web analytics

The Unforgiveable Sins of Obama and the MSM: Syria, Iran, and 60,000 (Disproportionately Black) Americans

Have you heard the news?  Of course you have.  How couldn’t you?  It’s been on every news channel without break.  Every newspaper has it on the front page, above the fold.  Teams of investigative reporters have been dispatched.  The Twit-osphere is on fire!  Even Republicans are talking impeachment.  The latest poll shows the American public overwhelmingly supporting impeachment; Democrats at 80%, but Republicans not very far behind at 65%.  That latter number is expected to climb as the investigation unfolds.

Yes, that’s right.  Donald Trump, in his bid to forge a legacy that could not be undermined by history, has literally sacrificed tens of thousands of American lives.  The formula was simple:  in order to secure a deal with North Korea, Trump ordered his subordinates at the Justice department to look the other way on certain criminal investigations under way related to North Korea’s diabolical money-making schemes.

Strong evidence exists that along with selling missile technology and counterfeit US currency, NK engaged in unrestrained human trafficking–including snatching American girls right off American streets and bundling them up to Asia, where, presumably, many of them went into North Korean harems for the pleasure of those loyal to the NK regime.  Leaked documents refer to the fact that a disproportionate number of these American girls were black girls.  In one document it is cynically mentioned that “No one is going to miss a bunch of ghetto girls.”  Well, the neighborhoods did in fact miss their sisters and daughters.  The investigations into their absence mysteriously were wrapped up, leaving underlings at the Justice Department to wonder what had happened.

Trump tweeted this morning that he had no knowledge of such things and that while he may have made it clear to high members of his administration that he had a LOT riding on his treaty with NK, he never said (*wink-wink* *nudge-nudge*) anything about going easy on the NK’s criminal operations.  For obvious reasons, no one believes this for a minute.  Nonetheless, we will know soon enough to what degree Trump was involved.  It appears the whole country, not just every investigative committee on the Hill, is ready to pour every resource into finding out EXACTLY what transpired.

Which is exactly how it should be.

[# # # ]

Sorry, folks.  While I know that many of my readers wish that tens of thousands of black girls had been swept off the streets with Trump (or high ranking members of his administration) complicit, and thus providing (at last!) the issue which would have him removed from office, I’ll have to disappoint.  The above was fiction.  What is not fiction is what the MSM and American citizen response would be, if this narrative were true.  No expense would be spared to ensure that all of us would know, very quickly, precisely to what degree Trump was involved, and we would know, precisely, how many Americans had been impacted due to the policy, and not, say, due to ‘ordinary’ human trafficking.  Should any complicity be demonstrated, there would be a tsunami of outrage which would not dissipate until it had washed completely over the country until no remnant of a Trump presidency remained.  Justifiably.

I trust no one will quibble with me on that.  You are lying to yourself, and to me, if you wish to argue otherwise.

While the story above is fiction, the one that follows is not.

Almost exactly a year ago, the Politico published an investigative report that detailed how Obama’s Justice Department turned the heat down on a Hezbollah’s criminal operations–in the United States–in order to secure the Iran deal, and with it, Obama’s legacy as “The Most Intelligent, Most Compassionate, Literally the Best Man who has Ever Lived.”

What did these criminal operations involve?  You mean, you don’t know?  Ah, no, you wouldn’t, would you?  Because unlike in my scenario above where America’s collective hot rage was directed to learning every little bit about the affair, the Politico piece endured a MSM blackout that persists to this day.  So, when I tell you that potentially, some 60,000 people died due to Hezbollah’s unfettered drug trade in America, this will be a news flash to you.  I have to say ‘potentially’ because, unlike in the Trump-NK scenario, no investigations have transpired to know precisely how many died.  And naturally, of course, we don’t know how far up the chain this goes.  In this real life story, Obama doesn’t even need to issue a statement blaming his underlings, because most of the country is blissfully unaware there is even an issue.

When the story first came across my radar, I waited a bit to see what would come of it.  Soon, it became apparent that we were really never going to find out what had happened, and that two other things were worth dwelling on.  1., the rank depravity of a ‘main stream media’ which apparently will stop at nothing to cover up the misdeeds of a member of their own ‘tribe.’ and 2., the brain-washed, conditioned masses who become outraged as if on cue, much like a dog slobbers when Pavlov rings his bell–and without the bell, most Americans were content to drink in whatever rubbish is given them.

6 weeks or so after the Politico piece was published, I called attention to this phenomena, with an eye towards the danger of being so easily manipulated.  Since then, I have periodically checked to see if the MSM has followed up.  Perhaps it is just me, but if I learn that the President has deliberately enacted policies that are known to result in countless American deaths in pursuit of a ‘deal’ with a foreign country, that is REALLY BIG NEWS.  Because of how ‘big’ it was, I was willing to give them some time to do their own investigations.

As I said, it has been about a year now, and… nothing.

Not a peep from the WAPO.  Not a peep from the NYT.  Nothing in the Guardian.  CNN? Silent. No news stories anywhere in any source deemed reliable by… liberals.  Fox News and the conservative media called attention to the Politico piece when it first came out, and then that wave dissipated.  The WAPO, NYT, and Guardian never did even that.  I have searched their websites numerous times over the last year, using a wide variety of keywords that I reasonably expected could bring up a story about the matter.  Hey, I’m open to it.  If you know other wise, give me the link(s).  Although it would still be a very mild corrective to this narrative, I’m in favor of keeping things in perspective.

As it stands:  nothing.  Not even news articles debunking the Politico piece.  Complete silence.

While I have found ZERO news stories, I did find a very tiny amount of opinion pieces. For example, there is this opinion piece on the “Democracy Dies in Darkness” Washington Post.   That’s right, my friends.  Democracy dies in darkness… while the WAPO blacks out a story that is devastating, if true.   Well, given the complete and utter blackout, I think its safe to say the story almost certainly IS TRUE.

As far as I can tell, the ‘opinion’ piece was only on the WAPO’s website, and didn’t even make it into print.   And here is another laugh:  the ‘opinion’ piece was written by Eric Wemple, described on the article as a ‘media critic.’  His niche?  “the ups and downs of the cable news industry”  lol.  A pretty high profile opinion piece, right? lol

In some respect, the Wemple piece is not that bad, really.  It comes only a day after the original Politico piece was published, and given that, contains decent information.  But most of that information are quotes from the ‘other side,’ giving me the impression the purpose of the piece was only to throw cold water on Politico. You can read it yourself (that’s why I linked to it) but I think this sentence really sums up all you really need to know:

“The pushback [on the Politico piece] doesn’t cite any factual errors involving the story’s claims about shut-down investigations and the like.”

In other words, the story’s claims about “shut-down investigations and the like” are true.  The Wemple piece is the only article I could find on the WAPO site to date.  Democracy dies in darkness, indeed.

The pickings are just as slim on the other MSM outlets.  In one case, a spokesperson for an Iranian lobbyist firm was given a chance on the Huffington Post to write a rebuttal.  Naturally, nobody expects an Iranian lobbyist to be biased, so of course that spokesperson’s editorial is the definitive–and final word on the matter in the HuffPo.

Over the course of the last year, I have dropped in on numerous news websites trusted by liberals (which, literally, are the only websites they frequent; very well-rounded people, they are!) and the silence has been deafening.  Evidently, there aren’t any “factual errors involving the story’s claims.”  Which means… yes, that’s right… that means it is probably true that tens of thousands of Americans died, thanks to Obama or some folks in his administration (*wink-wink* *nudge-nudge*).  Democracy dies in darkness?

If true, why would so many mainstream (read: liberal) news sites be utterly silent about the matter?

The question answers itself.

The Obama connection is not very well known outside a small slice of the population that aims to be ACTUALLY informed, but the death of tens of thousands of Americans is fairly well known and reported on.

Ironically, the New York Times, which appears to have ZERO articles discussing Hezbollah’s drug trafficking in America (not even an ‘opinion’ piece, or a submission by an Iranian lobbyist) had a very nice story talking about the ‘opioid crisis’ in America, as well as how it is disproportionately hurting the black population.

Coming just TWO days after the Politico piece, a major article was written with this headline:  “The Opioid Crisis Is Getting Worse, Particularly for Black Americans.”  Very interesting stuff in this article.  No mention, of course, that the Obama administration may have been involved in exacerbating the crisis.  (I’m willing to grant that a 2 day notice isn’t quite enough lead time to incorporate into this story, but in the 365 days since, there was ample time to get to the bottom of it).

Check out this chart from the NYT article.

As you can see from this, the white and American Indian population have been rising for quite a long time.  Those two affected populations include rural communities, who have felt this problem acutely, and frankly have been wondering what the hell is going on with the Feds that they’ve been overlooked doing simple measures, like, say, creating a secure border wall.  (That question kind of answers itself, too.)  But it is the black population where the spike is most visible and unquestionably a ‘thing.’  From the chart, you can see that the spike begins right at the tail end of 2014 heading into 2015.  The same spike is visible in this chart, which is where I got my 60,000 dead (in one year) figure.

What an interesting development!  Why, is there anything that might have been going on in the world in 2015 that might explain this sudden jerk?  Why, it couldn’t have anything to do with the July, 2015 final agreement between the US and Iran, could it?  COULD IT?

What could possibly make us think that?  Not a damning expose by the left-leaning Politico providing positive evidence implicating the Obama justice department?  Of course not.  Because if that was true, then our very balanced, non-partisan, non-tribal, MSM would have told us and gotten to the bottom of it promptly.  Right?  Right?

Of course, there are some ambiguities here.  Since the MSM didn’t particularly care to delve into the issue, I can’t sit here and say with 100% confidence that these drug deaths are directly link to Obama’s malfeasance.  That is actually one of my points.  If it had been Trump’s ‘North Korea Treaty’ you can be absolutely sure that we would know EVERYTHING ABOUT IT.

But, nonetheless, the correlation, with the Politico corroboration, followed by complete radio silence by the rest of the media, suggests that it is likely true that there is a direct link.

Which again, begs the question:  if the MSM, which is widely respected as ‘balanced’ and impartial, and the only sources that liberals consider to be reliable, why hasn’t this connection been fully plumbed?  Right, right.  I know.  The question answers itself.  But let’s ponder the implications a little more.

We are told, for example, that our liberal progressive friends are the only ones who care about people.  We are told that without the liberal progressive advocates, blacks and other minorities would never succeed (because liberal progressives don’t think black people are competent enough to make it on their own power?  Hmmmmm).  Well, if that were really the case, then the fact that the ‘opioid crisis’ is ramping up, with a disproportionate impact on the black community, then you would think they’d be falling all over themselves to get to the bottom of things.

Drug deaths among blacks in urban counties rose by 41 percent in 2016, far outpacing any other racial or ethnic group. In those same counties, the drug death rate among whites rose by 19 percent.

There have been reasons, for a very long time, to seriously doubt whether or not lib-progs really care about minorities, but their complete silence on this matter almost completely removes their credibility altogether.  I say ‘almost’ because, thanks to the media blackout, many of the lib-progs don’t even know about it.  Sure, they know about the drug epidemic and they probably know about the disproportionate impact the spike had on the black community, but they probably don’t know that the Obama administration may have (read: probably) helped facilitate that trend.  So, there is a slim chance that your average lib-prog might actually be genuine when he marks himself off as The Great White Knight riding his valiant horse named Empathy.

This possibility is why 3/4 of my posts over the last few years have been challenging people to A., step out of the ‘outrage’ mentality and B., broaden your ability to get and reasonably interpret the things you know (or think you know).  This is no laughing matter with our heroic lib-prog, because at the same moment that he takes credit for every compassionate thing any human has ever done, ever, he conversely believes that those who don’t share the lib-prog vision of things is a RACIST, SEXIST, BIGOT.  And what do you do with RACIST, SEXIST, BIGOTS?  Anything you want, that’s what. People like that deserve the back of your hand, you see.

So, the WAPO is not wrong when it says ‘Democracy dies in darkness.’  It just hasn’t occurred to them that they are the ones who have turned the lights off and then turned up the heat on ‘dissenters.’  In the contemporary rage against racists (found under every rock!), the stage is being set for a violent rupture… because calling people racists who are not racists and then treating people who are not racists, as racists, cannot end well.

And yet, here we are, with a situation where these very same people are completely indifferent to the fate of black people.  Or, as I prefer to think of them, Americans.  From 2014 to 2016, approximately 20,000 Americans died above and beyond the trend.  And libs don’t care.  Is it because they are, in fact, racists?  That is one option.  However, I think there are, in fact, very few racists left in America (on the left and on the right).  I think the better explanation is that they view Obama as a stand in for their own Perfect Righteousness.  Since they can’t conceive of themselves supporting anything that would harm minorities (at least they never intended to), and they view Obama as the embodiment of themselves, they can’t imagine that Obama and his minion could possibly shed tens of thousands of lives, disproportionately black lives, JUST TO ENHANCE HIS F-ING LEGACY.

No doubt, this essay will be read as me taking aim at Obama because of my own ‘tribal affiliations.’  This is a tried and true tactic,  but in this instance, it would be a sign of bad faith.  I’m sorry, but if you think its appropriate to look the other way as tens of thousands of Americans fall to a drug epidemic which was largely avoidable, I have no time for you.  Sorry, but when you are more outraged that Trump fed goldfish in an offensive way than you are that dead Americans are being stacked up like cord wood, I have no time for you.

And, just to be clear, no matter what you think Trump might have done, none of it rises to the level of thousands of Americans killed for the sake of his vanity.   Sorry, I know how much that pains you.  You would prefer that he will have killed people willy nilly, but you have  satisfied your bloodlust well enough with payoffs to porn stars and coarse language.  We pretty well know that Trump has done nothing of the sort, because–try to be honest, for once–if he had, the MSM would have reported on it endlessly.  We would know the names of every single American that died because of Trump’s policy, and we would know precisely in what way Trump’s policy killed the Americans.  Don’t lie to me or yourself.  You know its true.

This is not a defense of Trump, or a defense of the GOP.  Indeed, I don’t even like the Republicans very much.  And, on this score, I’m disappointed by the GOP, because they had the chance to get to the bottom of it and were themselves silent.  And if Trump and the Republicans are ever linked to the deaths of Americans the way that Obama is, I will have no problem condemning them.  You’ll have to forgive me if I think the deaths of thousands of Americans is more important than Trump;s behavior which, while often disgusting, doesn’t come even close in scale and proportion.

I’ll say it again.  If you are more disgusted by Trump’s tweets then you are 60,000 Americans dead in the street, you have zero credibility with me.  Period.  Not because I like Trump, but because your heart is an empty pit of hate.

Unfortunately, the problem is even worse than that.  I can imagine that some readers will still be of the mind that says, “Ok, ok.  But this is just a ‘one off.’  Why not just admit that you have it out for Obama?”

Well, that’s the kind of thing that you say when you are happily spoon fed by the MSM and know next to nothing.  Any attempt to keep apprised of affairs in the world with some kind of independence would have informed you a LONG time ago that Obama actually has a pattern of pursuing policies at the expense of human lives.  Literally.  You would know this, and if you had integrity and you truly did care about people, you would feel the same way about Obama as I do.  (And you probably would do as I did, and jettison ‘liberalism’ altogether, but I digress).

I can produce a number of examples, some of which did make a ripple in the MSM, but more often than not faded away.  The only people who remember them are the ones who DO have integrity and DO care about people.

For example, there was “Fast and Furious,” where the Obama administration pushed gun dealerships on the border to let guns ‘walk’ into Mexico, ostensibly to follow the guns, and then unravel the cartels.  Except, it appears that actually, the Obama administration wanted gun violence to increase in Mexico so that they could use that violence as a pretext for enacting gun control legislation in the US, presumably targeting the gun dealerships, who were unwittingly undermining their own business while they thought they were patriotically helping Federal authorities.  Eric Holder would eventually be held in contempt for his refusal to release documents which would definitively prove–or disprove–this impression.  Well, shucks.   It isn’t like he had anything to hide, so why comply with the requests?  And of course, despite Holder’s high rank, even if he was part of this ‘plan,’ Obama didn’t know… wink-wink, nudge-nudge.

One example out of many, which you are free to investigate for yourself.  As for me, after 3-4 such things, I start to conclude that we’re dealing with a bad man and bad people. (And yes, there are that many, and more).  I’m so sorry that you cannot produce the same kind of events in relation to Trump.  But that is not my problem.  It is an objective fact that the Obama administration had a pattern of trading lives for policy.  It is not my fault you don’t know that, and I’m not going to apologize for being disgusted by such behavior.

Perhaps the real issue here is that 60,000 dead Americans actually sounds good to you.  America has it coming!  Were some of the victims black?  Collateral damage.  What about the Mexicans who died due to the Fast and Furious guns?  Well, that’s bad, but there are only several thousand of them.   That’s not enough to warrant your concern or make you rethink your ideological priorities, or, dare I say, criticize your ‘tribe.’

Ok, what about the Syrians, then.  We love the Syrians.  Those poor refugees!  Do we have any sense of how many people died or were displaced due to the Syrian civil war?  About a half a million died.  That’s 500,000 people dead, Jim.


6 million refugees.  That’s 6,000,0000.

If you don’t care about Americans, and you don’t care about Mexicans, maybe you care about Syrians?

Like it is fairly well known that American is in the midst of an opioid crisis, without any sense that it may have been recently exacerbated significantly–by Obama and his people–the Syrian situation is widely recognized as a very serious one, without any clue that Obama exacerbated that, too.

It isn’t conspiracy theory, fool.  Its actually better documented then the Hezbollah cocaine thing.  Evidently, the MSM believes they can casually discuss the Obama administration’s role in ARMING THE FRIGGIN Islamicists in Syria without anyone getting bent out of shape about THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION ARMING ISLAMIC RADICALS.  You know, folks like ISIS.  And, evidently, the MSM is correct.  While Obama fanned the flames in Syria, I have heard little to no outrage from the left about his role in it.  Of course, just like in America I am accused of being racist for everything, the left has had no compunction against saying that people like myself are ‘heartless’ for not doing whatever liberals might propose on the matter.

Hey, here is an idea:  how about NOT ARMING ISLAMIC RADICALS.  I know.  I’m heartless.

I doubt very much that anyone who has been taking their cues from the MSM like they take saline through an IV has any idea what I’m talking about here.  I should like to take some time to lay it out, as the instigation and facilitation of a civil war resulting in harm to ten million people is as worthy of outrage as it is our ’empathy,’ if anything is.  However, this little essay commemorating the anniversary of the Politico piece is on its way to  being nearly 5,000 words long, and I need to get about my day.

Besides, since a big part of the problem is people skimming headlines for their daily outrage, it might actually be good if I let the reader do some research of their own.  Since you no doubt have no idea where to begin–my blog post perhaps being the first time you’ve ever even heard of this–let me suggest this link… Zero Hedge and this link … from TheAmericanConservative (linked from the NH article).

Both provide numerous avenues of corroboration for the honest researcher, including links to outlets which the reader is already inclined to believe unquestionably (eg, CNN, NY Times, etc).  These two sources certainly aren’t the only ones I could have provided.

I hope (in vain, probably) that after the reader digs into all this he or she will be as repulsed as I am about what is out there.  Yet, I will remind the reader that there is a far graver problem even than all of this.  It is this, which I detailed in my first post on this issue, “Thou Shalt Not be Manipulated.”  While I would have known about the arming of Islamicists re: Syria because the news landscape is littered with discussions of it (just never elevated to something we should connect to Obama, as if he could possibly bear any blame), I would not have known about the Hezbollah-cocaine thing.  I needed the Politico for that.  And yet, there must be tons more to that story that we’ll never know, since investigations haven’t followed.  But here is the point:  imagine what else is out there that hasn’t yet been made public at all.

If the MSM has been willing to happily look the other way on conduct that very likely led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, that we know of, what else is out there?  What else could they do to us before we were able to figure it out and stop them?

This is an existential problem.  We don’t know what we don’t know, and we don’t know that what we don’t know might actually be dead people.

But there is also a moral conclusion to be drawn:

From “Fast and Furious” to encouraging children to trek from Central America to the border alone (raped, kidnapped, sold into slavery en route, etc) to stalling the prosecution of drug smugglers to arming Islamicists, and more, all to protect his reputation or further his agendas, Obama (or his minions… wink-wink, nudge-nudge) has overseen horrific atrocities which are, in my esimation, unforgiveable.  The silence of the MSM on these matters is despicable and unpardonable.  I don’t know if the MSM is “the enemy of the people” but it certainly is “the enemy of the truth.”  While I’m sure there are exceptions here and there (there are even exceptions within the former Obama administration), I don’t for a minute believe they truly care about people.  They seem to be perfectly content to stand by and let people die, barely mentioning it if they mention it at all.

If it is true that ‘democracy dies in darkness,’ and I think a compelling case can be made that it does, then how many lives are being lost or have been lost, because ideologues have decided to suppress the facts of the matter.  And, if these same ideologues blow minor things completely out of proportion, inflating stupid things while ignoring the literal deaths of people around the world, what does that mean for us?  What hope do we have?

Not much, if you ask me.  But, as a first step, educating and informing yourself, and stepping out of the outrage industry, is a good thing.  The problem is we need a couple billion people to go along with it.  But to get to a billion, we still start with one.  Ball is in your court, dear reader.

PS.  For what its worth, in late October, in a little reported move, Trump signed a law that once again clamped down on Hezbollah’s drug financing operations.  The NY Times does not appear to have reported on it at all, unless this counts, and I’m not sure it does. Nor does it seem the WAPO thought it important enough to mention. ( Some broader mention of Iran sanctions.  Nothing specific to the Hezbollah sanctions that jumped out). Nothing in the Guardian. CNN, to their credit, did.  Lots of stuff about how evil Trump is in this time frame, though. Gosh, why would anyone think the media is hopelessly biased?



Skip to comment form

    • End Bringer on December 20, 2018 at 3:35 pm

    While some of the other additional acts of the Obama administrations have indeed gone uninformed and been suppressed by their Orwellian media allies, I don’t think the blatant disregard for lives (whether American or foreign) in pursuit of their own self-image is actually a revelation. The heavily criticized Iran Deal itself was a monument to pure egotism at the expensive of endangering others, and that was front and center. Admittedly the Obama loyalist- er, sorry- oh, so objective and concerned with holding government feet to the fire MSM only elevated all the problems of it as merely “concerning,” even after it was revealed Obama proceeded to secretly give a terrorist supporting nation 150 billion dollars in secret, but it’s at least something.

    There are most definitely a lot of things we don’t know, and will likely never know about what goes on in government (unless someone not in the “establishment club” is in office, then we’ll know everything that can be spun as offensive) by virtue of being too big to ever fully monitor, but at this point if the things we DO know, aren’t enough for some people to question things, it’s likely too late for them anyway, because like Fast and Furious and the IRS political weaponization such things will either be buried or the link to important people will be too far removed (amazing how so many Democrat troubles are just a few deleted emails away from being dropped, huh?).

    It’s why I think the real root of the problem is becoming less a matter of being informed, and more a matter of people just not caring. As you note some people’s hearts are just an empty pit of hate, but they manage to wrap themselves in the image of ‘compassion, love, and righteousness’ regardless, thanks to redefining such concepts into more self-serving terms, and the successful removal and suppression of God’s Word in the public forum.

    As such there are becoming more and more people simply willing to accept anything their ‘ideological tribe’ does, by virtue of it being from their ‘ideological tribe.’ I mean if they claim to be the sole party in support of women while backing a blatant sexual predator and his complicit spouse in office, can that really be said to be less blatantly a wake-up call than the willingness to throw away lives they claim to be compassionate for and support when the complicity is less direct?

    So yeah, being fully informed may indeed be a problem for society. But can we honestly say it would change anything, when what IS known doesn’t already illicit an appropriate response from a certain chunk of the people?

    • Dannyboy on December 20, 2018 at 4:34 pm


    You ask a lot of questions here (many of them flamboyant and rhetorical). I have a couple for you in return:

    1. Is there any non-post hoc reason that the “left-leaning” Politico is (on this occasion) exempted from inclusion in the automatic-dismissal “MSM” category? How is this single non-disproven report objectively any different from the infamous Steele Dossier, except for the fact that this one allows you to “learn” discreditable things about a president who you already despised?

    2. Is a lack of disproof really sufficient for you to confidently assert that Obama “literally sacrificed tens of thousands of American lives”, or that he personally “ordered his subordinates at the Justice department to look the other way on certain criminal investigations” which directly resulted in “some 60,000 people [having] died”? Your confidence on the basis of a single report is in striking contrast to your dismissive approach to any negative Trump media stories, no matter how well-attested and sourced they may be.

    3. Is it wise to write off a large proportion of the population as “brain-washed, conditioned masses” who are unable to rise beyond Pavlovian outrage reactions (especially as a man seemingly prone to selective outrage himself)? Seems kinda elitist, and indicative of the sort of contempt for one’s fellow man that I would expect you to strongly criticise (if it originated from a Democrat, of course).

    4. Is it really logical to say, as you do, that on the basis of a LACK of verification the story is “almost certainly TRUE”? How does that makes sense?
    5. Your aside about liberals being relatively narrow and partisan in their media consumption is factually incorrect, according to the Pew Research Centre. US Conservatives are more ideologically echo-chambered, with about half of them relying entirely on Fox News. This is more an observation than a question, to be fair.

    6. Are you aware that correlation does not equal causation? I think this is especially important to stress when you are using a correlation to lay the responsibility for 60,000 deaths at the door of one man. You need to do better than this.

    7. You draw a supposedly-stark contrast between what you allege about Obama and your Trump/NK counterfactual, saying, “If it had been Trump’s ‘North Korea Treaty’ you can be absolutely sure that we would know EVERYTHING ABOUT IT”. Well, except that YOU would ignore or disbelieve all of that information because it came from the MSM. Right??

    8. From a public health perspective, the US rise in opioid drug deaths (almost exclusively among the poor, obviously) is a complex & multifactorial phenomenon. Can you square your normal libertarianism when it comes to allowing people unfettered access to things that might kill them with your position in this case please?

    9. There appears to be a lot of grievance and bitterness expressed within this essay. Are you ok?

    10. You assert that Obama allegedly acted in this way “JUST TO ENHANCE HIS F-ING LEGACY” (or, “for the sake of his vanity”). While I disagree with much of Obama’s foreign policy, i am unclear as to where you obtain your certainty that his actions were so self-interested. This sort of thing would tend to enhance the impression you claim to want to dispel – that you are taking aim at Obama because of your own partisan affiliations. Perhaps you could say something to reassure anyone who might be worried about this?

    11. You say that, “If you are more disgusted by Trump’s tweets then you are 60,000 Americans dead in the street, you have zero credibility with me.  Period.  Not because I like Trump, but because your heart is an empty pit of hate”. This just looks like rank partisanship to be honest buddy. Can I not legitimately be disgusted by Trump’s public utterances and yet still reasonably suspend judgement about a single report of malfeasance in the Obama administration? I’d rather you avoided using the way-too-easy ad hoMSM in your response to this (after all, I am consciously avoiding the temptation of Alex-Jonesing you).

    12. And on the subject of the Obama administration “ARMING ISLAMIC RADICALS”. Come on man, get a grip. This is a part of the world where almost everyone is Muslim. I don’t recall you having any problem with Bush arming the Northern Alliance, also known as the “United Islamic Front for the Salvation of Afghanistan”. And Trump has just unilaterally abandoned the Kurds to their fate – our MOST secular regional ally – caught between ISIS, Assad and Turkey. What a betrayal, but you won’t hear anything about it on FOX NEWS!!!!! #MAGA

    No further questions.

    • Anthony on December 20, 2018 at 8:58 pm

    “So yeah, being fully informed may indeed be a problem for society. But can we honestly say it would change anything, when what IS known doesn’t already illicit an appropriate response from a certain chunk of the people?”

    No, that’s a fair point, EB. In ultimate, ultimate terms, what would be needed is a radically scaling back of the size of government. Government is so big, even those who want to keep informed and thus hold people to account can’t possibly be informed enough to achieve that goal. The scope of the problem is one of the reasons there is apathy. Yet, what I’m getting at and have been going after hard for the last couple of years is how this apathy is being used to manipulate the masses… who appear to be happy to be manipulated. As part of that, I figure there isn’t really anything that little ol’ me can do for the masses, either. BUT, there might be one or two people out there who wise up in time to make a difference (in their own lives).

    • Anthony on December 20, 2018 at 9:45 pm

    “1. Is there any non-post hoc reason that the “left-leaning” Politico is”

    Criterion of embarrassment. See previous posts in which this is discussed, for example, http://sntjohnny.com/front/tips-knowing-know-true-real-fake-news-edition/3166.html

    “2. “Your confidence on the basis of a single report”

    Well, gee, Dan. If only the rest of the MSM had seen fit to contribute a little more reports, I’d have more to go on, wouldn’t I? That’s a bit of the point. However, you seem to have skipped over the fact that the ‘media critic’ at the WAPO was not able to obtain a refutation of the accusations. Indeed, quite the opposite. Here is the quote again:

    “The pushback [on the Politico piece] doesn’t cite any factual errors involving the story’s claims about shut-down investigations and the like.”

    “6. Are you aware that correlation does not equal causation?”

    Yes, of course. I do believe I indicated that there were some ambiguities. Any particular reason you saw fit to ignore an entire paragraph dedicated to that specific point? I say, “I can’t sit here and say with 100% confidence…” and you act as though I said nothing. It’s almost like you refuse to take me at my word or something.

    7. “Well, except that YOU would ignore or disbelieve all of that information because it came from the MSM. Right??”

    Same answer as #1. Stop playing ‘gotcha.’

    10. “I am unclear as to where you obtain your certainty”

    This is in the Politico report, confirmed, apparently, by the ‘media critic.’ I am only recapitulating what was reported and apparently corroborated, albeit by just one other reporter. That’s central to my point, which you have apparently failed to grasp.

    11. “Can I not legitimately be disgusted by Trump’s public utterances and yet still reasonably suspend judgement about a single report of malfeasance in the Obama administration?”

    I’m not asking you to accept judgment ‘based on a single report.’ Before we experienced the blackout, the intrepid ‘media critic’ at the WAPO took a stab at vetting the Politico piece. Regardless of all the other hemming and hawing in his article, nobody he interviewed attempted to contradict “the story’s claims about shut-down investigations and the like.” Even with this, I’m not asking you to come to the same conclusion as me. I’m only asking that you CARE.

    ‘Reasonably suspending judgment’ implies that you actually care. Do you? The impression you are giving me is that it doesn’t matter to you at all, even if it is true. If that is indeed the case, then my answer to your question is “No.”

    If you do care, then by all means ‘reasonably suspend judgment.’ But by the same token, actually caring means being curious about the implications of the Politico piece. I know how hard it would be for you to criticize your tribe, so expecting you to also be curious about a near complete media blackout on the story for an ENTIRE YEAR is probably too much to ask, so I’ll be satisfied if you can at least indicate that it matters to you whether or not the Politico claims are true or not.

    Bottom line: unless you tell me that you think the topic warrants further scrutiny, sorry, but I can only view your criticisms of Trump as rank partisanship. Nothing he has been accused of doing comes close to the implications of the Politico piece, if true. That you would care so much about Trump and yet so little about the charges levied in the Politico piece would be a serious problem.

    Now, I’m glad that you brought up your public health expertise. Allow me to tap into your professional expertise with this scenario:

    Let’s say you are a public health official in a town and you notice that the number of drug overdoses has leapt from 40,000 to 60,000 in a single year. For the sake of the scenario, I will take it for granted that this would catch your highly trained eye and make you wonder what had happened to cause such a spike. About a year later, a story in a newspaper that is normally sympathetic to the mayor claims that the mayor has instructed its police department to lay off prosecutions of a gang that is known for pushing drugs in the community. None of the other major news outlets report on it. The most you get is one reporter who looked into it long enough to conclude that the original story did not have any “factual errors involving the story’s claims about shut-down investigations and the like.”

    While you wait for confirmation, disconfirmation, etc, you happen to notice that the spike in overdoses roughly corresponds with when the mayor told the police department to “shut down” its investigations of the gang.

    As a professional public health official–an expert, mind you–you know that of course, this could be a giant coincidence. I ask you: would you nonetheless think it mighty strange? Would you think the timing is unnerving, and worthy of further investigation? Or, as an expert, would you figure it wasn’t worth thinking about again? Do tell.

    • Dannyboy on December 21, 2018 at 3:45 pm


    The ‘criterion of embarrassment’ is not a bad rule of thumb for assessing credibility, but your application of it is highly selective. Consistent usage would necessitate you also giving extra credence to the views of the occasional Fox News personality who criticises the President. Instead you scornfully dismiss them as “Never Trumpers”. In practice, this criterion functions as a facet of your confirmation bias, allowing you to cherry-pick MSM stories that you want to treat as credible because they bolster your preconceived opinions. Not impressed.

    “Well, gee, Dan. If only the rest of the MSM had seen fit to contribute a little more reports, I’d have more to go on, wouldn’t I?”

    Uh, no,Tony. Because you automatically dismiss any and all “MSM” journalism – unless, it now appears, they confirm what you already think! Do you see how this might not be the absolute best falsification criteria?

    On your response to point 6 – if you aren’t consistent then don’t expect to be treated as if you are. I quoted above some of your unambiguous truth claims about the Obama administration’s actions and motivations. For you to then appeal to a statement in a later paragraph that vacillates “I can’t sit here and say with 100% confidence…” is highly disingenuous. Tell that to yourself in the rest of the essay – don’t tell it to me.

    “I’m only asking that you CARE.”

    *sigh* Bleeding heart liberals! 😉

    “I know how hard it would be for you to criticize your tribe,….”

    Lol. Ironic

    I appreciate that you appealed to my public health expertise. Let me start by giving you the benefit of my “reading” expertise. The Politico article only talks about Hezbollah’s COCAINE trafficking activities in the US. The CDC data on the number of drug deaths in the US which you reference – and which you explicitly blame upon the Obama administration’s hands-off approach to this illicit activity – makes it clear that the vast majority of those drug deaths have been due to OPIOID drugs (heroin, morphine, tramadol, etc). Cocaine is not an opioid.

    Cocaine is not an opioid.

    I don’t know what else to say to you about this. Your premises do not relate to your conclusion. Please review your emotional investment in blaming Obama for stuff.

    Maybe in therapy. Peace out

    • Dannyboy on December 21, 2018 at 4:14 pm

    Let me ameliorate this epic fact-based fish-slap with some ‘criterion of embarrassment’ content.

    I personally liked Obama, but thought his foreign policy was deeply flawed. He appeared to see a long-term benefit in making friends with Iran. That’s not totally unreasonable, since they have one of the most progressive and Western-friendly populations in the Middle East. However, they’re ruled by a pack of theocratic goons (even worse than Mike Pence) who are not at all to be trusted. They are currently causing wilful regional chaos through their interventions in Syria & Iraq (where, you will recall, I have worked). It really would have been nice to get them on side, and thereby deplete Saudi power, but it was a pipe dream. I think the attenpt was sincere, but misguided.

    Feel free to present evidence proving me wrong. But make sure that the logical chain is coherent this time

    • Anthony on December 21, 2018 at 4:17 pm

    “Consistent usage would necessitate you also giving extra credence”

    More gotcha.

    “Because you automatically dismiss any and all “MSM” journalism”

    Case in point of you not taking me at my word. If you aren’t going to take me at my word–that is, factor into your discussions the things I actually say as though I actually mean them (hence, why I say them)–why bother saying anything to you at all?

    That’s one of my marks of someone who is not talking with me in good faith.


    “The Politico article only talks about Hezbollah’s COCAINE trafficking activities in the US. [snip] Cocaine is not an opioid.”

    Nice try. It is true that cocaine is singled out. It is also true that in my original discussion of this topic I made sure to include the fact that it was cocaine specifically singled out in the article. http://sntjohnny.com/front/thou-shalt-not-easily-manipulated/3249.html

    However, if you had wanted to actually investigate the matter instead of finding some pretext by which you could rationalize casually dismissing it, you would have learned that the data does not make a hard and fast distinction on the overdoses because the hundreds, if not thousands, of jurisdictions in the US do not categorize things in the same way. Moreover, real life circumstances can make it hard to categorize. For example, if someone dies over-dosing on cocaine which was laced with fentanyl, in which category does this death belong to? More critically, the exact compound that caused the overdose is not even recorded–it could have been an opioid, cocaine, prescription, etc–because it is not clear which was to blame.

    Your curt dismissal of the significance and timing of this spike in drug deaths in America is noted and will not be forgotten.

    • Anthony on December 21, 2018 at 4:47 pm

    To the lurker:

    It should go without saying, from my paragraph immediately above, that it is nonetheless the case that COCAINE deaths are up, as well. The NYT piece which I cited in the article has ‘opioid’ in the title, but if you read the entire article (God forbid!), you will discover that the article is not limited to opioids at all. Limiting the analysis to ‘opioid deaths’ is a red herring. Neither I, nor my sources (on the ‘spike’), did this. Setting aside the ambiguities of measurement which I just mentioned, if you look into this (and I hope you do), you will discover that cocaine still has a starring role in the ‘spike.’

    And, for the lurker, I should mention that I’m not sure the Politico piece was right to single out cocaine, as to my knowledge, Hezbollah is not limited to cocaine trafficking. If its bad, chances are good that Hezbollah makes money from it.


    I would hope that if there were ever an investigation into this matter, the scope would be expanded beyond cocaine. But nonetheless, cocaine deaths are included in the spike.

    • Dannyboy on December 22, 2018 at 9:04 am


    It’s not a “gotcha” to expect consistency in the application of a stated principle. In practice, as I am well aware from our many discussions, your selective use of this standard allows you to discount any journalism that does not tell a story you want to hear. How many times have Tim or I asked you to comment on the latest well-sourced WaPo or NYT revelation about the Russia investigation or Trump’s obstruction of justice only for you to respond that you pay no attention to an “outrage industry” composed of “liberal wet dreams”? Your usual closer is to suspend judgement until Mueller issues his final report (seeming entirely sanguine about the possibility of it being entirely suppressed by a compliant AG).

    Don’t get me wrong, you are entitled to decide for yourself what stories you consider credible. Just as I am entitled to draw conclusions from observing which stories you write really long blogs about and which ones you don’t.

    A few things about the cocaine/opioid issue.

    Firstly, another point of consistency. It’s rather poor form to demand that I “take you at your word” while simultaneously suggesting that I am not actually interested in investigating and only seek a pretext to casually dismiss your arguments. Please take me at MY word when I tell you that I took you seriously, and read the Politico article and checked the CDC data you referenced in an honest effort to follow your argument. That was how I noticed the … well, what shall I call it? “Error” would be a generous interpretation, but you have explicitly stated that you were already aware of the issue I raised, which does make it tricky for me to do the friendly thing and give you a break on this point. “Partisan misrepresentation” is the next kindest thing I can think of to describe it as.

    You have, on the basis of the Politico report, taken the total number of people in the US who died of drug overdoses in 2016 (60,000) and held Obama to account for their deaths. However, as I have pointed out, the Politico article is about cocaine smuggling, while over two thirds of US drug overdose deaths involve opiates.

    I would argue that the claims asserted by the Politico writer – wilfully increasing drug-related crime and disorder in the US for political ends, even if those ends were geared (in the kindest interpretation) towards making the world as a whole safer – are quite sufficient to warrant concern, further investigation and even perhaps a blog or two. However, you radically (and, it seems, knowingly) oversold your case.

    It’s all very well to NOW start talking sense about the difficulty of accurately categorising the causal substance in drug overdose deaths. Where was any of that nuance in either of your polemics on the subject? You both expressed and stoked outrage (ironic, given your disdain for the “outrage industry”) based on that figure of 60,000 deaths, and laid the entire moral responsibility for them at Obama’s door.

    That would require (and please consult your caveats about the way drug deaths are categorised here) either ALL drug deaths to be caused by cocaine, which is absurd, or for Hezbollah to also be supplying all other drugs to the US (which you have offered no evidence for at all, beyond blithely asserting that “chances are good”). A casual and unreflective reader would come away with the wacky notion that if it weren’t for Obama’s machiavellian meddling there would have been ZERO drug-related deaths in America during 2016. For hucksterish rabble-rousing of this character to initially appear in a blog titled “Thou shalt not be easily manipulated” is almost funny.

    “Your curt dismissal of the significance and timing of this spike in drug deaths in America is noted and will not be forgotten.”

    Well that’s just silly. I can simultaneously be concerned about the rising toll of illegal drug use in America and yet also disinclined to let you misrepresent and cherry-pick the evidence about it (as a weapon in your perpetual quest to knock Obama off his much-resented pedestal) unchallenged. That statement is on an intellectual par with SJW debating tactics that you regularly deplore.

    • Dannyboy on December 22, 2018 at 9:10 am

    Also, I just noticed further fudging of the facts in the title of this blog! Now it isn’t just 60,000 dead Americans you are holding Obama responsible for (already an absurd claim), it’s 60,000 BLACK Americans! Where did THAT come from? ?

    • Anthony on December 22, 2018 at 9:57 am

    “Now it isn’t just 60,000 dead Americans you are holding Obama responsible for (already an absurd claim), it’s 60,000 BLACK Americans! Where did THAT come from?”

    Not a fudge so much as a quick attempt at a summary which I did not revise after I organized my thoughts more.

    • Anthony on December 22, 2018 at 10:35 am

    “It’s not a “gotcha” to expect consistency in the application of a stated principle.”

    It is a ‘gotcha’ when I have already stated very clearly an opposite or much more sophisticated position, which you have decided to summarily dismiss.

    Listen, Dan. After 20 years, you should know that you are not going to be able to manipulate me, berate me, or employ some lame ass Machiavellian tactic to get me to come around to a position. At this point, its just insulting. Stop it.

    That position is detailed in numerous posts, none of which you saw fit to respond to–probably because you only feel like commenting when your boy Obama comes under fire.

    Here are several other posts discussing my approach, none of which you felt worthy of responding to, not even to describe as ‘bat shit crazy.’

    In this very post, I say: “I would not have known about the Hezbollah-cocaine thing. I needed the Politico for that. ”


    In that one, I say:

    One big way to avoid being being a tool is to read widely, of various sources of different political persuasions. Read books, too. Every day, I read multiple LIBERAL websites. My daily pattern is this: I start with the Drudge Report, and then from there see what’s going on with the WAPO and the NY Times, and then will mosey on to Huffpo and Salon. I never read conservative media unless its linked from the Drudge or it pops up on my Facebook feed.

    That quote alone dispatches with all this nonsense. See also:



    This one completely belies your assertion:

    How very interesting that you did not see fit to comment on any of these when they were first posted.

    “the CDC data you referenced”

    I didn’t refer to CDC data, so I don’t know what you are talking about. I’m sitting on about 15-20 sources.

    “You have, on the basis of the Politico report, taken the total number of people in the US who died of drug overdoses in 2016 (60,000)”

    No, that’s wrong.

    The Politico report did not address the number of people who died from drug overdoses. The Politico report made the claim that the Obama administration shut down investigations related to Iranian-linked drug trafficking. It was a NYT piece which discussed the drug overdoses, and I only raised that to point out that IT WAS KNOWN that there was a spike.

    That should have been indicated by:

    The Obama connection is not very well known outside a small slice of the population that aims to be ACTUALLY informed, but the death of tens of thousands of Americans is fairly well known and reported on.

    Ironically, the New York Times, which appears to have ZERO articles discussing Hezbollah’s drug trafficking in America (not even an ‘opinion’ piece, or a submission by an Iranian lobbyist) had a very nice story talking about the ‘opioid crisis’ in America, as well as how it is disproportionately hurting the black population.

    Emphasis added.

    “are quite sufficient to warrant concern, further investigation and even perhaps a blog or two.”

    Finally, you say something reasonable. For a minute there, I was really starting to get worried about you.

    “However, you radically (and, it seems, knowingly) oversold your case.”

    No, I think you don’t understand the case, probably because your eyes went red when I brought up Obama. MY CASE is that if these two things had occurred with Trump in charge, we would not be speculating right now, WE WOULD KNOW. THAT is the problem.

    Let me help you out.

    A. I would give a 90% probability that the Obama administration did in fact shut down investigations as the Politico piece attests to. I have numerous lines of evidence for this, beyond even the WAPO opinion piece which begrudgingly corroborated it.

    B. I would give a 95% probability that there was an actual catalyst which caused the ‘spike’ observed in 2014. (I assume you’re not going to argue with me that the ‘spike’ isn’t real)

    C. I would give an 75% chance that the latter has something to do with the former. This 75% is an intuition and an inference, inspired largely because of the deafening silence of the MSM on the first statement. Which brings us to

    MY POINT: IF IT HAD BEEN TRUMP, or ANYONE BESIDES THE WONDER-GOD, OBAMA, WE WOULD KNOW WITH ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY if A had anything to do with B. That the whole matter has fallen into oblivion is, to me, a huge, huge problem. Agree or disagree, at least UNDERSTAND THE POINT.

    The paragraph immediately above beginning “MY POINT:” was said multiple times in the original post, in different ways. Indeed, the post itself practically LEAD OFF WITH IT. How could you miss it? Maybe if you would spend more time addressing my actual arguments instead of the ones you THINK I’m making.

    “Well that’s just silly. I can simultaneously be concerned about the rising toll of illegal drug use in America”

    And yet it took you several days to even acknowledge that there was a rising toll. Glad you finally arrived. I was really starting to worry.

    • Anthony on December 22, 2018 at 1:19 pm

    Lest my retort was too subtle, I have multiple places on this blog where I discuss my approach and methods re: MSM and fact gathering (a few examples linked, there are more) but you completely ignored those. You only showed up when I went after your boy. Instead of accusing me of a view flatly contradicted by this blog and even this post in a sad attempt to divert attention to the substance, how about deal with the substance? it is either true or false that the MSM did not pick up the Politico piece. My characterization of them on this matter can be tested by looking at THEM. Feel free to show that I am wrong. It is possible I missed their coverage. THAT would be a reasonable response to my complaints about them.

    • Anthony on December 22, 2018 at 1:30 pm

    Also, you seem to be completely unaware of the fact that Hezbollah also traffics in heroin, as well as many other bad things. You skipped over my mention of that. The Politico piece singled out cocaine, which is how I represented them. But the Politico piece was not the first time I ever heard about Hezbollah and it’s operations. The same organization that Obama looked away on deals in both. You are truly desperate if you think parsing the different drugs will diminish the implications.

    • Dannyboy on December 24, 2018 at 3:28 pm


    How can you berate me for not assuming “good faith” on your part, and in the next breath assert that I’m trying to manipulate you, that I’m not interested in honestly investigating the matter, and that I don’t truly care about people who die from drug overdoses? Practice what you preach brother, or else quit preaching.

    To boil down the wall of text somewhat, if your only point (as you imply) had been that IF the Politico story had been about Trump instead of Obama it would have been handled differently by the media, I would not have found much cause to disagree with you. The media is fairly politically polarised, which makes a big difference to how stories are reported on different channels. For example, various conservative outlets (and the GOP) fiercely criticised Obama for fiscal irresponsibility when the first couple went out one evening for dinner and a show in New York. No doubt the associated secret service expenses were significant. However, none of those same outlets or personalities seem to have any problem at all with Trump burning through Obama’s entire 8yr protection budget in about 18months with his golfing jaunts and other extravagances. It’s a small example, but representative.

    So yeah, I don’t take issue with your contention that such a story would have been received differently if it’s focus was your boy Trump. No doubt the more liberal outlets would have dug deep for further details, while Fox News breathlessly covered the War on Christmas and Sean Hannity monologued about how many violent crimes are committed against hard working middle-class Americans every day by drug addicts.

    And YOU would have suspended all judgement pending the final (possibly never-to-be-released) report of some investigative committee. Nothing in your reaction to Trump’s media coverage so far has given me any cause to think otherwise.

    However, that was clearly NOT your only point because in the course of making it you have maximised every variable, doubled-down on every point of uncertainty and even boosted your essay title into the realms of complete absurdity in order to make Obama’s “unforgivable sins” appear as large and as definite as they can possibly be imagined to be, and that frankly detracts from your credibility as an objective commentator on this topic. And I respectfully decline to be guilt-tripped for pointing this out.

    A more conservative (small “c”) approach would smell a lot less partisan in its motivations.

    ?“The Politico report did not address the number of people who died from drug overdoses….”

    I know. You cut your quotation of me off in mid-sentence, so the loss of meaning is not really my fault in this instance. ??

    “…probably because your eyes went red when I brought up Obama.”

    Heheh. I am 100% sure that you have seen me criticise Obama more than I have ever seen you criticise Trump, so if the knee-jerk fanboy keyboard warrior tiara is being awarded today I’d be very wary of automatically assuming that it would be given to me. ?

    I will happily admit to being just as anti-Trump as you seem to be anti-Obama. I like to think I manage to be a bit less bitter and aggrieved in my opposition tho.

    By the way, don’t make too much of me “only showing up” when you attack Obama. I don’t have the leisure to read everything you write, and so what I don’t comment on I either didn’t manage to read or else mostly agree with. I tend to jump in when I a) have the time and b) see you making what seems to me to be a mighty blunder of one sort or another.

    Case in point. You (barely implicitly) blamed Obama for the ENTIRE death toll from illegal drugs in a single year. The evidence you presented referenced only cocaine smuggling. I called into question your attribution of ultimate responsibility for 60,000 deaths – caused by multiple drugs provided by multiple different criminal organisations – to an Obama policy allegedly influencing a SINGLE criminal organisation smuggling (according to the references you provided) a drug implicated in only a minority of drug deaths (this is not even to mention that drug-related deaths in the US have been rising at a fairly steady rate since the late 1990s). And you respond with this nonsense:

    “You are truly desperate if you think parsing the different drugs will diminish the implications”

    You have inflated the implications of the facts you have presented beyond all sense or reason. And now you’re attacking me for pointing this out [note – this is not the same as saying that the facts you present have no negative implications for the previous president].

    Happy Christmas buddy x

    • End Bringer on January 1, 2019 at 7:53 am

    See what I mean, SJ? Here you’re dealing with someone who isn’t of a radical bent, yet it is utterly dismissive of any issue because it involves taking an honest critical look at their ideological camp, and the problem doesn’t personally affect them enough for them to be concerned over. And as demonstrated, even if they acknowledge a problem exists (an feet akin to pulling teeth in itself), they’ll invoke any excuse like ‘correlation doesn’t equal causation’ and ‘they’re hearts in the right place’ to carry on as before.

    So the issue isn’t just one of ignorance that the MSM complicity par takes in by avoiding too much negative coverage for one side while all but raising pitch forks and torches for the other, but that a great many people want to cling to ignorance simply as a means of remaining in their comfort zones.

    The only thing that can even make people even start to question things is when they are forcibly pushed out of those comfort zones, much like we see with France where the liberal environmental policies are pushed so far even docile Europeans will riot.

    All one can do is keep drawing attention to the true cause of things, and be ready so that when things invariably do become uncomfortable people won’t be suckered by the explanations of the progressive ideological camp for wont of a bigger soap box in the MSM.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

two × two =