The sacking of Blackface Kimmel           

ABC's firing of slime-hearted personality Jimmy Kimmel, following Charlie Kirk's deplorable murder, was entirely appropriate. Woke sorts heatedly allege free-speech violation, but they couldn't be more wrong. (And at least some probably know it.)

Kimmel worked for ABC. Workers accept some company discretion over their comportment as conditions of employment. For example, certain jobs require uniforms be worn. Employers can tell workers when to show up, and when they can go home. Haircuts and hygiene fall into the same category. 

No employee enjoys legal safeguard to invade their manager's office, storm around the desk, and bellow profanities in the boss's startled face. Repeatedly. Those doing so should expect termination. The wonderful free-speech clause does not lend cover.

Nor is a supermarket clerk at liberty to holler Gilbert and Sullivan operas while a half-dozen shoppers wait, their carts filled nearly to overflow.

Kimmel has as much right as any of us to speak openly on matters that impact him - in private capacity, and at his own expense. But he enjoys no right to employment at this or that company. 

Airwaves are publicly owned. To stream programming on them, broadcasters must agree to serve the public interest. Kimmel forfeited his platform by not only knowingly spewing ugly, objective untruths, but doing so as a calculated partisan political tactic.

That disserves the public. We shouldn't be expected to provide comfort for devious agents of our devastation.

Some Kimmel adherants maintain that FCC Chair Brendan Carr 'pressured' ABC to take action. They decry supposed government censorship.

But considering the network's contractual assent to observe public interests, the FCC advising ABC to properly adhere to accepted responsibilities amounted to enforcing law. 

(Doing so was once uncontroversial. But championing criminality and belching contempt for law officers are now standard for progressives. Witness sanctuary cities, elected Democrats' hailing of the massively destructive, 2020 BLM/Antifa nationwide riots, the deification of Luigi Mangioni, and woke bacchanalia surrounding the brutal assassination of Christian conservative Charlie.)

Not irrelevant were Kimmel's consistently dwindling ratings. Sweating network executives surely factored that dismal truth into considerations. (Comedy Central's Stephen Colbert also recently evidenced anti-Americanism's thankful unprofitability.) 

So, the culmination may have been a dollar-and-cents one, not the 'fascist oppression' of subversives' hyperventilations.

Astoundingly, rumblings now speculate ABC may be reconsidering Kimmel's sacking. Somebody's fucking somebody.

Today, this essay ran in the Marshalltown, Iowa Times-Republican newspaper:

The Woke weep only for the Wicked                                                 

Charlotte, North Carolina Democrat Mayor Vi Lyles' first public comment following the savage murder of Ukraine-born Iryana Zaruta was a call for greater "compassion" for the barbaric nutcase who had repeatedly plunged a razory blade into the 23 year-old innocent's throat.

I'm not making that up.

Lyle's despicableness was reflective of present-day woke Democrats. (They are to be distinguished from old-school liberals, from whom that party wants only ballot endorsements, never ideals: 'Shut up and pull the Democrat lever.')

Scant evenings ago, White House Deputy of Staff and Policy Advisor Stephen Miller appeared on Hannity. Ever the common-sensical straight-talker, he passionately excoriated guileful progressives who cultivate unchecked bloodthirst in American neighborhoods.

The Democrat Party is "terrorizing the American people," Miller declared. "Just think about what is happening in our major cities: The bloodbaths, every single weekend. One victim after another. One shooting after another. One murder after another."

He decried Democrats' philosophical refusal to punish lawbreakers (and Fake News mongers' purposeful covering-up of the widespread brutishness laying waste to American society). The deputy of staff and policy advisor then turned attention to Iryana's murderer, vicious maniac Decarlos Brown, Jr. 

"And then you look at that video that chills our very souls, out of Charlotte. That beautiful young woman stabbed to death. Murdered, savagely, on a subway. Just trying to get home from work. Fleeing war, only to run into a Democrat war zone here in our country. 

"That monster!14 prior arrests! In and out, in and out! The Democrat policy of catch-and-release for barbarians, for savages, is truly an act of terror, Sean, against the American people. It cannot be explained, unless you deeply, fundamentally hate America."

During a September nine press conference, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt voiced appropriate media criticism: "Perhaps most shamefully of all, the majority of the media, many outlets in this room, decided that her murder was not worth reporting on originally because it does not fit a preferred narrative...Many of the journalists in this room spilled plenty of ink, trying to smear [Marine veteran] Daniel Penny for defending a subway car from a deranged lunatic in New York City, but none of those same reporters lift a finger to write stories about an actual murderer."

If the increasingly communistic party of the antisemitic Squad and New York City subversive Zohran Mamdani didn't relish rampant rapes, murders, child exploitation, and illegal immigration, they'd give the single-digit salute to pro-crime prejudices and instead champion the law-abiding public. 

But Marxists cheer societal collapse. It is easier to promote revolution when order has crumbled.

"Look, this has become their religion," White House patriot Miller spat derisively. "Celebrating criminals. Celebrating predators. Celebrating illegal aliens who prey on our citizens. It is evil. It is deliberate. It is malign. It is malicious."

What happened to poor Iryana is outrageous. And hellish are the politicians and mentally disheveled rabble in San Francisco, Chicago, New York City, Portland and elsewhere, who urge lawful order be ravaged and who attack law enforcement personnel, including ICE.

"President Trump has said the Republican Party will fight like hell to keep your kids safe," Miller asserted.

But the Woke weep only for the Wicked.

Waterloo's DC Larson is the author of That a Man Can Again Stand Up and Ideas Afoot. He counts among freelance credits the Tucker Carlson-founded Daily Caller, The Iowa Standard, and American Thinker. His political blog is American Scene Magazine.

Sad jester denies Rock'n'Roll's blended bloods

MSNBC race-hate monger Joy Reid was recently booted from that drain-circling, wacky left outlet.

But even as she writhes hilariously in professional demise, Reid continues to gasp out her wickedness.

"We black folk gave y’all Country music, Hip-Hop, R&B, Jazz, Rock'n'Roll. They couldn’t even invent that, but they have to call a white man ‘The King.’ Because they couldn’t make Rock'n'Roll, so they have to stamp ‘The King’ on a man whose main song was stolen from an overweight black woman," Reid recently told podcaster Wajahat Ali, himself a progressive shoveler of race hate.

"Hound Dog," the song to which the rejected black-supremacist blowhard referred, and which the dominative Big Mama Thornton first sang, was written by Mike Lieber and Jerry Stoller, a white, Jewish songwriting team responsible for hits by Elvis, the Coasters, Wilbert Harrison, Ben E. King, and numerous other marquee names.

Of course, select Rock'n'Roll ingredients existed prior to Presley's 1954 recording debut at Sun Records in Memphis. Works embodying them were electrifying and wondrous.

But the national stage appearance of Crown Electric Co. truck driver Elvis marked -- not an example of white culture appropriating something blacks had already developed, but for which they were denied credit -- but the emergence of the hitherto-unrepresented country, white working class into popular culture visibility. And that idiosyncratic influence is essential to the genre. 

The composite creature was unlike any predecessor. Tennessee Rockabilly guitar man Carl Perkins did not sound like venerated shouter Big Joe Turner, nor did the frantic storms of Jerry Lee Lewis recall the risible and urbane stylings of Fats Waller -- though all men helped develop the new music.

In his invaluable volume, "Unsung Heroes of Rock'n'Roll," veteran music writer Nick Tosches noted that the burgeoning sound, which spread across 1950s America and ultimately the entire globe, began in regional pockets and was of mixed parentage.

"Rock'n'Roll was not created solely by blacks or whites," wrote Tosches. Earlier, after dispatching mono-racial Rock'n'Roll creation fancies, the author observed, "One could make just as strong a case for Jews being the central ethnic group in Rock'n'Roll's early history; for it was they who produced many of the best songs, cultivated much of the greatest talent, and operated the majority of the pioneering record companies."

It would be impossible to construct an exhaustive review of early Rock'n'Roll without citing Doc Pomus, Mort Schuman, Les Bihari, or Sid Nathan. It is telling that many of today's race-as-creative-qualification theorists might not even be able to identify those men, significant to the style's germination though they were.

It is flatly anti-creative to argue that an individual or community can "steal" art from another. Universal influencing is not only legitimate,  but how works are birthed. One artist inspires another, an idea is raised up, turned around, and new art is born.

Concepts like ownership, territoriality and separatism are wholly foreign to the phenomenon.

Critics are correct to point out that elements of white-dominated mass popular culture have at times assumed and domesticated black-impacted idioms (think Pat Boone), while paying neither due acknowledgment nor recompense. Deserving artists went unnoticed - and that was criminal.

But Elvis was one of many talented men and women whose music helped American popular culture become representative of all America's people. To ignore that today and instead proffer slanderous myths is an affront not only to their contributions and the prize of racial unity, but to the ideals of honesty and reason.

White House spokesman Harrison Fields was caustic:

"Joyless Reid is an ungrateful hack who fails to acknowledge her privilege. Whatever remains of her success would only be possible in the United States of America, the same country she degrades for sport. She was too unhinged for MSNBC, and was fired. Instead of changing her act, she’s doubled down on stupid."  

Democrats cheer evil                         

The hush that followed President John F. Kennedy's 1963 Dallas murder was a matter of universally shared basic decency. 

But that was then. Today, if a conservative president fell to a lunatic's bullets, leftists would freestyle on the coffin-lid. Remember, hordes of elected Democrats, liberal activists, and Hollywood leftists sped to microphones to trumpet glee, when President Trump was nearly assassinated.

Obama-appointed Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, James Boasberg, is infamous for repeatedly striving to cripple Trump. He seems to feel doing so is his calling. The judge recently released Nathalie Rose Jones from pre-trial custody. He merely specified she wear an ankle monitor.

Jones had posted death threats against the president online. Here's one:

"I literally told FBI in five states today that I am willing to sacrificially kill this POTUS by disemboweling him and cutting out his trachea with Liz Cheney and all The Affirmation present. Let’s deal with this and restore domestic tranquility.”

The New York Post reported that days prior to Boasberg's outrageous, unjust decision, a U.S. magistrate judge had denied Jones' bond application.

Also now reported are ghoulish remarks Minnesota Governor Tim Walz made during a Labor Day weekend celebration. 

Playing off baseless media initimations that Trump may be suffering health problems, Walz giggled: "You get up in the morning and doom scroll through things and — although I will say this — the last few days you woke up thinking there might be news. Just saying. Just saying. There will be news sometime. Just so you know, there will be news."

(One social-media commenter was acidic: "Biden got diagnosed with cancer, and I don't remember conservatives wishing him dead...")

Democrats today cheer assassins, corrupt judges, and terminal maladies, exhibiting essential depravity. Clear-visioned critics term the Democrat Party "the party of death." Given their happy jigs at the prospect of partisan opponents' violent deaths, Democrats cannot protest that the sobriquet is inaccurate.

(For further insight into Tampon Tim's ugly conception of morality, type "Tim Walz" and "Jenna Wang" into the nearest search engine.)

Blue saboteurs                          

During Barak Hussein Obama's first term, Republican Sen. Mitch McConnell infamously remarked that GOP office-holders should endeavor to ensure Obama would not win a second time.

McConnell was wrong to encourage partisan non-cooperation. Politicians of all descriptions should work together, whenever possible, to advance public interests. (Though maintaining bedrock positions necessarily precludes consistent harmony.)

Since President Trump was first buoyed to the Resolute Desk by tens of millions of average American patriots, Democrat bureaucrats great and small have conspired to foil his every ambition. Nevermind that citizens selected Trump and his policy directions by overwhelming margins, by both popular and electoral measures.

Plainly put: Most people didn't (and don't) want the wares Democrats hawk. Rather than examining their values for appropriate overhaul, Democrats seek to foment chaos. ('If we can't rule, nobody can!')

Democrats' attitude is basically the Marxist one, that revolutionary triumph depends on popular despair and the collapse of existing social, political, and economic constructs. 

One example of purposeful interference in American order: unelected members of the judicial bench striving mightily to block Trump's every effort. Jurists at federal and state levels robotically rule against our president. Their determined malfeasance waves from areas including immigration law, executive branch authority, criminal justice policies, finance, and even national sovereignty enforcement.

Black-robed malefactors likely know their skullduggery may not survive higher courts' review. But even should their gumming-up of Trump's common-sense animations prove fleeting, they'll have done what they could for the larger scheme.

U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts sometimes admonishes President Trump for his reasonable criticisms of small-pond gavel-graspers. Perhaps Roberts reasons that presidential scolding will somehow weaken public regard for the judicial system, and could encourage Democrat efforts to pack the high court, itself. 

But courts' reputations already flail in filth. When minor judges hasten to impair popularly endorsed executive performance, and to defy Constitutional principles, Supreme Court precedents, and just-plain common sense, severe damage has already been wrought.

None of which concerns those whose mission is disruption. Then, power.

Google AI defames Soros critic                                                        

In August, I noticed that Google AI had defamed me in an online note. 

A search of "DC Larson" "George Soros" turned up a Google AI advisory which said, in part: "Soros has been the target of many political attacks and conspiracy theories from the far right for years, often accompanied by antisemitic undertones. These accusations often claim he is secretly funding liberal and anti-police agendas to disrupt American society. Larson's commentary is part of this larger movement of criticism."

Upon noticing the false smear, I responded to Google: "It is both inaccurate and morally despicable to charge that I am part of an 'antisemitic' body of George Soros critics. The one Soros-related writing of mine cited here is a [Marshalltown, Iowa, Times-Republican] newspaper essay that quotes the man verbatim. His comments were made during a 1998 60 Minutes interview, available on Youtube. I ask that the defamatory allegation be removed."

Below is an excerpt from the essay Google AI mischaracterized.

"The amoral left-wing billionaire detailed his abhorrent collaboration during a 1998 interview with CBS reporter Steve Kroft, in a broadcast of that network's 60 Minutes," I wrote.

KROFT: 'You're a Hungarian Jew who escaped the Holocaust by posing as a Christian.'

SOROS: 'Right.'

KROFT: 'And you watched lots of people get shipped off to the death camps.'

SOROS: 'Right. I was 14 years-old. And I would say that's when my character was made.'

KROFT: 'In what way?'

SOROS: 'That one should think ahead. That one should understand and anticipate events. And when one is threatened - it was a tremendous threat of evil, a very personal experience of evil.'

KROFT: 'My understanding is that you went out with this protector of yours who swore that you were his adopted [Christian] godson. Went out, in fact, and helped in the confiscation of property from the Jews.'

SOROS: 'That's right.'

KROFT: 'I mean, that sounds like an experience that would send lots of people to the psychiatric couch for many, many years. Was it difficult?'

SOROS: 'Not at all, not at all. Maybe as a child, you don't see the connection. But it was -- it created no problem, at all.'

KROFT: 'No feeling of guilt?'

SOROS: 'No.'

KROFT: 'For example: "I'm Jewish, and here I am, watching these people go. I could just as easily be there. I should be there." None of that?'

SOROS: 'Well, of course I could be on the other side, or I could be the one from whom the thing is being taken away. But there was no sense that I shouldn't be there, because that was -- well, actually, in a funny way, it's just like in markets. That if I weren't there -- of course, I wasn't doing it, but somebody else would be taking it away, anyhow.'

In a 2023 Jerusalem Post essay, Larry Pfeffer observed "By his insensitive logic, German, Japanese, and Russian soldiers could also have exclaimed that they don't need to regret raping women, since if they didn't, then someone else would have."

(In the piece, I noted that while no one should condemn a teenager for a decision made for self-preservation in terrible circumstances, Soros was elderly at the time of his 60 Minutes interview, yet still felt zero moral compunction. His adherents later insisted business-magnate Soros is typically indifferent to adverse effects his machinations might engender; I believe mental-health professionals have a name for that attitude.)

I've since found Google AI offers varying advisories about me and my Soros criticism. Many imply a connection between myself and despicable antisemites that flatly does not exist, nor ever has.

My deserved criticism of the Democrats' bankroller was of him as an individual. But Google AI, as is common in left precincts, regards him, not properly as an individual, but instead only as a group representative.

Therefore, goes the thinking, all condemnations of a single person's behavior necessarily constitute attack on any larger community of which the subject is a constituent.

Of course, that is a deceitful tactic; its leveragers surely hope it will intimidate objective voices.

I'm certainly no widely regarded commentator, and few might ever read Google AI's vile falsehood about me. But potential dangers that flawed advisories pose to influential figures and events, greatly exceed any harms my own limited personal reputation and professional fortunes might suffer. 

Should Google AI notes not be impeccable, future researchers could be misled, their output misrepresentative, and resultant historical records distorted. Fractured portrayals serve no legitimate interest.

Trump indifference to Epstein possibly tactical

A lifelong Iowan, I've been hardcore MAGA for some 10 years. And I was ecstatic when Trump carried my state in 2024 and returned to the Oval Office. But his apparent indifference to the case of jet-setting child-molester Jeffrey Epstein disappointed many endorsers, myself included.

It was hardly a flattering look. The president appeared weak, as if he were following orders handed down to him by some mystery overlord.

During a recent press conference, President Trump argued other matters should instead be given consideration. "Are people still talking about this creep?," he asked. He garnished his seeming unconcern with mockery of those who demand the lid be ripped off and all those culpable exposed and punished.

His evasiveness recalled Biden's salaried-dissembler Katrina Jean-Pierre. Regularly, binder at hand, she endeavored to deflect critical queries. Such calculated weaselry is one reason citizens hate government.

High-profile Trump supporters, including MAGA champion Tucker Carlson, blasted Trump's demeanor as indicative of a cover-up. During a Newsmax interview, Trump friend Charlie Kirk noted it brought to mind the deep-state's sleazy machinations and frigid nonconcern with the public interest.

But, as our president has to his credit so many significant accomplishments that have bettered citizens' fortunes, for him to do ill would be wholly out of character.

A more positive explanation holds that macro matters may be involved. And perhaps their appropriate dispositions would be jeopardized by spotlighting any Epstein-related actions that may now be underway. Justice must sometimes be pursued covertly - at least, initially.

It's possible that similar organized horrors are ongoing, and that bringing them to deserved ends, rescuing victims, and punishing related maldoers take precedent over open attention to Epstein's foulness.

At least, in the present moment.

This matter, then, might not be a reminder that heroes can falter, but rather that appearances can mislead. Doing the right thing may originate in shadows, its ultimate realization becoming general knowledge only once made material.

The Chief Executive's posturing may actually be contrived to lull excrement-charactered offenders into relaxing their guards, and to enable noble behind-curtain activities. If so, that would be pretty damn smart of President Trump. One hopes it's true.

I don't know the above speculation to be fact. I do not assert that it is. Perhaps I'm being unduly charitable.

But then, the man on the street may one day be happily surprised.

Quisling with a borrowed workshirt

Unlike citizens of foreign lands, Americans enjoy the liberty to criticize government figures without fear of punishment. That's as it should be - on our own soil. 

There was a time when blasting America and its president while on foreign soil simply wasn't done. The Dixie Chicks never recovered, professionally, after their 2003 London scandal. 

But judging by the uncritical (sometimes fawning) reportage of Bruce Springsteen's recent overseas spewing of disloyalty, the seditious trio may simply have been ahead of its time.

Springsteen ranted to a Manchester, England audience that President Trump and his administration were "corrupt, incompetent, and treasonous." And the faded star charged Trump is an "unfit president" and that ours is a "rogue government."

He wasn't hindered by the reality that Trump and his common-sense inclinations were overwhelmingly chosen by American voters. That's called "Democracy."

Springsteen attained major prominence in the 1970s with "Born In the USA." But to whatever extent his blue-collar posture might once have been authentic, it is today as counterfeit as the "Scranton Joe" character Biden once pretended at.

(Remember, the 2024 Trump candidacy attracted a dramatic upswell of working people's ballots. And the UAW has praised Trump's tariffs tactic to bring manufacturing jobs back to America.)

The Gateway Pundit nailed it: "Springsteen had a tantrum overseas because the American people overwhelmingly rejected his politics of open borders, social tyranny, high (ticket) prices and economic stagnation, transgenderism, racially divisive DEI policies, climate cultism, and weak foreign policy that put the globe on the edge of World War III."

His is a repugnant attitude often flaunted by Democrats. Whether lying to the American people about Biden's mental acuity, firebombing Tesla dealerships, numerous vain machinations to impeach President Trump during his first term, or later attempting to have reelection candidate Trump removed from state ballots, Democrats' unambiguous ambition is to sabotage any political effort not their own. 

By any means necessary. That's called "Undemocratic."

Do not be surprised if Springsteen next pens a reverential anthem to Thomas Crooks or Luigi Mangioni.

Now, let's turn our thoughts from Springsteen and others of his unpatriotic ilk. Better to recall instead a time when healthy nationalism was a sturdy bridge that united even Americans of divergent pursuits.

In 1941 film Roar of the Press, reporter Wally Williams (Wallace Ford) and numbers racket boss Sparrow McGraun (Paul Fix) discuss an anti-American network active in their hometown of New York:

Sparrow: "Me, I'm mixed up in a good, clean racket. But there's some people runnin' around loose who ain't. They're out to get this country into trouble. And that's the mob you're runnin' up against. They're tough. Plenty tough. Foreigners, mostly. And they won't stop at nothin'!"

Wally: "How do you know about this?"

Sparrow: "They propositioned me. Wanted to know how much you know about their set-up. They figure you're gettin' too nosy."

Wally: "Wait a minute. Did they send you to scare me off?"

Sparrow: "Certainly not! I don't want any part a them. They're un-American. They're against this country, and they oughtta be exposed. Me, I got me a racket, sure. And the cops don't like it. But that ain't nothin' against this country."

Wally: "Thanks, pal!"

Sparrow: "Ah, it's nothin'. Us Americans gotta stick together."

In advocacy of intellectual evolution

I once encountered the following online assertion (which I'm paraphrasing):

'My politics today are the same as when I was in junior high, in the 1960s.'

It was perhaps the saddest sentence I've ever read. The writer was bragging about intellectual and philosophical stasis, of pride in not having evolved.

(But it was dispiritingly reflective of the anti-intellectual, anti-Trump 'feelings' mob that prizes ill-considered emotions and primitive instincts over sophisticated reasoning.)

Changes are inevitable as years pass. Intellectual grasp develops. Base values are clarified and perhaps even re-evaluated. New information appears. Divergent perspectives of which one may not have been previously aware are paid heed, their counsel duly incorporated into ongoing consideration. Unfolding events can prompt particular analyses that may, in turn, reorder larger conclusions. 

And outright epiphanies can change fundamental thinking, turning avowed partisans into their opposites; examples include Christopher Hitchens, Michael Horowitz, Ariana Huffington, David Brock, and Tammy Bruce.

Growth is positive and to be cultivated; spending one's entire life in the same spot as when you first qualified for a driving license is cause for head-hanging embarrassment.

A healthy, open mind accepts that juvenile assumptions and prejudices may not have been thoroughly sound. It celebrates maturation. That is as it should be.

For my part, I've made tremendous strides. I've been a 1980s/90s Democrat Party loyalist who submitted county caucus platform planks and volunteered for campaigns; 2000 co-founder of the Iowa Green Party; independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader's 2004 Iowa coordinator; and current-day enthusiastic supporter of President Trump and the Make America Great Again movement.

I sometimes adopted different attitudes, but in other instances merely continued adhering to traditionally held, fundamental ones despite partisan permutations. I stuck with basic values and was unimpressed as liberals and the Left jettisoned them in willy-nilly rush.

I realized external phenomena had changed. I rethought earlier assumptions and occasionally found them wanting. I came to better understand different approaches to reaching preferred destinations. And I made appropriate changes.

The Democrat Party's most visible and influential figures once championed free speech, equality, patriotism, a strong national defense, and rigorously maintained citizenship standards and borders. They no longer do. 

I didn't move; they did.

The late Nat Hentoff was internationally recognized as a civil libertarian, First Amendment authority, and tireless participant in the momentous civil rights movement of the 1960s. Today's discourse would be of greater intellectual heft, and much more rewarding, were Hentoff yet a participant.

In one column toward the end of his illustrious writing career, he observed that he would in contemporary times be more inclined to support a Republican presidential candidate than a Democrat one. The former party, he wrote, was likely to honor and defend the Constitution and Bill of Rights to whose advocacy Hentoff had devoted his adult life in the streets, the classroom, and on the printed page.

The Democrats, he concluded, had become so destructively radical that they could be expected to rip up America's founding document and deny its important safeguards to citizens.

It is to Hentoff's credit that he didn't cease intellectual and philosophical growth when his morning school bells rang. 

Of noble duty shirked

During an edition of his podcast, professor, attorney, and author Alan Dershowitz waxed acidic: "The newspapers say, 'Oh my God, we're so worried the Supreme Court may take away our right to free speech and deny us the protection of malice!'

"You have frittered away the trust of the American public," he then charged. "Your Trump Derangement Syndrome has so influenced and affected the way you're reporting, it's deserving of nothing but great contempt!"

The famed barrister's brickbat was of a piece with President Trump's dismissal of legacy press venues as "enemies of the American people."

Those dubious of such critiques should ask themselves how many of the following, widely disseminated press falsehoods they've encountered:

Biden was "sharp" / Trump-Russian collusion / Jussie Smollet 'hate crime' / Hunter's laptop was Russian disinformation / Musk nazi-salute hoax / "very fine people" / Hands up, don't shoot / Trump trashes troops as "suckers and losers" / policemen were killed on J6 / ICE on horseback whipping illegals / Trump grabbed Beast's steering wheel / Trump advised drinking bleach / "bloodbath" threat. 

(A record of those and many more examples of media deceits was compiled by Breitbart's John Nolte.)

When reporters confront officials, they ideally represent us, and ask probing questions on our behalf. Questions whose full, honest answers we who would direct government must have.

To whatever extent that laudable model might once have been reality, though, it has in recent decades been strangled. Trumpeting of the supposed superiority of authoritarian elites has become the media standard.

Since the populist MAGA Revolution first threatened status quo sensibilities, its patriotic adherents have been ridiculed as unlettered, oafish, and detrimental to refined society. Toward that scurrilous end, reporters, on-air talking heads, editors, columnists, producers, analysts, and even cartoonists were pressed into monotonously impious service.

Dodgy news partisans sometimes portray themselves in the revered tradition of storied muckrakers. Beaming with self-congratulation, they hail theirs as an endeavor without whose hawk-eyed watchfulness and unflinching analyses the public would fall prey to bureaucratic and commercial manipulations.

Stirring indeed are romantic tales of dogged reporters rope-swinging into darkened-windows planning lairs of swinish barons of high finance and unscrupulous agents of dominion. And of an ethically unimpeachable investigative press ripping away pretenses of propriety, bravely speaking truth to power, and advocating for rank-and-file citizens who would otherwise lack meaningful access to ensconced prominence.

Don't be mislead by such mawkish fancy spinning. Inky dirt-doers have a mission, and it is not objective reporting. They promulgate slants, deceptively incomplete renditions, and even shouted deceits, so that partisan predominance and the crushing of opposing factions be realized, and that unnatural cultural deviances be championed.

Print and electronic outlets miss no opportunity to smear the popular movement, headed by President Trump, to wrest back control of America from backstairs overlords who desire its recreation as an effete component of grim globalist machinery. 

Regular assaults on Trump and his average-citizen base are effected in manners sometimes insidious, but in other episodes, jarringly bold. But regardless of visibility or volume, the clear message is that the desires of elites alone should determine our shared future. The well-being and wishes of rank-and-file Americans are of less import than the ideological fancies of upper-crust popinjays in gated demenses.

Cushion-chaired media poohbahs and bylined perpetrators do not share average Americans' values. They promote a reptilian ideology of control. 

We the people are waved away by newsroom-perched bigots who reek of elitist prejudice. We are falsely classed as racists, sexists, xenophobes, or whatever other lurid sobriquet might be handy.

In order to best chart our country's course, citizens require objective accounting of essential information. Our effective participation in the political process is sabotaged by skewed reportage and commentary. 

Rather than penning high-hat editorials, mainstream scribes, who are not honest enough to report frauds and abuses perpetrated by their pinky-raised fellows, should hang low their heads. 

President Trump and Professor Dershowitz were bang on.

60 Minutes, Fake News, and the resentment of oversight

It's reported that Bill Owens, a veteran executive producer of CBS' 60 Minutes, has flounced from the studio in a huff. 

"Over the past months, it has also become clear that I would not be allowed to run the show as I have always run it. To make independent decisions based on what was right for 60 Minutes, right for the audience,” he wrote in a memo obtained by the New York Post.

Scott Pelley, one host of that dreadful show (and a long-time President Trump backbiter) shared his snippy disquiet during a late-April broadcast.

"[CBS owner] Paramount began to supervise our content in new ways," Pelley kvetched. In another moment, he said Owens "felt he lost the independence that honest journalism requires."

Breitbart noted on April 28 that “'60 Minutes' has done tough stories about the Trump administration almost every week since the inauguration in January, many of them reported by Pelley."

Likely a factor in the executive-level decision is Paramount Global's desire to receive Trump administration countenance for a proposed merger with Skydance.

Too, Trump has sued CBS for 60 Minutes' duplicitous editing of a Kamala Harris interview that ran during the campaign. Her response to an early-segment question was surgically extracted and replanted after a later inquiry. The underhanded ambition was to present innocent viewers with a cultivatedly flattering aspect.

(Reports are that the president's suit asks for $20 billion from CBS.)

Per New York Post coverage, Trump said the delusive editing constituted "unlawful and illegal behavior," given the licensing stipulation that the public-interest be served. 

The miserable Scott Pelleys of the Fake News Industry resent like hell anyone reminding them of ethical propriety. Someone's doing so conflicts with propagandists' chosen mission, which is not report what has happened, but instead broadcasting what they want the public to believe had happened. 

Among numerous Democrat-aiding hoaxes legacy media have spread in recent years, as recalled by Breitbart's John Nolte, are:

'Very fine people' praise of racists; Trump slurs U.S. soldiers; police killed on January 6; border agents whipping immigrants; Trump seizing steering-wheel of Beast; Hunter Biden's laptop actually Russian disinformation; Trump advised drinking bleach; 'Bloodbath' threat; and Biden 'sharp as a tack.'

Common when establishment media types spout disdain for alternative commentators is the contention that such voices are not credible, as no trained editor oversees their work.

Pelley's snit illustrates that establishment headline-hurlers do not truly want supervision. When oversight is seriously exercised, imperiling their intended biases, they screech as if scalded.

Florida Democrat Pizzo quits party, media portrayals warped

Crisp indication of legacy media's alliance with the woke Democrat Party was not requested, but appeared on America's doorstep, regardless. 

Last week, reportedly centrist Florida Democrat State Senate leader Jason Pizzo left that increasingly unpopular party. He was reportedly the third elected Florida Democrat to do so in recent weeks, and announced his decision on the senate floor.

Pizzo is now an independent.

The Florida Phoenix quoted him as aptly observing: "[T]he Democratic Party that his father volunteered for when John F. Kennedy ran for president in 1960 was not the same party today."

Pizzo said the party "craves and screams anarchy and then demands amnesty, and that’s not okay. I’ve always been criticized by the far left and the far right, but you know what the small businesses and the hard-working families and the teachers and the cops and the firemen want us to do? Be public servants, not politicians."

The Hill quoted him as remarking: “I belong to, or have belonged to, a party that’s far more concerned at times about pronouns than about property taxes (and) that just wastes so much time and sucks the oxygen and capacity."

The state senator's caustic estimates were not without precedent.

"Pizzo previously criticized Democrats on social media for failing to applaud a 13 year-old boy with brain cancer, DJ Daniel, during President Donald Trump’s State of the Union address," News Nation wrote.

Notably, numerous established press venues did not quote the outgoing state senator's acidic assessment of his erstwhile party, but did made points of parading before their audiences nastiness targeted at Pizzo by Florida Democrat Party Chair Nikki Fried.

"Jason’s failure to build support within our party for a gubernatorial run has led to this final embarrassing temper tantrum. I’d be lying if I said I’m sad to see him go, but I wish him the best of luck in the political wilderness he’s created for himself," she reportedly snarked, in part.

(Under Fried's administration, Democrats already had only a "super-minority" in the state senate, reports hold.)

Marquee outlets that strategically omitted from their coverage Pizzo's enumeration of the Democrat Party's howling negatives, but instead  amplified ineffective party chair Fried's ad hominem broadside, were not acting as objective journalistic operations; rather, as unethical partisans.

Of course, no one needed more proof of their mendacity.

Democrats reveal true colors

The hush that followed President Kennedy's 1963 Dallas murder was a matter of universally shared basic decency. But today, if a conservative figure fell to a lunatic's bullets, progressive Democrats would freestyle on the coffin lid.

Recall that following the attempted assassinations of Donald Trump, ghoulish miscreants in political, entertainment, and media spheres immediately sprang, grinning maws a-drip.

Rather than accepting ballot-box defeats and cultivating better messages and candidates, many Democrats reflect Marxist Che Guevara's odious rantings, as recalled by historians:

"This is a revolution! And a revolutionary must become a cold killing machine motivated by pure hate!"

Online video coverage of anti-Trump/Musk events sometimes portrays participants expressly desirous of their opponents' deaths. It's terrible but true that Guevara's wretched spirit lives, in morally squalid pockets of 2025 America.

Open-borders and sanctuary state and city Democrat officials actively obstruct ICE efforts to safeguard citizens by deporting illegals, including ones guilty of violent crimes against children. The welfare of American citizens is without significance to Democrats whose only lodestar is sick ideology.

California news discloses a health care ballot measure there named for assassin Luigi Mangioni. Months ago, Mangioni stalked United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson and shot him from behind, killing the husband and father of two. The dastardly killer is frequently celebrated by leftists - not despite, but because of his depravity.

In recent months, America has seen a tsunami of politically prompted malicious acts that targeted Tesla owners and dealerships. Among these are vandalism, physical assaults, and large-scale arson. They are terroristic crimes that have as their implicit targets Elon Musk, President Trump, and the over 70 million Americans who buoyed Trump to his proper station at the Resolute Desk.

Upon hearing during a March 11 broadcast that President Trump rightly condemned demolishment and arson of Tesla dealerships as domestic terrorism, MSNBC host Alicia Menendez grabbed up the propagandist's bullhorn: "So, just to be clear, you protest a private company, you are labeled by this administration a domestic terrorist."

Only mentally disheveled subversives and press charlatans would rank purposeful violence and destructiveness as legitimate protest actions. They are not speech manifestations that enjoy constitutional protection. You can express disagreement with others, but you cannot firebomb their businesses from within nightime's cloak.

(Yes, the Boston Tea Party included property destruction. But it challenged oppression by an unelected foreign sovereign; that pivotal circumstance does not exist in contemporary America. Throwing over the checkerboard and traducing laws are not civilized reactions to electoral thumping.)

During the often-savage George Floyd street riots of 2020, police were assaulted, cars were overturned and destroyed by fire, and innocent passersby fell victim to screamed epithets and physical attacks. Some 163 structures, including at least one law enforcement precinct, were destroyed by Molotov Cocktail-hurling thugs. 

Estimates of the cost of those nationwide left-wing rampages ranged from one to two billion tax-payer dollars. Regardless, official Democrat sanction of that lawlessness was illustrated by then-Vice President/presidential candidate Kamala Harris's organization of a donation page for vicious arrestees.

Harris is not the only elected Democrat guilty of countenancing evil. This writer is not aware of any prominent Democrat office-holder who has publicly condemned left-wing violence. As goes the axiom: Silence is complicity.

And that wicked body is again swelled obscenely, when one factors in partisans who do not perpetrate crimes themselves, but are cheered by news of others' violent rioting.

Left-wing agitators, many surely goaded by garbage-hearted professors enamored of Guevara's filth, feel that perpetrating destruction is a justifiable means for ideological promotion.

Hopefully, respect for law and order will return in this Trump era. A good start would be understanding that violence is not legitimate protest.