- Today’s bit of Trump Derangement comes from a new book by The Post’s Carol Leonnig, which claims that Gen. Mark A. Milley feared that President Trump would attempt a coup to say in power after his defeat in the 2020 election. Writes the Post, in a typical peive of inexcuably misleading journalism, “It recounts that Milley was deeply alarmed by Trump’s recruitment of supporters to descend on the Capitol on Jan. 6, which culminated in the violent insurrection attempt.” All this tells us is that Milley was (or is) more than a little hysterical, and that the various Big Lies about Trump pushed by the Post and others, along with the military brass’s understandable dislike of their Commander in Chief, caused more than just social media wackos to go off the deep end. How exactly was a bunch of Trump fans armed with little but their own indignation going to pull off a coup? The idea was and is ridiculous, but it shows just how deep contempt for Trump and the willingness to suspend logic and common sense where his conduct is involved goes. The story is, essentially, “X lost his mind and feared that Trump would do something that it would have been certifiably insane, so this means that Trump was planning to do it.”
Like a game of “telephone,” the story becomes sillier the more it circulates. Matthew Chapman at leftist fringe site Raw Story has a version of the story that is headlined, “This is a Reichstag moment’: General Milley legitimately feared Trump would launch a ‘coup.'” Legitimately!
2. What do you do about Wikipedia? It is the world’s fifth largest website, pulling in an estimated 6.1 billion followers per month and serves as the primary reference source for quick information on almost any topic in the world. [Aside: I don’t have a Wikipedia entry, though there are links to various essay I have written. The con artist who swindled ProEthics out of $30,000 when we were getting started has an entry. I am clearly doing something wrong…] The online encyclopaedia put all other published encyclopedias out of business, and it may be the “most read reference work in history.” Once the site was supposedly committed to neutrality, but according to Larry Sanger, one of Wiki’s founders, that ideal was abandoned after 2009. Since then he says (and I’ve noticed) it has become increasingly partisan. He now describes his baby as “broken beyond repair”:
“You can’t cite the Daily Mail at all. You can’t cite Fox News on socio-political issues either. It’s banned. So what does that mean? It means that if a controversy does not appear in the mainstream center-Left media, then it’s not going to appear on Wikipedia..There are companies like Wiki PR, where paid writers and editors will go in and change articles. Maybe there’s some way to make such a system work, but not if the players who are involved and who are being paid are not identified by name — they actually are supposed to be identified by name and say ‘we represent this firm’ if they are officially registered with some sort of Wikipedia editing firm. But they don’t have to do that…”
3. Boy, Democrats have been giving Washington Post Fact-checker Glenn Kessler a lot of fish to shoot in his barrel. For example, Rep. James E. Clyburn (D-S.C.) told Fox News that “No Democrat has never been against voter ID.” That one qualifies as gaslighting, and Kessler, who usually focuses on Republican dishonesty (or finds it when it isn’t there), couldn’t resist. He didn’t even need to find the scores of statements by other Democrats calling voter ID laws “racist” and voter suppression. Clyburn himself was enough. Kessler writes, In 2019, he tweeted a video with these words: “55 years ago, the 24th Amendment was ratified, eliminating poll taxes. Yet we are still seeing evidence of poll taxes today in the form of voter ID laws. In a democracy such as ours, we must not have any impediments to voting….In 2020, Clyburn tweeted: “Long voting lines. Closed polling locations. Voter ID laws. They’re all voter suppression.”
The other recent slap-down by the Post’s Factchecker was even easier. Multiple White House mouthpieces, including Biden paid liar Jen Psaki, made the risible claim that Republicans Republicans were “defunding the police.” See, because the GOP rejected another trillion dollar spending bill proposed by Democrats that including $350 billionfor state and local government aid among its $1.9-trillion “coronavirus relief” funds, Psaki and others claimed that this constituted “defunding” police. Wrote Kessler, after admitting up front that defunding police was a progressive position,
“Biden announced on June 23 that he was urging cities experiencing an increase in crime to tap funds in his coronavirus relief bill “to hire police officers needed for community policing and to pay their overtime.” But that was not included in the text of the legislation itself, so lawmakers had no guarantee before voting on the bill that some of these funds would go to police departments. Of the $1.9 trillion total in the American Rescue Plan, $350 billion was designated for “states, territories, and tribal governments to mitigate the fiscal effects stemming from the covid-19 public health emergency…The American Rescue Plan devoted $350 billion to “state and local aid,” a pot of money that was designed for a variety of budget-plugging purposes. Among those is keeping police, teachers and emergency medical technicians at work, but going strictly by the bill text, lawmakers had no guarantee that police would get a slice of the pie…In this case, there’s not even a line item to attach to the White House’s claim that Republicans are trying to defund the police. What’s more, voting against a one-time infusion of cash is not the same as voting to cut funding, so there is little basis to claim that Republicans are trying to “defund the police.”
Actually what Kessler should have said, and would have if he wasn’t a Democratic Party enabling hack like everyone else at the Post, there is NO “basis to claim that Republicans are trying to defund the police. But for Kessler this qualifies as integrity.