Media Reporting On Governor Scott Walker A Cacophony Of Lies

Photo credit: Gateway Technical College (Flickr)

The news was filled last week with breathless headlines: “Scott Walker part of ‘criminal scheme,’” declared The Washington Post. The Milwaukee (Wisconsin) Journal Sentinel, which is intimately familiar with the facts of this case, nonetheless headlined “John Doe prosecutors allege Scott Walker at center of ‘criminal scheme.’” The New York Times, all the networks, CNN, MSNBC,, and all the other usual suspects chimed in with a deafening cacophony of alarm, using the same “Walker at center of criminal scheme” headlines. Even Forbes took the bait.

In a year saturated with false, misleading, or downright fraudulent misreporting from the left-wing biased mass media, this disgraceful bit of propaganda vies for first place. The court documents in this formerly secret investigation were not new, and the case has been thrown out of court and declared illegal, not once but twice.

Not only were the same headlines used, but most news outlets used the same dishonest technique to make this old information sound like it was breaking news. Politico’s lead paragraph reads:

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker participated in a “criminal scheme” to coordinate fundraising for Republicans trying to beat back efforts to recall him and state senators from office, local prosecutors argue in court documents released Thursday.

Politico lies. By stating it in the present tense as “prosecutors argue in court documents released Thursday,” Politico implies the allegations are current. These documents are from last year and have only been unsealed because these same prosecutors are now being sued by their former victims for their rampant abuse of the legal system.

In fact, the whole thing stinks.

We now know that this document dump, authorized by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, was requested by the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, a left-wing media advocacy group representing a who’s who of the mainstream media. The prosecutors, who had earlier asked that documents remain sealed, did an about face and sided with the Reporters Committee. Furthermore, it was the prosecutors who cherry-picked the documents to be released. So the media are not merely mischaracterizing the release of these documents; it is almost certain that this was a planned ambush.

This so-called “John Doe” secret investigation originally subpoenaed over 100 Wisconsin conservative groups, seeking to uncover illegal campaign coordination between these groups and Governor Walker. This included at least five pre-dawn, SWAT-style raids on the homes of some of the targets last October. Because the investigation was secret, conservative groups were silenced on the eve of an important election year. The Wall Street Journal observed that “the ‘coordination’ prosecutors have decried in Scott Walker’s case is nearly identical to the ‘coordination’ employed during the 2012 presidential campaign on behalf of President Obama.”

Sound familiar? In addition to restraining conservative groups during the 2012 elections, the IRS probe has recently revealed that Lois Lerner conspired with Justice Department officials to explore the possibility of criminally prosecuting conservative groups, just for applying for non-profit status. It appears that the Wisconsin prosecutors were way ahead of them.

Pages: 1 2 3 4

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Washington Post Engages In Propaganda Exercise Against Benghazi Conference

The Washington Post’s Dana Milbank wrote a column on Monday titled “Heritage’s ugly Benghazi panel,” portraying a forum held the same day at the Heritage Foundation — hosted by the newly formed Benghazi Accountability Coalition – as nothing more than an anti-Islamic hate-fest. This was a serious panel with numerous, widely recognized experts, a couple of whom were also members of Accuracy in Media’s Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi. CCB’s April report, “How America Switched Sides in the War on Terror,” made international headlines.

That report took some serious skin. Diane Sawyer, Bob Woodward, and other stalwarts of the mainstream media have taken Hillary Clinton to task over Benghazi. With Heritage and others now picking up the baton, something clearly needed to be done. They can’t have Hillary’s chances in 2016 threatened by that Benghazi “old news.” As Hillary herself said, “What difference, at this point, does it make!?”

Enter Dana Milbank, WaPo’s hit “journalist,” who sees Joseph McCarthy and racist bigots behind every conservative door. He could not, and did not, dispute the facts raised during this afternoon-long forum. Instead, he used a now-standard device of the left when confronted with uncomfortable truths. The discussion and topic was discredited by simply describing what was said in a presumptuous and mocking tone. It is a clever way to discredit facts in the reader’s mind without actually disputing the facts. So, for example, he wrote:

The session, as usual, quickly moved beyond the specifics of the assaults that left four Americans dead to accusations about the Muslim Brotherhood infiltrating the Obama administration, President Obama funding jihadists in their quest to destroy the United States, Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton attempting to impose Shariah blasphemy laws on Americans and Al Jazeera America being an organ of ‘enemy propaganda.’

Most of the above, of course, is true. President Obama did fund the Libyan opposition, which was known to have al Qaeda ties; and those same jihadists turned around and attacked the Benghazi Special Mission Compound, killing Americans. He blatantly supported the Muslim Brotherhood in the misnamed Egyptian “Arab Spring” where one of America’s most reliable Muslim allies, Hosni Mubarak, was deposed.

Obama and Clinton are certainly doing nothing to stop the spread of Shariah in America, and the Muslim Brotherhood has infiltrated the Obama administration. Another report out Monday quoted Mohamed Elibiary, an advisor to the Homeland Security Department and Muslim Brotherhood supporter, writing in a tweet, “As I’ve said b4, inevitable that ‘Caliphate’ returns…” Finally, anyone even remotely familiar with Al Jazeera knows it is an Islamist propaganda organ. The fact that it occasionally does a better job of reporting news than the American mainstream media is simply a reflection of just how bad the American media have become.

But apparently, Milbank’s job is not to delve into the facts. Instead, his job is to discredit Obama’s detractors. So he used another standard leftist device as well. He found a convenient straight man to play the victim, innocently asking questions and making statements designed to provoke a predictable response, which could then be attacked with the usual leftist rhetoric. In this case, he utilized a Muslim woman named Saba Ahmed. He wrote, “Saba Ahmed, an American University law student, stood in the back of the room and asked a question in a soft voice…” He quoted her as saying:

We portray Islam and all Muslims as bad, but there’s 1.8 billion followers of Islam… We have 8 million-plus Muslim Americans in this country and I don’t see them represented here.

So, of course, the fact that the forum was not packed with Muslims implies it had to be biased. Substitute “white privilege,” “racism,” “McCarthyism,” or any of the other familiar leftist shibboleths. If you can’t discredit the message, smear the messengers. Ahmed also performed another, perhaps more important, service; she changed the subject away from the disaster that was Benghazi and forced the panel to make it all about her bogus concerns.

Pages: 1 2 3

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Here’s How States Can Stop The EPA’s War On Coal

On Monday, the Obama administration violated the law by announcing stringent carbon dioxide emission targets for power plants that will effectively kill the coal industry. The new regulation calls for a 30 percent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions from power plants by 2030. Congress failed to pass so-called “cap and trade” legislation that would enable such a move, so Obama is using the regulatory authority he claims the EPA already has to regulate carbon. But the president cannot just ignore the will of Congress. To do so assumes that Congress is irrelevant. Apparently, this is what President Obama believes.

Obama’s Organizing for America website brags that the new EPA regulations are “the strongest action ever taken by an American president to tackle climate change.” Most media outlets are echoing Obama, heralding the new EPA rule, while downplaying or ignoring the calamitous effects it will have on the economy. CBS called it “groundbreaking.” The Christian Science Monitor calls it “bold, signature, and controversial.” CNN called it “the boldest step yet,” characterizing prior U.S. positions as “hypocritical.”

ABC News cited a new poll claiming that 70 percent of Americans think something should be done about global warming. This, of course, follows numerous polls that indicate just the opposite. A Gallup poll published in The Washington Post last year indicated that most people do not consider global warming a serious threat. An ABC poll found only 18 percent ranked global warming as their highest priority. Sixty-eight percent of respondents ranked the economy as the number one priority. A Pew poll found only 42 percent believed global warming to be caused primarily by human activity.

Media outlets dismissed concerns over the rule’s impact on the economy, but it will have devastating effects. Called the “Obamacare for climate change,” the EPA rule claims huge savings down the road; but, as President Obama put it, this “will require tough choices along the way.” Tough indeed. It will raise energy costs nationwide at a time when our economy struggles to recover from the deepest recession since the Great Depression. A recent study projects the damages:

  • Average annual $51 billion reduction to U.S. Gross Domestic Product through 2030
  • An average 224,000 fewer U.S. jobs every year through 2030
  • U.S. consumers will pay $289 billion more for electricity through 2030
  • Lower total disposable income for U.S. households by $586 billion through 2030

And just as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) claims Obamacare’s unstated but overt goal is to destroy the private healthcare market, this new EPA rule is ultimately designed to destroy the coal industry.

Some states have already vowed to fight against these regulations. Indiana Governor Mike Pence (R) said, “Indiana will oppose these regulations using every means available.” Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett (R) promised to “fight these regulations every step of the way.” Many other U.S senators and representatives have expressed similar sentiments. West Virginia and Wyoming are considering legislation to block the regulations. As Wyoming Senator John Barrasso (R) noted, “The costs are real, the benefits are theoretical.” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) called it “a dagger in the heart of the American middle class.”

Pages: 1 2 3

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom