All errors should be reported to

Monday, July 17, 2017

NYT thinks Breitbart created us

The power of the media showed on November 8, 2016.

Despite nearly universal opposition to Trump from liberal newspapers, Marxist news channels, and pseudo-cons on Fox News, the American people rose and elected Donald Trump president.

Unable to recognize the toothlessness of the press, the New York Times now insists Breitbart media did this -- not people being mad as hell and rising against an establishment that failed America.

To be sure, Andrew Breitbart created his news site to serve what later became the Trump conservative. Breitbart harnessed the fight-back mentality that rallied us behind Sarah Palin.

But his site is our child, not the other way.

Nonetheless, the New York Times published a column by Joshua Green, a Bloomberg reporter, under the headline:
No One Cares About Russia in the World Breitbart Made
They just don't get it.

Nine months-plus after the election, these fools think the media matters for America.

If the media mattered, then those 243 newspaper endorsements for Hillary would have elected her. Instead, Trump won with only 20 endorsements. And his biggest endorsement -- the Las Vegas Review-Journal -- was in a state he lost.


Nevertheless, Green persisted:
The revelation that Donald Trump’s son, son-in-law and campaign manager met with a Kremlin-connected Russian lawyer promising information that would “incriminate” Hillary Clinton was a true bombshell in an era when we have become almost inured to them. Here was proof that members of Mr. Trump’s presidential campaign had, at the very least, been eager to collude with Russia to influence the 2016 election.
No one could gainsay the facts: Mr. Trump’s own son published them on Twitter.
As recently as five or 10 years ago, every major news outlet would have treated this set of facts as front-page news and a dire threat to Mr. Trump’s presidency. The conservative press and Republican voters might disagree on certain particulars or points of emphasis. But their view of reality — of what happened and its significance — would have largely comported with that of the mainstream. You’d have had to travel to the political fringe of right-wing talk radio, the Drudge Report and dissident publications like Breitbart News to find an alternative viewpoint that rejected this basic story line.
Not anymore. Look to the right now and you’re apt to find an alternative reality in which the same set of facts is rearranged to compose an entirely different narrative. On Fox News, host Lou Dobbs offered a representative example on Thursday night, when he described the Donald Trump Jr. email story, with wild-eyed fervor, like this: “This is about a full-on assault by the left, the Democratic Party, to absolutely carry out a coup d’├ętat against President Trump aided by the left-wing media.”
Either Green thinks Russia is still a communist dictatorship, or he thinks Trump supporters are fools.

However, either way he is wrong.

Trump supporters think for themselves, unlike the mindless liberals who accept whatever anti-Trump narrative meets the whimsy of the New York Times and its ilk on any particular day.

Green ended his piece:
There’s no guarantee that this will endure. Even on Fox News, there are scattered signs that the latest Russia developments may finally be breaking through — at least to a few folks. “This was a bungled collusion,” the Fox pundit Charles Krauthammer said the other night, noting that he had previously been sympathetic to the White House line. “It undoes the White House story completely.”
But of course the conservative ranks have always included principled NeverTrumpers, whose resistance to the Republican drift has been mostly ignored by the rank and file. Don Jr.’s travails will be a good test of the resiliency of the new Republican worldview. If special counsel Robert Mueller finds evidence of Russian collusion, it will be followed by a bigger test measuring just what it takes to snap out of a mass hallucination.
The only hallucination is that it is an impeachable offense to have your son set up by a Democratic Party regime that spied on your campaign.

"If special counsel Robert Mueller finds evidence of Russian collusion," Green wrote.


Only a hysterically partisan fool would jump to the conclusion Green expressed.

So how did Breitbart take it?

The site gobbled the free publicity. Why not? I would be flattered by such a headline:
No One Cares About Russia in Surberville
After a decade of blogging (10 years over 12 years after a two-year hiatus) I realize that I have all the power of newspaper editorials (which I wrote for 27 years) -- which is to say, none.

From Breitbart, the comments:
Shhhhhhhhh...let 'em keep doubling down on stupid;)
They're tripling down on stupid at this point.
Ah heck lets hand them a pile driver, let um go for it.
Enough rope to hang themselves. You're onto something NYT, keep up the Russian "narrative".
And so it goes.

The real resistance is on the right. We have maybe two billionaires on our side -- Donald Trump and Peter Thiel. That's all we need. We think for ourselves.

No proof, no scandal. Move on.

Caution: Readers occasionally may laugh out loud at the media as they read this account of Trump's election.

It is available on Kindle, and in paperback.

Caution: Readers occasionally may laugh out loud at the media as they read this account of Trump's nomination.

It is available on Kindle, and in paperback.

Autographed copies of both books are available by writing me at

Please follow me on Twitter.

Friend me on Facebook.


  1. And yet, no word from the nyt on the latest Clinton induced suicide? Nothing to see here, folks.

    1. You're right rbr, then again the Clinton's think they are immune.

      They aren't...their clock is ticking down.

      Most likely an unfortunate accident.

  2. MSM is being consumed by the very beast it created.
    So are the Progressives.
    Ahhh but the entertainment value just may be worth the constant whine.
    You're right Don, nobody in Surberville gives a d*mn .


  3. What the NYT's is realizing that there is an America west of ninth ave and that the internet has prevented them from framing what Americans should think about.

  4. I suspect another reason the Democrats and Russians set up the meeting was to besmirch the reputation of Trump, Jr. Remember that after the Republican convention, he was touted as having a political future. That may have been deastoyrd.

    1. Maybe he should go on TV and give a speech holding a dog named Checkers.

  5. Russia is, or seems to be, a dictatorship, but an ex-Communist dictatorship. Still, seems to be still influential with the enemedia.

  6. For what it's worth, I always admired Breitbart as a person but never did like his sites. Have gone there quite infrequently. Probably haven't in months, now.

  7. "Here was proof that members of Mr. Trump’s presidential campaign had, at the very least, been eager to collude with Russia to influence the 2016 election."

    It's not illegal to use truthful information, whatever its source. If it were, a lot of newspaper reporters would be in jail for having published illegally leaked government documents, starting with the Pentagon Papers. News media collude with criminals all the time, choosing to call these criminal sources "whistleblowers." So, just to be consistent in this fantasy of Russian interference in the election, I'm calling the Russians who met Trump Jr. pretend "whistleblowers" and Trump Jr. a pretend "investigative reporter."

  8. Ssam, 'enemdia?' Yes. But I prefer to label them as the DemSM.

    1. Enemedia. A word I first saw in a comment on this site.

  9. The NYT is now little Red Riding Hood confronting the wolf. Once he looked like Putin, but is now dressed as Breitbart, warnings it's faithful sheep to stay in the meadow even though the fence is down and the grass smells sweet next door, because nextdoor is where the fury one live with his big free stuff ripping teeth.
    Any success by Trump on the domestic side will be be fatal to R Hood, Muller, CNN, the whole basket of media deplorables the little red one is carrying. They smell the wind changing and are casting about.

  10. They don't get it. We elevated Reagan, Rush, Fox, etc. They came on the scene, but we made them big, because they resonated with us. We were already who we were before we came across all of them. The media thinks they can brainwash people, the fact is, the people who watch them do so because that's what they want to hear. It only proves the propagandist mindset of the leftist media.

  11. I heard today that Rush said the media can't destroy Donald Trump because the media didn't create Donald Trump! Good one, yes?

  12. Did you read any comments from that story? WOW!