The Appearance of Fraud

Voter Fraud Images, Stock Photos & Vectors | Shutterstock

The New York Times–last seen paying Walter Duranty to write love-notes to Stalin–assures us that there just ain’t any way no-how that mail-in voting would ever lead to a fraudulent election.

That means it almost certainly will, because the New York Times never tells the truth.

But what if it were the truth? What if all our fears of voter fraud really were “baseless,” as the noozies say? I realize that’s almost impossible to imagine, but try. What if it were true?

Well, guess what–it wouldn’t flaming matter! It wouldn’t matter an iota, because the appearance of fraud, the deep suspicion of fraud, would be almost as bad as the fraud itself! It would mean half the country completely losing faith in the integrity of our elections.

Government, if it is to have any real authority, must not only be clean; it must be seen to be clean. Crikey, Shakespeare knew that, and that was 500 years ago! Freakin’ Plutarch knew it–2,000 years ago.

Is this such an abstruse, difficult principle to grasp, that we simply cannot grasp it anymore?

The obvious and most sensible thing to do would be just to forget all about mail-in voting, because it’s new, it’ll confuse people–and there is no way it can shake off the mantle of fraud. It will never be seen to be honest. Never. No matter what Our Free & Independent News Media say.

Not that we believe anything they say.

‘Noozies Wonder: “Why Don’t They Love Us Anymore?”‘ (2016)

See the source image

They really are mystified: why don’t the American people love them anymore?

Noozies Wonder, ‘Why Don’t They Love Us Anymore?’

It would be hard to find an American institution more corrupt and useless than the nooze media. Our colleges, maybe. They both think we ought to thank them for despising us and trashing our culture.

Go back to the 1930s and you’ve got the New York Times’ Walter Duranty being a cheerleader for Stalin and covering up his crimes. Go back to the 1970s, and you’ve got every TV noozie in the New York media market making like some guy who calls himself a woman really is a woman–yeah, they had sex-change stories back then, and every single, um, “reporter” on TV toed the party line. Just like they do today.

If they’re not free and independent anymore, they have only themselves to thank. You sold out a long time ago, dudes. The Democrat Party owns you.


Columnist Suspended for Phony Reporting of Boston Marathon Bombing

Image result for what does pulitzer prize look like?

The Pulitzer Prize–for fiction?

In 2014 the Boston Globe won a Pulitzer Prize for its reporting of the 2013 terrorist bombing of the Boston Marathon.

Now one of that reporting team has been suspended without pay for three months… for “inconsistencies” between his reporting and the facts (

In other words, he made up some of it. Some of the details were invented. We aren’t told just what it was he is alleged to have invented: the investigation is ongoing. My guess is that he sort of embellished the story. Kinda, sorta, basically.

It took them four years to smell a rat.

Think they’ll have to give back the Pulitzer? Well, the New York Times still has the Pulitzer awarded to Walter Duranty for egregiously lying about Josef Stalin’s workers’ paradise in the Soviet Union of the 1930s. Stalin’s cheerleader. Some things never change. Our nooze media still loves Far Left dictators, mass graves and all.

Not that this guy at the Globe did anything on that scale: but fiction is fiction, and has no place in news reporting.

Unless it wins you a Pulitzer. Or furthers the progressive cause.

France to Rein in ‘Fake News’

See the source image

French President Emmanuel Macron says he will propose new laws to crack down on “fake news” and its sponsors, and that persons who produce “fake news” will be “punished” somehow (

Does that mean I’d better not do any more jackalope stories?

How does Macron define “fake news”? Is it just reporting things that aren’t true? Gee, he’d have to ban almost all the America nooze media. Like, really–babbling away on Election Night, 2016, about Hillary’s impending landslide victory: how fake was that? Or the New York Times, year after year, printing Walter Duranty’s lies about the workers’ paradise being created in Russia by Stalin? It was all lies, and they got a Pulitzer Prize for it.

When you make laws against “fake news,” you have to anoint somebody to decide what’s fake and what isn’t, and that’s where the whole idea goes wrong. Suddenly “fake news” is any news critical of the punks in power. Try to imagine Loretta Lynch with the power to label and prosecute “fake news.” It ought to make your hair stand on end.

Our First Amendment guarantees, by law, the freedom of the press–without adding that the press is, of course, free to report all the news deemed “not fake” by the government. Because that freedom comes with no strings attached, we have always had to put up with “journalists” who are something less than a credit to their profession. We have always had to put up with a certain amount of bogus news. Our mainstream nooze media is, frankly, a disgrace. But because the First Amendment prohibits putting fetters on the press, alternative news outlets, made possible and effective by the Internet, have been able to develop and thrive.

Confound these power-hungry empty suits, like Macron, who are always trying to chop down the tree of liberty! Always for our own good, of course–which they know, but we don’t.

The partisan nooze media we have to tolerate now is an annoyance.

But giving some government dummy the power to decide what news is fake and what isn’t–well, that would be a lot more than just annoying.

Vintage Fake News: The Ford Pinto Scandal

Image result for car exploding into flame

Democrats in America, and left-wing loons in Europe, are lustily singing the blues, these days, over “fake news” that supposedly has tricked the people in their countries into falling out of love with their DeLuxe Globalist Fun-Pak of open borders, perpetual expansion of the government, and the invention of assorted thought crimes that need to be punished by the government. They’re pressuring Facebook and other social media, and lobbying for new laws against “fake news.”

“Fake news” is, it seems, news that is not provided by the Left’s bought-and-paid-for henchmen in the “mainstream” (LOL) nooze media–which has been cranking out phony, misleading, and just plain lying nooze for decades. While few noozies can hope to match the towering lies told by The New York Times’ Walter Duranty in defense of Josef Stalin’s workers’ paradise in Russia, he has had more imitators than you can shake a stick at.

A really big piece of journalistic fraud, now mostly forgotten, was the “exploding Ford Pinto” reportage of the 1970s which, before it was exposed as fraud, spawned journalistic attacks on other car companies ( ). Man, they all climbed aboard! NBC, CBS, and ABC. Dateline. 60 Minutes. 20/20–all the major nooze shows were accusing auto manufacturers of selling cars they knew to be death-traps.

And they had exploding car video to prove it. Exploding car video obtained by installing incendiary devices in cars and blowing them up on purpose, sabotaging brakes, drilling holes in the transmission–all sorts of little journalistic tricks designed to get the kind of video the noozies wanted.Even the National Highway Traffic Safety Board chided the alleged journalists for basing their reports on, at best, “abnormal test conditions and unrealistic maneuvers.” And that was when they weren’t hiding rockets in the trunk.

So, yeah, “fake news” has been with us for a long time–and the nooze media who are complaining about it the loudest have been among the guiltiest purveyors of it.

As a simple rule of thumb: any “news” report that benefits left-wing political causes is almost certain to be false.

Beware ‘the Narrative’

Image result for lying story teller

Herodotus admired the Persians because they taught their sons two things: to shoot straight, and to tell the truth.

He would not have admired today’s journalists and teachers–nouns that ought to have quotation marks around them, they’re abused so badly.

In both professions (again I resist the urge to add quotation marks), telling the truth has been replaced by something called “the narrative.” The narrative is an overarching story intended to demonstrate or justify the teller’s own opinion, from which some details are shaved off, and others borrowed from elsewhere and glued on, to make them fit the narrative.

Examples of this are mind-numbingly numerous, truly an embarrassment of  poverty. But just to name one, a really big one, perpetrated by New York Times “reporter” Walter Duranty: Josef Stalin and the Communist Party are building a true workers’ paradise in Russia, and eventually the whole world will see how great it is. To make this narrative convincing, Duranty, in his regular reports, left out little details like the purges, the concentration camps, the man-made famine in the Ukraine, the murders–and wound up winning a Pulitzer Prize for his collection of unconscionable lies.

Our nooze media, our schools, and our colleges are packed to bursting with equally untrue narratives, all of them aimed at convincing people that liberalism is a great good and really, truly works wonders, when given half a chance.

So anytime you see or hear a noozie or a teacher or a prof use that term, “the narrative,” you can be 99.99% sure they’re gassing you.

Most Disgusting Performance by a News Toady

Everyone’s still laughing at BS-artist Brian Williams, the TV news anchor whom we now recognize as a compulsive liar.

But it would be a huge mistake to think he was the only waste of space in the nooze business. Ever since The New York Times’ Walter Duranty won a Pulitzer Prize for serving as Joe Stalin’s one-man cheering section in the 1930s, big-time journalism in America has attracted big-time schmucks.

Before Williams could get himself out of the tar pit, a few days ago, MSNBC’s Melissa Harris-Perry conducted an alleged interview with Attorney General Eric “the Bag Man” Holder, in which she barely restrained herself from crawling into his lap and nibbling on his ear. She then embarrassed Holder by asking him to quack like a duck ( ). Holder declined.

But when it came to fawning over Democrats, Dan Rather remains the all-time champion boot-licker. In a May 27, 1993, interview of the zipper-challenged President Bill Clinton, Rather concluded by gushing, “Mr. President, if we could be one one-hundredth as great as you and Hillary Rodham Clinton have been together in the White House, we’d take it right now and walk away winners.” ( )

Barf bag, anyone?

As a former hard-working newspaper reporter and editor, it makes my flesh crawl, to see the antics of these high-profile noozies.

Please do not ever, ever listen to them.