Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Posts Tagged ‘Rachel Maddow’

Rachel Maddow reveals a hidden purpose for masking – The Exit Network

Posted by M. C. on May 24, 2021

As you’ll see below, masks served as a helpful signal. Wearing one meant you were virtuous. Even more important, if someone was spotted NOT donning the sacred fabric, then you knew that they were… thoughtless, anti-science, and even evil.

A little piece of fabric told them all of that.

First, it’s overwhelmingly common that what people claim is “Science” turns out to be something they were told by some authority. The people advocating a given claim by a scientist didn’t conduct the experiment themselves. Heck, they didn’t even read the study they’re citing. They remember a headline from somewhere or a tweet published by a public figure they trust.

The Exit Network

Political division is a primary purpose for masking.

That’s a very big claim that requires evidence. We’re going to show you that evidence. But first, let’s get something out of the way…

This column is not an argument for or against masks. That’s been debated and covered elsewhere. Here, we’re more interested in the fact that both partisan teams view mask wearing as an important social signal. Indeed, on the pro-mask side, there’s the sudden, ironic urge to “question the science” after the CDC Director says something responsible…

People who’ve been vaccinated are safe without masks. At the same time, she won’t promise safety for the people who have not been vaccinated.

Finally, the government is practicing a measure of Human Respect — returning to the state where individuals can make and determine the personal risks they’re willing to accept or prevent. But the reaction of the pro-mask crowd demonstrates that there was something bigger than science at work here.

Woman pulling down mask and smiling at the fresh air

As you’ll see below, masks served as a helpful signal. Wearing one meant you were virtuous. Even more important, if someone was spotted NOT donning the sacred fabric, then you knew that they were… thoughtless, anti-science, and even evil.

A little piece of fabric told them all of that.

On that note, we turn to MSNBC host Rachel Maddow, who both admits to mixed feelings over the announcement and to acceptance of the CDC director’s guidance.

An ‘A’ for consistency

To be fair, Maddow deserves a high grade for being consistent. She’s an authoritarian — and that’s not a rude ad hominem statement. It simply means that she believes science is what the authorities say it is, and that we must follow the science as reported by those authorities.

It’s a valid point of view. Here’s why…

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

What the left fears most – Aussie Nationalist Blog

Posted by M. C. on April 21, 2021

I don’t know anything about Fuentes nor AFPAC but if Maddog doesn’t like them it is worth a look.

For some years now, I have been a big supporter of Nick Fuentes and his work.

By way of background, Fuentes is an American commentator of political, cultural as well as social issues–from a nationalist and traditionalist perspective. Banned from Facebook, YouTube, Dlive, and a host of other social media platforms, Fuentes has nonetheless continued to grow in influence. To date, the peak of this growth was seen in the second America First Political Action Conference (AFPAC) held on 27 February 2021. This conference was organised by Fuentes; it also featured high profile attendees including former US Congressman Steve King and current US Congressman Paul Gosar.

AFPAC, explictly inaugurated last year as a right-wing alternative to CPAC, was a genuinely conservative conference. This meant from a leftist perspective, there were various ways in which it could have been attacked–‘racist’, ‘sexist’, ‘homophobic’, etc.

This is what made the most notable attack on AFPAC, initiated by Rachel Maddow of MSNBC, all the more interesting. Maddow falsely claimed that Fuentes, an outspoken critic of the alt-right, favoured a “whites-only nation” and had held a “white nationalist conference.” Being accustomed to the tactics of the lying press, these distortions were of course unsurprising.

However, it was striking that Maddow chose to attack on the grounds of “racism” and “white nationalism,” when race was not even at the centre of AFPAC, nor does it underride the politics of Fuentes. While it was a political conference, AFPAC was predicated on religious themes, with speakers rebuking the current scourge of evil and pledging their loyalty to Jesus Christ. The loudest cheers of the night came when Vincent James, speaking to what underpinned the AFPAC movement, declared:


Despite the prominence of religious themes, in looking to inflict maximal damage on AFPAC, Maddow focused on ‘racism’ and avoided referencing God.

Exampled by this glaring omission from Maddow, a left-wing journalist, we can plainly discern the preferred modus operandi of the left: It wishes to frame the left-right clash as one of anti-racism vs racism, carefully contained within a materialist spectrum of ideas. The left will not grant God any salience; it instead prefers to brand Adolf Hitler as evil incarnate, with conservatives culpable by association depending on their greater or lesser degree of deviation from racialist ideology.

As outlined previously, the left engineers the dialectic so that it never loses a fight; it constructs narratives that are calculated to bring about our defeat and legitimise their hegemony. Which raises the question: why does the left frame the clash as one of racism vs anti-racism, when it is more fundamentally one of Christianity vs atheist progressivism?

Clearly, because the left fears an authentically Christian reaction, it presenting a greater challenge to their agenda than racialist politics. For it is only through God that people can draw the discipline from which to reconstitute a conservative society, and turn back the revolutionary changes imposed. Likewise, where there is a firm belief in the Divine, people are less concerned with temporal hardship, rendering them less passive in the face of unjust dictates and tyrannical control.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment » AOC Wants Biden to Boost Infrastructure Spending to $10 Trillion

Posted by M. C. on April 2, 2021

Maddow must have been short on time because she did not get a chance to ask AOC how she would pay for a $10 trillion program, or ask her about the economic distortions government programs cause or ask her why she wants to promote standard of living lowering unions.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) told MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow that President Biden’s $2.25 trillion infrastructure package is  “encouraging.”

However, she added that she has “serious concerns that it’s not enough.” 

AOC said that the U.S. could “realistically need $10 trillion over 10 years.”

“I know that may by an eye-popping figure for some people, but we need to understand that we are in a devastating economic moment. Millions of people in the United States are unemployed. We have a truly crippled health care system and a planetary crisis on our hands, and we’re the wealthiest nation in the history of the world. So we can do $10 trillion,” she told Maddow. 

And here is the part where Rep. Ocasio-Cortez mentions the 10 trillion number that caught @Lawrence ‘s attention.

We’ll have the full @AOC interview published later tonight.— Maddow Blog (@MaddowBlog) April 1, 2021

Maddow must have been short on time because she did not get a chance to ask AOC how she would pay for a $10 trillion program, or ask her about the economic distortions government programs cause or ask her why she wants to promote standard of living lowering unions.  –RW

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Dear US media, we don’t need Russia to attack our power grid, we’re perfectly capable of tanking it ourselves…just look at Texas — RT Op-ed

Posted by M. C. on February 18, 2021

Although the Post article is still freely available online without so much as a firewall, it comes with an editor’s note that reads, “An earlier version of this story incorrectly said that Russian hackers had penetrated the U.S. electric grid. Authorities say there is no indication of that so far. The computer at Burlington Electric that was hacked was not attached to the grid.”

Robert Bridge

Robert Bridge

Robert Bridge is an American writer and journalist. He is the author of ‘Midnight in the American Empire,’ How Corporations and Their Political Servants are Destroying the American Dream. @Robert_Bridge

One of the wilder charges the US mainstream media has leveled against Russia is that it could “kill the power” in the US during a brutal cold snap. Can Russia expect an apology now the US energy grid failed the Lone Star State?

‘Never let a good snowstorm go to waste’ appears to be the mantra of the moment as Texas suffers through a state of emergency. Amid freak weather conditions that sent temperatures plummeting across the country, leaving some three million Texans without power, Democrats are lecturing the Republican-run state for not adequately protecting their “outdated” fossil-fuel-powered resources. The Republicans are responding by blaming the crisis on “frozen windmills,” one of the left’s sacred cows representing a pollution-free world of endless free energy. Notice anything out of place?

America installed Antarctic wind turbines in 2010, but Texas is freezing because their privatized public energy utilities were too cheap to winterize their windmills.— Grant Stern (@grantstern) February 17, 2021

Strangely missing from this latest descent into American madness is the global arch-villain, Russia. That is a rather surprising omission considering that the American people have been conditioned to believe that if they find themselves without heat in the dead of winter the most likely culprit is not an aging and dilapidated energy grid, or even an unpaid heating bill, but rather a ruthless gang of Russian hackers, most likely in the employ of Vladimir Putin.

By way of example, back in 2016, at the very same time that Barack Obama had just expelled 35 Russian diplomats for “undermining our election processes and institutions,” the Washington Post ran a sensational story entitled, ‘Russian operation hacked a Vermont utility, showing risk to U.S. electrical grid security, officials say’.

No less of a governmental authority than Vermont Governor Peter Shumlin (D) was quoted in the article as saying: “Vermonters and all Americans should be both alarmed and outraged that one of the world’s leading thugs, Vladimir Putin, has been attempting to hack our electric grid, which we rely upon to support our quality-of-life, economy, health, and safety…”

There was just one problem with that explosive accusation against faraway Russia: it was entirely predicated upon fake news and disinformation. Although the Post article is still freely available online without so much as a firewall, it comes with an editor’s note that reads, “An earlier version of this story incorrectly said that Russian hackers had penetrated the U.S. electric grid. Authorities say there is no indication of that so far. The computer at Burlington Electric that was hacked was not attached to the grid.”

One must wonder what would happen in the event that the US media, after publishing some similarly unsubstantiated piece of derangement, finds itself responsible for dragging the world to the precipice of World War III because some people lost their heat in Spokane. Would anyone bother to read the buried editor’s note that finally sets the record straight before the missiles start flying? But I digress.

Fast forward to 2019, and the US media was in full-blown anti-Russia manic mode. After all, US presidential elections were fast approaching. In February, amid a different cold spell that swept across the nation, MSNBC host Rachel Maddow didn’t miss an opportunity to ratchet up Russophobia by asking her millions of listeners: “What would happen if Russia killed the power in Fargo [North Dakota] today? What would you do if you lost heat indefinitely as the act of a foreign power on the same day the temperature in your backyard matched the temperature in Antarctica?”

Oh, I don’t know, Rachel, what should I do, aside from freeze? Sit down and write a letter to my congressman?

U.S. largest audience TV host, MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow (Democratic party aligned) this evening: Russia will freeze you and your family to death.— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) January 31, 2019

Had Rachel Maddow been your average media hack, working for some obscure backwater publication, then perhaps such a bone-chilling rhetorical question could be excused as gross unprofessionalism and journalistic immaturity; the work of an amateur fresh out of journalism school. After all, Moscow has never – not even during the height of the Cold War – made the cold-blooded decision to turn off Europe or America’s energy supplies, not in the summer nor in the dead of winter. Yes, there have been arguments over energy payments, specifically with Ukraine, but that is not the same thing as deliberately freezing people to death in their homes. If Rachel Maddow was unfamiliar with that information, that makes her a lousy journalist; if she was familiar with it, yet didn’t feel the need to mention it, that makes her an irresponsible hack with a heavy political ax to grind.

As host of the eponymous The Rachel Maddow Show, the liberal television commentator is one of the most prominent media figures in the United States, with millions of people tuning in nightly to her program. Since Maddow must be aware of her profound influence, which has no small effect on the state of relations between the world’s two preeminent nuclear powers, one would expect to find a hint of objectivity, a modicum of journalistic integrity before she serves up her latest cold dish of Russophobia. Unfortunately, and potentially tragically, there is none of that much-needed balance. When it comes to reporting on Russia, all Western journalists operate with the understanding that they can take tremendous liberties as they please. 

Somehow in the world of US journalism and global geopolitics this loathsome treatment of an entire nation has become the accepted norm, to the point where a veritable hate campaign – shall we call it ‘racism’ – has been conjured up out of the blue against Russia. In fact, it’s almost worth pondering if even the Jews have historically suffered a more negative press than the Russians, especially in these modern times. I’m guessing at this point it’s about a toss-up.

In any case, since there is already a heated debate underway in the US over who or what is to blame for the rolling blackouts, perhaps it might also be a good time to reflect upon the unfair treatment that has been leveled against the Russian people. After all, Russians have some experience with intemperate weather conditions and they certainly appreciate the importance of staying warm in the winter. Dreaming up some fantastic scenario where Russia magically switches off America’s power grid is not based on precedent or historical experience or even plausibility; rather, it is based on propaganda and cheap lies which only serve to drive up the level of distrust between America and Russia by journalists who really should know better. Before global warming in geopolitics gets any worse, best to treat Russians with the same journalistic scrutiny and integrity that all people deserve.   

Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Coronavirus Pandemic: South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem Stayed the Course | National Review

Posted by M. C. on June 8, 2020


‘The people themselves are primarily responsible for their safety.’

Pierre, South Dakota — The coronavirus crisis hasn’t been kind to the reputations of many governors.

New York’s Andrew Cuomo held effective news conferences that at first burnished his image, but he’s now ducking responsibility for sending virus patients back into nursing homes where the disease promptly spread. Michigan’s Gretchen Whitmer is now seen as a scold who on the one hand has kept pot dispensaries open but, on the other, last week told residents who’ve gone three months without hair care to just “Google how to do a haircut.”

Among the governors whose reputation has clearly been enhanced is South Dakota’s Kristi Noem. The 48-year-old Republican, who still ranches her family’s land, didn’t issue a shelter-in-place lockdown order for her state. “The people themselves are primarily responsible for their safety,” she said in a public statement in April. She added that the state and national constitutions “prevent us from taking draconian measures much like the Chinese government has done.”

But that didn’t mean South Dakota didn’t take clear steps to control the virus. Noem issued an executive order in March urging the elderly and those with preexisting conditions to stay home and encouraging employees to practice social distancing and to telework if possible.

“We do follow Center for Disease Control guidance,” Noem told Greg Kelly of Newsmax TV. “But we also made decisions that were best for South Dakota. South Dakota is not New York City.” Indeed, per square mile, New York has more than 26,000 residents per square mile, while South Dakota has only 12.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Coulter: How to Talk to Your Children About Elizabeth Warren

Posted by M. C. on March 12, 2020

At the risk of hopelessly confusing Brian Williams and Mara Gay, here are some interesting numbers: At least 60% of Democratic votes come from women, according to estimates by Pew and CNN. (This figure isn’t widely advertised: Democrats don’t want people to realize that they are a party of women.)

Warren was rejected by liberal women.

They also rejected the other women, the gay guy and candidates of color.

Not much comment on how the race devolved into being about old, rich, white males.

by Ann Coulter

Some people see Elizabeth Warren’s poor showing on Super Tuesday as just another Democratic hopeful losing her bid.

I see something darker. I see the ugly heart that beats beneath our supposed “democracy.” Frankly, I’m afraid.

Warren’s exit from the race is Brett Kavanaugh’s sneering grimace as he attempted to rape and murder Christine Blasey Ford [editor’s note: allegedly]; it is the smirks on the faces of those fascist 14-year-old anti-choice fanatics from Covington, Kentucky; it is our president constantly raping every woman in sight.

To my children, I say, you will be OK. I won’t sugarcoat it — this is truly horrible. But once we have recovered from this devastating blow, life will go on. You will put one foot in front of the other and …


I know all women across America agree with me. After Warren dropped out, MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell ran “Portraits of Grief” on his nightly show, featuring some of the victims of her failed bid. Rachel Maddow raced to Massachusetts for an exclusive interview with the heroine herself.

And The New York Times published a piece by Sarah Smarsh titled, “I Am Burning With Fury and Grief Over Elizabeth Warren. And I Am Not Alone.”

Let me remind you, the Times is the “Newspaper of Record.”

Some say Smarsh’s op-ed reads like a parody of sexist stereotypes — emotional, childlike, devoid of logic. I say she has proved beyond cavil that Warren’s defeat is an American holocaust.

Her evidence:

FACT: “When Hillary Clinton lost in 2016, it hurt in similar ways … [t]his election, though, I thought Senator Elizabeth Warren … might go to the White House.”


FACT: “[M]y father and maternal grandmother were talking politics at my kitchen table in Kansas. ‘This is the best chance that a woman has ever had to become the president,’ said my dad … ‘Now. It’s now.’”

This isn’t anecdotal. Marsh taped the conversation.

FACT: “[Warren] placed fourth in the Nevada caucuses — in spite of thoroughly winning a Las Vegas candidates debate …”

It’s called “science”!

You wonder whether there is a crisis of sexism in America? There you have it, in black and white.

Nevertheless, Smarsh persisted! Although I think her argument was already water-tight, she also went to the beach and read a novel. And guess what she read? A fictional account of the oppression of women in Colonial Massachusetts!

(We can disregard the near-contemporaneous observations of Alexis de Tocqueville: He was a man. Of course, that’s what he’d say.)

In truth, I don’t believe any of this. I think Smarsh’s ramblings could have been written by a 7-year-old.

Her op-ed does, however, illustrate three points:

1) The perniciousness of participation trophies.

When I was a kid, you got a trophy for winning. Now you get a trophy for showing up. The Participation Trophy phenomenon always struck many of us as wrong and aesthetically displeasing. We wondered what would become of children raised in an “Everybody Gets an ‘A’” culture.

Smarsh’s op-ed is the answer. Entire generations of birdbrains expect a trophy when their candidate runs.

2) The mistake we make as a society in sanctifying tantrums.

Whether it’s a Yale co-ed screaming in the face of a faculty member, hurling insults at him over Halloween costumes, or antifa thugs running around in masks smashing things because a conservative speaker is in the vicinity, the lesson to generations of young people has been: Stamping your feet and throwing things will NOT be a wasted effort.

3) Numbers and statistics aren’t liberals’ thing; personal narrative is.

At the risk of hopelessly confusing Brian Williams and Mara Gay, here are some interesting numbers: At least 60% of Democratic votes come from women, according to estimates by Pew and CNN. (This figure isn’t widely advertised: Democrats don’t want people to realize that they are a party of women.)

Warren was rejected by liberal women.

She was also resoundingly nixed by African Americans and Hispanics. Even her bete noire, Michael Bloomberg, beat Warren among black and Hispanic voters.

(Of course, Bloomberg’s shellacking of Warren at the polls must be balanced against Smarsh’s conclusion about Warren “thoroughly winning” the debate where she bashed Bloomberg.)

Mystified by empirical evidence, liberal women think their personal narratives make fascinating reading. After all, it’s about THEM! How do I know Trump is a monster? I’ve gained 20 pounds since his election! Their op-eds should begin, “Dear Diary.”

In lieu of facts, they fill up their columns with pabulum. Smarsh heard two drunks screaming at the kitchen table — as she put it, “alcohol was involved” — and rushed to hit the “record” button. This is gold!

If liberal women could ever learn to formulate an actual argument, someday, instead of boasting “Nevertheless, she persisted,” they might be able to proclaim, “Nevertheless, she prevailed.”


Be seeing you


Look alikes

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

The untold truth about Obama’s former CIA director, John Brennan

Posted by M. C. on January 4, 2020

No – Brennan apparently wasn’t a party member, Brennan just supported a communist party presidential candidate.

Brennan told the polygraph operator that he had voted for Hall, but added that he was never a member of the Communist Party. Speaking at the conference, Brennan said he was relieved to have been accepted into the CIA, because he worried about having compromised his chances by being forthcoming.

Let’s get something clear from the start. In 1976, in his 20s, John Brennan was a card carrying communist who supported the then Soviet Union, at the height some might say of the Cold War, so much so he voted and assisted Gus Hall, the communist candidate for President against a devout Christian, Jimmy Carter who ultimately won the Presidency.

Yet under four years later, just after the then Soviet Union invaded, just weeks before, Afghanistan and months after the tumultuous Iranian revolution of 1979, which at the time many thought the Soviet Union had a hand in, Brennan was accepted into the CIA as a junior analyst.

At that time, John Brennan should have never got into the CIA, or any Western Intelligence agency given his communist background.

Think on that carefully as you continue to read this.

Also reflect on the fact that Brennan, later in his CIA career, was surprisingly elevated from junior analyst to the prestigious position of Station Chief in Saudi Arabia where he spent a few years.

Its said he was appointed purely for ‘political’ reasons, alleged to have been at the direct request of Bill Clinton and other Democrats not because of a recommendation or merit from within the Agency.

Its further said that the Saudis liked Brennan because he became very quickly ‘their man’ so to speak. Some reports, unsubstantiated, even allege Brennan became a Muslim while there to ingratiate himself with the Saudis.

Important to read is an NBC news article entitled ‘Former Spooks Criticize CIA Director John Brennan for Spying Comments’ by Ken Dilanian dated March 2nd, 2016.

The article contains many revealing facts and evidence, while giving a flavour, of the feelings of many in the CIA who felt that Brennan was totally unsuitable and unqualified to be Director of the Central Intelligence Agency.

(This is the link to the above referenced article: us-news/brennan-joking-when- he-says-cia-spies-doesn-t- steal-n529426. )

A final controversy is the little known fact of Brennan’s near four year departure from the CIA into the commercial world, having been ‘left out in the cold’ from the CIA, from November 2005 to January 2009 when he was CEO of a private company called ‘The Analysis Corporation’.

So why was he then reinstated into the CIA, to the surprise of CIA’s senior management, by newly elected President Obama, to head the CIA? No answer is available as to why he left the CIA in 2005.

(An important link that gives background to his experience in the commercial world can be read here: cia-slammed-brennans- disingenuous-contract-bid- wikileaks-show)

Lastly let’s not forget Brennan’s many failures as CIA head in recent years, one most notable is the Benghazi debacle and the death of a US Ambassador and others there. Something else to ponder.

Back to the present an the issue of security clearances.

In early August, on the well known American TV Rachel Maddow Show, Brennan back tracked on his Trump traitor claim by saying “I didn’t mean he (Trump) committed treason. I meant what he has done is nothing short of treasonous.” Rachel Maddow responded correctly “If we diagram the sentence, ‘nothing short of treason’ means it’s treasonous?”

A simple question follows. Since he is no longer in the CIA, why does he need a security clearance other than to commercially exploit it?

Tucker Carlson explains succinctly here:

Last month what can be described as 200+ ‘friends of Brennan’, former CIA officials of varying rank, responded against the removal of former CIA Director Brennan’s security clearances, in support of him.

These men and women too most likely will have their clearances revoked.

And why not?

Since the only purpose they retain it is to make money as civilians?

A potentially more serious issue than ‘the Brennan controversies’ is that the US intelligence community has around 5 million people with security clearances as a whole includes approximately 1.4m people holding top secret clearances. It is patently a ridiculously high number and makes a mockery of the word secret.

Former CIA veteran Sam Faddis is one of the few people brave enough and with the integrity required, that has stood up and told some of the real truths about Brennan in an ‘Open Letter’, yet this letter’s contents have hardly at all been reported in the media.

Generally by nature, CIA Officers sense of service and honour to their Country, their professionalism and humility, and disdain for publicity has dissuaded most of them to enter the current very public Brennan controversy; but for how much longer?

As stated earlier, former CIA professional Sam Faddis explains what’s wrong with Brennan in his revealing letter, abbreviated for space below. A link to the complete letter is: threads/107849-Scathing-Open- Letter-to-Mr-Brennan-by-Retired-CIA-Case-Officer:

Dear Mr. Brennan,

I implore you to cease and desist from continuing to attempt to portray yourself in the public media as some sort of impartial critic concerned only with the fate of the republic. I beg you to stop attempting to portray yourself as some sort of wise, all-knowing intelligence professional with deep knowledge of national security issues and no political inclinations whatsoever.

None of this is true.

You were never a spy. You were never a case officer. You never ran operations or recruited sources or worked the streets abroad. You have no idea whatsoever of the true nature of the business of human intelligence. You have never been in harm’s way. You have never heard a shot fired in anger.

You were for a short while an intelligence analyst. In that capacity, it was your job to produce finished intelligence based on information provided to you by others. The work of intelligence analysts is important, however in truth you never truly mastered this trade either.

In your capacity as an analyst for the Central Intelligence Agency, while still a junior officer, you were designated to brief the President of the United States who was at that time Bill Clinton. As the presidential briefer, it was your job to read to the president each morning finished intelligence written by others based on intelligence collected by yet other individuals. Period.

While serving as presidential briefer you established a personal relationship with then President Bill Clinton. End of story.

Everything that has transpired in your professional career since has been based on your personal relationship with the former president, his wife Hillary and their key associates. Your connection to President Obama was, in fact, based on you having established yourself by the time he came to office as a reliable, highly political Democratic Party functionary.

All of your commentary in the public sphere is on behalf of your political patrons. It is no more impartial analysis then would be the comments of a paid press spokesman or attorney. You are speaking each and every time directly on behalf of political forces hostile to this president. You are, in fact, currently on the payroll of both NBC and MSNBC, two of the networks most vocally opposed to President Trump and his agenda.

There is no impartiality in your comments. Your assessments are not based on some sober judgment of what is best for this nation. They are based exclusively on what you believe to be in the best interests of the politicians with whom you long since allied yourself.

It should be noted that not only are you most decidedly not apolitical but that you have been associated during your career with some of the greatest foreign policy disasters in recent American history.

Ever since this President was elected, there has been a concerted effort to delegitimize him and destabilize him led by you. This has been an unprecedented; to undermine the stability of the republic and the office of the Presidency, for solely partisan political reasons. You and your patrons have been complicit in this effort and at its very heart.

You abandoned any hope of being a true intelligence professional decades ago and became a political hack. Say so.

Sam Faddis

Be seeing you

A Brief History…


Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Maddow Meltdown: In Defense To OAN Lawsuit, Host Argues Her Words Are Not Facts | Zero Hedge

Posted by M. C. on December 29, 2019

Except Maddow, likely still upset from spending 3 years trying to promulgate a Russian hoax that didn’t exist, didn’t quite get her facts straight. Big surprise.

Maddow is tops in cable news ratings. Tells you why the sheeple are in the state they are in.

Just another liar in a giant nest of liars.

Back in September, we reported that TV network OAN had filed a lawsuit against Rachel Maddow for the time the host said that OAN “really, literally is paid Russian propaganda.”

Now, Maddow finds herself having to come up with a defense for her statement in court. And she has also apparently hired Lionel Hutz as her legal adviser.

According to Culttture, her lawyers argued in a recent motion that “…the liberal host was clearly offering up her ‘own unique expression’ of her views to capture what she saw as the ‘ridiculous’ nature of the undisputed facts. Her comment, therefore, is a quintessential statement ‘of rhetorical hyperbole, incapable of being proved true or false.”

Oh, it’s capable of being proved false, alright. Maddow had previously claimed, on air, about one of OAN’s reporters:

“In this case, the most obsequiously pro-Trump right wing news outlet in America is really literally is paid Russian propaganda,” and added, “Their on-air politics reporter (Kristian Rouz) is paid by the Russian government to produce propaganda for that government.”

The testimony of UC Santa Barbara linguistics professor Stefan Thomas Gries, however, stands at odds with Maddow’s defense. Gries said: “It is very unlikely that an average or reasonable/ordinary viewer would consider the sentence in question to be a statement of opinion.”

Gries continued:  “I am the second most widely-cited cognitive linguist and sixth most widely-cited living corpus linguist. The field of cognitive linguistics draws from both linguistics and psychology and studies how language interacts with cognition.”

OAN had filed the defamation suit in federal court in San Diego, according to AP. OAN is a small, family owned conservative network that is based in San Diego and has received favorable Tweets from the President. It is seen as a competitor to Fox News.

OAN’s lawsuit claims that Maddow’s comments were retaliation after OAN President Charles Herring accused Comcast of censorship. The suit said that Comcast refuses to carry its channel because “counters the liberal politics of Comcast’s own news channel, MSNBC.”

It was about a week after Herring e-mailed a Comcast executive when Maddow opened her show by referring to a Daily Beast report that claimed an OAN employee also worked for Sputnik News, which has ties to the Russian government.

Maddow said: “In this case, the most obsequiously pro-Trump right-wing news outlet in America really literally is paid Russian propaganda. Their on-air U.S. politics reporter is paid by the Russian government to produce propaganda for that government.”

Except Maddow, likely still upset from spending 3 years trying to promulgate a Russian hoax that didn’t exist, didn’t quite get her facts straight. Big surprise.

Be seeing you

Rachel Maddow Humiliated When She Lies About Mueller ...

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Rachel Maddow’s post-Mueller investigation wall of crazy.

Posted by M. C. on April 4, 2019

I’ll admit that I haven’t watched Maddow regularly for the past few years. Turning on her show this week was like discovering a Facebook friend is on the verge of a nervous breakdown. She looks the same as she did, she even sounds the same, but 15 minutes into a conspiratorial rant with no sense of proportion or, honestly, responsibility, you realize that something has gone wildly wrong:


…Since Donald Trump’s election, Rachel Maddow has climbed to the top of the cable news ratings with a resistance bullhorn and a conspiratorial vision of the Trump presidency. She has traded the No. 1 slot with Fox’s leading conspiratorialist Sean Hannity, the flip side of her cabal-spotting coin. (In the days since the Mueller investigation concluded, Maddow’s ratings have dipped significantly while Hannity’s have risen.) Hannity, the president’s phone a friend, is widely understood to be a propagandist for the administration—perhaps even by his own audience, MAGA devotees who would never hold such a thing against him. Night after night he pushes deranged “factual” interpretations—Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez is an actress, not a congresswoman; the Mueller investigation is an attempted deep state coup—that turn the world into a wall of crazy targeting the Trump regime.

But Maddow too, has turned the universe into an intricate web of intersecting plots that all lead to one conclusion: collusion. In the days since the Mueller report was sent to Barr, Maddow has held fast to her faith that Mueller is some kind of avenging hero, who will get Trump in the end. “As we await the Mueller report,” she said on Tuesday night, “we are left with this incredibly provocative set of unexplained behaviors.” Then she cued up “the mystery sound,” a not particularly eerie ding she used to introduce a long digression about a still-active “mystery case,” in which a “mystery company owned by mystery country” has resisted all attempts to testify about some mystery topic at the special prosecutor’s request, which she then tied to a number of other still active parts of the Mueller investigation, which she intimated could still result in something damning…

That last part is the most remarkable piece of Maddow’s show since Mueller began to close up shop: the abiding dream of Robert Mueller. In Maddow’s 15 questions on Monday night, she never entertained the possibility that things might have gone exactly as Mueller expected them to. She began with a long monologue about Leon Jaworski, the second special prosecutor on Watergate, drawing a parallel between Jaworski and Mueller that pinned the differences between the outcome of their respective investigations solely on the AG’s behavior. There is so much to be enraged and curious about when it comes to the handling of the Mueller report so far, but anyone seriously grappling with why it has been managed in the way that it has—why one person’s interpretation of a two-year investigation has come to stand in for whatever it contains—has to contend with the possibility that Barr’s interpretation might be accurate and that Mueller was prepared for this outcome. But Maddow has entertained zero criticism of Mueller, he’s the protagonist she’s sticking with, and zero engagement with the possibility that this—the “this” that includes indictments of several top Trump pals but not the man himself—is it. Instead, she’s just gathering thread for her next loop around the pushpins…

Be seeing you

Report: Rachel Maddow caught in brazen lie regarding ...





Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Buyer’s Remorse – Kunstler

Posted by M. C. on March 27, 2019

Rachel Maddow…Perhaps she doesn’t know how the justice system actually works in this country: we prosecute crimes not persons. In places like Stalin’s Soviet Union and Hitler’s Germany, you first choose a person to eliminate and then fit them to a crime.

James Howard Kunstler

The Narrative is dead! Long live The Narrative!

That’s what played on CNN, NBC, and The New York Times yesterday as they struggled to digest the parting meal Robert Mueller served to the RussiaGate lynch mob: a nothingburger with a side of crow-flavored fries. Mr. Mueller was careful, though, to leave a nice red poison cherry on top with his statement that “…while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

Mr. Mueller, who ought to know better, could not be more in error on that too-fine-a-point. The official finding that no crime was committed is, ipso facto, an exoneration, and to impute otherwise is a serious breach of his role in this legal melodrama. Prosecutors are expressly forbidden to traffic in defamation, aspersion, and innuendo in the absence of formal charges. So, it will be interesting to hear what Mr. Mueller has to say when Jerrold Nadler reels him into the House Judiciary Committee, as inevitably he will, to do to some ‘splainin.’

What actually happened with RussiaGate? A cabal of government officials colluded with the Hillary Clinton campaign to interfere in the 2016 election and, failing to achieve their desired outcome, engineered a two-years-plus formal inquisition to deflect attention from their own misconduct and attempt to overthrow the election result.

The Cable News characters, quite a few of them lawyers, were litigating the living shit out of the story on Sunday night in their usual spirit of obdurate rank dishonesty. For instance, Jeffrey Toobin, who plays Attorney General on CNN, went off on the infamous 2016 Trump Tower Meeting in which the president’s son, Donald, Jr., met with Russian lawyer Natalia V. Veselnitskaya. Toobin omitted to mention that Ms. Veselnitskaya was, at that very time, on the payroll of Fusion GPS, Hillary Clinton’s “oppo” research contractor. In other words, Trump Junior was set up.

That was characteristic of the collusion that actually occurred between the Hillary campaign, the FBI, the DOJ, the CIA, the NSA, the UK’s MI6 intel agency, and the Obama White House, striving to prevent the election of a TV reality show star, and to disable him afterwards — also of the news media’s role in the whole interminable scam of RussiaGate. Their fury and despair were as vivid the night of March 24, 2019, as on November 8, 2016. And now they will attempt to spark off a sequel.

Rachel Maddow, for instance, struggling to maintain her dignity after two years playing Madame DeFarge on MSNBC, tried to console her fans with the prospect of Mr. Trump getting raked over the coals by the DOJ’s Southern District of NY prosecutors for crimes as yet unpredicted — really, whatever they might find if they turn over enough rocks in Manhattan. Perhaps she doesn’t know how the justice system actually works in this country: we prosecute crimes not persons. In places like Stalin’s Soviet Union and Hitler’s Germany, you first choose a person to eliminate and then fit them to a crime. If no crime can be found, one is easily manufactured. In the USA, a predicate crime is required before you can launch a prosecution. Perhaps the actual Attorney General, Mr. Barr, will advise the avid staff of the Southern District of NY how this works…

Be seeing you


Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »