Worse than Watergate? Bias in the mainstream media

With the mainstream media mocking what they describe as President Trump’s delusional claim that former President Obama ordered Trump Tower’s phones to be tapped, I thought it would only be fair to invite readers to look at the other side. In a 12-minute video, Mark Levin, a lawyer who was a chief of staff for Attorney General Edwin Meese during the Reagan administration, has laid out what appears to be overwhelming evidence that backs up Trump’s wiretapping claims. Newt Gingrich offers his take here. Matthew Vadum’s article, Obama’s Wiretaps?, in FrontPage magazine, makes for very disturbing reading. Vadum doesn’t pull any punches:

Now the outlines of a Watergate-like conspiracy are emerging in which a sitting Democrat president apparently used the apparatus of the state to spy on a Republican presidential candidate. Watergate differed in that President Nixon didn’t get involved in the plot against the Democratic National Committee until later as an accomplice after the fact. Here Obama likely masterminded, or oversaw someone like the diabolical Benghazi cover-up artist Ben Rhodes, masterminding the whole thing…

Obama used the IRS to target conservative and Tea Party nonprofits, along with Catholic, Jewish, and pro-Israel organizations. He brazenly lied about it, too. His Justice Department surreptitiously obtained telephone records for more than 100 reporters. He did nothing while Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius repeatedly violated the Hatch Act, an anti-corruption statute.

And if anyone still has doubts, I’d invite them to ask James Rosen and Angela Merkel about former President Obama’s spying. By the way, former Obama speechwriter Ben Rhodes’ claim that “No President can order a wiretap” is factually incorrect.

Those who think President Trump is concealing his connections with Russia need to check out this article, which pours cold water on that claim.

I’ve also been following mainstream media coverage of another issue that has been in the news lately: Sthe links between crime and immigration in Sweden. Regarding the statistics, I’d invite readers to have a look at these two articles: What Is the Truth about Crime and Immigration in Sweden? and The Truth about Sweden. What does it feel to be a woman in today’s Sweden? Katie Holmes answers that question in two hard-hitting articles in the Daily Mail: Where females fear to tread and The Swedish town where migrant gangs have killed multiculturalism stone dead and laugh at laws they despise and defy.

The mainstream media has ridiculed claims of a link between sexual assault crimes and immigration from Arabic-speaking countries. After reading the four articles linked to in the preceding paragraph, I’m more convinced than ever that the MSM is merely trying to obfuscate the truth – and in so doing, betraying its purpose, which is to report the truth without fear or favor.

So, what do readers think? Who’s crazy: the media or President Trump – or both?

222 thoughts on “Worse than Watergate? Bias in the mainstream media

  1. newton,

    Patrick has explained this. Government = force. You see, people voting is tyranny, while money voting = freedom.

    Try not to be such a freedom-hating leftist, newton. Go read some Daniel Webster and think about how he managed to conquer the devil.

  2. walto: Try not to be such a freedom-hating leftist, newton. Go read some Daniel Webster and think about how he managed to conquer the devil.

    The Devil went down to Georgia,
    He was looking for a soul to steal
    He was in a bind, ’cause he was way behind,
    He was willing to make a deal
    When he came across this young man
    Sawing on a fiddle and playing it hot
    And the Devil jumped up on a hickory stump and said,
    “Boy let me tell you what:
    I guess you didn´t know it, but I’m a fiddle player too,
    And if you’d care to take a dare,
    I’ll make a bet with you
    Now you play a pretty good fiddle,
    Boy, but give the Devil his due
    I bet a fiddle of gold against your soul
    ‘Cause I think I’m better than you”
    The boy said, “My name’s Daniel and it might be a sin,
    But I’ll take your bet, you’re gonna regret,
    ‘Cause I’m the best there’s ever been”

  3. walto:
    Patrick has explained this. Government = force. You see, people voting is tyranny, while money voting = freedom.

    Corporations are people too,my friend.

  4. newton: Hollywood sexually abuses children?

    Looks like petrushka is a #pizzagate fan too, the broader version of it. This is like a cherry on the cake. (Or like cheese in pizza.)

  5. Let me just say that I do not have any presuppositional knowledge of the truth about Hollywood.

    I faced claims like this every day for seven years with real kids. You have to make decisions without knowing who is telling the truth. If you have a magic way of knowing, please share it with the world.

    Most good children’s literature portrays a world in which adults do not protect children. I found that to be a pretty realistic view. I encountered rich and powerful churches in which the adults, including parents, took the side of a minister, despite pretty convincing evidence that he diddled the kids.

    Then there are mothers who look the other way to keep a boyfriend.

    You see some pretty sad cases.

  6. Alan Fox: But should they get extra votes?

    In a libertarian world, the makers should always have more power than the takers

  7. newton: In a libertarian world, the makers should always have more power than the takers

    In a libertarian world there wouldn’t be any takers.

    The issue of corporations is an interesting one. I don’t know of any libertarians who think they should be treated as persons. Personally, I find the idea of the government granting legal immunity to a group of people who have chosen to organize in a particular way to be ethically questionable, at the very least.

    There is also the issue of government enforced barriers to entry and similar protections, heavily and actively supported by those same corporations. As P. J. O’Rourke pithily noted, “When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.” That needs to stop.

  8. Patrick: There is also the issue of government enforced barriers to entry and similar protections, heavily and actively supported by those same corporations. As P. J. O’Rourke pithily noted, “When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.” That needs to stop.

    And when it stops, isn’t the result that everything and everyone can be bought and sold indiscriminately, in addition to legislators?

    Somewhere there could be a libertarian who makes some socio-economic sense, but I haven’t seen him.

  9. Erik:

    There is also the issue of government enforced barriers to entry and similar protections, heavily and actively supported by those same corporations. As P. J. O’Rourke pithily noted, “When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.” That needs to stop.

    And when it stops, isn’t the result that everything and everyone can be bought and sold indiscriminately, in addition to legislators?

    From a libertarian perspective, it stops when the government is small enough to be limited to its sole purpose of protecting citizens against force and fraud.

    Somewhere there could be a libertarian who makes some socio-economic sense, but I haven’t seen him.

    You need to get out more.

  10. Patrick: limited to its sole purpose

    Except that’s NOT it’s sole purpose unless its constituents WANT that to be its sole purpose. That’s how democracy works. You, OTOH, take the (theistic) view that you have a special intuition into the “natural laws” endowed by “the creator” and so believe your own views are entitled to special treatment, whatever the citizens may actually want.

    Libertarianism is in this way strikingly anti-democratic and autocratic, but, admittedly, it’s very nice if you happen to be rich.

  11. Patrick: You need to get out more.

    And you need to read some things not written by the (cracked) Cato Institute.

    BTW, I now see why you like Daniel Webster; after all, he wrote:

    Whatever makes men good Christians, makes them good citizens.

    The most important thought that ever occupied my mind is that of my individual responsibility to God.

    On the other hand, you probably don’t like these remarks of his:

    The people’s government, made for the people, made by the people, and answerable to the people.

    We are all agents of the same supreme power, the people.

    Liberty exists in proportion to wholesome restraint.

  12. walto: That’s how democracy works.

    Quick questions:

    Does democracy work when the results are counter to your wishes?

    Is it worth having some structural protections against mob rule?

    Should these structural protections limit what can be done when the majority wants to do something you agree with?

  13. Thanks for the answers.

    My personal take is that there was a concerted effort to prevent Trump from taking office, and it continues in the form of an impeachment movement, rationale TBA.

    The latest fiasco in the derangement movement was the tax returns, which didn’t work out as expected. Such gestures strengthen Trump, and suggest that maybe he encourages them.

    My unasked for advice to his opponents is to abandon the soft coup, and get on with the hard slog of opposing his policies. It will be difficult, because he is a populist, and by definition, populists frame their policies in ways that are popular.

  14. Patrick: From a libertarian perspective, it stops when the government is small enough to be limited to its sole purpose of protecting citizens against force and fraud.

    1. What entity would limit the government to that?
    2. Why would that entity limit the government to that sole purpose rather than to some selfish purpose?
    3. Are you sure such a limited government would be able to protect citizens against force and fraud rather than the limiting entity? And how about force and fraud by that limiting entity?
    4. If there’s no limiting entity, then what else is there to dictate to the government its limit(s) and purpose(s)?

    As you can guess by now, every supposed solution of yours raises more questions than it answers.

  15. Right. Libertarianism is a theory of government that is perfect for eighth graders.

  16. From a libertarian perspective, it stops when the government is small enough to be limited to its sole purpose of protecting citizens against force and fraud.

    Erik: 1. What entity would limit the government to that?

    A constitution that strictly defines the limits of the government.

    A respect for the rule of law by the citizens.

    An armed citizenry.

    2. Why would that entity limit the government to that sole purpose rather than to some selfish purpose?

    It generally won’t, permanently. As de Tocqueville put it, “The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.” We’re long past that day.

    3. Are you sure such a limited government would be able to protect citizens against force and fraud rather than the limiting entity?

    The limiting entity is the people. We’re at the sad state where they’ve chosen Trump.

    As you can guess by now, every supposed solution of yours raises more questions than it answers.

    No, my answers simply recognize that there are cycles. We’re at a bad point in one now. That doesn’t make the ideal of limited government any less important or desirable.

  17. Patrick: A constitution that strictly defines the limits of the government.

    A respect for the rule of law by the citizens.

    An armed citizenry.

    So America is libertarian as we speak? And so is every other country with a liberal democratic constitution, generally known as the West and some other countries here and there? Right?

  18. Erik:

    A constitution that strictly defines the limits of the government.

    A respect for the rule of law by the citizens.

    An armed citizenry.

    So America is libertarian as we speak?

    Not even remotely close, as you should know from minimal observation.

    And so is every other country with a liberal democratic constitution, generally known as the West and some other countries here and there? Right?

    Now you’re just taking the mick.

  19. And I should have quoted you back at you already in the second post (emphasis mine):

    Patrick: There is also the issue of government enforced barriers to entry and similar protections… That needs to stop.

    So the government should do protections or shouldn’t it? Which way is it?

  20. Patrick: Not even remotely close, as you should know from minimal observation.

    But your criteria apply:

    1. Constitution? Check.
    2. Respect for the rule of law? Check.
    3. Armed citizenry? Check.

    Is there something else you forgot to mention that should be observed?

    And, by the way, if the people are the limiting entity to the government and the government must protect against force and fraud, where would that force and fraud be coming from? If (gasp) from the people, then you require the government be acting against that which is supposed to be limiting it. How does it work in case of a limited government?

  21. Erik:

    There is also the issue of government enforced barriers to entry and similar protections… That needs to stop.

    So the government should do protections or shouldn’t it? Which way is it?

    I was clearly talking about government interference in the economy by establishing protections for existing corporations. I am beginning to doubt that you are participating in this conversation in good faith.

  22. Patrick: I was clearly talking about government interference in the economy by establishing protections for existing corporations.

    And immediately next you were clearly talking about protections against force and fraud. Anybody who has had any interaction with any existing corporations is familiar with force and fraud from those corporations. The government should not be limiting those corporations why?

    It seems to be boiling down to: Corporate power good, government evil. Which has been my general impression of libertarianism all along.

  23. Erik: But your criteria apply:

    1. Constitution? Check.

    Please don’t ignore what I actually wrote. I said “A constitution that strictly defines the limits of the government.” That’s not what we currently have in the U.S. It’s certainly not the case in Great Britain or other European countries.

    2. Respect for the rule of law? Check.

    Not even close. Leaving aside the regressive left for the moment, the people who voted for Trump support all kinds of unconstitutional policies.

    3. Armed citizenry? Check.

    Not in Europe and not even in many areas of the U.S. where peoples’ constitutional rights are not respected.

    Is there something else you forgot to mention that should be observed?

    Reality will do.

    And, by the way, if the people are the limiting entity to the government and the government must protect against force and fraud, where would that force and fraud be coming from?

    Other governments and other people, of course.

    If (gasp) from the people, then you require the government be acting against that which is supposed to be limiting it. How does it work in case of a limited government?

    Don’t be deliberately obtuse. If you just want to ignorantly flame, have at it and I’ll save my time for someone genuinely interested in the discussion.

  24. Erik:

    I was clearly talking about government interference in the economy by establishing protections for existing corporations.

    And immediately next you were clearly talking about protections against force and fraud. Anybody who has had any interaction with any existing corporations is familiar with force and fraud from those corporations.

    Really? I find the vast majority of my interactions with corporations are voluntary. If any commit fraud, it is a legitimate function of government to stop and punish those activities.

    It seems to be boiling down to: Corporate power good, government evil. Which has been my general impression of libertarianism all along.

    Then you are willfully ignorant about the topic. Nothing any actual libertarians support could be characterized in that way.

  25. Patrick: Please don’t ignore what I actually wrote. I said “A constitution that strictly defines the limits of the government.” That’s not what we currently have in the U.S. It’s certainly not the case in Great Britain or other European countries.

    1. What more strict limits do you want besides the current ones?
    2. More importantly, why would those limits be desirable in a constitution, i.e. for everybody?
    3. Doesn’t it occur to you that perhaps the government are people too and when you limit them, you are using force, something that the government should be protecting people (in this case themselves) from?

    Erik: 3. Armed citizenry? Check.

    Patrick: Not in Europe and not even in many areas of the U.S. where peoples’ constitutional rights are not respected.

    Which country in Europe? Which area of the US? Prisons? 😀

    Patrick: Don’t be deliberately obtuse. If you just want to ignorantly flame, have at it and I’ll save my time for someone genuinely interested in the discussion.

    Reality will do. Libertarianism is a fringe idea. Best for everyone that it stay so.

    Patrick: Really? I find the vast majority of my interactions with corporations are voluntary. If any commit fraud, it is a legitimate function of government to stop and punish those activities.

    But you just said that the way it is now is not libertarian. Will you ever make up your mind?

  26. Erik:

    Please don’t ignore what I actually wrote. I said “A constitution that strictly defines the limits of the government.” That’s not what we currently have in the U.S. It’s certainly not the case in Great Britain or other European countries.

    1. What more strict limits do you want besides the current ones?

    One of the major problems in the U.S. is that the constitution has been “interpreted” by the Supreme Court and ignored by Congress for so long that the written limits are not respected. Following the 9th and 10th amendments would be a good start.

    2. More importantly, why would those limits be desirable in a constitution, i.e. for everybody?

    Because, as George Washington probably didn’t say, “Government is not reason, it is not eloquence — it is force. Like fire it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.” Limiting the power of government to protecting against force and fraud leaves people free to live as they wish.

    3. Doesn’t it occur to you that perhaps the government are people too and when you limit them, you are using force, something that the government should be protecting people (in this case themselves) from?

    When acting as agents of the government, people assume the right to initiate force. That’s the distinguishing feature of a government — the claim to a monopoly on force in a geographic area. It should be clear to anyone why that is a potential risk to individuals.

    Libertarianism is a fringe idea. Best for everyone that it stay so.

    The foundation of libertarianism is that no one should initiate force or fraud. I can see why that would be so unappealing to authoritarians that they would want to characterize it as “fringe” in order to dismiss it.

  27. I think not enough people have guns for patrick’s liking. Plus there are too many school teachers and bus and subway drivers and other public workers. You give enough of the true Americans guns, maybe they can shoot all those bad teachers, garbage collectors, etc. and make what was once just a randian dream into a reality!

  28. Patrick:
    One of the major problems in the U.S. is that the constitution has been “interpreted” by the Supreme Court and ignored by Congress for so long that the written limits are not respected.Following the 9th and 10th amendments would be a good start.

    Because, as George Washington probably didn’t say, “Government is not reason, it is not eloquence — it is force. Like fire it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”Limiting the power of government to protecting against force and fraud leaves people free to live as they wish.

    When acting as agents of the government, people assume the right to initiate force.That’s the distinguishing feature of a government — the claim to a monopoly on force in a geographic area.It should be clear to anyone why that is a potential risk to individuals.

    The foundation of libertarianism is that no one should initiate force or fraud.I can see why that would be so unappealing to authoritarians that they would want to characterize it as “fringe” in order to dismiss it.

    What you are communicating here is that if libertarianism became mainstream some day, things would remain exactly as they are. So you are just emitting hot air, talking without any rhyme or reason.

    Back to the topic. Somebody found this http://yournewswire.com/napolitano-obama-wiretapped-trump/

    Judge Napolitano: The notion that Obama would have to ask the FBI to get a search warrant? Out of the question.

    The FBI has nothing to do with this, they are interested in law enforcement.

    The idea that he would have to go to a FISA court to do this – out of the question.

    Why would he go to the FISA to do something that he himself has the right to do.

    The idea that they actually had to tap Trump? Out of the question.

    Because every phone call on every mobile device and landline, every keypad touch of every mobile device and desktop, every piece of digital information that flows into and out of the US on fibre optics, is captured in real time digitally by the NSA.

    The NSA is in the Pentagon, it works for the President.

    So Trump has no reason to whine. If Obama wiretapped him even without permissions, it was legal. With today’s technology and broad govt powers, it’s not really wiretapping – it’s more like overhearing. And Trump is the president now, so he can retaliate in kind. Except that Trump is a whino generator of fake news and we will have more incidents like this one.

  29. Erik: What you are communicating here is that if libertarianism became mainstream some day, things would remain exactly as they are.

    What you are communicating is that your goal here is to flame your mistaken perception of libertarianism (badly) without paying attention to what I’m actually writing.

    To give you an idea of the differences a U.S. citizen would see under a libertarian government:

    1) An end to the war on drugs. Release of all non-violent offenders.

    2) Elimination of all victimless crimes.

    3) An end to military intervention around the world. Significant reduction of the military budget.

    4) Repeal of the Patriot Act, FISA, and other laws that destroy individuals’ privacy.

    5) Elimination of the Department of Labor, the Department of Energy, the Department of the Interior, HHS, HUD, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Education, the Department of Commerce, the Department of Transportation, the FTC, and the FEC, to start.

    6) Privatization of the FDA.

    7) A balanced budget.

    8) Repeal of the income tax.

    Basically lower taxes, less bureaucracy, and fewer of our children coming home in body bags. More freedom is a good thing.

  30. Somalia awaits!

    Sounds awesome. Who needs body bags from elsewhere, anyhow. When your dream of everybody having guns and nobody having education or jobs comes to fruition, there’ll be plenty of work for body bag makers right here at home!

  31. Patrick: 1) An end to the war on drugs. Release of all non-violent offenders.

    Release of non-violent offenders, such as fraudsters?

    You are confirming the impression of libertarianism that I already have, except with more blatant self-contradictions than ever seen before. You are unique, and already repeating yourself so I don’t need to read any further.

  32. Patrick: Really? I find the vast majority of my interactions with corporations are voluntary. If any commit fraud, it is a legitimate function of government to stop and punish those activities.

    Perhaps it would be helpful to lay out the legitimate functions of government and legitimate means to fund it

  33. Erik: Release of non-violent offenders, such as fraudsters?

    When you have to cut out the context in order to score points in your own mind, you might want to consider that you’re being dishonest. My point was quite clearly about non-violent drug offenders (users and sellers).

    You are confirming the impression of libertarianism that I already have, except with more blatant self-contradictions than ever seen before. You are unique, and already repeating yourself so I don’t need to read any further.

    I had no expectation of changing your mind. I had hoped you might be honest enough to have a reasonable conversation about our disagreements and not be a dick in general, but I can sit with that disappointment.

  34. newton:

    Really? I find the vast majority of my interactions with corporations are voluntary. If any commit fraud, it is a legitimate function of government to stop and punish those activities.

    Perhaps it would be helpful to lay out the legitimate functions of government and legitimate means to fund it

    Anyone who is genuinely interested can look up the Libertarian Party’s website and find the answers. I usually try to avoid general conversations about libertarianism and minarchism because so many people are like Erik. There’s no real interest in understanding, only in spewing the usual statist nonsense.

    I’m not accusing you of that, newton, by the way. If you are interested in libertarianism, though, there are better venues to learn and discuss it.

  35. Patrick: I had hoped you might be honest enough to have a reasonable conversation about our disagreements…

    My impression of libertarianism has been that libertarianism has no agreements and disagreements. It only has a random selection of apparently unrelated talking points. They tout freedom, but when you go into details, it looks variously either like corporate dystopia or like exactly what is already in place.

    You have solidly confirmed this impression. You started by calling for a stop to corruption among legislators. Immediately next you called for a strictly limited small government. Obviously, when government is small and limited, legislators are even cheaper for corporate bosses to buy than they are now. It’s a dominant feature among libertarians that they haven’t thought any of this through at all.

  36. Erik: It’s a dominant feature among libertarians that they haven’t thought any of this through at all.

    It’s a dominant feature of Patrick that he’s not open to any views but his own. He’s obvi an expert since he knows that anybody who disagrees with him is spouting statist nonsense and is intrinsically evil. (Even though maybe there’s no such thing as that.)

    Libertarianism is, no doubt, a view he picked up via Atlas Shrugged or some other vital document, and, I mean, who’s gonna ever dislodge the true believer of that? What’s funny is that he’s so dismissive of similarly credulous theists.

  37. Erik: My impression of libertarianism has been that libertarianism has no agreements and disagreements. It only has a random selection of apparently unrelated talking points.

    You need to read more carefully. Libertarianism starts from the non-coercion principle. Everything else follows from that.

    Frankly, you haven’t demonstrated either the desire nor the ability to understand it. I’ll leave you to your willful ignorance.

  38. Patrick: Anyone who is genuinely interested can look up the Libertarian Party’s website and find the answers. I usually try to avoid general conversations about libertarianism and minarchism because so many people are like Erik. There’s no real interest in understanding, only in spewing the usual statist nonsense.

    I’m not accusing you of that, newton, by the way. If you are interested in libertarianism, though, there are better venues to learn and discuss it.

    More interested in a real person’s view.

  39. Patrick: Libertarianism starts from the non-coercion principle. Everything else follows from that.

    Anarchy starts with the same principle. And Randian objectivist egoism. Coincidence?

    When your principle starts with “non”, there’s no way for you to have everything follow from it. You have to have at least one more principle to create a synergy. Then further things may follow, depending on what the other principle is.

  40. Erik: When your principle starts with “non”, there’s no way for you to have everything follow from it. You have to have at least one more principle to create a synergy. Then further things may follow, depending on what the other principle is.

    That’s a very strictly Aristotelian way of thinking about syllogisms, and I don’t think it applies here.

    Libertarianism, or (as it is also called) “classical liberalism”, starts off with a deeply individualistic anthropology: human beings are essentially and necessarily individuals and only accidentally or contingently enmeshed in social relations.

    From that we get a conception of freedom as non-interference — one is free to the extent that the exercise of one’s powers is not interfered with — and then, together with that, a picture of the state as fundamentally coercive. (Think of Weber’s “the state as monopoly on legitimate violence” picture.)

    Thus, one gets a picture in which one is free to the extent that the state is not constraining one’s activity.

    I think it’s supposed to be that the only source of genuine coercion is the state. Other people can’t coerce me, corporations can’t coerce me, etc. So it turns out that the state is the only threat to freedom.

Leave a Reply