Here at the Wilderness of Mirror’s I have been warning anyone who would listen for years that the Mainstream Media cannot be trusted. America’s self inflicted “It can’t happen here” delusions have cost America dearly. Let me make this 100 percent perfectly clear, the Washington Post is not the exception to the rule, they are the rule. Just as CBS knowingly and willfully lied with Dan Rather’s “False but accurate” lies, so virtually the entire American Media, the Fifth Column Treasonous Media have and are daily engaging in exactly the same dishonest treasonous behavior.
At The Washington Post, it often seems like liberal bloggers rule the roost. And as the 2014 campaign ramps up, two of those bloggers have made it clear that telling a falsehood is perfectly ethical — as long as it starts a discussion.
Last week, two Wonk Blog writers claimed the Keystone Pipeline would benefit the Koch brothers. They did so by pointing out some information that would be devastating, were it based in reality:
You might expect the biggest lease owner in Canada’s oil sands, or tar sands, to be one of the international oil giants, like Exxon Mobil or Royal Dutch Shell. But that isn’t the case. The biggest lease holder in the northern Alberta oil sands is a subsidiary of Koch Industries, the privately-owned cornerstone of the fortune of conservative Koch brothers Charles and David.
This false information (more on that below) was also stated in the headline. The bloggers, Steven Mufson and Juliet Eilperin, claimed this finding would likely “inflame” the Keystone Pipeline debate, even though their post noted the Kochs have zero benefit from the pipeline:
The link between Koch and Keystone XL is, however, indirect at best. Koch’s oil production in northern Alberta is “negligible,” according to industry sources and quarterly publications of the provincial government. Moreover, Koch has not reserved any space in the Keystone XL pipeline, a process that usually takes place before a pipeline is built. The pipeline also does not run anywhere near Koch’s refining facilities. And TransCanada, owner of the Keystone routes, says Koch is not expected to be one of the pipeline’s customers.
Enter Power Line’s John Hinderaker, who proved that not only will the Koch Brothers likely not benefit from Keystone, their interests might actually be harmed by its presence. :
The astonishing thing about the IFG report is that it admitted that the Keystone Pipeline will damage Koch’s economic interests. Keystone would funnel Canadian oil to the Midwest, thereby driving down oil prices in that region. The original IFG report admitted that this would cost Koch $120 billion! Now, that is a stupid number based on a 50-year projection. But still, the basic point is correct: the Keystone Pipeline would hurt Koch Enterprises economically, which is why Koch has never come out in favor of the pipeline or lobbied on its behalf.
Furthermore, they aren’t actually the largest leaser in the oil sands:
So the fundamental point of the Post story, which relied uncritically on a goofball far-left report, is dead wrong. Moreover, the Post story itself acknowledges that the tar sands encompass 35 million acres, so Koch’s 1.1 million comprise less than 3% of the total. The whole point of this exercise is to make the Keystone Pipeline all about Koch, and that premise is implausible from the start.
Here comes the kicker — Mufson and Eilperin actually responded to Hinderaker, and closed their sophomoric defense with this:
The Powerline article itself, and its tone, is strong evidence that issues surrounding the Koch brothers’ political and business interests will stir and inflame public debate in this election year. That’s why we wrote the piece.
Jonah Goldberg hit the nail on the proverbial head when he commented on the situation:
By this logic any unfair attack posing as reporting is worthwhile when people try to correct the record. Why not just have at it and accuse the Kochs of killing JFK or hiding the Malaysian airplane? The resulting criticism would once again provide “strong evidence that issues surrounding the Koch brothers’ political and business interests will stir and inflame public debate in this election year.”
This whole debacle reminds me of a 2012 post by Greg Sargent, who as I pointed out at the time blogged that even though the Priorities USA Action ad claiming Mitt Romney was responsible for a woman’s death from cancer was false, “the ad dramatizes a larger story about what has happened to the middle class in this country…”
In 2014, many Democrats have made many dishonest statements about the Koch brothers and their involvement in American politics. I look forward to the Post holding Mufson and Eilperin accountable for their damaging contribution to the culture of falsehoods.
Okay, so that was another false statement — I have no doubt these two will continue to make income at the Post for writing dishonest blog posts. But my comment may get a conversation started about media accountability, so by Post blogger logic, it’s a-okay.
It isn’t just the Bloggers at the WaPo, just as it wasn’t only Dan Rather at CBS. It is an entire systemic and endemic culture within the liberal media. A culture where the single and solitary moral or ethical principal any of them have is, “The End Justifies the Means”. their end goal is to “Fundamentally Transform” America into a Marxist Utopia, and they will commit any atrocity to achieve that goal. Their mentor, teacher and spiritual guide Saul Alinsky put it this way.
2. Of Means and Ends [Forget moral or ethical considerations]
“The end is what you want, the means is how you get it. Whenever we think about social change, the question of means and ends arises. The man of action views the issue of means and ends in pragmatic and strategic terms. He has no other problem; he thinks only of his actual resources and the possibilities of various choices of action. He asks of ends only whether they are achievable and worth the cost; of means, only whether they will work. … The real arena is corrupt and bloody.” p.24
“The means-and-ends moralists, constantly obsessed with the ethics of the means used by the Have-Nots against the Haves, should search themselves as to their real political position. In fact, they are passive — but real — allies of the Haves…. The most unethical of all means is the non-use of any means… The standards of judgment must be rooted in the whys and wherefores of life as it is lived, the world as it is, not our wished-for fantasy of the world as it should be….” pp.25-26
“The third rule of ethics of means and ends is that in war the end justifies almost any means….” p.29
“The seventh rule… is that generally success or failure is a mighty determinant of ethics….” p.34
“The tenth rule… is you do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral garments…. It involves sifting the multiple factors which combine in creating the circumstances at any given time… Who, and how many will support the action?… If weapons are needed, then are appropriate d weapons available? Availability of means determines whether you will be underground or above ground; whether you will move quickly or slowly…” p.36
Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radical’s” is their Bible, it is their tactical strategy textbook.
What neither Saul Alinsky, nor any of the other Marxist’s working so diligently over the last 80 years anticipated, was the Internet. They never anticipated that the internet would give average citizens a voice or the tools to fact check the lies that they were feeding American’s. This is why the Democrats/Marxist’s kept trying to push Net Neutrality, to regain control of what American’s were told, to silence the voices of those who spoke out in dissent. Having failed repeatedly to force Net Neutrality upon America, they went to plan “B”. Obama whipped out his Executive Order Pen, and with a single bold signature, gave away control of the Internet.
This was done, because the Fifth Column Treasonous Media was clearly and indisputably loosing the information war, American’s were discovering that both the government and the media were knowingly and intentionally with a full forethought of malice lying to them. Giving away control of the internet is all about shutting down the fact checking, shutting down the dissenting voices and returning the unquestioned control of what information is widely disseminated amongst American’s regarding what the Federal government, now controlled by hardcore radical extremist Marxists is doing to the United States Constitution and Constitutional Rights of American Citizens.