Liberal Bloodsport and a Pound of Flesh

Even if Judge Brett Kavanaugh is confirmed and seated on the nation's Highest Court, the left will still have extracted their pound of flesh. Just as with the Florida recount of 2000 and the Trump election of 2016, any confirmation will be branded as suspect and accomplished only through brutish tactics and the wholesale disregard for the truth. If Franz Kafka had written about confirmation hearings, he couldn't have come up with a better scenario than the one now unfolding. An unimpeachable pillar of the legal establishment stands accused of a heinous offense that it is almost impossible to definitively rebut. Whether Judge Kavanaugh is innocent or guilty matters not now. He will forever be besmirched by the 10 second clips that are sure to come from the aftermath if further hearings are held, forever considered guilty of it by some portion of the public easily swayed by media propaganda and self interest, just because "she said". 

This is not due process, or any kind of decent process at all for that matter. But it is how the Senate conducts its business now, especially if you are a conservative jurist.  The confirmation process for the Supreme Court is badly broken, made into a forum for sheer bloodsport by the left. If, based on what we know now and this accusation keeps Kavanaugh from the court, it will be a new low even for them. The Senate will have embraced a new world where the existence of an allegation, regardless of whether it can be proven, is enough to stop a nominee and destroy his good name.

The effort to sink Kavanaugh is not just a naked attempt to change a confirmation vote but to forever brand him as illegitimate. Regardless of facts, vagueness, inconsistencies, and lack of evidence, any Republican nominee can now be derailed by an eleventh hour allegation and said allegation could now be given a public Senate hearing to lend it undeserved legitimacy. 

Thank You Whatfinger News for the Linkage!

Red Flags, Red Flags Everywhere....

As soon as Christine Blasey Ford was identity as accuser of Judge Kavanaugh, red flags popped up everywhere. It didn’t take long for people to poke holes in her story from over 30 years ago. The one thing that stands out is Ford’s presumption that she thought Kavanaugh was going to rape her or even kill her…This is conjecture on her part, but now the media has jumped on the “rape” word and moved the ball down the field to accuse Kavanaugh of attempted rape and even attempted murder. If this is supposed to have happened 36 years ago, Brett Kavanaugh (53) would have still been a minor. 

Ford claims she was reluctant to come forward with her accusations. Yet, when Brett Kavanaugh’s name was first raised as a possible candidate for the nomination, she contacted both her Congresswoman, Anna G. Eshoo (D-CA) and the Washington Post tip line. Kavanaugh had not even received the nomination and she had already written a letter to politician and contacted a major newspaper. Does that sound like someone who is wrestling with a decision? The version told now has changed from the version told in 2012 to her therapist and once again the media is complicit with the Democrats in their effort to smear a man who has spent his entire life as an accomplished judge and citizen.

Red Flags? Let's look at few important ones shall we:

• Judge Kavanaugh has gone through 6 FBI background checks. Came through clean.
• Christine Ford scrubbed her social media accounts of her activism before revealing herself. Ford, has donated money to the Democratic National Committee (DNC), Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), and Friends Of Bernie Sanders, and other leftist organizations.
• Ford’s attorney is a self-described Anti-Trump Resistance activist. 
• It was reported that Brett Kavanaugh would be Romney’s first choice for SCOTUS if elected in 2012. That is when Ford suddenly told of the incident with Kavanaugh in couples therapy. It appears as though Ford recovered her memory at an opportune time.
• Judge Kavanaugh’s mother presided over the bankruptcy trial of Christine Blasey Ford’s parents. Judge Kavanaugh’s mother ruled against the Batey parents.

Democrats have reached an all time low in their attempts to destroy anyone in their path. For Democrats, the ends justify the means…

(100% FedUp)
(WZ)
                                   Thank You Whatfinger News for the Linkage!

A Good Monday Morning

Beards Are Racist, More Naked Nude Dudes, and Willie Nelson

Observations from the far end of the sofa.
According to an article published in 'The Atlantic', if you have a beard, you just might be racist. The article is actually a timely re-post from 2014 titled “The Racially Fraught History of the American Beard.” Apparently not getting shaved and growing a beard is a racist act because newly freed slaves became barbers......or something like that. It becomes painfully obvious that the author had way too much time on his hands. What’s worse is that The Atlantic actually published it. Twice!

And from across the pond we learn Renaissance Art is getting a 'Social Justice Makeover 'so to speak. In anticipation of a showing of Renaissance art at the Royal Academy in London, curators at the museum have made a major decision: The number of paintings depicting nude females will have an equal number of paintings depicting nude males. The #MeToo movement applies to Renaissance paintings also according to the Brits. Apparently, having more male nude pictures corrects the injustice of displays of nude females by those chauvinistic unwoke Renaissance artists. Don’t laugh; an art museum in Baltimore is taking down pictures and replacing them with those of artists with more political correct amounts of pigmentation in their skin. 

Back at home it was announced late this week that famous herb connoisseur and sometime singer Willie Nelson, age 85, will headline a concert for Texas Senate candidate Robert Francis O’Rourke, better known by the first name, “Beto.” Nelson has previously campaigned for Dennis Kucinich and Wendy Davis. This should be reassuring news to Ted Cruz considering both Kucinich and Davis dramatically went down in flames.

It just keeps getting weirder and weirder.........

                                    Thank You Whatfinger News for the Linkage!

Middle Finger Symphony Theater

* No Tuxedos Required *

Brought to You By BLUESJUNKY: Honorary Chair of Music - Middle Finger Symphony Music Director

We Need to Stop Using the Word Journalist and Call Them What They Really Are

Few will deny we now live an age of fake news and media propaganda. I recently asked a friend who worked as a journalist before pursuing a career in advertising if there was a Hippocratic type oath or a code of ethics for journalist. They told me there was indeed an ethical code or "canons of journalism" adopted by the Society of Professional Journalist in 1922. They sent me a PDF of this "Journalist Canon"  as well as an additional PDF of the "Editors Code of Ethics". I spent an evening reading through what I can only believe are principles intentionally being ignored by today's journalist. Here is a sample of what I found. I'll let you decide as to how far we have drifted away from what was a once respected profession.....

_____________________________

This is the SPJ code of ethics that we follow as professionals:

Preamble: 
 Members of the Society of Professional Journalists believe that public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. Ethical journalism strives to ensure the free exchange of information that is accurate, fair and thorough. An ethical journalist acts with integrity. The Society declares these four principles as the foundation of ethical journalism and encourages their use in its practice by all people in all media.

The SPJ Code of Ethics is a statement of abiding principles supported by explanations and position papers that address changing journalistic practices. It is not a set of rules, rather a guide that encourages all who engage in journalism to take responsibility for the information they provide, regardless of medium. The code should be read as a whole; individual principles should not be taken out of context. It is not, nor can it be under the First Amendment, legally enforceable. Ethical journalism should be accurate and fair. Journalists should be honest and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting.

Journalists should:

• - Take responsibility for the accuracy of their work. Verify information before releasing it. Use original sources whenever possible.
• - Remember that neither speed nor format excuses inaccuracy. – Provide context. Take special care not to misrepresent or oversimplify in promoting, previewing or summarizing a story.
•  - Gather, update and correct information throughout the life of a news story. – Be cautious when making promises, but keep the promises they make.
• Identify sources clearly. The public is entitled to as much information as possible to judge the reliability and motivations of sources.
• - Consider sources’ motives before promising anonymity. Reserve anonymity for sources who may face danger, retribution or other harm, and have information that cannot be obtained elsewhere. Explain why anonymity was granted.
• – Diligently seek subjects of news coverage to allow them to respond to criticism or allegations of wrongdoing.
• – Avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information unless traditional, open methods will not yield information vital to the public.
• – Be vigilant and courageous about holding those with power accountable. Give voice to the voiceless.
•  – Support the open and civil exchange of views, even views they find repugnant. – Recognize a special obligation to serve as watchdogs over public affairs and government. Seek to ensure that the public’s business is conducted in the open, and that public records are open to all.
• – Provide access to source material when it is relevant and appropriate. – Boldly tell the story of the diversity and magnitude of the human experience. Seek sources whose voices we seldom hear. – Avoid stereotyping. Journalists should examine the ways their values and experiences may shape their reporting. – Label advocacy and commentary.
• – Never deliberately distort facts or context, including visual information. Clearly label illustrations and re-enactments.
• – Never plagiarize. Always attribute. Minimize Harm Ethical journalism treats sources, subjects, colleagues and members of the public as human beings deserving of respect.

Journalists should:

• – Balance the public’s need for information against potential harm or discomfort. Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance or undue intrusiveness.
• – Show compassion for those who may be affected by news coverage. Use heightened sensitivity when dealing with juveniles, victims of sex crimes, and sources or subjects who are inexperienced or unable to give consent. Consider cultural differences in approach and treatment.
• – Recognize that legal access to information differs from an ethical justification to publish or broadcast.
• – Realize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than public figures and others who seek power, influence or attention. Weigh the consequences of publishing or broadcasting personal information. – Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity, even if others do.
• – Balance a suspect’s right to a fair trial with the public’s right to know. Consider the implications of identifying criminal suspects before they face legal charges.
• – Consider the long-term implications of the extended reach and permanence of publication. Provide updated and more complete information as appropriate. – Acknowledge mistakes and correct them promptly and prominently. Explain corrections and clarifications carefully and clearly.
• – Expose unethical conduct in journalism, including within their organizations.
• – Abide by the same high standards they expect of others.

It goes on the say "Act Independently" and "The highest and primary obligation of ethical journalism is to serve the public." I for one don't see much of what is referred to as ethics in today's media. And Truth and Integrity seems to be practices of mythical gods of the distant past.

* Thank You Whatfinger News and MJA@IOTWReport for the Linkage!

Perhaps the Finest Example of TDS We’ve Seen Yet.

by Robert Laurie

Everywhere you look, you see them: Panicked progressives and NeverTrumpers, running wild in the streets, screaming that the sky is falling. America – democracy itself – is doomed and soon we will awaken to find ourselves in a post-apocalyptic Mad Max hellscape. Once powerful pols and pundits will roam the barren land searching for seersucker and bowties, trying desperately to organize the kind of cocktail parties they used to enjoy.

What could have caused such a tectonic shift, you ask? In a word “him.” The beast. Donald J. Trump. He came crashing into town, defeated their mighty champion, and now they’ve lost all hope. This is the core of Trump Derangement Syndrome. Everything they understood to be true about their place in the political pecking order has been upended and they’re terrified that “the old way of doing things will never return.”

No one has made that clearer than Matthew Walther, the “National Correspondent” for an occasionally-respected publication called “The Week.” He’s convinced that an army of Trump supporters are, at this very moment, conspiring to eliminate the 22nd Amendment. This would remove presidential term limits and keep Trump in the Oval Office …for all of eternity! As he puts it “Trump may never leave the White House.” He warns you…this is not idle speculation:

"I don’t think it’s reasonable to dismiss the possibility of a third term for this president as idle speculation. The 22nd Amendment can be repealed like any other, and both geography and math favor Republican attempts at amendment. The end of presidential term limits would not necessarily be, in the long term, a one-sided partisan affair. It is perfectly reasonable to imagine a future in which a popular young Democratic president is elected to third and even fourth terms, perhaps non-contiguously, with a four-year interlude from a lucky but ultimately ill-fated Republican challenger. 

I do not know a single supporter of the president who opposes the idea, at least in theory, of Trump serving more than eight years. The man himself has entertained it openly, praising Xi Jinping for getting rid of term limits in China. Meanwhile, speculation about whether Obama would have beaten Trump if he had run for a third term is a liberal cottage industry. Obama, who agrees that he would have been elected again if he had run two years ago, is a young man. Perhaps he could be the one to beat Trump in 2024. 

If you think two more years of Trump in the White House sounds like a nightmare, imagine having to read about his late-night Oval Office tweets for another decade, or even longer."

This is perhaps the finest example of TDS we’ve seen yet. Not only has he killed us with net neutrality, tax cuts, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh, but now international media outlets are speculating that he’s going to repeal the 22nd Amendment and stay in office for life!

You have to be a spectacular imbecile to think that he, or the voters who put him in office, are in any way looking to go down this path.

Thank You Whatfinger News for the Linkage!

Joe Scarborough Writes SHAMEFUL Piece On The Anniversary Of 9/11

It’s the 17th anniversary of 9/11. It’s the day that we stop and remember those who lost their lives. It’s the day we remember those who willingly gave everything. It’s the day that reminds us that true evil exists. It’s a constant battle. But America? America is resilient. We can overcome anything. We have and will continue to do so. We will never forget.

I reject anyone who tries to use days like today to push another political agenda, like say, hating Trump. Who would do such a thing on a day like today? Joe Scarborough. He did that. He wrote a piece about how President Trump is destroying the American dream more than terrorists who literally crushed the dreams of thousands of people by TAKING THEIR LIVES. 

Read More

Thank You Whatfinger News for the Linkage!

Ye Shall Know Him by His Fruits

Over the weekend, among the incessant yelling of racism, speculation of who is the mysterious "Q"etc. the question still burned as of who wrote the scathing Op-ed in the NYT last week.  I've believed all along it was just a in-house NYT hit piece. Until they prove it's not, I will not believe otherwise.  Some others much smarter than I believe it is a genuine piece from inside the administration, but with a bit of media misdirection attached......

"The most surprising aspect of the furor surrounding the infamous unsigned New York Times Op-Ed, ostensibly written by a member of the Trump administration, is that anyone believes its author is a senior official. Assuming this person isn’t an employee of the Times, and it is by no means unknown for the Gray Lady’s journalists to fabricate quotes and attribute them to anonymous “officials,” the author of this hit piece is at most a mid-level staffer. Indeed, if this character is actually employed in the Trump administration, it is almost certainly at a level of insignificance verging on invisibility. 

First, the editors of the Times are virulently anti-Trump. Their assurances about the prominence of this furtive functionary simply can’t be trusted. Moreover, as Phelim McAleer at Townhall points out, the nation’s “newspaper of record” has a long history of exaggerating the seniority of officials it quotes anonymously. 

Not coincidentally, the solipsistic voice and callow perspective that “Anonymous” brings to the Op-Ed tends to undermine the claim that it was written by a high-ranking official in any administration. Most senior members of the Trump administration are over 50 years old and many are well beyond 60. Yet, throughout the entire essay, there is an unmistakable thread of historical illiteracy and presentism that one would normally associate with a Millennial. 

The piece consists primarily of shopworn clichés that can be heard in any bar in any college town in America (or on CNN if you’re stuck in an airport). This self-styled “defender of our democratic institutions” solemnly states that “President Trump’s impulses are generally anti-trade and anti-democratic,” that he “shows a preference for autocrats and dictators,” that “the country is bitterly divided,” and that the “root of the problem is the president’s amorality.” 

None of this is original. Nor is it accurate. But it does contain a revealing cliché that serves as an indicator of the author’s lack of seniority — the tired trope concerning how Trump has bitterly divided the country. It’s only possible to believe this nonsense if you are too young to remember the deep divisions in public opinion over Vietnam, the Nuclear Freeze movement, the Clinton impeachment, and Iraq. It is not merely inaccurate to blame Trump for today’s political divisions. The youthful hubris of our anonymous genius is such that it obscures the reality that Trump’s successes were actually accomplished by the President and his loyal aides: “There are bright spots.… But these successes have come despite — not because of — the president’s leadership style.” In other words, “Anonymous” has saved the nation from Trump’s “misguided impulses.” 

So, what do we know about the unnamed author of the New York Times hit piece? If this person is a member of the Trump administration, the taxpayers are footing the bill for the deliberate obstruction of their will as expressed in the 2016 presidential election. The good news is that the sophomoric opinions expressed in the anonymous Times Op-Ed are probably nothing more the impotent puling of a powerless cubicle critter."

* Excerpts from David Catron @The American Spectator

Thank You Whatfinger News for the Linkage!

A Good Monday Morning

Middle Finger Symphony Theater

* No Tuxedos Required *

Brought To You By BLUESJUNKY: Honorary Chair of Music - Middle Finger Symphony Music Director

Thank You Whatfinger News for the Linkage!