. If the trio had discussing Islam in the same manner, they’d almost certainly be looking for new jobs now.

And those revelations are just the ones on the top of the Podesta email pile.

But a couple of media outlets, probably more, apparently believe that by questioning the legitimacy of these alleged emails, people may doubt their veracity.

I don’t think it’s going to work. Not this time. We’re not as dumb as the media elites believe.

John Ruberry regularly blogs at Marathon Pundit.

By John Ruberry

The Washington Post has long been a leftist publication, in the 1970s it was dubbed “Pravda on the Potomac” by conservatives.

The newspaper has gotten worse since then, even after its purchase in 2013 by Amazon founder Jeff Bezos.

On Friday it released a 2005 video of Donald Trump in a hot-mic conversation with Billy Bush of Access Hollywood as he very crudely discusses his sexual moves on women. In his apology the Republican presidential nominee categorized his behavior as “locker-room banter,” but the reality is that most men, or even high school sophomores, don’t speak in that manner about women, at least in such explicit detail. Trump needs to make one more apology added with a vow never to discuss women in that fashion for as long as he lives.

While NBC, which owns Access Hollywood, not surprisingly had the video clip first, it was cognizant of it on Monday. But while the network’s lawyers were still reviewing the clip, an anonymous source alerted the Post about it on Friday, four hours later it went live on the newspaper’s website.

But who was that source?

In a July Wikileaks release, Greg Sargent, who writes the Plum Line blog for the Post–most of the its blogs are leftist electronic rags–was exposed as a shill for the Democratic National Committee. Lee Cary in the American Thinker laid down how the DNC propaganda treadmill works at the Post. Sargent gets a tip of slanted information from the DNC, which of course he doesn’t credit in his blog entry. Writers higher up on the Post food chain credit the Plum Line on this “scoop,” other media sources credit the Post, when in fact the “news” is really a disguised Democratic Party informercial.

How many other shills such as Sargent at the Post have yet to be exposed?

“According to the Washington Post” is a much more convincing article lead-in than “According to a Democratic Party press release.”

John "Lee" Ruberry of the Magnificent Seven
John “Lee” Ruberry of the Magnificent Seven

Back to the Trump tape. Yes, it’s newsworthy, but if the DNC was the Post’s source, shouldn’t its readers know about that? Remember, there’s a conveyor line of information coming from the Democrats to the Washington Post. Here’s another question: Let’s say a similarly damaging recording of Hillary Clinton was out there and the Post became aware of it. Would the Post run with that story? Or does the paper ignore it, using feeble excuses that it is “old news” or “not relevant to the political discussion.”

Win or lose this autumn, conservative bloggers and activists need to widen the battlefield and include what Trump rightly calls the “dishonest media” in the war for America. The establishment media, with a few exceptions, is a leftist cabal. If we successfully expose them to the masses, we’ll discover that defeating the Democrats will be surprisingly easy.

Don’t worry about Greg Sargent. I’m sure he has a job waiting for him at the Democratic National Committee if things stop working out for him at the Post. Or in a Hillary Clinton presidential administration.

John Ruberry regularly blogs Marathon Pundit.

By John Ruberry

Last night the New York Times, using an illegally obtained copy of Donald Trump’s 1995 tax return, speculated that because of a $916 million loss listed on that return, the Republican nominee may have, yes, may have, avoided paying federal income taxes for 18 years.

With help from his wealthy father, not the government, Trump, a real estate developer, built an international business empire. And because of his Apprentice television franchise, even before his presidential run Trump was likely the most recognized business person in the United States.

Hillary Clinton is also rich. Her business–make that racket–is influence peddling. While her husband was attorney general, and then governor of Arkansas, Clinton was an attorney at the Rose Law Firm in that state’s capital city. The Clintons, aided by the Rose Law Firm, used its clout to protect themselves and Jim and Susan McDougal, their investment partners. While they didn’t make money in Whitewater, Arkansas’ first couple did their best to cover up the Whitewater scandal, which led to the convictions the McDougals, Bill’s successor as governor, and Webster Hubbell, a partner at the Rose Law Firm and a close friend of the Clintons.arkansas-sign

The McDougals ran Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan in Little Rock, which failed in the 1980s. They chose, of course, the Rose Law Firm to defend their thrift.

After emerging from the White House “dead broke,” the Clintons were still able to purchase a mansion in Westchester County, New York, one of the most expensive real estate markets in the nation. In 2001 the Clinton Foundation was formed, by this time of course Hillary was a US Senator from New York. The foundation traded off of Bill’s status as an ex-president–six-figure public speaking fees to him went to this “charity,” which offered high-priced salaries to Clinton family cronies and served as a lucrative waiting room for those Clintonistas between government jobs.

The former first couple learned that influence peddling, not property investments, was their pathway to wealth.

While Hillary was serving as Barack Obama’s secretary of state, foreign donors poured money into the “charity,” probably using their cash as down payments for favors from Madame Secretary. It worked. A majority of the non-governmental meetings Hillary had at State were with Clinton Foundation donors, which is why the foundation is commonly referred to as a slush fund.

In Illinois, where Hillary grew up, that’s called pay-to-play.

John ruberry
John “Lee” Ruberry of the Magnificent Seven

There’s nothing like this type of sordidness in Trump’s background.

After leaving State, it was Hillary’s turn to collect the big-money speeches, with Wall Street firms being some of her most lucrative clients. Without having been a major government figure–or the spouse of one–Clinton’s speech income just might have matched that of a Times Square busker, such as the Naked Cowboy.

In 2014 just 5.7 percent of the Clinton Foundation budget was spent on charitable grants.

Where is that story, New York Times?

Oh, do you know anyone who doesn’t try to pay as little income tax as possible?

John Ruberry regularly blogs at Marathon Pundit.

 

 

911-des-plainesBy John Ruberry

This morning Hillary Clinton suffered what is being called a medical episode in lower Manhattan where she may have fainted, but she certainly had to be helped into a van by campaign aides as her knees wobbled, as you’ll see in a video. She’s was in New York to attend a Ground Zero 9/11 memorial service.

The Clinton campaign claims that the Democratic nominee was “overheated,” but so far there are no reports of anyone else among the thousands in attendance at the somber event being overcome by heat. Temperatures were in the late 70s in New York this morning. Today’s incident comes just six days after a four-minute long coughing spell during a Labor Day speech in Cleveland by Clinton, followed by a shorter one on her campaign jet, which the campaign blithely brushed off as related to allergies. Even hardened liberal Chris Cilizza of the Washington Post says that questions about Hillary’s health are legitimate ones, not just fodder for conservative conspiracy theorists.

wallace-road
Henry Wallace was pushed aside for Truman

It’s been said that Clinton is the most dishonest person to be a major party nominee since Richard M. Nixon. It’s now fair to say that she’s the unhealthiest one to run as a major party choice since another New York state Democrat, Franklin D. Roosevelt, won his his unprecedented fourth-straight presidential election in 1944.

Party bosses knew that FDR was sick in ’44, and fears that Russia-loving leftist Henry A. Wallace, his vice president, could succeed FDR as president was the primary reason Democratic leaders convinced him to dump Wallace as his running mate for Harry S. Truman. The press was rabidly pro-Democrat–sound familiar?–and it had for years covered up that Roosevelt was unable to walk, so it of course assisted in obscuring the president’s newer health concerns. But the what we now call the media didn’t convince everyone. So FDR was compelled to strenuously campaign in the autumn of that year–while of course America was at war–which likely further weakened him.

And how sick was Roosevelt?

In World War II Behind Closed Doors: Stalin, the Nazis, and the West, Lawrence Rees wrote in 2009 about Roosevelt’s health at the Yalta Conference in 1945:

Much has been written about Roosevelt’s physical state at the conference. Those who worked closely with him, like George Elsey, had noticed a profound deterioration of the president’s health over the previous months, and Churchill had remarked on how sick Roosevelt looked at the Quebec meeting in September. At Yalta, Lord Moran, Churchill’s doctor, recorded: “Everyone seemed to agree that the president had gone to bits physically…I doubt, from what I have seen, whether he is fit for his job here.”

John "Lee" Ruberry of the Magnificent Seven
John “Lee” Ruberry of the Magnificent Seven

Roosevelt was clearly duped by Joseph Stalin at Yalta, where he handed eastern Europe to the communists, including Poland, for whom Great Britain and France went to war after the weaker nation was invaded by the Nazis, which of course is how World War II began.

Do we want another ill–or yes, I’m going to say it–dying president to be swindled by another Russian leader? Or by Iran? (Of course, that is what happened with a presumably much healthier Barack Obama.) Or by anyone?

Roosevelt, as we all know, died three months after being sworn-in as president for the fourth time.

Oh, yes, I’m aware the John F. Kennedy had Addison’s disease, which was hidden from the public, but he had suffered from the ailment since the 1940s. His sister, Eunice, also had Addision’s, she died at 88. JFK’s health problems were partially attributed to his abuse of prescription drugs.

John Ruberry regularly blogs at Marathon Pundit.

John "Lee' Ruberry
John “Lee” Ruberry of the Magnificent Seven

By John Ruberry

I try not to cover the same subject in successive weeks in my weekly posts here, but these are not ordinary times. Media bias in regards to the presidential campaign is my topic, as it was last Sunday.

Fox News’ Howard Kurtz brought my attention to a New York Times article by Jim Rutenberg, a media columnist, who views a Donald Trump presidency as “potentially dangerous” and he essentially encourages reporters to “move closer than you’ve ever been to being oppositional.”

In other words, it’s okay for liberal journalists–an oxymoron–to work against the Republican nominee and support Hilary Clinton.

An oxymoron? A 2014 Indiana University poll found that just seven percent of journalists identify as Republican. My guess is that once you remove Fox News and Wall Street Journal reporters from the sample then that percentage would be quite close to zero percent.

Yes, Donald Trump and other Republicans are right. The media is biased. Yet, many voters, perhaps most, don’t understand, possibly because teachers and professors, themselves mostly comprised of leftists, tell students that journalists are simply collectors and conveyors of facts.

But the liberal guardians control that conveyor. Last week the Taliban-loving father of the Orlando terrorist who murdered 49 gay night club patrons sat directly behind Hillary Clinton as she spoke in that Florida city. Did the mainstream media cover that? Kinda sorta. But when white supremacist David Duke endorsed Trump’s candidacy in February, that incident received six times the coverage that the assassin’s dad story.

Last week’s Time cover showed a cartoonish image of Trump and his famous blonde hair pile with drips, with this headline, “Meltdown.” Sure, Trump–disclosure time, I voted for him in the Illinois Republican Primary and I will vote for in November–has engaged in many self-inflicted wounds.

But where is the Time cover story with Hillary Clinton with a Pinocchio nose? The Democratic nominee has repeatedly lied–wait, make that purposefully lied–about turning over emails from her private email server while serving as Obama’s secretary of state, about sending and receiving classified emails over that server, about Benghazi, and about ties to the so-called Clinton Foundation charity and the US State Department.

Donald Trump is right. The system is rigged. Clinton deserves to be under indictment. She isn’t because the Obama Justice Department is protecting her. And the corrupt media is shielding her by distracting the populace and preventing widespread rightful indignation.

The presidential race is being subverted by a media coup d’état.

Oh, if you are one of the increasingly fewer people who still subscribes to Time and the New York Times–and you are a conservative, I suggest that you kill the beast. Unsubscribe.

John Ruberry regularly blogs at Marathon Pundit.

 

By John Ruberry

I overheard someone saying yesterday, “Did you you hear that Donald Trump hates babies? Yes, a baby was crying at one of his rallies and Trump said, ‘Get that baby out of here.'”

This person is a member of America’s largest voting bloc, the uninformed voter. He gets his news from his Facebook feed–FB’s trending topic page was recently exposed as biased against conservatives–and I suspect he doesn’t know who is state representative is or his member of Congress is. But presidential elections bring out uninformed voters at a higher rate than in off-year elections, which explains Barack Obama and the Democratic Party’s wins in 2008 and 2012 and the Republican successes in 2010 and 2014.

Oh, about that baby. While there was some harmless banter between Trump and the baby’s mother, the media lied, particularly its headline writers. Low-information voters read headlines but are less willing to read articles because sometimes they contain ideas and words they may not understand. Or maybe the uninformed are lazy, which of course explains how they got that way.

Here’s an honest headline: Donald Trump did not tell the baby’s mother to leave his rally.

Who says so? The infant’s mom, that’s who.

The media created a firestorm over Trump’s feuding with Khizr Khan, the father of a US Army officer whose son was killed in a terror attack in Iraq. While the political newcomer would have been better off avoiding the dispute altogether, the dishonest mainstream media avoided mentioning Khan’s suspected ties to the extremist Muslim Brotherhood and his history of supporting sharia law.

John "Lee' Ruberry
John “Lee” Ruberry

Of more importance to the ordinary American is that Hillary Clinton flat-out lied to Fox News’ Chris Wallace about her email scandal last week. Specifically she lied about her lying–FBI director James Comey did not say Clinton was truthful about her explanations of her use of an unsecured email server while she served as Barack Obama’s secretary of state.

In an attempt to talk her way out of her self-inflicted mess, on Friday Clinton, in her first press conference of 2016, uttered a top-level gaffe, claiming that she “may have short-circuited” during the Wallace interview.

Is America ready for a president who short-circuits? Or one who is a serial liar?

John Ruberry regularly blogs at Marathon Pundit.

I never Knew the New Republic did comedy because this argument by Brian Beutler is a joke.

Rand Paul’s Petulance With Reporters Will Ruin Him

Now in fairness to Mr. Beutler, you can make a case that Mr. Paul has been more flexible in his positions and to some degree his article makes that case

Paul went on to suggest his old view—that we should not provide foreign aid to Israel—isn’t in contradiction with his new view: that foreign aid should be phased out, starting with antagonistic countries and working back to Israel, because “ultimately all nations should be free of foreign aid because we shouldn’t borrow money to do it.”

However attacking the Senator for the difference between his ideal (the elimination of foreign aid) and the steps that are politically possible to move in that direction (elimination of foreign aid to our enemies) is a weak argument as selling what is currently possible while making the case to the people for the next step is the way an intelligent pol creates change.

But in terms of sheer nonsense that pales before the argument that not being friendly to reporters is going to ruin him.

When he shushes a reporter or scolds her for talking over him, his loyalists don’t see an otherwise talented politician unable to hide his annoyance. They eat it up. In their minds Paul is the rare politician who’ll bite back at reporters when they supposedly expose their biases. But asking questions that other conservatives continue to raise reveals no bias. What it reveals is that, for all his natural talent, Paul can’t reconcile his beliefs with his ambitions. That’s a huge problem for a national politician. It will define his candidacy.

This is nonsense for two significant reasons.

The first is the most obvious, no matter how many times as a Republican you go along with a reporters meme or make concessions to their opinions, the reality is the goal of the Mainstream media is your defeat and if you are a strong conservative not just your defeat you but discredit you.

Making accommodations with people who want to destroy you is analogous to the Iran deal a denial of reality that will in the end only make things worse.

That argument alone justifies Senator Paul statements but there is a second less obvious point that is even more decisive.  The media as an institution is not trusted by the public as Gallup noted during while discussing the Brian Williams fiasco:

Will this affect Americans’ trust in the media? It could, but it’s important to keep in mind that such trust is already as low as it has been since Gallup began measuring it.

Each September we track a measure of trust in “…the mass media, such as newspapers, TV and radio — when it comes to reporting the news fully, accurately and fairly…” The accompanying graph shows the trend since 1997, with the “great deal”/”fair amount” of trust category dropping from as high as 55% in 1999 to a low of 40% both in 2012 and in 2014.

In other words six in ten Americans don’t trust the MSM in fact according to Gallup’s chart less than one in five Americans trust Television or Internet news quite a lot or more and Newspapers only manage to produce that level of trust from 22% of Americans.

In fact not only are media trusted less than Banks but only 38% of independents and 54% of Democrats have even a fair amount of trust of the media.

That being the case when Rand Paul expresses public distrust in the media the most likely reaction from the majority of the voting public is going to be agreement

Will it be enough to win Senator Paul the nomination?  Of course not, but disdain for the media can only help Rand Paul with voters and only someone from the media could fail to understand this.

***************************************************************************

If 1000 of our readers kicked in $20 we’d be all set for a full year and I could retire DaTipJar till January of 2016.

Of course if one person wants to kick in that $20K we’ll take that too.  Help me make the good fight every single day.

We’re extending our March premium to April for tip jar hitters of $50 or more is Stacy McCain’s book:  Sex Trouble: Essays on Radical Feminism and the War Against Human Nature

Subscribe at $50 or more in April and receive each monthly premium shipped the date of your payment.

 

All Tip Jar hits in April of $10 or more will get a copy of Jeff Trapani’s excellent E-Book Victor the Monster Frankenstein.