A Different View of SCOTUS Ruling

Yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling on the Bob McConnell case came as a surprise.

The former Republican Governor of Virginia Bob seems clearly to have taken bribes. Why would the Court let it go?

At Conservative Treehouse website, the blogger gives an interesting look at the why:

The Supreme Court ruled 8-0 today to nullify the federal conviction of former Virginia Governor Bob McConnell on bribery and corruption charges. 8 to 0, the entire court agreed, the conviction was politically motivated and not grounded in law.

Why? Why did every justice agree, even the liberal justices? ….and they went one step further in ordering the lower courts to reconsider whether the government’s evidence of corruption is strong enough to even try him again. If not, the charges against him must be dismissed, according to the ruling.

The why is really quite simple. If you’ve ever heard James Carville or any Clinton spokesperson talk about the book “Clinton Cash,” you’ll see quickly what was at stake.

The case against Bob McDonnell was based on him accepting gifts while an elected public official. Accepting gifts and/or donations itself is not illegal. Does it look untoward, unsavory or tawdry, yes. But if the official (recipient) takes no substantive action to benefit the contributor, meaning there is no quid-pro-quo, then no laws have been broken.

Contributions are only bribery when the official takes an official action, as part of their public office, to the benefit of the person providing the contribution, that would not have been taken to the benefit of any other similar request that does not contain a contribution.

In essence McDonnell and his wife took gifts, but the federal prosecutors could not identify any specific action that was taken to the substantive benefit of the donor, that McDonnell had not also taken to the benefit of other constituents who did not provide gifts or donations.

Also, SCOTUS warns, correctly and appropriately, that federal prosecutors applying liberally-defined ideological definitions of an elected official “taking action” directly undermines the entire concept of representative government.

Politicians are expected to advocate on behalf of their constituents needs, and in this case McDonnell took no action that would be out-of-bounds of the normal advocacy anticipated from any elected official.

The entire prosecution of McDonnell was politically motivated by federal prosecutors who could not evidence any quid-pro-quo of action McDonnell took on behalf of the donor who gave him lavish gifts.

Even the four liberal justices recognized this fundamental flaw of prosecutorial logic in the government’s case. But there’s a larger issue; a larger contrasting issue.

If Governor McDonnell was factually guilty of the accusations, as presented by the federal prosecution, then what does that say about the EXTREME gifts and payments that Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation were given by foreign governments while she was Secretary of State.

See the issue?

Hillary Clinton took -by a magnitude of thousands- more contributions, donations, and gifts than McConnell ever conceived of. The defense of those contributions and donations by the Clinton advocates has been very specific. They claim Clinton took no official action on behalf of those who gave her gifts, donations and contributions.

If McDonnell was to have been guilty by the definitions applied by federal prosecutors, then Hillary Clinton was guilty by an exponential magnitude for all of the lavish indulgences presented to her during her tenure as Secretary of State.

That’s why the decision today was 8-0 to nullify the lower court ruling.

Worth a consideration.

Another Death by Arkancide?

People who come into contact with the Clintons seem to have a predilection to die at a convenient time for Bill and Hill.

Take for example Ron Brown, who died in a strange plane crash or Vince Foster, who suddenly “killed himself.”

It has happened so frequently that Clinton critics call it death by Arkancide.

Add another example to the list.

Richard Johnson of the New York Post writes:

The death by barbell of disgraced UN official John Ashe could become a bigger obsession for conspiracy theorists than Vince Foster’s 1993 suicide.

Ashe — who was facing trial for tax fraud — died Wednesday afternoon in his house in Westchester County. The UN said he’d had a heart attack. But the local Dobbs Ferry police said Thursday that his throat had been crushed, presumably by a barbell he dropped while pumping iron.

Ashe was due in court Monday with his Chinese businessman co-defendant Ng Lap Seng, who is charged with smuggling $4.5 million into the US since 2013 and lying that it was to buy art and casino chips.

Ng was identified in a 1998 Senate report as the source of hundreds of thousands of dollars illegally funneled through an Arkansas restaurant owner, Charlie Trie, to the Democratic National Committee during the Clinton administration. (Ng was not charged with any crime.)

Ng and Trie had visited the White House several times for Democratic fund-raising events and were photographed with then-President Bill Clinton and First Lady Hillary Clinton.

One source told me, “During the trial, the prosecutors would have linked Ashe to the Clinton bagman Ng. It would have been very embarrassing. His death was conveniently timed.”

Ashe’s lawyer Jeremy Schneider told me he is sure Ashe’s death was an accident. “There is not one iota of evidence that it was homicide. This is nothing at all like Vince Foster.”

Police in Dobbs Ferry village are keeping the investigation open pending an autopsy by the Westchester medical examiner.

There never is one iota of evidence of homicide. They’ve become quite good.

No More Will Power

Perhaps you reacted as I did when I saw that pundit George Will has left the Republican Party. Hallelujah! Now take your cheap toupee and go home.

From PJ Media:

Conservative columnist George Will told PJM he has officially left the Republican Party and urged conservatives not to support presumptive GOP nominee Donald Trump even if it leads to a Democratic victory in the 2016 presidential election.

Will, who writes for the Washington Post, acknowledged it is a “little too late” for the Republican Party to find a replacement for Trump but had a message for Republican voters.

“Make sure he loses. Grit their teeth for four years and win the White House,” Will said during an interview after his speech at a Federalist Society luncheon.

Will said he changed his voter registration this month from Republican to “unaffiliated” in the state of Maryland.

“This is not my party,” Will said during his speech at the event.

He mentioned House Speaker Paul Ryan’s (R-Wis.) endorsement of Trump as one of the factors that led him to leave the party.

Well.

That’s the best thing Paul Ryan’s done in decades.

Trump may even gain some votes from this un-endorsement. Most of us have long since stopped listening to these wheezebags from Washington who have roosted in the city so long they think they have a special position there. Types like Will rarely saunter out of their Georgetown mansions to find out what middle class average Americans think. Elites listen only to other elites.

Besides, how often have they been right? Uh, decades ago? 98% of them didn’t see the Trump train coming until it had flattened them. They have no idea what it’s like to compete for a job, scrape by on a job, raise a family, etc. They wouldn’t hob nob with the likes of you and me.

And how much of a conservative is George Will? Remember his pre-inaugural dinner for Barack Obama at his Chevy Chase, Maryland, home? He was joined by “I love the crease in his pants” sycophant David Brooks and Never Trumper Bill Kristol. He reassured us that Obama would moderate. Wrong.

He’s wrong in suggesting Republicans vote for Hillary, too. That won’t work out either. If he considered history, Will would see that officials like Clinton cling to power, blackmail to keep it and ramrod through destructive laws and policies. Fidel Castro worsened Cuba, but 50 years later plus he’s still in charge.

I’d suggest Fox News drop him as an analyst on Special Report. He has exhibited that he is clueless. But then again, if you’re still watching their programming, you’re subjecting yourself to wasting your precious time on opinions that don’t matter and aren’t necessarily true.

So George Will go ahead and prove you’re an idiot. Everyone already knew that and you won’t be missed.

Why Brexit Won

Since the Brits voted to leave the EU, there has been much gnashing of teeth by the elites. Why? For one reason, the wealthiest lost about $126 billion. Then politicians like David Cameron lost their jobs, while George Soros lost money and power in his bid to keep the Orwellian Superstate.

Elites listened to elites only and they thought they could sway and scare the flyover people enough to prevail.
Didn’t work.

Allum Bokhari and the incomparable Milo Yiannopoulos at Breitbart wrote the best piece explaining their failure:

There’s panic in the skyscrapers. A popular revolution against globalism is underway, and Britain has struck the first blow.

To the dismay of political, financial, and media elites, the country has chosen to put identity and sovereignty above a plus-one-or-minus-one change in GDP, and vote to leave the hated European Union. As with the USSR, the attempt to superimpose a manufactured civic identity over proud nation-states with rich and complex histories has run against the grain of human nature. The elites, so wrapped up in statecraft and economics, never paused to consider basic human psychology.

It’s not just Britain, you see. The revolution against globalism is, well, global. Britain may be leading the charge, but insurgents and rebels from D.C to Berlin are also hard at work tormenting their elitist overlords. Fired up by Britain’s example, eurosceptics across the continent are now demanding their own referendums. It’s a Berlin Wall moment.

The unelectable and unaccountable bureaucrats in Brussels must be pissing themselves right now. They are losing one of the biggest crutches for a fragile alliance of countries that can’t pay their bills. (Fortunately, they still have the power to unilaterally grant themselves a monthly budget of 2,000 euros for trouser cleaning.)

Here at Breitbart, we always knew it would be OK. After all, Britain has a well-documented history of standing defiantly against tyrannical continental empires. We defeated the Spanish Armada, Napoleon, the Kaiser and Hitler. We were a bulwark against the USSR during the Cold War. Compared to all that, the low-energy efforts of crusty octogenarian globalists like George Soros were a walk into the park.

Admittedly, doubts crept in when Lindsay Lohan started livetweeting in favor of Remain. I mean, they already had Bob Geldof and Bono from U2 on their side! How dare voters defy the wishes of these philanthropic titans? Thankfully, even their tireless tweeting couldn’t pull it back for Remain.

Thanks to Nigel Farage, who has for 15 years been selflessly campaigning to abolish his own job (he’s a European Member of Parliament), June 23 looks set to become Britain’s own Independence Day. And, like he said, we didn’t even need to fire a shot! The Americans started their revolution with the “shot heard around the world.” The British, ever more refined than those gauche colonials, announced their freedom with a strike of the pencil.

Needless to say, leftists are quite mad. They’re now calling for old people to be stopped from voting, simply because they wanted to protect the youngsters from having to dress in hijabs. Twitter hasn’t been this upset since that gorilla got shot. France, of course, has been mad for a while: even before the vote to send the migrants from The Jungle to us if we decided to leave. Why? Are migrants bad? I mean if unlimited immigration is fine then that’s hardly a punishment, is it, France?

Then there’s Scotland. For the second time in two years, our grumpy, ungrateful ginger cousins in the north are threatening to leave us. Scotland … famed for sucking up English tax money and for producing angry left-wing comedians and whiskey that’s even worse than Ireland’s.

I’m not sure many of us will be too upset to lose these ferocious European champions. I mean, there’s a reason the Emperor Hadrian anticipated Trump by about two thousand years.

Britain made a clear statement today– she wants to be free, she wants to improve. In short she wants to be great again.

But what does this mean for globalism, the ideology beloved of cultural elites, banks, the media, academics, and Silicon Valley, that is currently under siege from Trump in the U.S, Brexiters in the U.K, and populists on the continent?

Firstly, it’s a total rebuke to the normal tactics used by media and cultural elites to crush popular uprisings. They must really be panicking. How could so many people not do what the media and their political leaders told them to do? Could it be that branding voters you don’t like racist, bigoted, or “low-information” simply doesn’t work anymore?

For years, global elites and their allies in the commentariat have tried to brand their opponents as kooks, conspiracy theorists and, failing that, as racists, sexists homophobes and so on. But it’s not working any more. In both the U.S. and Europe, such tactics are now likely to backfire, driving more support to populists.

Trump, of course, is the American version of Brexit. Little wonder that he both predicted a leave vote and, unlike Obama, praised it when it actually happened. Like Trump, every single naysayer spouts doom and gloom about Brexit, but both will be long-term boons for their nations. (Despite all the fearmongering prior to the vote, Obama has now rushed to reaffirm America’s alliance with Britain.)

Another tactic deployed by globalists has been to insist that they know their numbers (strange, seeing as the E.U. is economically haemophiliac and the Great Recession happened on their watch). Throughout the referendum campaign, they repeatedly told voters that voting leave would herald economic catastrophe. The currency would collapse! The housing market would collapse! The world would implode!

These arguments were foolish for several reasons. Firstly, everyone in Britain outside of the super-wealthy wants the housing market to crash — it’ll mean lower rents and lower house prices for ordinary people. Yet another sign of how out-of-touch the defenders of Remain were.

Secondly, predictions of economic doom are hopelessly off the mark. Sure, there’s some turbulence in the markets — that happens after every dramatic political event. But to argue that Britain needs to tether itself to the likes of Greece and Spain to remain economically competitive is ludicrous. It’s like arguing that Israel needs to join an economic union with Palestine and Syria. Bigger is not always better. Britain, like Israel and other high-IQ, high-skilled economies, will thrive on its own.

Indeed, Israel also provides a cautionary tale in the event that the E.U. tries to punish Britain for leaving. Tariffs and sanctions from the world market (which of course hates Israel) was what forced the small country to innovate into the future. So many “experts” have predicted that the U.K. will founder outside Europe. Britain, also famed for its plucky, indomitable national character, will likely prove the world wrong and bypass Europe to work with Asia and America.

But the bigger reason why what became known as “Project Fear” failed was much more obvious, and exposes a fatal flaw in the globalist ideology: ordinary people sometimes think about more than whether the economy goes up or down. They think about their nation and their culture, and what remaining in a supranational entity with increasingly open borders might mean for that. They think about political sovereignty, independence, and national pride.

Elites sneer at these concerns as the foolish, provincial preoccupations of “low-information voters,” yet they are deeply embedded in human nature, particularly in the search for belonging. Against these primal instincts, the cold world of the Davos-men and the Strasbourg-men, with their identical suits and their obsession with GDP, simply can’t compete.

It’s simple when you think about it. On a personal level, is money the most important thing to you? It’s important, yes, but only the most obsessive city trader would say it’s the most important thing. Sometimes you have to give it up for the things you care about, like your country. Churchill famously promised only “blood, sweat and tears” during his premiership, and the Brits loved him for it.

So why did the Remain camp think that the threat of a little economic turbulence would be enough to frighten voters? The idea of sacrificing a little bit of material comfort to defend something greater, like national sovereignty, is alien to today’s global elites. That’s why they didn’t understand their opponents, and that’s why they lost.

This is the fatal weakness of globalists. They don’t understand, and in fact sometimes loathe, the idea of difference. These are people, remember, who regardless of their cultural and national background went to the same internationally-renowned universities, interned at the same multinational banks, and attend the same international summits. For them, there really is no difference between the globalist from London and the globalist from Istanbul. They look the same, speak the same, and when they meet, they likely reminisce about the same experiences. From Strasbourg to Dubai to Davos, globalism is a nation unto itself.

So it’s little wonder that these people just don’t understand why the plebs back home are so attached to their national identities, and will fight so hard to defend them. They’re constantly frustrated that their voters won’t get with the program, put down their flags, and become faceless, rootless members of a global society. We predict they will continue to be frustrated.

The blindness of globalists to difference has been disastrous to western culture. The refusal of elites to acknowledge, for instance, that the Muslim world is dominated by one of the most hate-filled, bigoted ideologies in human history is a major reason for their current predicament, and certainly a motivating force behind Brexit.

Angela Merkel’s policy of importing millions of Muslims to Europe is an act of cultural suicide. It’s much like a capitalist country opening its borders to millions of working-class Russians in 1917. Sure, they might not all be Bolsheviks, but it’s still not a clever thing to do. Merkel herself looks more like Dr. Evil every day, with a worse hairdo.

But even if Islamic countries had peaceful cultures, the British people would still rebel at having to accept millions of people from foreign cultures hostile to assimilation. Because that would still be a challenge to their distinctiveness — the connection between national identity, national sovereignty, and a culture built up over thousands of years.

For millions of increasingly angry, and freshly politically motivated people, that’s more important than the strength of the pound. And that’s why the globalists will lose.

Allum Bokhari is a reporter for Breitbart. He can be followed on Twitter at@LibertarianBlue. Milo Yiannopoulos is a senior editor for Breitbart. He can be followed at @Nero. Email them at abokhari@breitbart.com and milo@breitbart.com
Cafe Countersuit Accuses Muslim Women of ‘Civilizational…
The attorney representing the Muslim owner of a popular Orange County cafe is countersuing a group of Muslim women who initially sued her business…

A Mid South Veep?

Could our neighbor to the west provide the next vice president of the United States?

Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas is getting some attention as a possible running mate for Donald J. Trump. In fact, Lou Dobbs of Fox Business dropped that name in an interview with Trump himself, and Mr. Trump conceded that Cotton is on a list.

The Shelby GOP had him for an informal Q&A session at the 2014 Lincoln Day Dinner. Cotton performed well and was personable.

David Catanese from US News and World Report wrote in May about the possibility. He interviewed the senator:

Cotton fielded inquiries about whether he would be Donald Trump’s running mate, his biggest accomplishment in the U.S. Senate so far and the odds he’ll one day be a presidential candidate himself.

Excerpts:

This will obviously set off speculation that you want to run for president one day, right? You realize that?

Well, what I’m committed to is trying to build our party and make sure that we hold our Senate majority to the extent that I can, and also try to help out friends of mine in the House and the Senate. When they invite me to go, I try to go. I’ve been in Missouri, I’ve been in Minnesota, I’ve been in New Hampshire. I was in Arizona yesterday. I’ve been in Pennsylvania for Pat Toomey. I expect to be in Colorado after their primary, working hard for Joe Heck [in Nevada] as well, trying to make sure he wins that race. So, I expect to be on the road quite a bit.

Would you accept an offer to be Trump’s running mate?

(Laughs) I haven’t seen it floated out there. Like I said I’ve been focusing my political work on making sure that we hold the Senate and focus the rest of the time on my son.

So that’s not ruling it out?

I wouldn’t rule it in either.

So you’ll be voting for Donald Trump in November?

I’ve said all along, I’ll support the nominee, because we can’t afford another term of the Obama-Clinton foreign policy or for that matter, economic policy at home. And now Donald Trump’s the presumptive nominee. So we obviously need to do some work to unify around our common and shared principles and Donald’s got the responsibility and opportunity to do that in the coming weeks.

Who did you vote for in the Arkansas primary?

(Laughs) Secret ballot.

What do you make of the divide in your party right now? Isn’t this a bit of an unprecedented situation, where you have sitting senators, congressmen, saying they won’t support the nominee?

I think over time, the healing power of time, and also the prospect of a third Obama-Clinton term will bring most Republicans together.

And those that are out there saying there should be a third-party movement for conservatives. You would say what to them?

I think it’s important that the Republican Party remain the home of conservatives and that the best way to advance conservative principles is to elect Republicans, up and down the ballot.

What would you say your biggest accomplishment is as a U.S. senator so far?

I think that the public debate that we had on the Iran deal was very important. That’s probably one of the most consequential things most of us will ever vote on, a nuclear arms control agreement with a mortal enemy. And the White House, despite, all their efforts – failed miserably. Two-thirds of the American people realize just how bad the nuclear deal is with Iran. We had large bipartisan majorities in both the House and the Senate to vote it down. If the president had followed the text of the Constitution and submitted it as a treaty, we wouldn’t be in that agreement now. But it had an important impact. It helped create a chilling effect for international businesses and banks and certainly American businesses and banks. There’s not a gold rush going on in Iran right now and there’s more opportunity in the future to unwind that deal so we don’t see Iran with a nuclear weapon.

If Trump called you for advice on national security issues, what would you tell him?

Well, I’d certainly advise him. I’d advise anyone who asked me for that. The most immediate thing I would say that we need to do to restore our capabilities around the world is an emergency supplemental spending bill for our military next year. If you extrapolate out what [former Secretary of Defense] Bob Gates predicted we would need in 2017, we’re probably somewhere between $80 and $100 billion short and you see that all around the world. In the end, there’s a lot of stuff to change on our foreign policy, but foreign policy without military capability is largely empty.

It’s May of 2016, what are the chances you see yourself running for president in 2020?

(Laughs) We haven’t even gotten our nominees yet in this presidential cycle, so I don’t want to speculate about the future. All I’m focused on now is making sure we keep the Senate in Republican hands.

All You Need to Know About Brexit

The Brexit vote is today and although it deals with Great Britain leaving the European Union, it does have repercussions for the U.S.

There have been two camps: the Remain and the Leave. Perhaps all you need to know is that Obama is in the Remain camp. In my opinion, the whole thing has to do with whether Brits want to have a sovereign nation or be under the control of globalists.

How will it turn out? The polls have swung back and forth on the issue, leading me to believe that they are not reliable and/or have been manipulated. Also, the government of David Cameron, a pseudo conservative who is a globalist, probably will exercise some control over the outcome. George Soros is working diligently for Remain as well, which also makes me dubious about the integrity of the election.

There are no exit polls in Britain. They banned them and there are rules to monitor the media’s reportage. Sounds like a good thing to me, however others bemoan that, thinking that might indicate a vote that could then be contradicted. I tend to believe nothing should influence or deter the voter before the polls close.

Those polls will close at 4 p.m. Memphis time with results from 291 out of 382 counting areas in between 8 and 9 p.m. our time. The results will be declared at 1 a.m. our time tomorrow.

Donald Trump arrives in Scotland today for the opening of one of his golf resorts. He has said he would not tell Brits what to do, but would be inclined to vote Leave. The Queen appears to be of that persuasion, too. Breitbart reports, “evidence for her majesty’s Eurosceptic tendencies is building. In March, it was revealed that she had spoken out strongly against the EU in a private 2011 discussion with the then Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg – himself a committed Europhile. A senior source said: ‘People who heard their conversation were left in no doubt at all about the Queen’s views on European integration.'”
And she reportedly asked dinner guests to give her three good reasons to remain in the EU.

She has seen enough via WWII to know how other countries and people lust after total power.

So who would be for it and who against?

The Telegraph broke it down and discovered:

The survey shows that Northern Ireland and Scotland are the regions most in favour of staying in the EU, with almost two thirds of respondents wishing to remain.

The least positive region about EU membership is the Midlands – with 59 per cent of the East Midlands wanting to leave.

The figures could be crucial in the event of a “Brexit” vote as Nicola Sturgeon, Scotland’s First Minister, has stated that demand for a second independence referendum could be “unstoppable” if taken out of the EU against its will.

London was the third most enthusiastic region for EU membership with a 58-42 per cent split.

Overall five UK regions back continued EU membership, compared to seven where a majority of voters wish to leave.

There is a huge gulf among young and older voters over the European issue – with seven in 10 young voters backing the European Union.

73 per cent of those aged between 18-29 want to remain in the EU, while 63 per cent of those aged over 60 want to leave.

The middle-aged population are divided almost evenly on the issue. As older voters are more likely to vote, this could be good news for the “leave” campaign.

YouGov also examined the voting intentions of voters for all the major parties.

Conservative voters are the most divided on the issue – but the polls suggest there is net euroscepticism along Tories while the majority of Labour voters want to remain.

Unsurprisingly, among Ukip voters, the EU is incredibly unpopular, with 97 per cent wishing to leave. Nigel Farage has previously wrote in The Telegraph: “leaving the EU is more important than party politics”.

Green party voters were most in favour of continued EU membership, with four out of five Green voters backing the EU.

When it comes to social class and education, those who went to university are most likely to be pro-EU – with seven out of ten UK graduates wishing to remain in Europe, according to the polls.

Those belonging to the AB social class – usually in higher managerial, administrative and professional occupations – support the EU by 62 to 38 per cent.

Meanwhile, people in the lower C2 and DE social grades have net dissatisfaction with the institution. Ukip has attempted to re-brand itself as a party for the working class, and so it will try and boost turnout in this eurosceptic group.

Sounds familiar, doesn’t it? And that’s why many say Brexit will have implications for our presidential election.

If Brits decide to remain in the EU, they should alter their patriotic Rule Britannia song. “Britons never ever will be slaves” will not be appropriate to a country that gives up its sovereignty.

Freedom of Suppress

News that the networks and probably the print media will do everything they can to ignore the blockbuster book due out next week about Hillary Clinton is hardly surprising.

We’ve seen how the press sees itself – not as bringing information to the public anymore, but keeping information from them that might upset the liberal globalist agenda.

Drudge reports:

Team Hillary is working overtime to block former Secret Service officer Gary Byrne from appearing on ANY broadcast network, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

Byrne is set to reveal what he observed inside the White House while protecting the First Family in the 1990s.

‘What I saw sickened me,’ Byrne explains. ‘I want you to hear my story.’

Byrne paints a picture of Hillary as a deranged madwoman running interference on Bill’s sexploits.

The book ‘CRISIS OF CHARACTER’ is finally set for release next Monday. It has already became the top seller at AMAZON for the month of June.

And now Clinton’s circle is preparing to hit back hard!

POLITICO plans an early morning attack on Byrne’s credibility, sources claim, despite his having served in federal law enforcement for nearly thirty years.

Meanwhile, Hillary’s campaign has won assurances that he will not be invited to spread ‘lies’ on any of the nation’s broadcast networks.

‘It’s trash for cash,’ a campaign official warned one producer.

FOXNEWS ‘HANNITY’ will have the first exclusive for cable news, DRUDGE has learned.

Mark Hewitt writes at American thinker: “The conservative radio personality, Chris Plante (WMAL, Washington, DC) opines that the most insidious power of the media is their power to ignore. While it is certainly true that the chief editor of a major newspaper or the producer of a network newscast has the ability to spike or kill a story, which is essentially their way of ‘ignoring’ the news if you will, what is more subtle, deceitful—and dare I suggest corrupt—is their penchant to frame a story to fit a specific narrative. They no longer report the news, but they do shape a message.”

Unfortunately, that is true.

Even in Memphis, the Commercial Appeal and the local TV news pick and choose what they want you to know. How often have you heard a story reported and asked yourself why the story didn’t make sense? That there were holes in it or that it was not logical? Many, I’m sure.

In this election campaign you will have to be vigilant about finding things out for yourself and spreading the news. There is in life the “seen and unseen.” Never has it been so apparent as in news reportage today.