For Democrats, media, there won't be a "morning after"          

Inarguably, the Democrat Party and establishment news media are as one. They share both values and ideological aspect. George Stephanopolous, Jen Psaki, James Carville, and Joe Scarborough are only some who've lurched through the revolving door. 

Charitable souls might venture leftists' histrionics will subside once election day passes, especially if the dreaded Trump suffers vanquishment. They won't. Ugly bellowings from that miserable quarter will swell to even greater proportion.

Only situationally principled, leftists lard anti-Trump commentary with vicious hyperventilations.

Kamala Harris warned numerous listeners that "Donald Trump is a threat to our democracy and fundamental freedoms."

"It's time to put Trump in the bullseye," Joe Biden told donors during a call reported by CNN. Last June, Biden exclaimed: "Trump is a genuine threat to this nation...He's literally a threat to everything America stands for."

Appearing on MSNBC in 2023, Rep. Dan Goldman told Jen Psaki that Trump "is destructive to our democracy" and "has to be eliminated."

Trump "needs to be shot," said Rep. Stacy Plaskett, in 2023.

Lincoln Project co-founder and board member Rick Wilson told MSNBC: "They're still going to have to go out and put a bullet in Donald Trump."

An exhaustive list of other scheming partisans who've slurred Trump, including portraying him as a new Hitler, would be too lengthy for inclusion, here.

White House-choreographed lawfare waged against the Republican candidate has accomplished nothing. Efforts to throw him off states' ballots also proved fruitless. Tucker Carlson correctly predicted murderous strategies would next be drawn up.

Tens of millions of patriotic Americans rallied to Trump's side, their faith strong that citizens, not pampered elites, should chart our nation's course. And overlords just will not have it.

Having transmogrified into aggressive ghoulishness, leftists surely see no reason to return to even elementary decency. They care not that Trump's now survived two assassination attempts. All that matters is winning.

Examples of post-shooting public slurs spring forth:

"We must stop [Trump/MAGA]," wrote  Rep. Hakeem Jeffries of New York, in a September X post.

Also on X, Colorado Democrat state representative Steven Woodrow asserted: "The last thing America needed was sympathy for the devil, but here we are."

"Trump is a threat to democracy, and saying so is not incitement," declared New York Magazine's Jonathan Chait.

In response to both the second assassination attempt and what has plainly been full-lunged malevolence with one foot in death-wish evil, the Trump effort issued a rebuttal: "Thankfully, the would-be assassin was stopped by the heroic action of law enforcement. But make no mistake, this psycho was egged on by the rhetoric and lies that have flowed from Kamala Harris, Democrats, and their Fake News allies for years."

Trump himself wrote on X that smears hurled his way had "taken politics in our Country to a whole new level of Hatred, Abuse, and Distrust. Because of the Communist Left rhetoric, the bullets are flying, and it will only get worse!"

Those who cranked the dial to extreme don't give a damn who sees their moral and ethical grubbiness.

There loom ahead two possible scenarios. Sadly, each promises continued raucousness. Trump's podium-pounding hitmen will certainly feel their unabashed vitriol is coldly efficacious, should they succeed in ending the Republican candidate. 

But if, contrarily, the nationwide MAGA movement (in which I march) buoys Trump down Pennsylvania Avenue a second time, the response from the Dark Side will be ear-rending, unspeakably foul, and sickeningly stuffed with underdog self-righteousness. 

Power-craving politicians, big-corporation journalists, and America-hating activists desire a terrible night without end.

And they wouldn't take a morning after even if it came with two pairs of pants.

Media should investigate Springfield pet-eating story

Sickening charges that Haitian migrants in Ohio have been eating pets recently arose. But instead of subjecting accounts to the scrutiny they merit, journalists great and small waved them away as racist lies. 

It's ridiculous to expect compassion for supposedly tortured animals from bloodless ideologues who champion murdering millions of unborn human babies each year. As they've already accepted that greater atrocity, they cannot be expected to now protest the lesser one - horrific, though it be.

(And one wonders where PETA is.)

The allegations are plausible. Peoples from foreign shores sometimes have preferences revolting to more refined Western sensibilities. That's indisputable. I've heard of an American missionary whose smiling African-village hosts offered him a plate of squirming bugs.Youtube hosts videos of Chinese street vendors hawking roasted rats on sticks.

In some nations, dog-meat is favored. Barack Obama admitted to eating it when a child in Indonesia. Gateway Pundit has posted an excerpt from his "Dreams From My Father" autobiography:

"With [stepfather] Lolo, I learned to eat small green chili peppers raw with dinner (plenty of rice), and, away from the dinner table, I was introduced to dog meat (tough), snake meat (tougher), and roasted grasshopper (crunchy)...One day soon, [Lolo] promised, he would bring home a piece of tiger meat for us to share."

National press operatives like ABC's David Muir and CNN's Dana Bash scoffed at the pet-eating claims. NBC denounced the story as a hateful "conspiracy theory," and slurred Trump's conveying of charges as "derogatory." PBS sneered of "false claims." MSNBC also cast them to the ground.

But establishment journalists are not automatically trustworthy. Consider these oft-regurgitated media lies:

There was Trump-Russia collusion/Hands Up, Don't Shoot/Hunter's laptop was "Russian disinformation"/Jussie Smollett was a "hate crime" victim/Kyle Rittenhouse took an AK47 across state lines, intending racial violence/video clips of Biden wandering were "cheap fakes."

Rushing to accept naysaying exclaimed by Ohio authorities, as media sorts have generally done, is irresponsible. Didn't liberals boast of distrusting authority and "speaking truth to power" not long ago?

Apparently, when officials mouth rhetoric to their fancy, reporters become uncritical 'stenographers to power.' 

Safeguarding localities' images from negative publicity is among city  leaders' ambitions. Economic interests are at risk. Businesses won't remain in or relocate to areas if word spreads that there's turmoil underway, and tax-paying residents who are able to flee will do so. Potential new ones will stay away. 

(Aurora, Colorado residents presently face migration-related criminal horrors, themselves.)

It is certainly true that average citizens can create hoaxes. And residents' claims should be regarded suspiciously. Plausibility is not actuality.

Still, Springfield residents have posted supporting videos online. They can be found here, here, and here. There are others.

And investigative reporter Christopher Rufo has put on X/Twitter footage purportedly depicting skinned felines on an Ohio grill. (I won't be viewing that.)

Lack of caring when foreigners violate American laws and customs is a product of the imbecilic notion that all cultures are morally equal, and that expecting newcomers to assimilate is "racist." (There's that word, again.)

Unfortunately, there are crude world regions in which foul practices are routine, Wife-beating and rapes are accepted in some cultures. There are immigrants now in America who perpetrate "Honor killings" and female genital mutilations.

Before discounting claims, reporters should actually talk to aggrieved residents, rather than simply amplifying local officials' denials.

Press-types turning away pet-eating charges without getting up from cushioned chairs and truly investigating them does dirt to the public interest they theoretically serve.

And it doesn't do domestic animals a damn bit of good, either.

It begins with "warning labels"

I carry no brief for Big Tech overlords. A sound case can be made that internet behemoths like Google and Facebook agitate to interfere with our electoral process, on behalf of Democrats.

Today, though, another matter demands attention:

42 states' Attorneys General are calling for governmental social- media clampdown. They caution of a legitimate problem: Young internet users' emotional well-being is endangered. But the cure they prescribe is a dangerous one.

The impetus for their present aggression was a June New York Times op-ed penned by US Surgeon General Vivek Murthy.

He advocated warning labels be forced onto social-media sites, much as cigarette manufacturers are legally required to put ones on their products.

But words aren't carcinogens. They don't compromise physical health.

"One of the most important lessons I learned in medical school was that in an emergency, you don't have the luxury to wait for perfect information," Murthy wrote. "You assess the available facts, you use your best judgment, and you act quickly."

His comparison is nonsensical. The impact of ideas merely held cannot be physically gauged like proveable health risks associated with tobacco use, food products, or medicines. 

In those instances, regulation is in keeping with the Constitution's mandate that democratically elected government safeguard public welfare.

Ideas themselves don't invariably lead to physical harm. One listener may accept a thought, but another reject it.

Murthy's advocacy of rash action undertaken on what he concedes to be imperfect data is unwise, at best. 

In their Sept. 9, 2024 letter -- sent to House Speaker Mike Johnson, Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer, and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell -- the signatories implored officials to accept Murthy's warning labels proposal.

The states' attorneys general wrote that warning labels posted on social-media pages would not, alone, be "sufficient to address the full scope of the problem" and would be only "one consequential step toward mitigating the risk of harm to youth."

They continued: "A warning would not only highlight the inherent risks that social-media platforms presently pose for young people, but also complement other efforts to spur attention, research, and investment into the oversight of social-media platforms."

"Other efforts?"

Those words suggest further governmental action imperiling citizen speech. Perhaps warning labels on social-media sites represent only a beginning. 

Should government legally codify the notion that words are health matters properly open to regulation, Americans' speech liberty would be only a memory.

The World Health Organizaton and National Institutes of Health have declared odious racist beliefs to be as dangerous to physical health as toxic chemicals. 

Of course racist beliefs are illogical and immoral. But there is only one First Amendment. And it protects speech equally. If bad ideas are stifled, good ones are necessarily at risk.

Today, some have perverted the meaning of "racism" to encompass legitimate values like maintaining cultural integrity and even the concept of legal citizenship.

Pressure to outlaw such expression has already resulted in related codes and statutes.

Should warning labels be strong-armed onto sites, speakers would eventually refrain from articulating controversial notions at all, fearing potential punitive actions.

Free conversation in the public square would then be a casualty.

A house undivided

In 2017, neo-Nazi Christopher Cantwell told an interviewer that he wished for a president who, unlike Donald Trump, "would not give his daughter to a Jew." He then sneered: "I don't think you can feel about race like I do and watch that Kushner bastard walk around with that beautiful girl. Okay?"

I shared those detestable words with a purpose: To convey what genuine bigotry sounds like. Calls to maintain national borders and assertions of American exceptionalism are not of a piece with Cantwell's repulsive notions.

In fact, they are not within philosophical miles of them.

Unity is Americans' greatest national strength. Not diversity, as some insist. Stressing differences rather than commonality encourages fracture. (Which is certain demagogues' ambition.)

In his 2017 inaugural address, Trump noted that Americans of different skin tones are united by patriotism: "No matter our color, we still bleed the same red, white, and blue!"

One faith of the multi-racial MAGA movement, possibly the largest political crusade America has witnessed, is that our country can best advance to strength and prosperity when we all stand together.

(Historical accounts remind it was Democrats who founded the Ku Klux Klan and enacted Jim Crow laws. Too, more Repulicans than Democrats voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964.)

Trump's aversion to racial prejudice is emblamatic of moral rectitude. American stability and progress depend on such leadership.

But leveraging racial bigotry for electoral fortune, as Democrats still  do, divides Americans and allows animation to true hatred of the ugly type enunciated by the cretinous Cantwell.

Time to rise

In 2024, Americans are living through a very old story. I'll explain. 

My wife and I recently watched a vintage film. Set in ancient Persia, it depicted a people subjected by the evil Caliph Ali. During his oppressive reign, the good citizens had been taxed so greatly they were unable to feed themselves or their families. Starvation stalked the sands. 

Parents had lost sons in wars instigated at Ali's whim. Those peasants who dared speak out were brutalized by the Caliph's turbaned thugs.

Eventually, led by a courageous and inspirational champion, the good people toppled Ali. Happiness returned to their land. Citizens again enjoyed justice and prosperity.

Kamala Harris hopes to burden Americans with still greater taxes than the exorbitant ones already charged under spend-crazy Democrat schemes. Hardworking men and women down at grassroots level must choose whether to pay all housing, energy, and medicine bills, or put food on the table.

Add to that impossible burden rocketing gas prices they must pay to get to work.

How many American sons and daughters who bravely donned our nation's military uniforms died in Democrat-championed wars? 

Unarmed citizens (including praying grandparents) who journeyed to Washington and protested tyranny on January 6, 2021, were brutalized and imprisoned on orders from ruling Democrats. 

Many of those good people still languish behind governmental iron bars. (Admirably, though, they maintain patriotic spirit even in bondage: An audio-tape of many singing the Star-Spangled Banner from behind stone walls went viral.)

The tens of millions-strong MAGA movement backing Donald Trump refuses to accept the continued tyranny to which Kamala Harris would subject citizens. 

As if the peaceful and prosperous lives regular Americans enjoyed during Trump's first term weren't sufficient proof, his recently-pledged intention to end taxation of overtime hours presently charged working citizens demonstrates populist sympathy. 

That suffering peoples can throw off poison-hearted oppressors and assert independence is a truth revealed not only in the vintage film my wife and I saw, but also in literature and, of course, real-world history. 

American voters should in November follow such noble examples.

ABC Trump/Harris event exemplified larger media rot             

Disney-owned ABC's Tuesday night show featuring Donald Trump and Kamala Harris illustrated as much about the hosts and the network as the candidates.

(I characterize it as a show, because it's inaccurate to describe as a "debate" an event in which participants are barred from addressing one another.)

Moderators David Muir and Linsey Davis threw off any ethical rule they might once have honored. The pixilated manikens paraded meagerness of character, uncaring that millions viewed their malfeasance.

Fox noted "The pair fact-checked Trump five times during the heated 90-minute event and failed to correct Harris a single time."

It was the newest portrait of a much greater wrong.

Overviews of current legacy media presidential-election coverage that do not at least implicitly acknowledge that body's bias against Trump should be avoided by readers desiring accuracy.

Many reporters dropped their note pads and grabbed up torches, years ago.

This is warfare in which slurs, misinformation, and scantily-veiled Democrat talking points are hurled from the cover of computer-stuffed offices and milling pool-swarms. Where innocent events can be resculpted into misrepresentative silhouettes with the flick of a tape editor's wrist.

Some even openly advocate reportorial bias:

"Now you have Joe Kahn, the new editor or publisher, whatever he is at The New York Times, saying 'We're just going to cover this down the middle. We're going to cover what is,'" former Democrat strategist James Carville said on his podcast, last June. "I don't think that's the role of the news media when the entire Constitution's in peril. I don't have anything against slanted coverage. I really don't...F--k your objectivity!"

He added: "So, I think we need slanted coverage. More slanted coverage..."

Carville's comfort with skewed reporting recalls MSNBC-host Joe Scarborough's 2016 question: "How fair do you have to be when one side is just irrational?"

In August the same year, New York Times media critic Jim Rutenberg portrayed reporters' bias as legitimate. He observed that those who believed then-candidate Trump to be dangerous would throw away American journalism's "textbook" and assume actively oppositional postures. 

Remember, too, that during Trump's presidency over 300 newspapers across the country coordinated same-day publication of op-eds attacking him and his "Fake News" condemnations. Someone's ears were burning.

(Ethics were also trash-canned by liberals elsewhere: Democrat elites more recently contrived lawfare schemes against 2024 candidate Trump and strove to deny him ballot status in numerous states, while in the same moment proclaiming their party to be democracy's defender.)

The mainstream media's anti-Trump parading high-steps outside op-ed pages, where prejudices are legitimately articulated, and across theoretically straight news sections.

It is common for supposedly objective accounts to be larded with subjective verbiage like "extremist" and "threat to democracy."

(Meanwhile, the attempted assassination of the former president was promptly chucked into the news-hole.)

An unbiased press is crucial to maintaining democracy. Readers must trust that it will investigate all without favor and fully inform the public.

Only when voters have easy access to all relevant information are they able to chart their civil government's course responsibly.

That ideal is strangled when reporters and editors act as partisans, inserting their fancies between story and reader. By the doing, they cast down their proper role as uncommitted observers and take up the banner of event participants.

When TV news celebrities and inky proselytizers model fanatics' fashions, they fail journalism's noble mission and do not merit respect as advocates for the public interest.

But Disney's ABC would gladly add them to the payroll.