Tag: media

The r/K perspective

Anonymous Conservative is dubious that the anti-Alt-Right campaign will have legs:

Now Hillary is calling attention to the most K-selected corner of the internet, at the very moment that the nation is increasingly turning K. Turning more people into Stefan Molyneux fans, or exposing more people to Castalia House Publishing, just as the nation is turning K, is not going to help Hillary. I think it a good sign that her persuasion specialists are so blinded by the rabbit-like psychology of the r-strategy that they are so completely out of touch with both the nation and reality.

Even better, it is a process that is accelerating. What they don’t realize is that as the nation’s rejection of them drives them more leftward, the psychologies of the nation are undergoing the natural shift toward K that was programmed in by nature. That is making the left vastly more repellant to everyone, the alt-right much more attractive, and leaves the left ever less able to understand the reality they need to understand to succeed. The political polarization created as the extreme left splits farther from the norm due to panic and the rest of the nation heads farther right on a K-shift, do not bode well for leftism’s ascent.

My guess is they will abandon this effort quickly, as soon as they realize that the nation has a large swath within it that will think this alt-right movement espouses a lot of commonsense things they find attractive, and the colorful personalities are very appealing. The alt-right hasn’t gotten this far for nothing.

Frankly, I wouldn’t be surprised if Team Clinton was already rethinking the wisdom of this approach given the Alt-Right’s gleeful reaction to the news that they’d be coming under media assault. After all, we all know how the anti-GamerGate campaign worked out for Gawker.

How PACs murdered the Tea Party

Keep the demise of the Tea Party in mind as the Alt-Right grows in popularity. Many, if not most, of these PACs are little more than scams with a political brand.

The Tea Party movement is pretty much dead now, but it didn’t die a natural death. It was murdered—and it was an inside job. In a half decade, the spontaneous uprising that shook official Washington degenerated into a form of pyramid scheme that transferred tens of millions of dollars from rural, poorer Southerners and Midwesterners to bicoastal political operatives.

What began as an organic, policy-driven grass-roots movement was drained of its vitality and resources by national political action committees that dunned the movement’s true believers endlessly for money to support its candidates and causes. The PACs used that money first to enrich themselves and their vendors and then deployed most of the rest to search for more “prospects.” In Tea Party world, that meant mostly older, technologically unsavvy people willing to divulge personal information through “petitions”—which only made them prey to further attempts to lighten their wallets for what they believed was a good cause. While the solicitations continue, the audience has greatly diminished because of a lack of policy results and changing political winds.

I was an employee at one of the firms that ran these operations. But nothing that follows is proprietary or gleaned directly from my employment. The evidence of the scheming is all there in the public record, available for anyone willing to look…. According to Federal Election Commission reports between 80 to 90 percent, and sometimes all the money these PACs get is swallowed in fees and poured into more prospecting. For example, conservative activist Larry Ward created Constitutional Rights PAC. He also runs Political Media, a communications firm. The New York Times reviewed Constitutional Rights’ filings and found: “Mr. Ward’s PAC spends every dollar it gets on consultants, mailings and fund-raising—making no donations to candidates.” Ward justified the arrangement by saying Political Media discounts solicitations on behalf of Constitutional Rights.

Let that sink in. Ward takes his PAC’s money and redistributes it to his company and other vendors for more messaging and solicitations, but suggests critics should rest easy since the PAC gets a discount on Political Media’s normal rate. Constitutional Rights PAC may be extreme but it’s hardly an outlier.

POLITICO last year reviewed the activity of 33 conservative PACs for the 2014 cycle. Combined, they raked in $43 million dollars, according to the POLITICO report. Of that, $39.5 million went to overhead including $6 million to entities owned by PAC operators; candidates got $3 million. Another report analyzed 17 conservative PACs from the 2014 midterm. It came up with different numbers than POLITICO, finding that the bottom 10 PACs in terms of the ratio of spending to actual candidate support received $54,318,498 and spent only $3,621,896 supporting candidates.

Don’t even think about supporting any big-money Alt-Right PACs that come into being in the next 2-5 years. If the real Alt-Right figures want your support, we’ll not only request it directly, but we’ll do so for specific purposes and projects whose progress you can track for yourself. We don’t play the “overhead” game.

The media is not above the law

I’ve been hard on Jonah Goldberg of late, and correctly so, which is why it is important to give the author of Liberal Fascism his due when he gets it right, as he does here with regards to the death of Gawker.

The real issue seems to be that journalistic corporations are just different than every other kind of corporation. No one would bat an eye if, say, George Soros, bankrolled an invasion-of-privacy lawsuit by the ACLU against a “normal” corporation like Microsoft or Bank of America. But when a media outlet is in the dock, the rules are different.

Gilles Wullus of the group Reporters Without Borders told the BBC that the Gawker case poses a dire threat to press freedom. “Journalism ethics should be taken care of by journalists themselves,” he said. “In case they do not, we think that nobody else can do it in their place, neither states nor governments; especially not wealthy individuals.”

A free press is an important institution in a democracy, but journalists don’t have any rights the rest of us don’t. What nonsense.

Yes, a free press is an important institution in a democracy (and even more important in non-democracies), but journalists don’t have any rights the rest of us don’t. A reporter has the right to free speech, and so does a plumber. Indeed, in the era of smartphones, it has never been more true: We all have the right and ability to commit journalism. That right manifests itself in people, not corporations. The New York Times, to the extent that it is a “corporate person,” should have no more (and no fewer) rights than Exxon Mobil.

Imagine the outrage if I said, “Petroleum-industry ethics should be taken care of by petroleum industry executives themselves.” It’s certainly fair to argue against the merits of the verdict. But no one is above the law. Not even journalists, never mind corporations in the journalism business.

There is no “Fourth Estate”. There is nothing special about the media and they have no rights that anyone else doesn’t have. And when they break the law, be it criminal or civil, they are liable for the consequences.

On the other hand, Jonah’s NRO colleague, Mario Loyola, fails to understand that the conservative media is, in part, culpable for the declining regard in which America’s institutions are held in a piece that is unmitigated cuckservative blather.

Democracy depends vitally on reverence for “the majesty of the democratic system.” That means reverence for its basic institutions, if not for the men and women who run them as individuals. It’s one thing to criticize politicians as crooked and mendacious, but quite another to say that our democratic institutions are themselves corrupt. If that is true in any major respect, it is vital to solve the problem fast. Democracy begins to die when democratic institutions lose the people’s trust.

Alas, such talk finds a willing audience today, across the political spectrum. During Obama’s entire presidency, trust in government has bounced along rock bottom at less than 20 percent — unprecedented in the history of polling.

While in power, Democrats have done enormous damage. During Obama’s first two years, when they controlled Congress, and since then in the form of unilateral executive actions, the Democrats have verbally assailed the legitimacy of vital democratic institutions, including the Constitution, the police, corporations, and, of course, elections….

President Bush’s last words were “I believe I have upheld the honor of the presidency.” We could do worse than to ask God to bless the next president with a similar sense of humility and dignity, and a similar awe for the majesty of the democratic system, but it will be for naught if the American people aren’t thankful for it.

Supreme Dark Lord @voxday
One reason the people don’t trust the institutions anymore is because commentators like you are constantly lying to them.

Mario Loyola @Mario_A_Loyola
Tell me Dark Lord, do you sit around at home all day defeating the enemy with these flaccid little one-liners? Wow

Supreme Dark Lord ‏@voxday
You can lie to people all you want, but no one is buying it anymore. The nation is dying and you’re still virtue-signaling.

Inevitable

I don’t think I have ever been so unsurprised by an email in my life. To put it in context, I have to first explain that a producer from an NPR-affiliated radio station contacted me about the Hugo Awards.

As I’m sure you’re aware WorldCon is about to start…. As we’ve been researching and thinking about this event we discovered that in addition to the celebration, learning and networking there’s also a bit of identity politics controversy surrounding the Hugo award. As the conference unfolds we want to host a conversation with members of the Sci-Fi community and how they view the events. Our hope is to get a sense of what’s at stake and why it’s important. We really value having a diversity of perspectives on this issue.


I’d like to talk with you, by phone, today or tomorrow for about
15 minutes. This way we can make sure we’re a good fit and develop some
potential talking points for what we could discuss
during the show.

I had a few minutes to kill, so despite knowing how it was going to turn out, I called him back and we had a short, friendly conversation. He was genuinely curious about what was, to him, quite clearly an alien perspective. And I had to laugh when I got this the next day.


Thank you for sharing your time with us yesterday. I wanted to follow up and let you know that we found some folks who will make a better fit for this conversation and consequently we won’t be needing you as a confirmed guest tomorrow.


You don’t say. Anyhow, radio and television producers, this is why I keep telling you that I’m not interested in appearing on your show. See, I know the drill. I’ve turned down three other interview requests in the last day alone; keep this in mind if you’re wondering why various pieces on the Alt-Right often appear to ignore certain individuals you think merit mention. Sure, sometimes it’s because they’re playing the old “we don’t want to give them a platform” game. But more often, of late, it’s because we don’t see any point in talking to them and playing the token villain’s role.

That doesn’t mean I won’t talk to you all, though. Everyone is invited to the No Award 2016 Party, which will kick off 15 minutes before the Hugo Awards start at 8 PM Central tomorrow night. Special guests to be announced later as they let me know if they’ll be able to attend.

Speaking of the Hugo Awards, as the VFM are everywhere around the globe pursuing the shadowy will of their SDL, we have been culturally enriched by several reports from the Worldcon, including this one.


Here is a picture of Rape Rape in the wild. I was stunned by two or three things:

  1. Con attendees are mostly old farts.
  2. They look even more unhealthy than the average crowd in a WalMart on EBT night.
  3. GRRM is a close approximation of the average male attendee.
Watch out, ladies! One never knows what diabolically Byzantine form of nonconsensual relations is being worked out on paper.

Twitter eats itself

It’s fascinating to watch Twitter wage war on its raison d’etre:

Twitter is taking another step forward in ensuring that its service is a safe place to be. The company today announced that it’s giving everyone access to its quality filter, which automatically screens out tweets from suspicious accounts and hopefully will minimize or eliminate abuse from taking place on the platform.

Users will also now have the ability to limit which notifications they receive across both mobile and the web.

During the company’s second quarter earnings call, Twitter chief executive Jack Dorsey responded to complaints around harassment, bullying, and abuse that seemed to be running rampant on the service. He acknowledged that Twitter hadn’t done enough, but promised that it was working on not only improving enforcement of its policies, but also developing new technological solutions to combat the hate.

The launch of this feature to everyone comes on the heels of a critical report by BuzzFeed alleging a lack of concern Twitter has displayed toward harassment. The company has since responded to the article claiming that it’s not factual and “We are going to continue our work on making Twitter a safer place.”

As for notifications, you can now select to receive notifications from just those you follow.

The thing is, if you just mind your business and simply mute or block anyone you don’t want to see, there isn’t a problem. I give people two chances to demonstrate they’ve got something substantive to say, and once I determine that they’re too stupid or too argumentative to bother, I mute them and move on.

So, given that it’s already quite easy to avoid any significant or persistent unpleasantries, what Twitter is trying to do is effectively impossible. They’re trying to make it a place that will feel sufficiently safe to users who are going out of their way to interact with people they don’t know while avoiding any criticism from them.

People have been asking about Big Fork. It’s going well. Figure an announcement within 5 weeks.

Then they fight you

(((Joel Stein))) attacks the Alt-Right in Time:

Trolling is, overtly, a political fight. Liberals do indeed troll–sex-advice columnist Dan Savage used his followers to make Googling former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum’s last name a blunt lesson in the hygienic challenges of anal sex; the hunter who killed Cecil the lion got it really bad.

But trolling has become the main tool of the alt-right, an Internet-grown reactionary movement that works for men’s rights and against immigration and may have used the computer from Weird Science to fabricate Donald Trump. Not only does Trump share their attitudes, but he’s got mad trolling skills: he doxxed Republican primary opponent Senator Lindsey Graham by giving out his cell-phone number on TV and indirectly got his Twitter followers to attack GOP political strategist Cheri Jacobus so severely that her lawyers sent him a cease-and-desist order.

The alt-right’s favorite insult is to call men who don’t hate feminism “cucks,” as in “cuckold.” Republicans who don’t like Trump are “cuckservatives.” Men who don’t see how feminists are secretly controlling them haven’t “taken the red pill,” a reference to the truth-revealing drug in The Matrix. They derisively call their adversaries “social-justice warriors” and believe that liberal interest groups purposely exploit their weakness to gain pity, which allows them to control the levers of power. Trolling is the alt-right’s version of political activism, and its ranks view any attempt to take it away as a denial of democracy.

It’s always educational to see how the media inevitably attempts to push its Narrative by redefining terms. They’re actually attempting to ban self-expression in the name of self-expression, in much the same way the EU tries to bar democracy in the name of democracy.


The alt-right argues that if you can’t handle opprobrium, you should just turn off your computer. But that’s arguing against self-expression, something antithetical to the original values of the Internet. 

No, that’s not arguing against self-expression, that IS self-expression. Moreover, it is using the media’s own argument against it: “if you don’t like it, turn off the TV”. It’s amazing to see them resorting to the Moral Majority’s position they used to oppose. They’re going to pine for the good old days when they were dealing with the terrible, no-good Religious Right they hated so much, as the Alt-Right is considerably less tolerant and merciful.

And, of course, the conservative media loves this stuff; they hate the Alt-Right worse than they ever hated communism, leftists, or Democrats.

Dana Perino ‏@DanaPerino
How Trolls Are Ruining the Internet – article in TIME – we are doing this subject on @TheFiveFNC. Mostly AGREE!

First the New York Times, then Time magazine, and now Fox News are attacking the Alt Right. Looks like we got ourselves a new media offensive on our hands. This is a good sign. They used to ignore us. Then they mocked us. Now, they’re fighting us. You know what comes next. We win.

Milo corners Twitter

Either Twitter is desperate or they have some seriously incompetent lawyers handling @nero’s data request.:

Twitter attempted to dodge Milo Yiannopoulos’ data request by falsely claiming that he lives in the United States of America and is therefore ineligible to receive the information.

“Twitter International Company provides the Twitter Services to individuals who live outside the United States of America. We understand that you live in the United States,” said Twitter in their reply today, despite the fact that Yiannopoulos has permanent residence in the United Kingdom and remains a citizen there.

“As a result, we are not a data controller in respect of your personal data. Consequently, we will return your postal order, in the sum of €6.35, to you.”

Yiannopoulos replied shortly after, stating:


TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN


I do not live in the United States. I am a permanent UK resident at the address listed on my letter, and a citizen of the United Kingdom.


You are clearly prevaricating by waiting until now to make this statement as opposed to making simple inquiries as to my country of residence.


Twitter has the choice of waiving the EUR 6.35 or paying the shipping and handling costs of sending a new money order, which will be EUR 7.


As a matter of interest, given that you have my UK address, where did you send the money order back to? To dispatch it to a UK address seems quite at odds with your proposition that I am a resident of the United States.


You have 21 days from the date of the original Subject Access Request to reply in full. This situation has not changed. I look forward to receiving the information requested within the time frame permitted by law.


Yours


Milo Yiannopoulos”

Seriously, who advised them to try to play that sort of ridiculous game? I’ve noticed that American companies often fail to take foreign courts very seriously, as if they assume they are merely some sort of state-level court that can be beaten at the federal level. No wonder so many of them end up paying massive fines.

I know for a fact that Milo’s been in London recently anyhow. It’s just a bizarre, time-wasting response by Twitter.

Discredit. Disqualify. Deplatform.

It’s interesting to see how cuckservatives and conservatives are rapidly adopting SJW tactics too. Unfortunately, like the good moderates they are, they’ve adopted them in order to utilize them against those whose side they claim to be. This little rant from Patrick Frey, who is attempting to convince Tom Woods to stop interacting with me, is a good example:

Patrick Frey [Original post 8/15/2016]
I know little about Vox Day, other than that he told my friend Ken White, a great man and free speech warrior who has also written courageously about his struggles with mental illness, to “get off the Internet for [his] own good” because “no place for the depressed, the bipolar, or the schizophrenic.” I know VD loves to beat his chest about how “ruthless” he is (“We won’t hesitate to strike at your vulnerabilities” is an actual quote — ooh! he’s going to unleash the dreaded Internet Attack on his enemies!) And now, VD is explaining how American nationalism is really White nationalism:

I guess I’ll listen to Tom’s conversations with him, in which (so far) he manages to come across less like the rank jackass he has always been in his interactions with Ken White. But I’d really rather see Tom, whom I admire greatly, spending less time interacting with a guy who has acted like such a cretin online.

To be clear: I’m obviously not trying to tell Tom how to run his show. If he wants to give a platform to the likes of VD or Milo, that’s obviously his choice. I hope I can express my extreme dislike of these people forthrightly without it seeming like an attack on Tom — who, again, has added much of value to my life.

Seriously, though — just read through this blog post by Vox Day attacking my friend Ken White, and see if you can refrain from laughing at the way VD sells himself as Big Bad Tough Guy Vox Day. It really is tough to take this guy seriously.

Let me see if I have this straight. It is really tough to take me seriously, therefore it is imperative for Tom Woods to stop taking me talking to me lest he acquire unserious cooties or something. The threat of striking at one’s vulnerabilities is something to laugh at, but simply observing that a mentally unstable individual is, in fact, mentally unstable and is behaving in a manner indicative of mental instability, is an outrage to be decried.

Does he really think that Tom Woods, of all people, is liable to fall for this sort of nonsense?

Look, it’s not my fault that Ken White is mentally unstable. Nor is it my fault that, as a consequence of his being crazy, Ken White has repeatedly chosen to take unprovoked shots at me. It’s not as if I’m outing the poor guy as a whack job; if White hadn’t a) written about being institutionalized, and, b) taken unprovoked shots at Roosh, I wouldn’t know anything about it.

It’s not as if I read him or pay any attention to White. He may be back in the funny farm already for all I know.

What I do know is that I have absolutely no time for suggestions concerning with whom I should, or should not, associate myself. I’ve noticed that the bigger one’s platform becomes, the more people will try to hijack it and offer unsolicited guidance. I’ve had people try to talk me into disavowing Roosh, Louise Mensch, and more recently, Ricky Vaughan. But no matter who they are, my answer is always the same: no.

I pay no heed to thought police, speech police, tone police, or relationship police. Anyhow, I suspect Tom will be less than concerned about Patrick’s demands:

Tom Woods ‏@ThomasEWoods
Social Justice Warriors: who they are, and how to deal with them — my conversation with @VoxDay

Ty & Aliyah ‏@StopDividingUs7
And of course, typical supremacist making you pay to listen / view.

Tom Woods ‏@ThomasEWoods
Typical genius unable to press PLAY on a free podcast.

Ty & Aliyah ‏@StopDividingUs7
No, it requires viewers to download a bunch of your crap first. That is a heavy price to pay.

Tom Woods ‏@ThomasEWoods
No, it doesn’t. You are seriously inept. You just press the play button.

I’ll admit it. I laughed.

UPDATE: Patrick Frey is doing his best to create a wedge:

VD also says Tom Woods is “considerably less serious as an economist than I had imagined him to be” … again, watching a sort of middling intellect deem himself to be smarter than Woods and Sowell is amusing. 

“Didja hear what Janey said about you, Tina? Didja hear?”

I don’t know how to break it to Mr. Frey, but based on my interactions with Mr. Sowell, I’m at least a standard deviation more intelligent than him. Tom Woods is quite sharp, and I have a lot of respect for him, but nevertheless, he’s not up to speed on free trade yet. There is no shame or insult in that; Ian Fletcher certainly got there before I did.

I have no doubt that Tom Woods will eventually as well.

Reality TV and the fall of civilization

James Delingpole observes that troglodyte culture matters even to the highbrow, because politics is downstream of culture, in The Spectator:

‘But why do you even care about this crap?’ people sometimes ask me. They’re the same sort of people who, were they living in Rome circa 476, would be congratulating themselves on how bloody marvellous aqueducts and hypocausts and testudo formations are. Yes indeed. But that was then and unfortunately we’re living in now. The barbarians are through the gates, imposing their weird, alien values, but the forces of civilisation are holding their noses and looking the other way because they find modern culture so vulgar, ugly and incomprehensible.

What I think should trouble us most about the Biggins eviction is the perverse moral inversion it represents. Instead of inhabiting a universe where sticks and stones may break our bones but words can never hurt us, we’ve been ushered into one where the language you use carries more weight than the way you behave. As a writer and English literature graduate I ought to be delighted by this — except that the new rule seems to have been invented by incredibly thick people with no sense of tone, nuance or context.

At the time of the Leveson inquiry, there were lots of wise, nicely turned, historically literate articles in civilised journals about the importance of free speech and how defending it must of necessity include protecting the right to offend. The problem is that the only people who read them were clever, sensible, well-balanced types like us. Unfortunately, we’re not the ones who make the rules.

Why do you think the Big Brother bosses axed Biggins? They’re rather less concerned about what Mick Hume, Claire Fox, Douglas Murray or Nick Cohen might write in an erudite essay on the significance of Areopagitica and the importance of ‘Wilkes and Liberty’ than they are about what a noisy minority of pigshit-thick but Taleban-zealous social justice warriors might say on social media.

This is why it matters when the Hugo Awards anoint mediocre SJW detritus as the best that the field has to offer. This is why it matters that we tear down the gatekeepers, we tear down the SJW-infested institutions, and we replace them with new ones. This is why it matters when even people we despise are attacked by those who seek to control them and us, and why it is important for us to defend them regardless of how we might feel about them.

Delingpole understands this, but then, he is demonstrably well-read on the subject.

How do we resist this loathsome trend? Well, the first step is to acknowledge that it’s happening; and the second is to create a stink. I’d highly recommend reading Vox Day’s SJWs Always Lie, which outlines how these activists operate (‘point and shriek’, ‘isolate and swarm’) and then describes how to defeat them. Absolutely key is refusing to let these malign professional grievance-mongers set the terms of the debate.

And we’re not. Read the whole thing. Have you noticed that the Alt-Right is beginning to drive the public discourse on a few small issues here and there? That’s just the start. The mainstream media is on its heels, forced to respond to the issues that are being raised by a new generation of social media that is filling the role that AM talk radio once did. The difference is that while the talk radio guys were still subject to gatekeepers in the form of station owners and the FCC, we are only limited by the potential biases of Twitter, Facebook, and Google. Also, an AM signal doesn’t carry very far, but the Internet reaches to the ends of the Earth.

Damage control desperation

Even the UK media is going to almost unprecedented lengths to convince you not to believe the evidence of your lying eyes:

A person who was filmed in a video that has been seized upon by right-wing groups to suggest Hillary Clinton ‘had a seizure’ on camera has hit back at the outlandish claims. Lisa Lerer, a reporter covering Clinton’s campaign for the Associated Press, was on hand for the latest moment conspiracy theorists have latched onto in an attempt to discredit the Democratic nominee.

In the video, which was shot on June 10 at a muffin shop in Washington DC, Lerer was one of the reporters who ‘shouted’ questions at Clinton about a meeting she had recently had with Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren. In Lerer’s words, Clinton: ‘perhaps eager to avoid answering or maybe just taken aback by our volume [she] responded with an exaggerated motion, shaking her head vigorously for a few seconds.’

Right. Look at Lerer’s face. That is the face of someone reacting to seeing something go very wrong. Moreover, the suggested excuse doesn’t explain why Hillary imitated the involuntary motion, then made an otherwise inexplicable comment about the chai. There are three obvious indicators besides the involuntary movement itself:

  1. The horrified reaction of Lerer.
  2. The immediate conscious imitation of the movement
  3. The comment about the chai, intended to excuse the involuntary movement.

Watch the video. There is no way that is a response with an exaggerated motion. But the media’s attempt to cover up Hillary’s observable health issues is even more feeble than this.

Hannity also referenced an old picture that was wrongly circulated by right-wing websites recently that showed the Democratic nominee slipping while walking up a flight of stairs. A host of anti-Clinton blogs and websites falsely presented the image as proof the 68-year-old candidate is in poor health.

However, the picture that they claimed to be new, was taken at the top of a staircase in South Carolina on February 24.

Right-wing blog American Mirror started its conspiracy-theorizing post by stating Clinton’s health should be ‘a major issue of the 2016 campaign’.

It then went on to wrongly say the photograph in question is, ‘the latest evidence’, to support its conspiracy – despite the picture being almost seven months old. The blog post was then shared by the Drudge Report, a more well-known right-wing website, along with the headline: ‘Hillary conquers the stairs’.

What does “wrongly circulated” even mean? It doesn’t matter whether the picture was taken in February or taken today, the woman is 68 years old, observably has something wrong with her, is known to have suffered a serious head injury, and can’t even walk up the stairs without help.

The more the media attempts to play Narrative Police with regards to Hillary Clinton’s health, the more it is obvious that they know there is something serious to hide. Ask yourself this question: why is the global media attempting to run interference for Hillary’s health issues when a simple release of her medical records could easily and conclusively address them?