Big media are all about the angle, the spin. Look to the overarching theme that runs through each and every news story. Be hip to the meta-narrative peddled. Recent examples: A perfectly logical statement made by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in February, was framed by CNN anchorette Brooke Baldwin as “controversial.”

In view of rife, Islamic anti-Semitism in Europe, Mr. Netanyahu told “all of the European Jews, and all Jews wherever [they] are [that] Israel is the home of every Jew.”

To the rational individual, unburdened by the obtuse thinking of a teletart, Netanyahu’s statement was utterly uncontroversial. It follows from an irremediable reality: The subordinate satellite states of the European Union refuse—and no longer have the power—to properly and vigorously defend their innocent, Jewish and Christian citizens from an identifiable threat.

Another example of the meta-shaping of news came courtesy of Fredricka Witless (whose intellectual prowess I chronicled in “Joan Rivers: Antidote to PC Totalitarianism”). Ms. Witless used leading questions in an interview with a man she introduced as the “controversial Swedish artist Lars Vilks.” In a free society, a painter—impressionist, realist, muralist, cubist, cartoonist—would never be considered controversial. He harms no one in the fulfillment of the requirements of his benign profession.

However, with her leading question, wittingly or unwittingly, Fredricka Whitfield was essentially asking an innocent cartoonist, who ekes out a life hiding from Muhammadans, whether he felt responsible for crimes perpetrated by his assailants. After all, the criminals were spurred by his drawings of their prophet.

Leading questions suggest a certain reality. They force defensive replies. They shift blame. They invert morality and reality.

Likewise has the logic of the debate been lost in the hyperventilating over Mrs. Clinton’s unorthodox email account. The dynamic at play: Hound Hillary Rodham Clinton for lesser, technocratic offenses, thus allowing her to gracefully evade responsibility for serious war crimes: the war on Libya, Hillary’s special project, for one. Benghazi, for another.

Clearly, the woman who cracked the whip at Foggy Bottom at the time had resolved to run the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya, as one would an open community center. This was meant to telegraph to the world that the war she and her she war-lords (Samantha Power and Susan Rice) launched was a success, when in fact Hillary’s gunpoint democracy in Libya has been as fruitful as Genghis Bush’s faith-based forays into Iraq and Afghanistan.

As evidence for the meta-narrative at play, consider the major, left-liberal media—the “circle jerk”—leading the charge against Mrs. Clinton. It began with the New York Times, with President Obama’s first press secretary, Robert Gibbs; with CNN groupies like Brianna Keilar and Dana Bash. And with Ron Fournier of National Journal. He chimed in, calling the former secretary of state’s habit of conducting the affairs of state via a non-governmental e-mail address a “scandal; seedy, sanctimonious, self-important, slick.” Just in case, Fournier was careful to offer these disclaimers:

“I admire [the Clintons’] intelligence and passion and empathy. They’ve been good to my family. I’ve actually long thought that she has the potential to be a better president than he was.”

Not for nothing are they called the Stupid Party. Republicans have fallen for what I suspect is not so much a deliberate tactic on the part of the liberal media, but a reflexive strategy. GOPers are implicating Mrs. Clinton in statute violations which caused barely a stir when flouted by their own.

Gwb43.com, anyone? This private, Republican National Committee domain, from which five million emails were alleged to have been expunged, in 2007, stood for “George W. Bush, 43rd.” The Federal Records Act and the Presidential Records Act were purported to have been violated by the likes of Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove, White House Deputy Director of Political Affairs Jeffery Scott Jennings, President Bush’s Senior Adviser Andrew Card. So too was Attorney General Alberto Gonzales alleged to have been in-the-know. Then White House Spokesperson Dana Perino put a pretty face to the affair.

Hillary Clinton is to Benghazi as Les Aspin Jr. is to “Black Hawk Down.” Aspin, Bill Clinton’s secretary of defense, marooned the American men he sent to Mogadishu, Somalia, in October of 1993. The “Black Hawk” went down. But so did Dr. Aspin, at the behest of President Bill Clinton, who fired him.

The email line of attack on Hillary is not worth a straw. It lets her go scot-free for crimes the likes of which her own husband would have sacked her.

©ILANA Mercer
WND, Junge Freiheit, Target Liberty, Quarterly Review,
Praag.org & The Libertarian Alliance
March 6, 2015

A heroic American whistleblower chooses, oh-so wisely, to expose Uncle Sam’s usurpations to the veteran reporters of the British Guardian and not to the partisan hacks of the American press. This fact tells you all you need to know about US presstitutes.

Confirmation of the degree to which American media has been co-opted by power came on June 10, again, via a British newspaper. The Mail Online divulged that Edward Snowden had “first approached the Washington Post with his leaks but the newspaper refused to comply with his publishing demands.” You see, the Washington Post had to hotfoot it back to Big Brother Obama before it would do its journalistic due diligence. “The Post broke the story on PRISM two weeks later, on Thursday, after consulting with government officials,” confirmed the Mail Online.

Even after being scooped by the Guardian, the Obama embeds at the Washington Post saw fit to inform their readers about PRISM on a purely need-to-know basis, “reprinting only four of the 41 PRISM PowerPoint slides,” and generally misrepresenting the nature of the program known as PRISM. The manufactured-in-America version of PRISM thus contradicts the “internal NSA documents” leaked to the Guardian.

According to the guardian of American freedoms at the Guardian, reporter Glenn Greenwald, the 41-slide PowerPoint presentation he acquired from Snowden has been authenticated as a document “used to train intelligence operatives on the capabilities of the program.” The presentation, pictorials with captions, handed out by the National Security Agency, boasts of having “direct access to the systems of Google, Facebook, Apple, Yahoo, PalTalk, YouTube in 2010; Skype and AOL, and other servers.”

Contrary to what you’re being told, “the world’s largest surveillance organization” can and does “obtain targeted communications without having to request them from the service providers and without having to obtain individual court orders.” And it is contrary to the Bill of Rights, the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, in particular. It specifies that “warrants shall issue” only “upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

Tellingly, the tools of Big Media and big government are not apprising you of these facts. Like a tortoise in its shell they’ve retreated from the watersheds that are the AP, the IRS and the NSA scandals, informing you only of what New York and Northeast elites think is important: “Most of you still like Obama.”

In light of “the disclosure that the federal authorities routinely collect data on phone calls Americans make, regardless of whether they have any bearing on a counterterrorism investigation,” the Gray Lady endeavored, fleetingly, to shake off a flea or two, and adopt a slightly less reverential tone toward the godhead Obama. The New York Times quickly lay down with dogs again; the paper rushed to restore Obama’s bona fides the following day.

As to other “nimble” minds in media: Andrea Tarantula, one of the interchangeable females on a Fox News idiot’s extravaganza called “The Five,” said that, “If they are competent with my information; they can have it. If not, let me have my freedoms back.” To Andrea (who is, admittedly, not as invincibly stupid as the statist Dana Perino), the inviolable “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures” is subject to the efficiency of a naturally illicit search.

Not for Greg Gutfeld are arguments from principle. Sitting in for Bill O’Reilly, Gutfeld declared that “this” was not about surveillance but about a progressive government that could not be trusted. The majority of Americans are equally adrift, oblivious to the individual liberties American Constitution makers bequeathed them. The individuals questioned by the polling professionals at the Pew Research Center were inclined to approve of the phone-call tapping of millions, if conducted by the party for which they voted.

Lawrence O’Donnell and his entourage at MSNBC—Alex Wagner and Chris Hayes, the most enthusiastic Obama bobbleheads on TV—acted all surprised about rudderless America, never implicating their daily, partisan promotionals in the process. The hosts harped on the fact that no harm had come from the NSA PRISM program. And, after all, was Obama not obligated to continue the incursions into liberty begun by Bush? C’est la vie. Wagner did display a modicum of remorse for her cover-up. She admitted that Obama had gone beyond the call of duty in expanding counterterrorism and state surveillance.

Neoconservatives such as Bill Kristol of the Weekly Standard and the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal; retired United States Army Lt. Col. Ralph Peters, and radio talker Hugh Hewitt—all pronounced the NSA data sweep a non-scandal. Another neocon, Charles Krauthammer, saw Obama’s infractions as a vindication of Bush’s. The columnist invited Democrats now excusing Obama to pardon Bush and … party on.

Snowden came forth, in his words, “to reveal criminality.” But Fox News’ Megyn Kelly chose to mine crime from the ore of virtue. Kelly summoned a two-bit profiler, allegedly from the FBI’s Behavioral Analysis Unit—who sounded like she’d been plucked from the set of Criminal Minds—to expose “this guy.” Not to be outperformed by Kelly, the profiler unloaded terms like “loser” and “drop-out” on a man who has held many responsible positions within the intelligence community in his young life.

Yet another Fox News personality, Neil Cavuto, went on to compare Snowden to celebrity seducer Roman Polanski, who, in 1978, sought asylum in France after being convicted of sleeping with an American minor. Chimed Cavuto, “We don’t know why [Snowden] did what he did.”

Oh yes we do. Contra Cavuto, Snowden forsook creature comforts and worldly possessions to speak truth to power—and not to any power. The 29-year-old National Security Agency contractor has gone up “against the world’s most powerful intelligence agencies,” as he stated soberly. Snowden understands his chances of prevailing are not good. “[T]ey’re such powerful adversaries that no one can meaningfully oppose them. If they want to get you, they will get you in time.”

In Snowden’s poignant words, “You can’t wait around for someone else to act. I had been looking for leaders, but I realized that leadership is about being the first to act.” “I’m neither traitor nor hero. I’m an American,” he summed-up so simply.

Yes, we need fewer personalities like Cavuto and more men of character like Snowden.

Those who’re not suspended in the moral abyss with mainstream media already know that Edward Snowden is the best of America. Let us prove ourselves worthy of his sacrifice. Come every Memorial Day—more aptly called “Dying For Nothing Day”—we direct a commonplace saying at members of a military that has not defended authentic American liberties for decades. It is, however, to a young man such as this that we should say: “Thank you for your service, Mr. Snowden.”