Milo Yiannopoulos slimed as ‘white nationalist’ by The Hill as mainstream media learns to love the outright lie


The 2016 U.S. presidential election exposed the mainstream media as a corrupted behemoth. Ronald Reagan had a “trust, but verify” policy with Soviets during the Cold War, and now citizens must do the same with American reporters.

WikiLeaks exposed how political networks and top pundits coordinate to undermine opponents, and voters rejected attempts by a cultural elite to label independent thinkers as a bunch of knuckle-dragging racists. For some odd reason, however, The Hill’s Julian Hattem refuses to accept reality. He used the website’s megaphone on Tuesday to blatantly lie about Breitbart News’ Milo Yiannopoulos.

He wrote:

“The retired lieutenant general President-elect Donald Trump has selected to be his national security adviser recently praised Milo Yiannopoulos, a well-known figure in the white nationalist “alt-right” movement.

The weekend after Election Day, Michael Flynn called the Breitbart News technology news editor, who was banned from Twitter this year for inciting racist and sexist attacks, “a phenomenal individual.” …

He has compared the Back Lives Matter movement to the Ku Klux Klan and previously set up a scholarship dedicated to giving money ‘exclusively to white men.'”

Lie. Distort. Shamelessly omit necessary context (i.e., lie by omission). That is the modus operandi of men like Mr. Hattem.

Mr. Yiannopoulos is an openly gay man who does not hesitate to talk about how much he loves black men— in bed. He openly rejects identity politics, and mocks it with things like scholarships for poor white people.

Mr. Yiannopoulos’ “white” scholarship, which he has publicly talked about, was created to shine a spotlight on the silliness of race-based scholarships when poverty does not discriminate.

The point (and 60 million of Donald Trump voter know this), is that poor and predominantly white towns in Michigan or Tennessee or Alabama are sick and tired of being lectured to about their “privilege.”

Websites like The Hill would rather not acknowledge uncomfortable electoral feedback, so instead they have decided that tiny gatherings of racists and losers featuring Tila Tequila (who I genuinely feel sorry for because she has psychological problems), somehow represent tens-of-millions of Americans.


The Hill, like CNN and the Anti-Defamation League, would rather wallow in a worldview that allows them to turn Pepe the frog into a “designated hate symbol,” than to counter valid concerns by men like Mr. Yiannopoulos.


If you asked 10,000 Pepe-loving Reddit kids before the election about obscure nonprofits headed up by a guy named Richard Spencer, perhaps ten of them would have known what you were talking about. Regardless, media outlets like NPR now give an inordinate amount of fear-mongering free press to white nationalists.

Saying the “alt-right” is synonymous with white nationalism is like saying the Westboro Baptist Church and its clan of about 50 people somehow represent roughly 230 million Americans who identify as Christians.

These kinds of tactics, which are part of a larger strategy to demonize opponents, are cheap, despicable, and come from the very same people who will tell you not to generalize about Muslims after terror attacks on American soil.

If you want to fight back against corrupted media outlets, then you must make a concerted effort to look for the truth, call authors out on their lies, and spread the word that they cannot be trusted. Then, with each election cycle, punish the media’s lies with your vote as tens-of-millions of Americans did on Nov. 8.


Orwellian ‘Fake News’ claims on D.C. sex-trafficking story exposes true liars and deceivers


“PizzaGate” is now being picked up by major media outlets. There is no denying it now that The New York Times, The Washington Post, Bloomberg, and Fox News affiliates in the nation’s capital have filed reports. That is the good news. The bad news is that they are liars and deceivers of the highest magnitude.

For those who are new to the story surrounding Comet Ping Pong, WikiLeaks, Washington’s 49th “Most Powerful” man and the Podesta brothers, here is the quick run-down:

  • WikiLeaks revealed roughly 50,000 stolen emails belonging to Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman John Podesta. Some of those emails revealed that he had very bizarre friends and often seemed to really, really, really like “pizza.”
  • Individuals on Reddit, 4chan, YouTube, and other websites started looking into John and Tony Podesta’s connections (Tony is one of the biggest lobbyists in D.C. and has an art collection that features nude teenagers). One of those indiviuals was No. 49 on the GQ’s “Most Powerful” individuals, James Alefantis.
  • Mr. Alefantis (former boyfriend of Correct the Record’s David Brock) owns Comet Ping Pong in Washington, D.C. The establishment next to his business is another pizza place called Besta Pizza, which until the past few weeks had a pizza logo that was a dead-ringer for a symbol that law-enforcement agencies warn is favored by pedophiles. The guy who owns Besta Pizza worked under Bill Clinton in the Department of Justice investigating human trafficking, sex crimes, etc.
  • Mr. Alefantis’ Comet Pizza Instagram account and the accounts of his employees featured highly troubling images for a “kid-friendly” and “family friendly” establishment. (That is how the company bills itself. That is not my opinion.)
  • Comet Ping Pong features entertainers who are weirdly obsessed with sex. It has commissioned promotional work to a woman whose portfolio includes blatant imagery of sex abuse of children.
  • Those investigating this on the internet say this is clear evidence that warrants an investigation. They have been accused of creating “Fake News” by every major media outlet that has covered the story.

Read the following articles and then ask yourself why all of them either completely avoided linking to publicly available images, or weirdly tried to make it sound like this was all a partisan thing started by Donald Trump fans.


This is not about Donald Trump. This is about innocent children. This is about teenagers who are lured into an establishment with grown men who make it crystal clear what kind of “pizza” is on the menu.




Honest reporters do not shout “Fake! Fake! Fake! Fake! Fake!” That is not how it’s done.

James Alefantis and his employees do not get to post sexually explicit material all over the internet and then play the victim when people start talking about it, sharing the images, and wondering what the heck goes on at these late-night events featuring “Sex Stains.”


Americans who are revolted by YouTube videos of Comet Ping Pong performers making comments about pedophilia (i.e., “We all have … preferences.”) are not “fevered.” Their outrage is healthy because normal people don’t take little kids to that kind of “performance.”




What is going on between the media and those who are taking down publicly available material is insidious. This needs to be clearly explained so there is no mistaking what is happening.

  • There is a systematic effort to cast anyone who is upset about this as a weirdo or a “conspiracy theorist.”
  • By making it impossible or near-impossible to actually find the evidence, the media shrinks the pool of people who know the truth. When that happens, righteous anger sounds like the ranting and raving of lunatics.
  • When the rest of the population cannot see the evidence, they are inclined to believe the media because to do otherwise would require confronting evil.
  • The practical effect of all this is that anyone with integrity within the media is discouraged from doing the right thing because they do not want to lose their jobs, be seen as kooks, audited by the IRS, confronted by corrupt law enforcement officials, or wind up dead.


You are being manipulated, and the manipulation is not being done by your fellow Americans on Reddit. It is being done by powerful people in the nation’s capital and their friends in places like The New York Times, The Washington Post, Bloomberg News, and Fortune magazine.

The mainstream media is corrupt.

Do not take anything they tell you at face value.

“Fact Checkers” are partisan hacks and “Fake News” is a euphemism for “Opinions or Facts We In The Mainstream Media Do Not Like or Want to Cover.

If you do not realize and accept this, then you will continue to live in a world where “kid-friendly” pizza places can promote “Shut up N F*ck Men” without repercussions. That is not just unacceptable — it is evil.

Exit Question: Would you bring your child to a “Sex Stains” show? The reporters at The New York Times and The Washington Times apparently would, since this is all one big “Fake News” story.

Typical ‘progressive’ reactions to terror attacks on U.S. soil provide unintentional comedy

Here we are again, dealing with yet more instances of radical Islamic terror, and “progressives” in politics and in the media are, again, figuring out how to handle it all. ( I use quotations on the word “progressive” because all too often it is a contradiction in terms.)

We’ve already seen how some of our usual “buddies” have dealt with it, like our pal Dan Slott slamming GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump for having the unmitigated gall to refer to the bombing in New York City as just that — a “bombing” — before, allegedly, all the facts were in. He even retweeted a tweet from a transgender activist who said Trump was “actively rooting” for the bomb to be terror-connected. Nice.

But … where is Slott, et. al. regarding Hillary Clinton doing the same thing — not to mention the mainstream media, in the form of CNN this time, covering for her by selectively editing out where she referred to the attack as a “bombing”??

The polls not going her way and desperately seeking an opening, Hillary upped the ante today, spewing the typical “Trump’s rhetoric is giving terrorists an excuse” nonsense:

I don’t want to speculate but here’s what we know and I think it’s important for voters to hear this and weigh it in making their choice in November… We know that a lot of the rhetoric used by Donald Trump is being seized on by terrorists… Wea [sic]also know from the former head of our counter-terrorism center, Matt Olson, that the kinds of rhetoric and language that Mr. Trump has used is giving aid and comfort to our adversaries.

“Aid and comfort?” Why, that sounds like … treason! 

Naturally, in cases like these (CNN Clinton assistance aside), the media provides no shortage of qualifiers — like “potential”:

This is where we are in early 21st century America with the Left, folks: For offering solutions to Islamic terrorism, however unpalatable they may seem to some folks, Trump is helping groups like ISIS.

All the while the Fourth Estate is busily helping Trump’s opponent.

I am no fan of Donald Trump. I never thought his candidacy would last, that he would poll lousy and eventually drop out. I don’t believe he is really conservative, and given many of his statements and his temperament, he potentially could make Barack Obama’s abuse of executive authority seem like our first African-American president is the greatest constitutional adherent ever.

But the Left really has no one to blame but themselves for the rise of Trump. It is comical to watch the disbelief coming from the Left: “How can anyone support this guy?” they angrily exclaim.

Even though many on the right have reservations about the GOP candidate, they are weary of the last eight years’ collection of lies, obfuscations, political correctness, and outright criminal activity.

Not to mention, when the media ponders how they’re having little effect on Trump’s outrageousness, one only has to look at how they treated the two George Bushes, John McCain, and worse, Mitt Romney. When a guy like Romney is portrayed as evil incarnate, it’s going to be rather difficult to make people believe what you have to say in the future … even when it is warranted. Like with Trump.

To coin a cliché, “The Boy Who Cried ‘Wolf.'”

So, I, for one, am enjoying watching Trump take on the ridiculous PC which has overtaken us, and thumb his nose at the mainstream media. By the media and the Left routinely giving average Americans the middle finger — calling them “bigots,” “hateful,” and “xenophobes;” refusing to call “radical Islamic terror” just that; championing “sanctuary cities” while belittling those who want immigration laws followed and enforced — they’ve helped make Trump the very manifestation of the reaction to that middle finger.

Side note: I want to extend my heartfelt gratitude to Doug for allowing me to voice my thoughts here now that it had become impossible to keep The Colossus of Rhodey updated regularly. As Doug mentioned, you can catch my regular writings over at The College Fix.

CNN goes full-Orwell during Milwaukee riot, scrubs call to burn suburbs down


Anyone who ever wants to know why Americans do not trust the media needs to merely turn to CNN’s Orwellian coverage of the Milwaukee riots after the shooting death of Sylville K. Smith. After members of the local community went ballistic, burned down a BP gas station, looted buildings, injured cops and shot a man in the neck, Smith’s sister called for them to, “take that s–t to the suburbs! Burn that s–t down!”

CNN then selectively edited its video and said the woman was calling for peace.

Once enough people called the network out on its 1984-inspired reporting, another edit was made and correspondent Ana Cabrera attempted to explain away the decision as “shorthand” that “unintentionally gave viewers the wrong impression.”

Ana Cabrera Twitter

We’ve always been at war with Eastasia…right, CNN?

DeeconX tweet

For those who are not up on the latest details:

  • Sylville K. Smith, an armed black man, was shot by a black cop and killed last Saturday.
  • Sylville K. Smith had a history of arrests.
  • Cops pursued Mr. Smith, who was traveling in a stolen vehicle. The car eventually stopped and he fled on foot.
  • Mr. Smith, armed with a handgun, eventually turned towards a cop with his weapon and was shot.
  • Locals, without any concrete details other than the fact that a man was shot by a cop, started burning their own community to the ground while screaming “Black power!”
  • It is now unacceptable for cops — even black cops — to use deadly force against black suspects for any reason. Sylville K. Smith should have been let go or stopped with fairy magic that wrapped him in warm pink blankets.
  • Police Chief Edward Flynn said body camera footage will vindicate the unidentified cops’s actions.

This story is important because a random guy on Twitter identified as DeeconX should never be in the place where he needs to expose “shorthand” better fit for the old Soviet Union.

This story is important because one of the reasons Donald Trump is popular (again, I’m voting for the Sweet Meteor of Death), is because mainstream media as a whole is often untrustworthy.

This story is important because at some point in time journalists decided that their job was to be political hacks instead of truth-seekers. The long-term consequences to civil society when the media completely abandons its original purpose are enormous. Until there is a shift in perspective, the Western world will continue its downward slide.

Liz Heron, HuffPo executive editor, shows what’s wrong with modern feminism in one tweet

Liz Heron Twitter

Liz Heron, the executive editor over at HuffPo, did the world a huge favor on Friday — she demonstrated why so many people have a problem with modern feminism.

“Notice anything about this @HuffingtonPost editors meeting” the editor wrote while adding emojis that screamed “girl power!”

The internet responded with predictable snark, but the issue demands more attention than that. What viewers witness in a single tweet is that feminism is a congeries of contradictory rules and regulations, which allow elites to wallow in self-congratulation for behavior that would earn others condemnation.

Ask yourself the following questions about Ms. Heron’s tweet:

  • If women should be judged on their merits, then why is HuffPo essentially asking readers to cheer the amount of estrogen it packed into a room?
  •  Should HuffPo be applauded for its female editors, or scolded for its lack of racial diversity?
  • If feminism is about equal opportunity, then why tweet an image that seems to relish the idea of excluding men?
  • If making an assumption about gender based on physical appearance is frowned upon, then why engage in “you go, girl!” tweets that encourage such behavior?

Personally, I do not care what a room full of editors looks like as long as they produce good content. HuffPo generally reads like it’s run by 25-year-old women, so on some level it’s nice to know my suspicions were correct. If that’s the vibe the website is going for, then great — but those same women should probably zip it when they run across a website that unabashedly celebrates the male minds behind a male-oriented website.

The weird thing about identity politics is that its foot soldiers litter the cultural landscape with social justice mines and then eventually step on their own munitions. Instead of learning a lesson or two after their credibility explodes into a thousands pieces, they go right back to laying mines. Independent voters should keep all of this in mind next time they read a HuffPo political piece that translates: “Vote for Hillary Clinton because she wears a bra.”

Corporate media crown Hillary debate winner — just like corporate media said Republicans want Jeb

Clinton CNN debateAn interesting thing happened after Tuesday night’s Democratic debate from Las Vegas, Nevada — corporate media talking heads declared Hillary Clinton the winner, even though the only thing she did was come across as a weirdly-calculating politician.

Progressive media watchdog reported:

The Times quoted National Journal columnist Ron Fournier (“Hillary Clinton won,” 10/13/15), Slate writer Fred Kaplan (“She crushed it,” 10/14/15), New Yorker staffer Ryan Lizza (“Hillary Clinton won because all of her opponents are terrible,” Twitter, 10/13/15), Red State blogger Leon Wolf (“Hillary was (astonishingly) much more likable and personable than everyone’s favorite crazy socialist uncle,” 10/13/15), pollster John Zogby (“Mrs. Clinton was just commanding tonight,” Forbes, 10/13/15) and conservative radio host Erick Erickson (“I’m still amazed the other four candidates made Hillary Clinton come off as the likable, reasonable, responsible Democrat,” Twitter, 10/13/15). If these so-called “opinion shapers in the political world” declare Hillary the winner, then Hillary must be the winner, according to the Times.

What the Times and these pundits failed to mention is the fact that every online poll we could find asking web visitors who won the debate cast Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders as the winner—and not just by a small margins, but by rather enormous ones.

As I told my wife after the debate, it’s too bad Bernie Sanders is a socialist, because he was essentially the only authentic person on stage.

Former Virginia Sen. Jim Web just came across as an irascible grump; former Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee came across as a dazed child; and former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley just came across as another run-of-the-mill politician.

The same media juggernaut that tried to convince Americans for months that a groundswell of support for Jeb Bush’s presidential campaign existed — despite zero polling evidence to back such claims — now wants viewers to believe Mrs. Clinton trounced Sen. Sanders.

Bernie Sanders

Here is an example of Clinton’s stellar debate skills:

Anderson Cooper: Secretary Clinton, how would you not be a third term of President Obama?

Clinton:Well, I think that’s pretty obvious. I think being the first woman president would be quite a change from the presidents we’ve had up until this point, including President Obama.

Cooper: Is there a policy difference?

Clinton: Well, there’s a lot that I would like to do to build on the successes of President Obama, but also, as I’m laying out, to go beyond. And that’s in my economic plans, how I would deal with the prescription drug companies, how I would deal with college, how I would deal with a full range of issues that I’ve been talking about throughout this campaign to go further.

Translation: Vote for me because I’m a woman! Seriously. I’m a woman. That’s important.

The former secretary of state offered zero differences between a future Clinton administration and the Obama administration — other than her chromosomes — and yet she was deemed the debate winner.

When it came to a very specific question from moderator Anderson Cooper — “Do black lives matter or do all lives matter?” — Clinton simply didn’t answer the question. She went off on a tangent about the criminal justice system.

Sanders, however, answered the question.

Anderson Cooper: Do black lives matter, or do all lives matter? Let’s put that question to Senator Sanders.

Sanders: Black lives matter. And the reason — the reason those words matter is the African American community knows that on any given day some innocent person like Sandra Bland can get into a car, and then three days later she’s going to end up dead in jail, or their kids.

Is it rather repugnant to rhetorically elevate the lives of black Americans above the lives of all Americans? Yes.

At least Sen. Sanders, however, had the guts to give a straight answer in front of millions of viewers.

A woman who casts herself as qualified for the position of commander in chief because of her estrogen levels, while simultaneously refusing to answer direct questions, cannot be the winner of a presidential debate.

Corporate media pundits are less interested in telling the truth than they are with pushing their own specific visions for the world. That is why so many people rightfully do not trust what they see on cable news or what is served to them from the official Facebook news feed.

As the 2016 presidential campaign gains steam, it is always important to consume news with a discerning eye. The networks and publications telling you they can be trusted are often lying.

Watch more TV to create an abbreviated version of yourself; read more to realize your full potential

I was recently having dinner with a friend, and the conversation drifted into the amount of time I allotted to television, movies, and YouTube videos each week. It is my firm belief that if a man wants to become an abbreviated version of his true self, then he will watch a lot of television. If he wants to realize his full potential, then he will slide the scale in favor of reading.

A 2011 report conducted by Nielsen found:

The average American watched 34 hours 39 minutes of TV per week in Q4 2010, a year-over-year increase of two minutes. The heaviest users of traditional TV are adults 65+ (47 hours 33 minutes per week), followed by adults 50-64 (43 hours per week). Trailing all other age groups, teens age 12-17 watch the least amount of TV (23 hours 41 minutes per week). …

143.9 million Americans viewed video online in January 2011, spending an average of 4 hours 39 minutes viewing video on PCs/laptops.

When it comes to statistics on books, organizations like Pew typically set the bar pretty low these days, asking people if they read at least one book — just one — per year. And even then, listening to audio books is lumped in with statistics on reading books. They are in fact not the same thing. Each decision affects the mind in different ways.

Pew reported in 2014:

As of January 2014, some 76% of American adults ages 18 and older said that they read at least one book in the past year. Almost seven in ten adults (69%) read a book in print in the past 12 months, while 28% read an e-book, and 14% listened to an audiobook.

Think of the best television programming out there. Say you watched Discovery or History most of the time. Even if you filled your mind with the highest quality products television has to offer, then you would still be getting a truncated version of the actual subject that the station is covering.

Now think about the television that you do watch. Think about what reality television, cable news, and typical daytime television beams into your brain. All of that affects you on a subconscious level, and the vast majority of it is more akin to sugary snacks and fatty foods than fruit and vegetables.

At least once a month someone says to me in person, in email, or via one of my social media pages that the movie ‘Idiocracy’ seems to have been prophetic. Why is that? The reason is because we’ve been trained to look into glowing screens geared towards providing us with intellectual opiates instead of boot camp calisthenics.

Generally speaking, there is nothing wrong with watching movies, playing video games and and enjoying a good TV show, but like all other things it should be done in moderation. As a guy who reviews movies on a regular basis, it would be strange to tell people to cast off television completely. However, it seems as though fair-minded individuals can see how watching an average of 34 hours of television per week — in addition to however many hours are spent playing video games and watching silly videos on cellphones or laptops — is a recipe for brain atrophy.

Think of it this way: Would the average American be better served by reading Herman Melville’s Moby Dick, or by watching “In The Heart of the Sea,” directed by Ron Howard? My guess is that Mr. Howard has made a terrific movie, but will it engage the mind like Melville?

“They were one man, not thirty. For as the one ship that held them all; though it was put together of all contrasting things — oak, and maple, and pine wood; iron, and pitch, and hemp — yet all these ran into each other in the one concrete hull, which shot its way, both balanced and directed by the long central keel; even so, all the individualities of the crew, this man’s valor, that man’s fear; guilt and guiltlessness, all varieties were wedded into oneness, and were all directed to that fatal goal which Ahab their one lord and keel did point to.”

I challenge you for one year to cut the amount of television viewing you currently engage in by half, and then to fill that time by reading books like Moby Dick. Then, after one year, look back at who you were and who you’ve become and let me know how your perceptions on media consumption have changed. My guess is that you will be a completely different person, with no intention of going back to your old habits.

And yes, I will be reviewing In The Heart of The Sea shortly after it comes out March 13, 2015. Between now and then I also plan on writing a review for Moby Dick.

Drudge is right: ‘In this manic Digital Age… It’s vital… To clear your mind… Constantly’

Matt Drudge

If you follow Matt Drudge on Twitter, you’ve already seen that he’s deleted all his tweets except one: “In this manic Digital Age…it’s vital…to clear your mind…constantly.” He’s right.

The great thing about the internet is that more information than ever is available at the touch of a button. MIT courses are available for free online. If you need to know how to fix a hole in drywall (as I recently did) you can learn how to do it in minutes. If you want to learn about octopus camouflage, you with one quick Google search. If you want to learn about all the times much of Virginia has been under water over the course of millions of years — to the dismay of the Climate Change crowd — you can do that. The problem is that there is so much information available that sometimes it’s easy to get lost and confused if you’re not grounded and viewing it all through a principled perspective.

Last year I mentioned that I began meditating. There were many reasons for that, but one was to clear my mind on a regular basis.

Have  you ever tried drinking from a fire hose? Probably not, but it’s obvious that it would be a rather unproductive experience. The news consumer today often finds himself trying to drink from a fire hose of information. Unscrupulous individuals know that this is what many people are doing and they use it to their advantage. Scandals — legitimate scandals — fall to the wayside because the “hose” keeps going 24 hours a day. A story that happened a day ago feels like it’s a week old. A story that happened a week ago feels a month old, and so on and so forth.

On recent example would be Former National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor’s “dude” remarks regarding the Sept. 11, 2012 terror attack.

The Washington Free Beacon reported May 1 (which seems like ages ago, doesn’t it?):

Former National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor addressed Fox News Special Report host Bret Baier as “dude” Thursday and said he could hardly remember how he helped change the Benghazi talking points because it was “two years ago.”

The previously unreleased White House emails this week revealed a coordinated attempt to protect President Barack Obama during the 2012 election campaign and place the blame for the terrorist attack on the anti-Islamic YouTube video and not a “broader failure of policy.”

Baier pressed Vietor on his role in changing the talking points by adding a line about the administration warning the day before the attacks of “social media reports calling for demonstrations,” in order to bolster the false idea that the attack was the spontaneous result of a riot against the video. Vietor affirmed this, but when Baier asked him if he’d changed “attacks” to “demonstrations,” he got amnesia.

“Dude, this was like two years ago,” Vietor said. “We’re still talking about the most mundane process.”

“Dude,” Baier sarcastically shot back, “it is the thing that everybody is talking about.”

Vietor’s math is also off. The attack that killed four Americans took place Sept. 11, 2012, less than 20 months ago.

If your mind is not clear — and if you are not principled — it becomes very easy to adopt the “dude…that was ages ago” mindset for any number of events that should occupy a more prominent place in your consciousness. In a weird way, the sheer amount of information available has turned many people into human goldfish; they only make decisions based upon the most recent twitter hashtag or newsworthy event happening…now….or now…or now…or now.

Just as too little information can be detrimental to an individual, too much information can be just as deadly. You can drown in information if you don’t know what to do with it. The Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks were a good example of having too much information coupled with the inability to process it. Roughly 3,000 Americans died on that day because there were countless “dots” within a sea of information, and the system wasn’t set up to make sense of it all.

Say what you will about Matt Drudge, but he’s a very shrewd individual. There’s a reason why he’s been so influential for such a long period of time. He may be rather enigmatic, but he’s certainly worth taking seriously. “Clear your mind constantly” is advice worth taking in the digital age.

Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to do just that.

Peggy Noonan: Being the star exhibit in a liberal zoo still makes me a star

Poor, poor Peggy Noonan can’t seem to find a conservative who pleases her. Perhaps it’s because she isn’t conservative. The pained expression on her face, seemingly learned from studying film of Ben Affleck like a quarterback studies his opponents, allows liberal media outlets to try and pass her off as something she is not.

Peggy Noonan once wrote speeches for President Ronald Reagan. She’s been trotted out as a “conservative” ever since, despite the fact that she couldn’t pull the lever for John McCain. I touched on it not too long ago here and here, and now so does John Zeigler:

RINOs can instantly feel the warm embrace of mainstream credibility by simply criticizing other Republicans in a way that the media can use to achieve their agenda. Meanwhile, when an occasional Democrat goes in the other direction (Joe Lieberman) they suddenly get shunned and discredited. …

There is no better/worse example of this than the actions of former Reagan speechwriter Peggy Noonan. Noonan has suddenly become a big name in the media again because she is taking every chance she can to rip the Romney campaign and help the press with building their narrative that his campaign is in collapse. …

One, Noonan hasn’t done a thing for the conservative cause since she wrote a few good speeches for Reagan over 25 years ago. Secondly, and even more amazingly, she clearly endorsed Obama in 2008 in both print and on TV. Somehow, not only did that not take away her ability to once again play the “I am a sensible Republican telling the truth about my guy” card, but it doesn’t even ever get mentioned that she has ZERO credibility on this issue!

Boom. Ziegler drops an intellectual nuke on Noonan’s squishy “conservative” head. She was an Obama girl in 2008. End of story. No conservative in their right mind would vote for Mr. Obama. Peggy Noonan is at best the RINO Superwoman — accomplished, intelligent and quick — to Bizarro Meghan Mccain. Both are used by liberal media to destroy conservatives, only Noonan isn’t the embarrassing train wreck that McCain is (a woman who barely stays afloat in the intellectual kiddie pool going up against MSNBC’s Al Sharpton).

Perhaps the best take down of Noonan of late comes, oddly enough, from Fox’s Chris Wallace, who called Noonan “New York City’s idea” of a conservative. A stinging critique if I ever heard one. And he’s right. Noonan is part of an incestuous bunch of intellectual hobnobbers, but because of her conservative past, her penance is that she must sit in her social circle or on a cable television panel and demurely respond to savage attacks on the conservative worldview. She accepts ridiculous premises and argues on liberal terms. She rhetorically licks her liberal media masters’ toes, who collect docile kittens with names like Joe Scarborough and David Frum.

What Noonan and McCain and the rest don’t understand is that at the cocktail parties and social events they attend, they are seen as curious little animals, to laugh at and poke fun of. Noonan sees herself slinging highbrow rejoinders, whereas her liberal “friends” see her as a monkey slinging poo. They’re not chuckling with you, Peggy — they’re chuckling at you.

The sad thing is, some of these faux conservatives get it, and they don’t care.  Being the star exhibit in someone’s zoo, in their mind, still makes them a star. Sad.