Lying media scum

Here’s the headline: Poll: Clear majority supports nuclear deal with Iran. Here’s what the survey showed, according to the opening para:

By a nearly 2 to 1 margin, Americans support the notion of striking a deal with Iran that restricts the nation’s nuclear program in exchange for loosening sanctions, a new Washington Post-ABC News poll finds.

If it comes to that, I support a deal that restricts Iran’s ability to produce nuclear weapons. But it is the second para of the story that brings clarity to what American really believe:

But the survey — released hours before Tuesday’s negotiating deadline — also finds few Americans are hopeful that such an agreement will be effective. Nearly six in 10 say they are not confident that a deal will prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, unchanged from 15 months ago, when the United States, France, Britain, Germany, China and Russia reached an interim agreement with Iran aimed at sealing a long-term deal.

So try a question like this instead: Are you in favour of striking a deal that leaves Iran with nuclear weapons while their leaders continue to repeat, “Death to America”, and who threaten to use a nuclear weapon to obliterate Israel?

It is lying media scum who ask their own poorly framed question, leave out the necessary qualification, and have done so to help ease the way towards an outcome that achieves what absolutely no American could possibly want. We know whose side the media are on, but does anyone know why that is? We also know which side the American administration is on, which leads to exactly the same question again.

UPDATE: And from Drudge, the sub-heads at the top of the page:

Iran talks lead to more talks…
Tehran refuses to give up enriched nuclear material…
Iran militia chief: Destroying Israel ‘nonnegotiable’…
Hackers threaten ‘electronic holocaust’…
Drone Spat in Iraq…
Saudis Make Own Moves…
Rabbi compares Obama to Haman, archenemy of Jewish people…
French Fear Plans To Make Iran Key Middle East Ally…
Venue for talks is ‘gilded cage’ under constant surveillance…
ABCWASHPOST POLL: Clear majority of Americans support deal…

About that “nonnegotiable” destruction of Israel. This is the opening of the story linked above:

The commander of the Basij militia of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards said that “erasing Israel off the map” is “nonnegotiable,” according to an Israel Radio report Tuesday.

Militia chief Mohammad Reza Naqdi also threatened Saudi Arabia, saying that the offensive it is leading in Yemen “will have a fate like the fate of Saddam Hussein.”

So why are the Americans so intent on reaching a deal? Anyone’s guess, but protecting American interests does not appear to be amongst them.

A media even worse than the worst president in history

The worst president and an even worse media. He couldn’t do what he’s doing if he weren’t being given such benign media coverage by the American media that is laughably supposed to speak truth to power. The stories are from Powerline Picks at the moment, with links only to the ones that are not covered in the headline. They media know everything we know, but they won’t say a thing. And we know they know because of the way they avoid every issue that might damage their president. But if the shape of the world as outlined below doesn’t spook you, I don’t know what will.

US begins Tikrit air strikes — NORDLAND & BAKER, NY TIMES

Saudis begin air assault in Yemen — MAZZETTI & KIRKPATRICK, NY TIMES

Bergdahl charged with desertion — D. LAMOTHE, WAPO

American chutzpah — Y. AMIDROR, ISRAEL HAYOM

Kerry off to close deal — MATTHEW LEE, AP

In nuke talks, Iran avoids specifics — SANGER & GORDON, NY TIMES

Obama snubs NATO chief — JOSH ROGIN, BLOOMBERG

Google makes most of close WH ties — B. MULLINS, WSJ

Annabel Crabbe must now be writing for The Onion

A piece like this has to be satire: When Tony Abbott ate that raw onion it really got under my skin.

It’s been nine days since the Prime Minister travelled to a farm in Tasmania and ate an onion like it was an apple. . . .

It was when the farmer was – literally – showing the Prime Minister his onions that the odd thing happened. Mr Abbott seized one and took a lavish bite, skin and all.

Now: not being surprised by things that Tony Abbott does is becoming a national skill-set. But in the days since, I find that I cannot read or think about anything the government does without thinking of that moment, and wondering who eats raw onions, and why, and what it might possibly mean for the nation that the Prime Minister is one of them.

I know this sounds silly.

No, I wouldn’t say it sounds “silly”. I wouldn’t say that at all. I can’t quite find the word, just yet, but don’t you worry, it will come to me eventually. But “silly” is not the one that I am at the moment tossing up between

Goebbels in the modern world

I’m not entirely sure what’s wrong with using Goebbels as a metaphor for political lying. Goebbels is known for pointing out the value of the “big lie”, no one defends lying in politics, and Goebbels was the propaganda minister of one of the most sinister governments ever to find its way to power. As Andrew Bolt points out, those now acting horror-struck by such comparisons were quite happy to apply the phrase to others, and did so without the media going off the planet.

Let us therefore look at what Goebbels actually said:

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

Let me adjust this for the way things work in the modern world:

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the media can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the media to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of political parties of the left.”

Take their ABC. No one is in the slightest doubt that the ABC will never willingly say anything that damages Labor, and will say anything it can get away with to damage the Coalition. This is universally known and is only denied pro forma by the ABC itself. The ABC is the propaganda unit of the Labor Party. It does everything it can to protect the Labor party from its own incompetence. And the ABC is far from the full extent of the problem. No one who reads a paper with care is unaware of the political biases of each of the writers. In some places you get balance and in others you get such imbalance that you no longer even bother.

As noted here in relation to the Ferguson Riots in the United States, it was the propagation of a series of lies across the media that caused a minor incident to lead to a major racial crisis in the United States which led to deaths and shootings of police officers as a direct result. With a touch of exaggeration at the end he writes: “Of course, if liberals weren’t willing to tell lies — and fools weren’t ready to believe lies — no Democrat could ever get elected.”

Media bias has deeply corrupted our political process. The cure I do not know, but the problem is manifest and continues to cause great harm.

The Australian and Mr Abbott

The Australian seems ever so gently to be edging towards an anti-Abbott position which may, or may not, reflect the views of its owner, but which definitely does not reflect the views of at least one of its readers. I almost always start the paper with Cut and Paste which, up until recently, had always been written up in a way that matched my own view of things. But of late, there have been a few that have left me completely perplexed, since to make sense of them as a form of irony, you would have to be pro-Labor. Today Cut and Paste was devoted to Andrew Bolt’s deconstruction of John Lyon’s nonsense story on Abbott’s supposed plan for a unilateral invasion of Iraq. Andrew is back on this theme today, and you will have to pardon his French: This campaign to intimidate me will not work: Lyons’ claim remains bullshit. Why The Australian persists with this story, since it was utterly implausible from the start, I do not know, but it does make me nervous. The editorial, also today, critical of Abbott’s statement about the cost of funding remote aboriginal communities, was more of the same.

And just to push the same message along, there is the feature opinion piece of the day, also a negative take on the cost of servicing remote aboriginal sites, and written by the presenter of Radio National’s Drive Program. Naturally, the need to contain costs is as remote from her consciousness as are these various sites.

And again today, also on the opinion page, there is an article near on incomprehensible to me by Nikki Savva, who I normally ignore, about something Credlin wrote to some Senator and the smouldering resentment it seems to have caused for reasons that remain unclear. Whatever it was, she has seen fit to do a bit of troublemaking, whose long-term good can only be for the Labor Party, but may provide some assistance along the way to Malcolm.

Then yesterday, on the front page but below the fold, there was a small but respectful article about Malcolm Turnbull’s speech on the economy and about what a great job he believes he could do to sell the current need to bring fiscal responsibility back. Maybe so, but the evidence Turnbull can sell anything other than pre-approved Labor polices to Labor voters is still untested. So it is good to see another perspective: Hartigan attacks Turnbull on “woeful” record. It begins:

FORMER News Corp boss John Hartigan has launched a blistering attack against Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull for failing to reform media laws, accusing of him of having a “woeful” track record and ignoring regional communities.

The chairman of regional TV company Prime Media Group was responding to Turnbull’s “tough talking speech about the economy” to the Brisbane Club yesterday, which he said was “packed full of platitudes about embracing the future and the need for reform”.

Hartigan said: “Malcolm Turnbull reckons he can sell tough reform, but his track record in his own portfolio is woeful.”

“The Minister likes to talk the talk when discussing the economy, but when it comes to tackling much needed media reform in his own portfolio, I wonder if he will walk the walk?

For Malcolm to think he has been a political genius in finding a way to bring in Labor’s NBN with a mild reduction in the level of pure waste may seem wonderful to him but not to me. Where was he when the NBN was being debated in the first place? A white elephant that will sink our living standards, an outcome on which I have never heard Turnbull say a word. I wonder if he even knows.

But the story is also anti-Coalition since it the Government’s media policy, not just Turnbull’s. Not good. Very not good is all I can say.

Yawn: another left-liberal critique of the US government but from an unusual source

Who do you suppose put together this far left liberal critique of the American system of government under the heading, “Fig Leaf: Outrageous Facts About US Congress and Super Pacs”:

This is where the legal absence of institutional checks and balances allows lobby groups, politics and money to come together on a scale that is not imaginable in any other country in the world.

The Senate and Congress are packed with wealthy people that are very rapidly becoming even wealthier. Their collective net worth is now measured in the billions of dollars.

But it is not that easy to get elected to Congress. Candidates have to be heavily connected to lobby groups like Wall Street, National Rifle Association, AIPAC, Military-Industrial Complex and those that are very wealthy. It takes a lot of cash to win campaigns.

The following facts are very difficult to believe but they are actually true. They show that Congress is all about money and lobby politics:

1. The collective net worth of all members is reportedly over 2 billion dollars. But it could be higher, as more than 50 percent are millionaires.

2. This is during a time when the net worth of most American households has declined.

3. The average net worth for a member is $3.8 million and counting.

4. The average cost of winning a seat in Congress is $1.1 million, while in the Senate it is $6.5 million. Spending on political campaigns has gotten way out of control.

5. Insider trading is legal for members, and they refuse to pass a law that would change that.

6. The percentage of millionaires in Congress is 50 times higher than the percentage of millionaires in the country.

There are lots of ways these politicians are raking in the cash. One way is making investments in companies that will go up significantly if legislation that is being considered “goes the right way”. This happens constantly and nobody seems to get into any trouble for it.

For instance, when it comes to the National Rifle Association, climate change deniers, Israel, Big Oil, or Military-Industrial Complex, these “hired guns” waste no time to pass legislation that would support their “friends”. In return, they get all the cash they need for their election campaigns.

This is not new. The emperor is butt naked. Whoever Americans vote for, the money and the lobby groups get in. The law allows unlimited campaign contributions by lobby groups, corporations and unions. The organizations that are taking advantage of this law are known as Super Pacs and they can remain anonymous.

As is, money in American politics is the elephant in the room. In the interim, the White House tenants are asking us to ignore both the sight and the stench. They want us to believe no one is buying the candidates and access to power, and that there is no coordination between the compromised members of Congress and the Super Pac.

In reality, however, this is little more than a fig leaf. Any doubters should go through an unusual open letter from Republican senators, which was made public recently, cautioning Iran against a potential nuclear deal with President Obama. The letter shows us how class interests and the influence of money and lobby groups have visibly corrupted an entire political culture.

In no small part it also explains the depth of cynicism, alienation and mistrust the international community now has for America’s illusion of participatory democracy and sovereign foreign policy.

Why it’s none other than the FNA. And to find out who that is, you need to go here. It’s not just that my enemy’s enemy is my friend. For the left in the US, these are their friends.

[Via John Hinderaker at Powerline]

“Americans are beginning to understand that the politics of ‘hope and change’ has an enforcement arm that operates like an organized crime syndicate”

Those Lois Lerner emails that happened to have been accidentally deleted and could not be retrieved turn out to still exist and are being brought to light. So this is where matters now stand: IRS Being Investigated For Criminal Misconduct Surrounding Lois Lerner’s ‘Missing’ Emails

“The IRS was apparently given instruction to do whatever necessary to silence those who spoke out against the Obama Administration. It became a West Wing weapon of choice. As the nation’s only pro-liberty election integrity organization, True the Vote was marked for takedown by the IRS early in 2010, along with hundreds of other organizations that spoke openly about government corruption. It took a long time, too long, for the pieces to be put together, but Americans are beginning to understand that the politics of ‘hope and change’ has an enforcement arm that operates like an organized crime syndicate. The time for choosing is now,” True the Vote Founder Catherine Engelbrecht, who was targeted by the IRS and other government agencies, said in a statement about the new revelations. “Our elected officials need to stop playing politics and use the powers we’ve entrusted to them to restore the rule of law in Washington. Stop handing out bonuses and start sending law-breaking bureaucrats to jail. If Congress doesn’t have conviction enough to get the job done, then just turn out the lights, get off the payroll, go home, and get out of the way. Enough is enough. The American people will not be silenced.”

No doubt the media blackout on these developments continues.

Why isn’t he questioning the President’s patriotism? Why isn’t everyone?

I don’t wish to be mean about a people from whence some of my best friends have come, but if this presentation from Rudolph Giuliani is a revelation to anyone, Americans are beyond naive, living in a complete fantasyland. I don’t think badly about someone because of the colour of their skin, but the colour of their skin is also not a reason to like or trust them. Obama was bad news from the start, and the only surprise to me has been how far and for how long he has been able to string people along. In fact, he continues to this minute. These mild criticisms from Rudolph Giuliani have nevertheless led to a series of death threats and hysteria in the media and across the left. Giuliani has therefore now responded.

Former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani adamantly defended Thursday his controversial criticism of President Obama, one day after saying he does “not believe that the president loves America.”

Giuliani made the remarks Wednesday at a private fundraiser for Republican Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, who is widely considered to be a prospective candidate for president in 2016. He added: “(Obama) doesn’t love you. And he doesn’t love me. He wasn’t brought up the way you were brought up and I was brought up through love of this country.”

The comments drew widespread criticism from Democrats and liberals.

But Thursday night on “The Kelly File,” when host Megyn Kelly asked Giuliani if he wished to apologize, the 2008 presidential candidate doubled down on his criticism.

“Not at all. I want to repeat it,” Giuliani said. “The reality is, from all that I can see of this president, all that I’ve heard of him, he apologizes for America, he criticizes America. … This is an American president I’ve never seen before.”

Giuliani said he doesn’t think Obama believes in American exceptionalism, citing the president’s remarks on police tactics in the wake of the Ferguson shooting, western atrocities in the name of religion and Obama’s longtime association with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, a controversial Chicago pastor.

But, Kelly countered, “a lot of liberals don’t believe in American exceptionalism, but that doesn’t mean they don’t love America.”

“I don’t feel it,” Giuliani said. “I don’t feel this love of America (from Obama). I believe his initial approach is to criticize this country, and then afterwards to say a few nice things about it.”

Giuliani, however, said he wasn’t questioning the president’s patriotism.

What does a guy have to do to show that he hates America and supports radical Islam? He’s not going to tell you so you just have to work it out from what he does. It really is insane.

Please now read Mark Steyn.

Guess whose policies are anti-American, anti-Western, pro-Islamic

The “he” quoted below is a retired four-star admiral who commanded the U.S. Pacific Fleet during several Middle East flare ups. The title of the story is, Wartime admiral: Obama is ‘anti-American, pro-Islamic’. This is what he said.

“The Obama administration has a strategy. It is very simple. Any thinking American should be able to grasp it. It’s anti-American, anti-Western, it’s pro-Islamic, pro-Iranian, and pro-Muslim Brotherhood,” he said last week at a conference hosted by the conservative Center for Security Policy where he heads the military committee.

Won’t cause a ripple of notice, which is more incredible than anything else.

The media are not your friends

A government of the modern age, specially one of a conservative inclination, must be in permanent campaign mode. They have to do things, but they also have to project themselves into the community, making sure that everyone understands what they are up to, and why what they are doing is what needs to be done. They cannot expect the media to do any of the work for them. They must expect the media instead to do everything it can to wreck their plans and see them out of government at the soonest possible date.

If you leave it to the media to set the agenda, you are at the mercy of people who will tear you to pieces if they can.

This is an article on how conservative candidates need to deal with the media. If they act like your enemy, treat them like one. Most people in the media have never done anything other than learn short-hand and attend meetings of the Marxist underground. They are experts in not a single thing they report on. This is therefore the advice, which is easily translated from American politics into the politics of every other democracy on the planet.

Today’s media has less respect for the truth than an elevator full of con artists. As bad as it is most of the time, it gets worse during national campaigns when it begins manufacturing scandals and then reporting on them and then demanding that the candidates respond to its narratives as if they were real issues. And Republicans keep falling for it.

The road to the White House is over the crushed and mangled narratives of the media. A Republican candidate who fails to take on the media will fall wrapped head to toe in lies and scandals. He will go on issuing clarifications and sensible statements while the media accuses him of murdering small children.

The media is not impartial. It is not even a forum. The national media is the political opponent of every Republican running for the White House.

It needs to be treated that way.

When CNN’s John King tried to drag Newt Gingrich through the dirt in a primary debate, Gingrich dragged the media through the dirt instead, describing it as “destructive”, “vicious” and “negative”. He turned the tables by putting the media and its motives up on the stage. He refused to treat John King as a journalist who had the right to hold him accountable. Instead he fought to hold King accountable.

And that’s something that any Republican candidate can do.

The public doesn’t like the media. Poll after poll shows that they don’t trust the media. They listen to what the media tells them because Republicans meekly play out their parts in the media’s smear campaigns the way that ISIS hostages do what they’re told even while their heads are being cut off.

When the media attacks, the issue should never be the credibility of a Republican candidate. The issue must always be the credibility of the media. It must be the credibility of the politicians being protected by the press. . . .

The media would have been unable to move forward with the story without quoting the candidates, relegating the whole thing to the backwaters of the left in places like Salon and Slate. Instead the story is everywhere. And the only people who can kill it are the Republican targets of the smear campaign. . . .

The media buried Romney’s dog story when Republicans tepidly picked on the conservative media’s response that Obama had eaten dog. But when Republicans sit and take it, then they become the victims of the media.

The media counts on Republicans playing defense. When Republicans go on the attack, when they challenge premises and the moral authority of the press, then phony scandals suddenly fizzle out. Republicans wouldn’t roll over and play dead for their opponents. Why do they do it for the media?

Obama understood that being able to control your message and your brand is the most important element of modern politics. He shut out the media by using a small clique of influential friendly journalists for heavy interviews while doing light chats with everyone from YouTube celebrities to late night talk show hosts. He has his own photographer who distributes photos for the press to use.

When there’s a controversy, the White House leaks an anonymous response. Its spokesmen divert and delay. They make fools of themselves to protect Obama. Their main goal is to deny the press a useable quote and they accomplish their real purpose of making the press briefings a waste of the press’ time.

If Obama distrusts and shuts out the press even though it licks his boots, why do Republicans play ball with it only to get a kick in the teeth? The media was Obama’s messaging machine. It is becoming Hillary’s spin system.

If Republicans passively submit to it, then the media will define them and 2016 will become a rerun of 2012. 2016 won’t just be a race against Hillary, but against the media. The media needs Republicans to tie the noose around their own necks by acknowledging the media’s credibility as investigators and reporters.

When Republicans provide the media with credibility, they lose.

I hope you guys are paying attention, and the place to start is with their ABC.