Melania Trump trolls the media, media too dumb to figure it out. Film at 11.

It’s just like that trash compactor scene from Star Wars, only R2D2 won’t be saving him. – The walls of the justice system closed in a little more on FBI Super Duper Agent and Aspiring Latin Lover Peter Strzok, as Attorney General let slip during an interview that hey, his security clearance has been revoked. Note for the faint of heart: This film does not have a happy ending for the former Texting Titan of the FBI.

Gosh, why would that be? So, so hard to understand. Oh, wait… – A new poll from YouGov.org finds that public favorable view of the Federal Bureau of (fake) Investigation has dropped by 11 percentage points since February, as the details of the agency’s massive wrongdoings throughout 2016 and 2017 have made their way to light despite the best efforts of our fake national news media to keep them hidden. The most disgusting part of the poll is that the FBfI’s most favorable ratings come from Democrats, who spent the 100 years prior to the inauguration of Donald Trump bashing the agency. But hey, now they know it was nothing more than a tool of the Democrat Party trying to fix the election for the Pantsuit Princess, they love it. It would be hilarious if it weren’t so sad for the country.

Speaking of polls, this whole fake border crisis isn’t working out too well for the fake news media and their Democrat wards. A new poll from Rasmussen finds that fully 54 percent of likely voters blame the parents of these children for their situation (imagine that) and only 35 percent blame the government. No doubt heads were exploding all over the headquarters of the DNC, CNN, the NYTimes and the WaPo after that poll came out. This is not how this was supposed to go for them. Not at all – not even close.

Democrats in Action! – Democrats on Tuesday: “End family separation! End family separation!”

Democrats on Thursday: “End family reunification! End family reunification!”

Melania Trump trolls the media, media too dumb to figure it out. Film at 11. – The First Lady traveled to McAllen on Thursday to visit one of the facilities that is at the center of the latest episode of fake liberal outrage. As she boarded Air Force One, all the fake reporters gasped in unison as they noted she was sporting a $39 jacket, on the back of which was the slogan “I don’t really care, do U?”

As if it were all a coordinated effort (note: it is), the entirety of the nation’s fake news media went immediately into deflection mode, ignoring the First Lady’s long, detailed visit with the children in the McAllen facility and her discussions with those who care for them, focusing instead on her fashion choice. What does it mean? Is she making a statement towards these poor, poor children? Maybe she’s mad a her evil husband – that must be it!

All the social justice warriors on Twitter also went into an immediate rage, because, well, of course they did. When one asked me “can you imagine what would be happening if Michelle Obama wore that jacket?” I responded “no, because I can’t imagine Michelle Obama ever putting on a $39 jacket.”

Several hours after the First Lady returned to Washington, we of course found out it was all an effort to tweak the fake news media’s collective nose, as the President issued the following tweet:

Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump “I REALLY DON’T CARE, DO U?” written on the back of Melania’s jacket, refers to the Fake News Media. Melania has learned how dishonest they are, and she truly no longer cares!

Hilarious. Obviously, the White House strategy on this fake border issue is not just to let the Democrats and their fake media guardians wail away and reveal they don’t really give a damn about any kids, but to help them along by trolling them as the First Lady did yesterday. While some might characterize that as callous, it is in fact entirely appropriate to the situation.

Think about it: The outrage is false. Pretty much every allegation leveled at the Trump Administration has been shown to be false. Most of the images and video shown by the fake news media has been revealed to be from the Obama years, during which the media/Democrats never uttered a peep. Even the little girl on the cover of Time Magazine has been shown to be a fake – she was never at any time separated from her mother.

The obvious next tactic the media/Democrats will be deploying today will be allegations that the children are somehow being “abused” by those caring for them. By Monday, those allegations will also be proved to have been false, because this is what our fake news media does.

Given all of that, why should the Administration do anything other than taunt their opposition, and troll them into revealing their true nature and goals? When literally everything about the opposition is fake, the opposition does not deserve a serious response.

And hey, as I write this piece this morning, President Trump has issued the following tweets:

Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump Republicans should stop wasting their time on Immigration until after we elect more Senators and Congressmen/women in November. Dems are just playing games, have no intention of doing anything to solves this decades old problem. We can pass great legislation after the Red Wave!

Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump Even if we get 100% Republican votes in the Senate, we need 10 Democrat votes to get a much needed Immigration Bill - & the Dems are Obstructionists who won’t give votes for political reasons & because they don’t care about Crime coming from Border! So we need to elect more R’s!

Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump Elect more Republicans in November and we will pass the finest, fairest and most comprehensive Immigration Bills anywhere in the world. Right now we have the dumbest and the worst. Dems are doing nothing but Obstructing. Remember their motto, RESIST! Ours is PRODUCE!

I think you are missing the main point. (btw, Mr Brother served in Vietnam 67-70 something)

The reason the founders wanted to protect Freedom of Speech is summarized in Ben Franklin's statement on the subject.

5. Printers are educated in the Belief, that when Men differ in Opinion, both Sides ought equally to have the Advantage of being heard by the Publick; and that when Truth and Error have fair Play, the former is always an overmatch for the latter: Hence they chearfully serve all contending Writers that pay them well, without regarding on which side they are of the Question in Dispute.

The point is to allow the public to hear all sides of a debate or discussion so that the public can make the wisest decision regarding the direction in which the Government should go. (By selecting representatives who advocate the best positions for future stability and progress.)

The need for the public to be well informed goes straight to the heart of our system of governance. A system which deliberately censors one side of the debate is defeating the very purpose for which protections for "freedom of speech" were created.

The existing media system is in fact a form of government censorship. It is not officially so, but it is very much defacto so. The "Deep State"/"Establishment" control the media, and they use it as a tool to keep the Washington DC money spending party going.

If we don't get an equal share of the broadcasting air time, then the public is deprived of necessary information upon which to base their decisions. They are being fraudulently steered by the cartel that has control of the system.

And that's where we are now.

There is a Constitution in this country, and part of it says

Amendment 1:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It’s in there for a reason. That reason is not that "journalists are objective.” The reason is that Americans are free to think, and to express their thoughts.
And the reason for that is not that all Americans think well, but because the Americans do not accept the proposition that government think is trustworthy. It is not for the government to tell me that journalists are not objective and not always truthful - it is up to me to figure those things out for myself. And, having figured that out, to promote those ideas to the extent of my own desire and resources.
But there is something the government legitimately can do about Establishment journalism. Establishment journalism is wire service journalism, and the wire services only date back to the advent of the telegraph in 1844. The Associated Press was in being by about 1850. The Sherman AntiTrust Act only dates to 1890, and the AP was aggressively monopolistic before and after 1890. In fact it was successfully sued by another wire service under Sherman in 1945.
But even that is not the point. The point is that, according to Adam Smith
People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. - Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations
the fact that the AP “wire” is a continuous virtual meeting of all major journalism outlets in America which has been ongoing since before the Civil War implies that "a conspiracy against the public” among journalists is presumably in effect. And anyone who starts with the a priori assumption of independence among journalists is being naive.
But what would "a conspiracy against the public” by journalists look like? Put another way, “What motives do journalists have in common?” Adam Smith suggests an answer to that:
The man whom we believe is necessarily, in the things concerning which we believe him, our leader and director, and we look up to him with a certain degree of esteem and respect. But as from admiring other people we come to wish to be admired ourselves; so from being led and directed by other people we learn to wish to become ourselves leaders and directors . . .
The desire of being believed, the desire of persuading, of leading and directing other people, seems to be one of the strongest of all our natural desires. - Adam Smith, Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759)
But what good is it if you, as a journalist, simply tell people you agree with them? How does that cause them to see you as their “leader and director??” It may make people more disposed to listen to you, but it doesn’t change their mind about their default assumption that they know their own minds and anyone else need not assume that they know better. No, the motive is change the minds of the public and cause them to look up to you.
In addition, journalists need to attract attention by telling people things that the public does not know. The problem with that is, that journalists are not rocket scientists. And the public at large is not, either, and would not understand if told anything really subtle. The only way journalists can tell people things they don’t already know is to report news of things that just happened, which the public has not heard yet. And the news which is interesting is almost uniformly negative. The upshot is that journalists report bad news about American society, thereby attracting attention and casting American society in an unflattering light. And thereby promoting the idea that journalists are above and looking down on American society. Included in that is the conceit that “journalists are objective.”
The truth is that although everyone should try to be objective - and I hope you do - nobody can know that he, or anyone who agrees with him, is objective. To claim that you are (not are trying to but actually are) objective is effectively to admit that you are not even trying to be objective (what would “trying to be objective” look like if you think that you are objective?). Thinking that you are objective is the essence of subjectivity.
In the case of journalists, who are negative and know it and will tell you that “If it bleeds, it leads,” a journalist who claims that “journalists are objective” is claiming in effect that negativity is objectivity. And “the conceit that negativity is objectivity” is hard to improve on as a definition of cynicism.
Journalists are cynical about society and - concomitantly - naive about government:
SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness POSITIVELY by uniting our affections, the latter NEGATIVELY by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.
Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil . . . were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no [government]; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises him, out of two evils to choose the least. - Thomas Paine, Common Sense (1776)
The conclusion is that journalists’ “conspiracy against the public” is the promotion of the conceit that breaking news is important (in practically any situation other than a battle, that is untrue), the conceit that journalists are objective (and properly command respect as “leaders and directors”), and that cynicism towards society is justified, and properly justifies metastasized government.
Individual Americans are allowed to think that (within limits, considering that acting on such cynicism could easily turn antisocial), but a unified propaganda Establishment of any sort - let alone one promoting cynicism - is not legitimated by the First Amendment. The Associated Press destroys the ideological diversity of “the press,” and it is in violation of the Sherman AntiTrust Act. It was found so by SCOTUS in 1945, but the idea of breaking up the AP was not even sought, nor thought possible as a remedy, in that era. But this is the 21st Century, and as the Internet and FreeRepublic.com illustrate, the mission of conserving scarce expensive communications bandwidth in spreading the news nationwide is now obsolete. Communication bandwidth is now dirt cheap. The AP systematically libels American society, white Americans, and Republicans. Both as groups, and as individual members of those groups. It should be sued into oblivion.
In the meantime, we should take to heart another quote from Theory of Moral Sentiments:
The natural disposition is always to believe. It is acquired wisdom and experience only that teach incredulity, and they very seldom teach it enough. The wisest and most cautious of us all frequently gives credit to stories which he himself is afterwards both ashamed and astonished that he could possibly think of believing.
We need to pool our “incredulity” here on FR in order to limit our tendency to "give credit to stories which [we are] afterwards both ashamed and astonished that [we] could possibly think of believing."

There is a Constitution in this country, and part of it says

Amendment 1:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It’s in there for a reason. That reason is not that "journalists are objective.” The reason is that Americans are free to think, and to express their thoughts.
And the reason for that is not that all Americans think well, but because the Americans do not accept the proposition that government think is trustworthy. It is not for the government to tell me that journalists are not objective and not always truthful - it is up to me to figure those things out for myself. And, having figured that out, to promote those ideas to the extent of my own desire and resources.
But there is something the government legitimately can do about Establishment journalism. Establishment journalism is wire service journalism, and the wire services only date back to the advent of the telegraph in 1844. The Associated Press was in being by about 1850. The Sherman AntiTrust Act only dates to 1890, and the AP was aggressively monopolistic before and after 1890. In fact it was successfully sued by another wire service under Sherman in 1945.
But even that is not the point. The point is that, according to Adam Smith
People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. - Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations
the fact that the AP “wire” is a continuous virtual meeting of all major journalism outlets in America which has been ongoing since before the Civil War implies that "a conspiracy against the public” among journalists is presumably in effect. And anyone who starts with the a priori assumption of independence among journalists is being naive.
But what would "a conspiracy against the public” by journalists look like? Put another way, “What motives do journalists have in common?” Adam Smith suggests an answer to that:
The man whom we believe is necessarily, in the things concerning which we believe him, our leader and director, and we look up to him with a certain degree of esteem and respect. But as from admiring other people we come to wish to be admired ourselves; so from being led and directed by other people we learn to wish to become ourselves leaders and directors . . .
The desire of being believed, the desire of persuading, of leading and directing other people, seems to be one of the strongest of all our natural desires. - Adam Smith, Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759)
But what good is it if you, as a journalist, simply tell people you agree with them? How does that cause them to see you as their “leader and director??” It may make people more disposed to listen to you, but it doesn’t change their mind about their default assumption that they know their own minds and anyone else need not assume that they know better. No, the motive is change the minds of the public and cause them to look up to you.
In addition, journalists need to attract attention by telling people things that the public does not know. The problem with that is, that journalists are not rocket scientists. And the public at large is not, either, and would not understand if told anything really subtle. The only way journalists can tell people things they don’t already know is to report news of things that just happened, which the public has not heard yet. And the news which is interesting is almost uniformly negative. The upshot is that journalists report bad news about American society, thereby attracting attention and casting American society in an unflattering light. And thereby promoting the idea that journalists are above and looking down on American society. Included in that is the conceit that “journalists are objective.”
The truth is that although everyone should try to be objective - and I hope you do - nobody can know that he, or anyone who agrees with him, is objective. To claim that you are (not are trying to but actually are) objective is effectively to admit that you are not even trying to be objective (what would “trying to be objective” look like if you think that you are objective?). Thinking that you are objective is the essence of subjectivity.
In the case of journalists, who are negative and know it and will tell you that “If it bleeds, it leads,” a journalist who claims that “journalists are objective” is claiming in effect that negativity is objectivity. And “the conceit that negativity is objectivity” is hard to improve on as a definition of cynicism.
Journalists are cynical about society and - concomitantly - naive about government:
SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness POSITIVELY by uniting our affections, the latter NEGATIVELY by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.
Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil . . . were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no [government]; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises him, out of two evils to choose the least. - Thomas Paine, Common Sense (1776)
The conclusion is that journalists’ “conspiracy against the public” is the promotion of the conceit that breaking news is important (in practically any situation other than a battle, that is untrue), the conceit that journalists are objective (and properly command respect as “leaders and directors”), and that cynicism towards society is justified, and properly justifies metastasized government.
Individual Americans are allowed to think that (within limits, considering that acting on such cynicism could easily turn antisocial), but a unified propaganda Establishment of any sort - let alone one promoting cynicism - is not legitimated by the First Amendment. The Associated Press destroys the ideological diversity of “the press,” and it is in violation of the Sherman AntiTrust Act. It was found so by SCOTUS in 1945, but the idea of breaking up the AP was not even sought, nor thought possible as a remedy, in that era. But this is the 21st Century, and as the Internet and FreeRepublic.com illustrate, the mission of conserving scarce expensive communications bandwidth in spreading the news nationwide is now obsolete. Communication bandwidth is now dirt cheap. The AP systematically libels American society, white Americans, and Republicans. Both as groups, and as individual members of those groups. It should be sued into oblivion.
In the meantime, we should take to heart another quote from Theory of Moral Sentiments:
The natural disposition is always to believe. It is acquired wisdom and experience only that teach incredulity, and they very seldom teach it enough. The wisest and most cautious of us all frequently gives credit to stories which he himself is afterwards both ashamed and astonished that he could possibly think of believing.
We need to pool our “incredulity” here on FR in order to limit our tendency to "give credit to stories which [we are] afterwards both ashamed and astonished that [we] could possibly think of believing.”
In reality “liberals” in general, and journalists in particular are at war with wisdom, skepticism, and caution. They are sophists working to suppress discussion of facts and logic by philosophers:
sophist 1542, earlier sophister (c.1380), from L. sophista, sophistes, from Gk. sophistes, from sophizesthai "to become wise or learned," from sophos "wise, clever," of unknown origin. Gk. sophistes came to mean "one who gives intellectual instruction for pay," and, contrasted with "philosopher," it became a term of contempt. Ancient sophists were famous for their clever, specious arguments. philosopher O.E. philosophe, from L. philosophus, from Gk. philosophos "philosopher," lit. "lover of wisdom," from philos "loving" + sophos "wise, a sage." "Pythagoras was the first who called himself philosophos, instead of sophos, 'wise man,' since this latter term was suggestive of immodesty." [Klein]
Journalists are sophists who freely engage in ad hominem attacks and the use of red herrings. “Conservative" talk show hosts, OTOH, are philosophers (in the etymological sense) who by and large restrict themselves to logic and germane facts - because they have to in order to contend with the sophists.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.