Watching the professional suicide of the once (somewhat) objective American press


To an astonishing extent, most of the major media in this country appear to have forgotten their job. They wade into the deep and dangerous waters of arrogance, presuming not merely to instruct their countrymen in all the available facts, “unweighted,” but to blatantly and unashamedly pick and choose what the people shall be told, in order to “guide” their election choices -– all with the noblest of intentions, of course!

Instead of calling on a presidential candidate to resign because he’s “rocking their boat” and shows what they consider an “unfit and not properly refined attitude,” THEY should consider resigning -– or at the very least taking a day off, climbing to the mountaintop, staring out across this great land, and reconsidering their chosen vocation.

Given some telephones and keyboards, a bunch of cub reporters fresh out of high school could do better.

In Sunday evening’s presidential debate, Republican nominee Donald Trump said Hillary Clinton should be investigated by a special federal prosecutor; she should be in jail.


All day Monday, the political pundits howled (echoing disgraced and corrupt former Attorney General Eric Holder — the first Attorney General in U.S. history to be held in criminal contempt by the House of Representatives, for refusing to turn over documents related to the investigation of the Fast and Furious gun-running plot that saw the ATF and DOJ run thousands of guns to the Sinaloa drug cartel and then proceed to intimidate witnesses about it; see ), “This man is dangerous! He’s not fit to be president! We don’t jail our political opponents here in America; that’s the kind of thing that happens in the Third World!”

No, what sometimes happens in the Third World is that political aspirants are jailed for having the temerity to run against a powerful potentate.

Donald Trump isn’t a powerful government potentate. He’s the biggest outsider since Andrew Jackson. He has never held political office. (Jackson, at least, had been a judge and had held military commands.) Nor is he soliciting the kind of big “corporate” campaign donations which will make him beholden to our ruling oligarchy. This, to tell the truth, is a lot of what the “sophisticated” press holds against him. How dare some rough-spoken rube who marries beautiful women in sequence presume to crash their party? Especially when the boss is going apoplectic with worry that he might actually, you know, hose out the stables?! Do you know how much money the boss has got invested in BUYING those damned politicians?


But Hillary Clinton IS a potentate. She and her husband have held positions of political power, trust, and privilege for 30 years. The way they exercised (one might even say “abused”) that power caused dozens of innocent women and children to be burned to death in a church in Waco, Texas, in 1993, and the deaths of our ambassador to Libya and three other brave Americans in Benghazi while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State in 2012, in a position to OK a ready-to-go rescue mission which she failed to OK (after turning down many, many earlier requests from Ambassador Chris Stevens for more and better security.)

Why? She was afraid a visible military presence there might draw attention to what Ambassador Chris Stevens was up to, at her orders: illegally selling captured Libyan arms to the Islamic rebels in Syria — in fact, to ISIS. (See ; and ; or .)

And who can say in how many other deaths and crimes they may have been complicit, in between? (The press could tell us, if they went to work for a bit. But because Mrs. Clinton is a member of the club -– a member of America’s unofficial but very real ruling aristocracy -– she is of course immune from any such scrutiny, which is dismissed as “wacko conspiracy theory stuff” or “ancient history, water under the bridge, no one needs to hear about THAT.”)


Bill Clinton used his position of trust and power to rape or assault and sexually abuse numerous innocent women. He was impeached and lost his law license for lying about it; it was in all the papers; surely that should condition his right to a blithe and willfully oblivious presumption of innocence in such matters to SOME degree, at least when it comes to “checking,” shouldn’t it? And Hillary helped run a “bimbo eruption war room” which attempted to intimidate and silence those women and besmirch their reputations. (Many people HEARD HER SAY she’d “destroy” them; we even know the budget they spent for private detectives to “dig up dirt” on these poor women, extending their period of fear and psychological torture.) That would be the reputations of Bill Clinton’s sexual assault VICTIMS. Some champion of women’s rights she turns out to be!

(Corroboration is not hard to find. See . . . and . . . and .)

Donald Trump didn’t say Hillary Clinton should be jailed for running against him, did he? He specifically said she deleted 33,000 e-mails after receiving a subpoena for them, that that action was a crime, and that -– only after a suitable investigation and prosecution (if found by a special prosecutor to be warranted) she should be jailed for that crime.

I’m sorry; I find that quite refreshing, after the fawning deference the largely worthless national press continues to show for her lying mouth.

Mrs. Clinton hasn’t even DENIED deleting the e-mails. She merely says “It was a mistake and I’m sorry about it.” Well, lots of people in prison acknowledge what they did was a mistake and that they’re sorry about it. But they’re still in prison, aren’t they?


Any cub reporter could tell you what the job of the press is, having heard that charge. The job of the press is to investigate and set before the public, to the best of their ability, the answers to the following questions:

1) Did Mrs. Clinton delete and then “scrub” or “bleach” (to render them non-recoverable) any emails — or order this to be done by her employees and minions? (It doesn’t really matter if she deleted just one, but you might as well find out how many. You don’t delete 33,000 because your finger slipped.)

2) Did she do so after being served with a subpoena for those e-mails?

3) Was deleting said emails after she knew they had been subpoenaed, in fact, a crime?


(Answering these questions is not hard; most of the work has already been done: See . . . and and

(The New York Post thus wins an exemption from my blanket condemnations, here. Not many others do.)

Question 4) As she’s an attorney, isn’t it safe to presume she KNEW it was a crime? (They say ignorance is no excuse, but surely attorneys have less grounds than the rest of us to make such a claim.)

5) Is this a crime which might sometimes merit jail time?


6) Are there circumstances which might tend to make the crime even more serious in this case? That is, could those emails have contained evidence that she solicited bribes (many of a million dollars or more, payable to the “Clinton Foundation”) while in office, or had illegal or traitorous dealings with foreign nationals, or violated the law in order to sell arms to enemy combatants including Islamic terrorists?

(Bribes, see: and .)

(Arms to ISIS, see: and . . . and . . . . . . . Even Pulitzer-Prize-winning investigative reporter Seymour Hersh has confirmed this Obama/Clinton illegal arms dealing: Is that “wacko right-wing conspiracy stuff?”)


Could the deleted emails have contained information that would have proven that Mrs. Clinton’s knowing violation of security protocols led directly to the Iranian authorities learning what Iranian nuclear scientist and defector Shahram Amiri had told us -– whereupon the Iranians killed him? If so, unpleasant as it sounds, couldn’t that rise to the level of “negligent homicide” — the death of a person who should have been under our government’s protection, resulting from her failure to observe precautions which would have been observed by any reasonable person in her position? (see .)

7) If all the above are proven false and/or frivolous, then and only then should the press condemn Mr. Trump for making outrageous false charges. But if all the above are true, then why ISN’T Hillary Clinton under indictment and readying to face a trial and possible jail time? Is it because President Barack Obama thwarted the normal course of justice, ordering his attorney general or the director of the FBI or any U.S. attorney to NOT file charges despite the prima facie evidence of serious crimes?


8) If so, why is the press throwing a hissy fit over the assertion that Donald Trump MIGHT abuse his power to order an investigation if elected to high office (when it’s not clear ordering such an investigation would be any abuse at all — Mrs. Clinton would still have every right to a fair trial, to counsel, to bail, to a presumption of innocence by the court, etc.), yet not saying a word about the fact that the current president clearly HAS abused his power to BLOCK the prosecution of someone who has violated the public trust in ways that may very well have illegally sabotaged our stated foreign policy, cost lives, and been designed to allow her to profit to the tune of millions of dollars in thinly disguised bribes (“donations” to the private Clinton Foundation) by abusing a high office of public trust -– an action taken by Barack Obama for reasons of a purely political or personal nature?

Why on earth do we have political campaigns? Isn’t it to create a rough-and-tumble adversarial process through which one candidate can bring to the attention of the voters things about his opponent that may make her unfit for high office? Wouldn’t soliciting huge bribes, committing malfeasance which causes the deaths of U.S. citizens abroad (including an ambassador!), and then destroying the evidence of those crimes in order to “obstruct justice,” be precisely the kind of thing a political candidate has a DUTY to expose in his opponent?

Is a candidate really disqualified from office if he’s “too crude” to realize “politeness” forbids him from mentioning such stuff? Is this the decadent but oh-so-refined court of Louis XIV the Sun King?


So why are our major newspapers and TV networks going “Let’s stop Trump,” 24-7, and not doing a thing to actually investigate his charges against his opponent, to calmly lay out for the American public the answers to the questions above?

Do they believe the American public does not have a right to elect whoever they damned well please to be president? I search my Constitution in vain for the provision that “only lifetime professional career politicians who know how to smile and smile and talk the special polite Washington double-talk” are qualified for the presidency.



Do they believe the New York Times and The Washington Post and CNN and NBC (one of whose employees leaked the secret tape of Donald Trump talking dirty 11 years ago, at the behest of and with the timing carefully arranged by the Hillary Clinton campaign, though the fact that he’s a member of the Saudi-loving Bush family may also factor in) have a right to do more than subject all candidates to equal scrutiny? That these outfits should exercise a VETO, based on a candidate’s perceived LEVEL OF SOCIAL REFINEMENT?

Pride goeth before a fall.

The press don’t like Donald Trump -– they see him as a crude bumpkin — so instead of investigating and covering BOTH candidates with an equally skeptical eye, they’re doing everything they can to see Mr. Trump is not elected, and that Hillary Clinton is.

I remember some of the same fuming outrage at the notion that the idiot populace might elect Ronald Reagan — a mere movie actor! — president.

Donald Trump would not have been my first choice for president, either. Economist (and former U.S. Marine pistol instructor) Thomas Sowell would make a better president. ( .) Any number of people with a rigorous understanding of how much smaller and less intrusive a government our Constitution actually authorizes could be preferable -– though of course a certain level of firmness, determination, and the leadership skills to work with a balky and corrupt Congress and manage a large bureaucracy are also required.

But does attempting to “guide” the voters’ choice through highly selective coverage show an appreciation of the proper role of the press? Do they really think that when they’re done -– no matter who wins on Nov. 8 -– the public will retain any substantial confidence that these characters can be trusted to “lay it out straight, and let the chips fall where they may”? What are they throwing away to play Queenmaker?


What are they going to say if Hillary Clinton gets elected, and next year it turns out she DID commit indictable crimes which they have thus helped her get away with, that she proceeds to use her new high office to pay off all the cronies who’ve been paying her all those bribes (thinly disguised as “donations” to the Clinton Foundation) and wreak havoc on her enemies? (Did you know that all the known victims of Bill Clinton’s sexual assaults got audited by the Clinton IRS, ON TOP of being groped or raped? That one of them had her cat stolen and presumably killed to warn her to keep quiet?)

What are they going to say if Hillary Clinton gets elected, and her incompetent meddling in the Middle East gets us into an unnecessary wider war with Russia, if she completely abandons any enforcement of our immigration laws (in blatant abrogation of her oath of office) and admits millions of unassimilable and “non-vetted” Muslims including many more vicious jihadi terrorists into this country -– along with millions more south-of-the-border illegals who will bankrupt our strained schools and hospital emergency rooms while working for so little money that native-born blue-collar Americans find it increasingly impossible to earn a decent living — till we reach the same precipice of chaos and religious/racial civil war that now threatens Western Europe . . . and on top of everything else she turns out to have a far-advanced and disabling case of Parkinson’s Disease which can cause dementia and which renders her incapable of serving out even a single term, while our major news outlets spent this year firing anyone who dared to even ASK QUESTIONS ABOUT her health, dismissing such concerns as “another wacko conspiracy theory”?


Hillary’s Parkinson’s: , . . . and . . . .



One Comment to “Watching the professional suicide of the once (somewhat) objective American press”

  1. anarchyst Says:

    …the so-called “mainstream media” has NEVER been “honest”. From joe pulitzer’s “yellow journalism” to walter duranty’s praise of communism (while millions were murdered (starved to death) by imposition of artificially contrived communist-run famines), to walter cronkite’s “big lie” about American “losses” (actually military victories) during the 1968 Tet offensive, to support for every communist thug in the world, the so-called “mainstream media” has a lot to answer for.
    Today’s media bias is so blatant, the o’bama has never been properly “vetted”. Had he been properly investigated, he would not have been able to secure the presidency, let alone, dogcatcher…the same cycle is being repeated with the hildebeast, hilary clinton not being properly vetted…
    Of course, the internet has put a snag into the “mainstream media’s” operation, as multiple news sources are now available that are not under their control. They hate being co-opted and brought to task for their lies, some “journalists” have proposed that the government to issue “credentials” to prove who a “real” journalist is–a proposal that would never have been considered twenty years ago–the First Amendment to the Constitution be damned…
    With the internet, anyone can be a journalist…a REAL journalist…