Tag: media

Ann Coulter is beyond furious with President Trump:

Ann Coulter is taking her criticism of President Trump to the next level following his national emergency declaration, with the conservative commentator declaring Friday, “the country is over.”

Coulter hammered Trump in a Friday interview with KABC after he announced he would sign Congress’ funding deal and declare a national emergency. “The only national emergency is that our president is an idiot,” she said, per Mediaite. She also fumed that Trump is just “fooling the rubes” with this national emergency declaration.

The root of Coulter’s criticism isn’t that Trump is bypassing Congress, as she argued that Trump never needed Congress to build the wall at all. Instead, she suggested the president is actually “hoping” the national emergency declaration will just be blocked by the courts “because for some reason, he really doesn’t want to build the wall.”

On Twitter, Coulter said that responsibility for the border wall deal, which the president has said he is unhappy with, is “100{f03b982df00939a0603520e349290ee9e722cb707fe7cb6b379ee8d64c20e193} his,” and she responded to Trump saying in his press conference that he barely knows Coulter by writing, “THANK YOU, Mr. President for admitting that your total capitulation on campaign promises has nothing to do with me.”

Maybe he has finally cucked and capitulated. Maybe not. As always with the God-Emperor, wait two days before reaching any conclusions.

It strikes me as more than a little odd that despite the report on Breitbart, no one in the media or in either party establishment is celebrating the President’s signing of the funding deal. This tends to lead me to conclude that it is at least possible that he is simply leading them on and that he will not sign it in the end.

The Fake News gang is preparing the ground for admitting that their Russian Collusion narrative was false all along:

In episode 171 of “Seinfeld,” George Costanza makes up a story about having a house in the Hamptons in order to avoid attending an event with his dead fiancée’s parents, the Rosses. He soon learns they know of his deception but the Rosses nevertheless accept an invitation to the fictitious house.

George picks them up and begins driving towards a house that doesn’t exist. Both the Rosses and George maintain the pretense until George drives to the end of island past the last house in the Hamptons. George silently pleads for the Rosses to put an end to the charade. The lie’s momentum took on a life of its own as the players all continued acting their parts long after the truth was known.

The episode comes to mind as the media has started backing away from the Russia collusion hoax. Like Costanza, many of the media perpetrators seem to know a reckoning is coming. Politico warned Trump haters, “Prepare for disappointment.” Other examples of expectation managing can be found, such as here, here, here, and here. Mueller’s longtime top deputy at the FBI recently warned, “A public narrative has built an expectation that the special counsel will explain his conclusions, but I think that expectation may be seriously misplaced.”

Most recently, the Senate Judiciary Committee announced that after almost two years of investigation, it has uncovered no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. Attorneys assigned to the Mueller team have quietly begun to slip away before the outcome of the investigation is made public (here, here, and here).

This is unsurprising. The Russia hoax is crumbling and people can’t run away fast enough. We’ve seen signs from the very beginning that many of the people who promoted the Trump-Russia collusion smear have always known it was a hoax. These signs have been in plain sight.

Mike Cernovich was right to call them the Hoax Media. Now, ask yourself this question: how many other major media narratives have been false all along?

When the Washington Post goes to war with the National Enquirer, I think we all know who wins. America.

Any personal embarrassment AMI could cause me takes a back seat because there’s a much more important matter involved here. If in my position I can’t stand up to this kind of extortion, how many people can? (On that point, numerous people have contacted our investigation team about their similar experiences with AMI, and how they needed to capitulate because, for example, their livelihoods were at stake.)

In the AMI letters I’m making public, you will see the precise details of their extortionate proposal: They will publish the personal photos unless Gavin de Becker and I make the specific false public statement to the press that we “have no knowledge or basis for suggesting that AMI’s coverage was politically motivated or influenced by political forces.”

If we do not agree to affirmatively publicize that specific lie, they say they’ll publish the photos, and quickly. And there’s an associated threat: They’ll keep the photos on hand and publish them in the future if we ever deviate from that lie.

Be assured, no real journalists ever propose anything like what is happening here: I will not report embarrassing information about you if you do X for me. And if you don’t do X quickly, I will report the embarrassing information.

Nothing I might write here could tell the National Enquirer story as eloquently as their own words below.

These communications cement AMI’s long-earned reputation for weaponizing journalistic privileges, hiding behind important protections, and ignoring the tenets and purpose of true journalism. Of course I don’t want personal photos published, but I also won’t participate in their well-known practice of blackmail, political favors, political attacks, and corruption. I prefer to stand up, roll this log over, and see what crawls out.

I’m both amused by Jeff Bezos’s appeal to the nonexistent integrity of “real journalists” and amazed that the National Enquirer people were willing to put their demands in writing.

But I don’t see why Bezos should resist the idea of giving a false public statement. There are literally dozens of them published in his newspaper every single day.

The First Lady demonstrates to the defamed and the deplatformed the correct way to respond to a media attack:

Following last Saturday’s (Jan 19) Telegraph magazine cover story “The mystery of Melania”, we have been asked to make clear that the article contained a number of false statements which we accept should not have been published. Mrs Trump’s father was not a fearsome presence and did not control the family.  Mrs Trump did not leave her Design and Architecture course at University relating to the completion of an exam, as alleged in the article, but rather because she wanted to pursue a successful career as a professional model. Mrs Trump was not struggling in her modelling career before she met Mr Trump, and she did not advance in her career due to the assistance of Mr Trump.

We accept that Mrs Trump was a successful professional model in her own right before she met her husband and obtained her own modelling work without his assistance. Mrs Trump met Mr Trump in 1998, not in 1996 as stated in the article. The article also wrongly claimed that Mrs Trump’s mother, father and sister relocated to New York in 2005 to live in buildings owned by Mr Trump.  They did not. The claim that Mrs Trump cried on election night is also false.

We apologise unreservedly to The First Lady and her family for any embarrassment caused by our publication of these allegations.  As a mark of our regret we have agreed to pay Mrs Trump substantial damages as well as her legal costs.

Do your homework, review the law, and then hit them back hard. Neither the media companies nor the social media companies are protected by the law, and the fact that they are accustomed to getting away with making provably false claims and committing illegal acts does not mean that one has to permit them to do so.

Remember, the law is different in different jurisdictions, and the reach of the Internet will often allow you to take action in a jurisdiction that is considerably less favorable to the libelists and slanderers than the various US states.

Americans are not exactly full of sympathy for unexpectedly unemployed media figures these days:

The arbiters of self-styled cutting edge humor have evolved to reach a higher level of understanding and have come to a realization that there is absolutely nothing funny about homosexuality. Bounding Into Comics helpfully informs us what will, and what will not, henceforth be considered amusing:

Family Guy executive producers have announced that they are going to start phasing out gay jokes from the adult cartoon show.

In an interview with TVLine, which primarily addressed a recent episode of Family Guy where they lampoon President Donald Trump, Executive Producers Alec Sulkin and Rich Appel confirmed they were phasing out gay jokes.

Sulkin told TVLine:

“Kind of, yes. If you look at a show from 2005 or 2006 and put it side by side with a show from 2018 or 2019, they’re going to have a few differences. Some of the things we felt comfortable saying and joking about back then, we now understand is not acceptable.”

As for political jokes, Sulkin indicates they aren’t afraid to “take hard shots all around.”

“We’ve had some episodes in the past that had some left leanings in them, but we take hard shots all around. We’ve made fun of the Clintons and Barack Obama. It’s not like we would avoid anyone because we vote this way or that way. In any time that Family Guy has been on, we’ve pointed out idiots and the dumb things they do. This just happens to be our current person, and it would be no different if a Democrat were doing something idiotic, which they do.”

As of right now, we know that one special interest group appears to be off-limits to the Executive Producers of Family Guy. It’s only a matter of time before more groups get this special treatment.

So brave. Thank you for this. Although to be fair, as far as I could tell from the commercials for it over the years, nothing on Family Guy was ever funny in the first place. At least not to anyone with an IQ over boiling temperature. So it’s not exactly a great loss to the history of human amusement here.

How can you even tell who is supposed to be a comedian anymore? The inadvertent humor is considerably funnier these days than the intentional variety.

To end this troublesome shutdown?

As the longest government shutdown in American history lurches toward its fifth week, a grim but growing consensus has begun to emerge on Capitol Hill: There may be no way out of this mess until something disastrous happens.

This is, of course, not a sentiment lawmakers are eager to share on the record. But in interviews this week with congressional staffers on both sides of the aisle (whom I granted anonymity in exchange for candor), I heard the same morbid idea expressed again and again.

The basic theory—explained to me between weary sighs and defeated shrugs—goes like this: Washington is at an impasse that looks increasingly unbreakable. President Donald Trump is dug in; so is Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Democrats have public opinion on their side, but the president is focused on his conservative base. For a deal to shake loose in this environment, it may require a failure of government so dramatic, so shocking, as to galvanize public outrage and force the two parties back to the negotiating table.

In these interviews, I heard an array of macabre hypotheticals—from airplane crashes to food-safety scares, TSA strikes to terrorist incidents. But the one theme that ran through every conversation was a sense that the current political dynamics won’t change until voters get a lot angrier.

“This is all pageantry,” a Democratic House aide said of the posturing by Trump and Congress. “It’s going to take a big national event to move things. I mean, we’re at a standstill.”

The media is so upset over the shutdown, and especially the American people’s complete lack of concern about it, that they’re all but ready to go out and hire the crisis actors themselves.

Unless, of course, they are owned by Israel. If the Republican Senate gets its way, that would be illegal. In any event, Tucker Carlson is now in the sights of the corporate speech police:

Red Lobster has joined a wave of advertisers that have cut ties with the conservative Fox News host Tucker Carlson’s show.

The chain confirmed to Business Insider on Monday that it was no longer advertising during “Tucker Carlson Tonight.” Critics had pointed out that the seafood chain was one of the few brands that continued to advertise on the prime-time opinion show after recent controversies.

At least 19 brands have stopped advertising on the show since December.

IHOP did the same thing recently. Unless and until conservatives stop supporting the corporate brands that use their brand power to try to silence conservative views, corporations are going to keep attempting to buy influence over the few pro-American voices in the media.

And this is why conservatives will keep losing.

I lived on the Gulf Coast too long to think that Red Lobster is quality seafood. But where I live now if I don’t go to Red Lobster my only other seafood option is filet-o-fish at McD’s. 

Next time you talk to Vox Day, would you be interested in stress-testing your conflicting opinions of Dennis Prager? Vox not a fan to say the least?

No. because all his points were valid! I like Prager. I mean, Vox doesn’t hate Prager, he just thinks he’s a fake nationalist, which he kind of is, according to the strict definition of what nationalist means. And in this world of nonsense, you’ve kind of got to start, like, words matter! What the word means matters! This whole conflation of state and nation, like a nationalist and a statist, your government is not your nation!

And Vox just is one of those guys that, thankfully, pays very, very close – he’s a fucking book editor! He pays very close attention to the definition of words. And when someone says something like “Judeo-Christian values,” it drives him crazy. Because Judeo-Christian, do you know what Judeo-Christian means, actually? It means a Jew who became Christian. Andrew Klavan is Judeo-Christian. It doesn’t mean Jewish and Christian! That’s fucking insane!

I don’t know. What do you guys think?

The definition of words is the biggest problem we face.

100 percent. I’m going to start saying Judeo-Islam. It’s just as insane. It makes no sense. And people are like, “Jesus was Jewish”. That’s like saying George Washington was British. It’s so intentionally fucking stupid.

No, let me think of a good example of what that would be. Do you guys have any funny examples? Judeo-Buddhist, that’s hysterical. I had a great one earlier when I was doing fence work, I just didn’t write it down.

George Washington was indeed British. 

To say George Washington was British is intentionally fucking with all of history. He was America’s first President. He’s debatably the most American dude ever…. I listened to the whole thing. It didn’t sound like he was trashing Prager. He was just calling out the guy’s vagueness. Like, he’s at least misinformed, if not intentionally doing wizardry. Judeo-Christian is not a word. America was not founded on Judeo-Christian values. There’s a better argument that America was more founded on Masonic values.

Owen is right. I don’t hate my former WND colleague Dennis Prager. I also don’t trust him, nor would I recommend Prager U to anyone who wants an objective and reliable account of history, especially American history. Whatever his various strengths and weaknesses might be, they are colored by the fact that he is not an American, he is a Neo-Palestinian whose primary concern is for the Neo-Palestinian people who are every bit as Palestinian as the people who were there when they arrived, or, in the case of Dennis Prager, didn’t actually ever quite get around to arriving.

Words mean things. And those who obscure, fold, spindle, and mutilate the meaning of words for their own ends are wizards who are pursuing ends and serving masters that they wish to conceal from you.

Later in the stream, Big Bear explains that he’s not afraid of labels, why he’s not afraid to talk to Flat Earthers and others who challenge the current narrative, and how the perception of those who challenge the narrative changes over time.

Vox Day has an actual plan. That motherfucker was so ahead of schedule that people found him terrifying. And now that some of his predictions, decades ago, are coming true, half the population finds him terrifying, and the other half are like, “oh, he’s a really good guy.” It takes balls to go against the narrative. It takes fucking balls.

It has been fascinating to see how much less crazy people seem to think I am now compared to the middle nineties. I am old enough to remember when people denied that the National Security Agency existed, and declared, with much the same self-assurance as the Moonies today, that anyone who believed the Federal government was capturing and recording everyone’s emails and telephone calls was paranoid.

But all I’ve ever done is observe current events and interpret them through the various trends I have learned about from others and personally observed in the written historical record. I do have a Christian filter, because that is the philosophical model I believe makes the most comprehensive sense of everything, but I’m perfectly capable of doing my analyses without utilizing it.

Apparently Bleeding Cool releases its Top 100 Power List for the comics industry every year. While I tend to doubt they would dare to put me on it even if I bought Marvel Comics from Disney and personally authored the top-selling comic of the year, at least we have been provided an objective measure of just how big 2VS is in the comics industry.

Although you’d think I’d get at least a modicum of credit for getting their Editor-in-Chief fired for the mere crime of daring to speak with me.

97. Mark Waid
A major comic book writer, editor and publisher, he is currently the ongoing writer on Doctor Strange. Being sued by Richard Meyer over his involvement, or not, in the decision of Antarctic Press to cancel the Jawbreakers graphic novella, whatever the merits of that suit, demonstrates that some, certainly, see his actions as impactful. Reducing his social media interactions, no longer co-owing a comic store and the mothballing of his Thrillbent digital publisher has seen his listing number drop, but he was able to wrangle a significant portion of the comics industry to back his legal defence.

74. Ethan Van Sciver
Leaving DC Comics after prominent creators refused to work with him anymore, he used the usual mixture of Comicsgate virtue signalling, identity politics and mocking hater videos to raise over half a million dollars on Indiegogo, for his still-upcoming Cyberfrog comic revival. The highest amount raised on crowdfunding by any comic creator in the year, it helps that he can actually draw. This helped him take the position as leading Comicsgate figure as Richard Meyer stepped back, due to his legal case with Mark Waid, and not wanting to give the defence further ammunition.