Attempted assassination of President Trump: Who is responsible?

You've heard the news. You may be watching the news right now. About 75 minutes ago someone shot Donald J. Trump, the once and future POTUS, during a rally in Butler County PA. 

Your immediate reaction, like mine, must surely have been: who did this? That's a question which may never be answered!

10 minutes ago I watched, on NBC, a live interview with a person who said she was sitting right in the front row. After she confirmed what we saw in the video, the interviewee said "Thank God they killed rthe shooter", who she said had fired from a tower somewhere to the right Mr Trump.

Strange, isn't it, that no official source had said anything about that. Immediately the interview concluded, Lester Holt said that this was just the account of one person which could not be confirmed. Has a cover-up already begun?

Let's suppose that the shooter was (a) an Islamic (or other) terrorist; (b) a looney leftist, antifa type; (c) an agent of the Deep State; or even (d) a sufferer from TDS, nuttier than squirrel shit and determined that there should be no second term for Trump. Would the Deep State, the Democrats and their lickspittle media want you to know this?

If they want to cover their sorry asses, how would they do so? Simple. By assassinating the would-be assassin. So far, what we're hearing from Official Sources is that the threat has been "contained". Whatever can that mean? Stay tuned... but don't hold your breath!

UPDATE ADDED at 1930: It is now four hours since the failed assassination attempt. The shooter is dead, having been shot by a Secret Service sniper within seconds of shooting at President Trump from "an elevated position" (read: tower) about 200 yards from the podium (yet somehow outside the secure perimeter). 

The body of the shooter has been recovered, along with his AR-15 assault rifle, but he remains unidentified. More accurately, no-one is prepared to tell us what the government knows. Commentator on CBS to interviewee: "You've called this an 'attempted assassination'. Surely you're not implying that the government was somehow involved... are you?" Interviewee: "Oh no. No no."

Top 5 American sources of fake news

Here's a meme that pretty much sums things up, taken from "CNN Introduces Segment Where They Rant About What Trump Would Have Tweeted If He Hadn't Gotten Kicked Off Of Twitter"

on Babylon Bee (where else?), 21/4/21.

How about the rest of the world? In Canada, Germany and the Disunited Kingdom, the news sources you can distrust the most are those owned by the all-powerful state. They may pretend to operate at arm's length -- the CBC (Canadian Broadcorping Castration) is a so-called "independent crown corporation -- but they know who signs the paycheques.

Walt recommends (mostly for Americans): NTD News Today. And of course Breitbart... For Canadians and Americans: Blazing Cat Fur ... and keep reading WWW!

The truth is not out there. There truth is here!

Book Review: Liberal bias in the media is old news

Ed. tells me that quoting oneself is poor form. [It's narcissistic. Ed.] Nevertheless, I want to lead off with the penultimate sentence of my earlier post today. Liberal bias is pervasive in the meeja, the civil service, and the schools of not just Canada, but the USA, the UK, and indeed just about every country of the Western world. This is not fake news. Nor is it new news. It's something Bernard Goldberg discovered in February of 1996 when he wrote an editorial for the Wall Street Journal entitled "Networks Need a Reality Check".

In the piece, Mr Goldberg accused his employers at CBS, and in particular the editors of CBS Evening News, reporter Eric Engberg and then-anchor Dan Rather of a profound liberal bias. He wrote: "The old argument that the networks and other 'media elites' have a liberal bias is so blatantly true that it's hardly worth discussing any more. No, we don't sit around in dark corners and plan strategies on how we're going to slant the news. We don't have to. It comes naturally to most reporters."

The reaction to this CLM [Career-Limiting Move. Ed.] was swift, vicious and totally predictable. Mr Goldberg failed to follow "Walt's Rules for Survival in a PC World", as set forth in "Government publishes censorship checklist - comply or else!", WWW 11/6/19, yet he seems to have been taken by surprise to find himself defamed and in danger of being defenestrated. He tells all in Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News (Regnery Publishing 2002), which Walt recommends.

To quote from the dust jacket synopsis [Getting lazy? Ed.]:
If you've suspected your nightly news is slanted to the left, it's far worse than you think.... Bernard Goldberg reveals a corporate news culture in which the close-mindedness is breathtaking, journalistic integrity has been pawned to liberal opinion, and "entertainment" trumps hard news every time.... As the author reveals, "liberal bias" doesn't mean simply being hard on Republicans and easy on Democrats. Real media bias is the result of how those in the media see the world -- and their bias directly affects how we all see the world.

You can skip over the first two chapters, which are a rehash of Mr Goldberg's feud with Dan Rather, now also in the realm of old news. Start reading in earnest at Chapter 3, "The Emperor is Naked". The examples are dated, but the truths are as fresh as this morning, for, since the election of Still-President Trump, the bias has broadened and deepened exponentially. If you doubt me, just watch The View. [Oh please! Not that! Ed.]

Let me quote just this one passage, from Chapter 13, "The Ship Be Sinking":
Right after my op-ed came out, Mike Wallace was asked..."What is your reaction to CBS News reporter Bernard Goldberg's charges of liberal bias in the media?"
     Mike replied, "When people suggest there is a bias in the media and we have all this power and then of course the bias is always supposed to be liberal and not conservative, well then, under those circumstances how many Democratic presidents and how many Republican presidents have there been beginning with Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan twice, George Bush. It's just in my estimation, it's almost a joke."
     I think Mike Wallace is great, but in this case the joke's on him.

Just because Americans, starting in 1980, elected Republicans president four times...and Democrats only two times...doesn't prove, as Mike seems to think, that there's no liberal bias. A more likely explanation is that TV news viewers simply aren't influenced by the bias they're being fed from network anchors and reporters whom they lost trust in a long time ago.
     Besides, the problem of bias is not that the big network news divisions are reliably pro-Democratic...or even predictably anti-Republican. It's about how they frame the big issues of the day -- feminism, abortion, race, affirmative action, even taxes. On these issues they are reliably and predictably left of center.

Mr. Bloomberg wrote those words in 2002. Fast forward to 2016 and witness how Donald J. Trump won the election against the concerted opposition of Hollywood, the lamestream media, and all right-thinking (read: left-thinking) people on both coasts. Only Middle America supported The Donald, and he's president today, and will be president tomorrow, and so on until January of 2025. (Lifetime pct .986.) Mr Goldberg, who is now where he belongs (with Fox!) must be tired of saying "I told you so!"

VIDEO: Ann Coulter sez ban on Muslims won the election for Trump

On Tuesday night I found myself flipping back and forth from one lamestream channel to another, not so much to see who was winning, but to see which network would have the most biased (anti-Trump) coverage. The early leader was CBS, which could see The Donald's lead in the "battleground states" building and building, but just wouldn't, couldn't bring themselves to say so.

Their excuses for not "calling it" -- projecting a Trump win -- particularly in Florida, were actually funny. Broward and Dade counties hadn't been fully counted yet because the turn-out was so high. If the margin was 0.5% or less there would be an automatic recount. Court challenges were possible. And so on, until their hand was forced by the other networks.

The worst, though, was CBC -- the Clinton Broadcasting Corporation. Well OK, really the Canadian Broadcorping Castration, which started coverage on its main network a bit late, at 9 P.M. Eastern Time. Their anchor was the venerable Peter Mansbridge, who is regarded by Canadians much as Walter Cronkite used to be by Americans. Peter's the kindly old uncle who tucks you into bed at night with a nice, warm, progressive fairy tale at the end of which the liberals triumph and everyone lives happily ever after.

On November 8th-9th, the liberal dream of eight more years of Democratic rule turned into a nightmare for the CBC's crew of Clinton shills disguised as reporters. Peter was ashen. The smug and condescending Keith Boag actually stuttered. The ever-PC "At Issue" panel had the night off. (I look forward to their "I knew it all along" routine tonight.) To replace them, CBC rang in David Frum, and for balance (LOL) a white liberal woman plus a black lesbian feminist American. Mr Frum didn't gloat. He didn't have to. He just sat there and watched the black gal get crazier and crazier, to the point where the producers wisely cut to something else.

By Wednesday night, Peter had recovered his composure and rehearsed his part of the how-come-we-missed-it routine which will be heard on all networks, American and foreign, for the next year or so. You'll get a taste of it in his interview on The National last night with well-known (even in Canada) American writer and commentator Ann Coulter. She was one of the first credible voices to say "You should have listened to me. I told you so!" She predicted a Trump victory early on, and credited the win to his ability to tap into voters' "pent-up rage for both political parties, mostly over the issue of immigration."

"There are lots of people who do not live in the United States -- billions, I believe. None of them have a constitutional right to move to America," said Ms Coulter. "We've been thinking about the poor illegal aliens and the poor Muslim refugees who aren't living in this country already, but what about the people already here? Immigration is just a government policy like any other government policy, but it's the only one that politicians, and the media, don't even think about saying, 'This should be designed to help the people who are already here.'"

Here's the complete interview.

VIDEO: CBS, NBC play down black attacks on whites in Philadelphia

Let's start with the headline, as it appears on the CBS Philly website: "Temple Students Attacked, Officer Thrown To Ground, Police Horse Punched In Assaults". And here's the video.



OK... What's missing from that report? Walt will tell you. The TV station's very PC news team -- a black man and a white woman on the anchor desk and a Vietnamese-American woman doing the stand-up -- omitted entirely any mention of the racial aspect of the attacks shown clearly in the video. The fact is that the attackers were black, and the victims were white. If you doubt it, watch again. If you are surprised, what planet have you been living on?

The NBC outlet in Philadelphia took exactly the same PC line, even though their footage also revealed the truth that the attacks were aimed at whites.

According to CBS, the violence was planned "through social media" with a message for a "large group of teens" to meet near the campus Friday night. They said that police estimate that 200 "teenagers" were in the crowd at the movie theater at Broad and Oxford and then divided into smaller groups, attacking and robbing other "students", who all just happened to be white.

"Teens" and "juveniles" are code words for non-white, used by the controlled lamestream media when they want to avoid mentioning race. Need I add that if the "teens" had been white, we would have been spared no detail about the "racist whites". But since the attackers were black, if race is mentioned at all it's only to say that the poor, disadvantaged yoofs are angry because they've been "marginalized" and "excluded" from society.

Could there be any reason, other than political correctness, for not calling a spade a spade? Wouldn't have anything to do with the upcoming election, would it? Of course not.

"I'm not an angry black woman!!!" sez Michelle

Michelle Obama, wife of the well-known president and prevaricator, told CBS News this week that she's tired of people portraying her as “some kind of angry black woman.”

Mrs. Obama said she hasn't read New York Times reporter Jodi Kantor's new book that characterizes her as a behind-the-scenes force in the Executive Mansion, whose strong views often draw her into conflict with President Al's top advisors.

“I never read these books,” she told CBS's Gayle King, “so I've just gotten in the habit of not reading other people's impressions of people.” She added that she just hasn't got time to read what people write about her, because of her heavy schedule of gym workouts and MMA matches.