Proof For All Time Of Unhinged Hypocrisy And Bias From The Pseudo-Journalist Class And The Rank-And-File Democrat

So this morning I’m looking through the crappy bird-cage-liner that passes itself off as the newspaper of record on the West Coast, just as I’ve been looking through the same bird-cage-liner every day since Trump announced his candidacy, let alone since he was elected.  And it’s just rabidly unhinged bias day after day after day.

Meanwhile, the same Democrat establishment and the same voters who literally swarmed Obama with fanatic worship when he was elected – who hysterically told anyone who didn’t take the Mark of the Obama that you were a racist, a hater, a traitor, fill in your own blank – rose up in a spirit of rabid, violent hatred against the President of the United States even before he took office.

There was an article about journalism and the “end of democracy” in the previous days’ sanctimonious hate-offering of all things Trump.  Under the title, “The vicious cycle that leads to the end of democracy,” I saw these words:

Does democracy require journalists and educators to strive for political balance? I’m hardly alone in thinking the answer is “yes.” But it also requires them to present the facts as they understand them — and when it is not possible to be factual and balanced at the same time, democratic institutions risk collapse.

Consider the problem abstractly. Democracy X is dominated by two parties, Y and Z. Party Y is committed to the truth of propositions A, B and C, while Party Z is committed to the falsity of A, B and C. Slowly the evidence mounts: A, B and C look very likely to be false. Observers in the media and experts in the education system begin to see this, but the evidence isn’t quite plain enough for non-experts, especially if those non-experts are aligned with Party Y and already committed to A, B and C.

Both psychological research and commonsense observation of the recent political situation (I think you’ll agree with this, whatever side you’re on) demonstrate the great human capacity to rationalize and justify what you want to believe. The evidence against A can be very substantial — compelling, even, from a neutral point of view — without convincing people who are emotionally invested in the truth of A.

The journalists and educators who live in X now face a dilemma. They can present both sides in a balanced way, or they can call the facts as they see them. Either choice threatens the basic institutions of democracy.

If they present balanced cases for and against A, B and C, they give equal time to the false and the true. They create the misleading impression that the matter is still in doubt, that opinion is divided, that it’s equally reasonable to believe either side. They thereby undermine and discredit their own assessment that A, B and C are very likely to be false. This is dangerous, since democracy depends on a well-educated, informed voting public, aware of the relevant facts.

In the long term, journalists and educators will likely turn against balance, because they care intensely about the facts in question and don’t wish to pretend that the evidence is unclear. They understand that they cannot routinely promote false equivalencies while retaining their integrity.

Schwittzoebel blathers on a little longer and then finally concludes,

This is all general and oversimplified. But it’s clear in the abstract and in the real world that knowledgeable people can be forced by the evidence to disproportionately favor one political party over another, creating a vicious cycle of bias and partisan alignment.

We might be entering this cycle in the United States. To fight against it, we must allow journalists, educators and researchers to speak freely. Political leaders and their supporters must not rush to the conclusion that experts who disagree with them — even systematically — are their enemies.

The first thing you need to understand is that, in the “abstract” presentation that he provides, he this “academic” firmly sides with the Democratic Party.  The Republican Party is “abstractly” Party Y – you know, the one that has every single one of its facts wrong because it’s dominated by stupid, ignorant, emotional people – whereas his Party Z is the Enlightened Party that knows all and is struggling to accommodate all of these stupid, vacuous, ignorant, clueless unwashed masses.

Eric Schwitzgebel fails throughout his piece to acknowledge on dirty little factoid, namely that 96 percent of journalists are progressive liberals who supported Hillary Clinton:

In all, people identified in federal campaign finance filings as journalists, reporters, news editors or television news anchors — as well as other donors known to be working in journalism — have combined to give more than $396,000 to the presidential campaigns of Clinton and Trump, according to a Center for Public Integrity analysis.

Nearly all of that money — more than 96 percent — has benefited Clinton: About 430 people who work in journalism have, through August, combined to give about $382,000 to the Democratic nominee, the Center for Public Integrity’s analysis indicates.

What about the academics?  Yeah, he fails to mention the same rabid bias in that group, also.

As an example, in 2012, 96 percent of Ivy League professors’ donations went to Obama.

Does such lightning of bias strike twice?  Yep:

99% of top liberal arts professor campaign donations go to Democrats: report
By Kelly Riddell – The Washington Times – Tuesday, October 27, 2015

Almost 100 percent of the 2016 presidential political donations made by top liberal arts professors went to Democratic candidates, with only one professor giving to a Republican candidate.

Forty-seven professors at the top 50 liberal arts colleges in the country, as ranked by U.S. News & World Report, have given to presidential campaigns, according to donations recorded in the third quarter by the Federal Election Commission and aggregated by Campus Reform, a conservative watchdog of higher education.

Of those 47 professors, Hamilton College History Professor Robert Paquette was the only one to give to a Republican — donating $150 to Carly Fiorina’s campaign.

The 46 other professors gave $20,875 to Democratic front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton and $8,417 to Vermont Sen. Bernard Sanders, the report said.

“I do believe these numbers give an accurate representation of the political leanings of faculty on most college campuses, especially allegedly elite liberal arts colleges like Hamilton College,” Mr. Paquette told Campus Reform. Mr. Paquette told the organization he was the “only out-of-closet conservative in a faculty of 200.”

And yeah, once again, the end result for academia was an overwhelming bias for Democrats and an overwhelming rabid bias against Republicans.

The truly frightening thing about Schwitzgebel’s “analysis” is that, for Schwitzgebel, this rabidly lopsided bias probably isn’t even a problem.  After all, he is telling us that journalists and academics HAVE to ultimately choose sides and “present facts as they understand them.”  They have to be able “to speak freely.”

And so they have a RIGHT and even a DUTY to be in Nazi goose-stepping fascist synchronized march toward one political ideology.

And if you are NOT in these elite classes of the Übermensch, you have the right to shut up and mindlessly follow.  Because, that is all they believe you are capable of doing.

In order for Schwitzgebel to have his utopian “democracy” where  we have “a well-educated, informed voting public, aware of the relevant facts,” we have only tow alternatives: the first is to put everyone who supports Party Y in a reeducation camp until they understand that the only acceptable reality is to accept the one presented by the journalists and the academics; and the second is to surgically “correct” the members of Party Y with a full frontal lobotomy and fit them with a drool-collecting prosthetic so that they can be led to the way, the truth and the life according to “the facts” as journalists and academics understand them.

I have to laugh at Eric.  Here is an example of what he claims to believe as the two abiding principles for his particular academic discipline:

two things make a philosopher great: quality of argument and creative vigor

I mean, gee whiz, Eric, “quality of argument”?  HOW ABOUT ANY DAMN ARGUMENT AT ALL???  “Creative vigor”?  I mean, what the hell, when nearly one-hundred percent of your ilk are all marching in lock-step for one side.  I mean, oh yeah, there’s just ALL KINDS of “creativity” going on in your ivy tower and your faculty lounge, isn’t there???

Eric, you are true to your liberal-progressive kind: you are a devout, abject moral hypocrite of the very lowest order.

Allow me to post every single page of the Los Angles Times main section to prove a point:

There they are: a photograph of every single page of the main section of the Los Angles times for Monday, January 30, 2017

Let me go through every single headline and subtitle of each article in the main page section of the newspaper of record for the West Coast:

• CONFUSION REIGNS: Trump calls travel ban a success as chaos mounts on many fronts
• Thousands of protesters turn out at airports, and even top Republicans criticize the directive.
• GOP’s case of whiplash: Republicans hoped for collaboration between the White House and Congress, but Trump isn’t making it easy.
• Police wary of new duty: Trump’s order to use local units to enforce immigration laws elicits resistance by some L.A. officers.
• BONDS MADE CLOSER: Muslim Americans ‘standing shoulder to shoulder’
• You can’t build a wall on a river: Border fence must be set back from Rio Grande, leaving some Texans on wrong side.
• Screening under scrutiny: Trump wants ‘extreme vetting,’ but refugees already face tough checks
• Mexico braces for uncertain era: Trump’s tough talk on cross-border trade threatens to cut off region’s lifeblood.
• Bernie Sanders of France wins vote: Benoit Hamon triumphs in the Socialist Party primary for president.
• River poses challenge to wall plan (continuing ‘You can’t build a wall’ story)
• 5 killed at Quebec City mosque
• Trump’s powerful political duo: Travel ban signals the intent by advisors Bannon and Miler to reshape the country.
• New duties would ‘create a wedge’ (continuing ‘Police wary of new duty’ article)
• Riled veterans leap to Muslims’ defense: Military members offer support to Iraqi interpreters blocked by Trump’s order
• Are plans for jobs just PR? Trump is taking credit for them, but skeptics say many were already in the works.
• Travel ban hits a community hard (continuing ‘BONDS MADE CLOSER’ article)
• A reprise of anxiety, heartbreak (continuing ‘CONFUSION REIGNS’ article)
• Trump’s actions are blindsiding the GOP (continuing ‘GOP’s case of whiplash’ article)
• How Trump created chaos at the airports: Not only was his order on refugees unfair and inhumane, but they way it was carried out was a disaster.
• Leader of the free world [on Angela Merkel, celebrating her leftist immigration policies in contrast to Trump’s]
• A cruel, illegal executive order

It’s been this way ever since EVER, for the record.

There is not ONE example of objective, impartial journalism in the entire newspaper.  Rather, it is blatantly obvious that the policy of the Los Angeles Times is of echoing and amplifying ALL the criticisms from the unhinged left, while steadfastly refusing to so much as allow for mention ANYTHING that Trump may have done that could even conceivably be good.

Every single article is negative and unrelentingly critical.  For example, the “Police wary of new duty article” subtitled, “Trump’s order to use local units to enforce immigration laws elicits resistance by some L.A. officers” and then titled as it continues “New duties would ‘create a wedge'”: how likely is it that there are not “some L.A. officers” who are FOR this executive order and welcome it as good policy???  But the “some officers” who take the leftist side are the ONLY ones who get to count.  And to the extent that there is any nuance in the article itself, you don’t see anything but unrelenting anger and criticism in the headlines and subtitles that are what most people glance at as they pick up this biased piece of leftist propaganda.

And again, in the “BONDS MADE CLOSER” story: do you think it’s possible that someone with bad intentions might have been blocked?  But no, it’s going to be framed as sobbing mothers and hysterical children.  And that’s all that matters.  Which amounts to an entirely emotionalism-laded framing of this policy from a biased, slanted perspective while our philosophy professor Eric Schwitzgebe lambasts US as the “emotional” ones.

Do you want to see “emotional”???  How about Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer weeping and sobbing at just what a mean, bad, mean old man Donald Trump is???

Donald Trump’s response:

“Only 109 people out of 325,000 were detained and held for questioning,” he wrote. “Big problems at airports were caused by Delta computer outage, protesters and the tears of Senator Schumer.”

Have to admit I loved this meme:

PLEASE, lefties, PLEASE don’t give me this garbage crap about being “emotionally invested” coming from the right.

The media and academia pull this tactic all the damn time: let’s search and search and search until we can find some sympathetic victim that suits our narrative, and then follow the Saul Alinsky strategy: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”  And it is ALWAYS emotional and it is ALWAYS leftist.  But it’s marvelous when they do what they demonize us for doing.  Because to be a liberal progressive is to be an abject moral hypocrite incapable of shame or virtue or integrity or decency or honesty.

The “Trump’s powerful political duo” article where Trump advisors want to “reshape the country” forces me to remember when Obama said he was only days away from “fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”  But THAT was wonderful and greeted with cheers and adoration whereas what Trump is doing is utterly evil because somebody who isn’t a beloved liberal ideologue now wants to “reshape the country.”

How about the article on “Riled veterans”?  Does that title give you the suggestion that veterans voted for Trump by a 2-1 margin???  And literally are the ones who gave Trump his swing-state victories that propelled him to the White House???  How about the fact that for career-oriented troops that form the backbone of our nation’s military and our national security, the margin favoring Trump was THREE to one???

No, or to put it more accurately, HELL no: rather, to put it in Eric’s language, “they present the facts as they understand them.”  Or at least “the facts” that they CHOOSE in their BIAS to present.

“Thousands of protesters” are framed as HEROES.  Remember when the Tea Party was demonstrating?  Not ONE SINGLE arrest was EVER made of a tea party supporter – and in fact the ONLY arrests were of unhinged liberal progressives whose fascist souls were filled with hate and rage at the thought that free people had the freedom to demonstrate.  But the mainstream media demonized us like we were burning and looting and raping and rioting.  But then we had first the vile protests of the Occupy Movement where we had acts of terrorism, acts of rape, acts of mass vandalism; then we had Black Lives Matter chanting “Pigs in a blanket, fry ’em like bacon” and “What do we want?”  Dead cops!”  When do we want it?”  “NOW!” which corresponded to an orgy of execution-style slayings of police officers.  And now we’ve got Democrats charged with RIOTING the day Donald Trump was inaugurated.  And the way the mainstream media depicts it it’s all so, so wonderful.

Such as when Democrats were using Nazi-style Brownshirt tactics to physically beat and terrorize Donald Trump supporters for the crime of participating in the 1st Amendment of our Constitution (see my articles documenting this here and here and here).

And you’re actually worried that the mainstream media that ignored the rise of the Nazi Party from within the Democrat Party isn’t being given enough respect, Eric???

Damn near very single story the mainstream media does emerges from the Saul Alinsky tactic: Pick a target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.  DAMN NEAR EVERY SINGLE TIME.

We have that Time Magazine White House pool correspondent who wrote a post slandering Donald Trump as a racist for removing the Martin Luther King, Jr. bust.  Why did he assume that?  Well, he glanced at where it was and didn’t see it.  Why didn’t he see it?  Didn’t matter to him at the time in his rabid, unhinged, fanatic desire to post it.  It turned out that a Secret Service agent was blocking his view.

Of course, you have to realize that at NO TIME EVER in the last eight years did ANY Secret Service agent EVER ONCE obstruct ANY reporter’s view of the MLK bust: or else we can safely assume that these unbiased purveyors of fact and truth would have immediately reported that Barack Obama had ordered the MLK bust removed.

Amazingly, Zeke Miller STILL has a job in spite of the fact that he just proved that Time Magazine is a nest of poisonous, fanged, venomous vipers who are NOTHING but biased propagandists trying to slander and pervert the truth to suit their ideology and political narrative to harm and undermine Donald Trump and every single voter who elected him president.

Kellyanne Conway is asking the question: when will these lie peddlers be FIRED for “presenting the facts as their slandering bias compels them to understand them????

You go back and look over the disgrace that journalists made of themselves as Donald Trump kept proving that all the crap they were “reporting” was “FAKE NEWS” from a biased perspective: Donald Trump couldn’t win the primary because he was too polarizing and too divisive; Donald Trump could never defeat Hillary Clinton because he was too polarizing and too divisive; Donald Trump was out of contention in all the swing states because he was too polarizing and too divisive.  And all our biased polls prove our foreordained biased conclusion justifying our biased narrative.

THIS is what it means to be a “journalist” today.  THIS is what it means to be an “academic” today.  And if you’re not one of these propagandists, good luck in finding a damn job with them or keeping a job if you already managed to sneak in.

If you are a “journalist” or an “academic” today, YOU ARE THE LIVING EMBODIMENT OF DISHONESTY AND DISGRACE.

On the academic side, what we see is outright psycho-terror for professors whose expertise and scientific analysis tell them that evolution as a “fact” is a load of crap; we see an avalanche in academia of intolerable denials of tenure, denials of promotion, denials of contract renewals, denials of earned degrees, denials of admission into graduate programs”, and other rabid discrimination against a substantial minority of credentialed scientists that disagrees with the prevailing dogmatism of the myth of evolution.

This is “science” to an evolutionist.  Consider the words from Nobel Laureate Dr. George Wald who concedes a great deal in this quote: “One only has to concede the magnitude of the task to concede the possibility of the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible.  Yet here we are—as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation.”  Wald talks about billions of years and then concludes, “Given so much time, the ‘impossible’ becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain.”

This is NOT science, it is “magic.”  Billions of years are NOWHERE NEAR ENOUGH TIME for “the magic” of evolution to occur if you actually believe in legitimate science.

But “academia” is purging and destroying ANYONE no matter how credentialed or how accomplished that scientist might be who disagrees with “the acceptable narrative.”

And you want to talk about “creativity” and “arguments”???

We’re seeing the same rabid spirit of academic fascism on another front that we have seen for decades in the myth of godless evolution.

Dr. Judith Curry, a climatologist who had held the chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, resigned in protest of the modern-day witch-hunt that has become academia today, saying, “A deciding factor was that I no longer know what to say to students and postdocs regarding how to navigate the CRAZINESS in the field of climate science. Research and other professional activities are professionally rewarded only if they are channeled in certain directions approved by a politicized academic establishment — funding, ease of getting your papers published, getting hired in prestigious positions, appointments to prestigious committees and boards, professional recognition, etc.”

Do you know what caused the end of the Old Egyptian Kingdom?  It wasn’t the Industrial Revolution, liberal progressive crazies.  It was “climate change” that had NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH ANTHROPOMORPHIC GLOBAL WARMING.  Do you know what caused the collapse of the Mayan Civilization?  It wasn’t SUVs, liberal progressive whackjobs.  It was “climate change” that had NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH ANTHROPOMORPHIC GLOBAL WARMING.  Because our climate just changes; it’s unstoppable.  It is a FACT of both science and logic that the hated Bogeyman of CO2 produces less than 0.1 percent of all global warming gases; just as it is a fact that nature creates thirty damn times the CO2 that human beings do.  The left, out of POLITICAL rather than SCIENTIFIC ideology, made CO2 (which is actually essential for life on planet earth) an earth-murdering poison and ignored all the other global warming gases such as water vapor which accounts for NINETY-FIVE PERCENT of global warming gases.  Or to put it another way, IT’S THE WATER VAPOR, NOT THE CO2, YOU DAMN FOOLS.

But what the hell; we’re Nazis and Stalinists masquerading as “scientists,” and so everything we say must surely be “scientific” no matter how UNSCIENTIFIC it clearly is.

Eric wants us to worship rabid leftist bias that is masqueraded as “science” and “journalism” as “fact.”

What we have in both fields is nothing short of intellectual STALINISM.

HERE is an example of a rabid, disgraced FOOL who is BOTH an “academic” AND a “journalist.”  And he disgraced himself on BOTH fronts.  Which is why he was given a Nobel Prize, I suppose.

You have discredited yourselves.  Nobody ought to listen to you who wants the truth or even anything vaguely resembling the truth.  Your “facts” “as you understand them” are carefully selected lies that pimp a false narrative.  You’ve done it over and over and over again.

The bottom line is this, Eric: where were YOU when Barack Obama announced the New Reality: “Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day, I won.”  Or to put the New Reality another way, “We don’t mind the Republicans joining us. They can come for a ride, but they gotta sit in back.”

WHERE was your outrage, Mr. Schwittzoebel, when Obama was imposing every manner of outrageous, polarizing executive orders and policies and spitting in the eyes of increasingly outraged and alienated Americans???

I wrote this prediction back in 2012:

Obama’s strategy is to set aside and flatly ignore the law for his own political benefit.  Every American who is not deeply troubled by that – troubled enough to not vote for this fascist – is UN-American.

What Obama has done is provide an example of out-and-out lawlessness on the part of the president of the United States.  And when we get a hard-core right wing president the way Obama has been a hard-core left wing president, Obama and the Democrat Party and all of those who voted for Obama and the Democrat Party will be entirely to blame for that president and his extremist actions.  You mark my words.  Because what goes around comes around, and if a Democrat can set aside the law the way Obama has now repeatedly done, well, guess who’s going to be stomping on your necks under your own president’s prior justification???  Conservatives are rising up in a spirit of righteous outrage.  You have repeatedly slapped us in the face through your messiah Obama, and the time is coming when we’re going to punch you hard in the nose and then keep on punching.  And when that day comes, liberals, look to yourselves for blame. — My words on June 18, 2012

If you want to get even with the people most responsible for the rise of Donald Trump, then hunt every Democrat who voted for Barack Obama down with dogs and burn them alive.  Because Donald Trump was the result of eight years of FASCISM.

So we get to Trump’s entirely LAWFUL order to limit immigrants and refugees from seven countries that were actually even on Obama’s list as dangerous sponsors of terrorism.  For eight years, Obama gave us lawless executive orders that he himself had previously labeled as the acts of a king, an emperor, arguing that they were unconstitutional and anti-democratic before then  issuing them anyway.  And Democrats smiled and laughed at the abandonment of our Constitution and the tossing out of our laws.

DON’T complain, Democrat: YOU INVITED THIS.  YOU DEMANDED THIS.  YOU GOT WHAT YOU GAVE US.

Further, these seven countries are notorious abusers of human rights against Christian minorities, against women, against homosexuals.  But that’s perfectly okay, isn’t it???

Obama has been nothing short of a total disaster for the Democratic Party.  He lost the White House.  He lost the House.  He lost the Senate.  He lost a giant number of governorships.  He lost a giant number of state houses.  He’s a disgrace.  And yet he is the liberal progressives’ god and the  only god with whom they will have to do.

If Democrats had ANY virtue or integrity whatsoever, they would say, “Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day, Trump won.”  They would say, “We Democrats can go for a ride with Donald Trump, but we gotta sit in back.”

The fact that you won’t abide by the rules of your own game that you created is the biggest crisis facing America today.

 

 

 

 

 

Tags: academic bias, bias, campaign contributions, end of demoracy, is dead, journalism, Media, media bias, proof of media bias, supported Hillary