Date: 25 July ‘08
To: www.Alumnishockerblackandgolds.com
Political Snippets
They Put Their Money Where Their Mouth Is
• Neil Bortz reports today that the quisling liberal grifters – well, my words not his, he said the media and the press, “journalists” – contribute to Barack Hussein Obama 100 to 1 over John McCain. These lemming drive-by media mindless Teleprompter readers and quisling liberal scribblers of the press, swear on the Bible – figurative speaking of course, as these profane secular folks would never touch anything religious or sacred like the Bible – that they are not bigoted or even biased or prejudiced. They postulate they are as pure as a half dozen vestal virgins, but when it comes to reaching in their pocket for political contributions, it’s a lemming 100 to 1 prejudice in favor of the self anointed Messiah Barack Hussein Obama. But we are all to believe, just because they pretend it is so, that they are independent thinkers that turn on the facts, relying on the facts to reasonably suggest the solutions to problems, the facts they should state, and the manner in which they should report the issues and “the news”. They truly are not “news reporters”, they are mindless Teleprompter readers and quisling liberal scribblers, more akin to bigoted lemming ideologue pleaders of the presented liberal postulated issue de facto. And as undeniable proof of their miserable unprincipled unprofessional malfeasance, they put their money where their mouth is.
• Stephen B. Oates’ “The Whirlwind of War”, the story of the American Civil War, is told in the first person from the viewpoints of the several principal players from his research of authentic sources, including letters, speeches, interviews, reminiscences, memoirs, personal histories, and other recorded utterances, constituting, in part, actual words of the characters, phrases, and whole sentences. Oates portrays the rather profane William Tecumseh Sherman’s view of the press after the battle of Shiloh, 146 years ago, as a result of which he was promoted to major general, thus:
“Grant, too, kept praising me to the skies, said I’d displayed “great judgment and skill,” said I was his “standby.” I’d never felt so good. Never.”
“But the G--d------ newspapers! Their tribe of scribblers swarmed over the battlefield afterward, talked to the cowardly bastards who’d hidden under the bluff, and leaped to conclusions about what had happened. They reported that Grant had made no preparations, that our army was taken completely by surprise, that the rebels caught us in our tents and bayoneted the men in their beds, that divisional leadership was terrible, that Sherman and McClernand had been routed, and that Buell’s opportune arrival saved the Army of the Tennessee from annihilation. One paper even raised the old charge against me. Question: “Is Sherman Insane?” Answer: “The general impression here is, he’s demented.” But poor Grant got the worst of the slander. They accused him of being drunk, careless, criminal, a tyrant – you name it – when in reality he was a good and brave soldier and victorious. He’d won a G--d------ victory. Yet, just as they’d done with me, the papers tried to pull him down, destroy him.”
“Now you understand why I hate journalists, Nothing be G--d------ mongrels. Toadies and croakers. Fawning sycophants. And spies. Whole lot of ‘em ought to be hanged. The more I thought about the f------ bastards, the more I was convinced that the howling tribe of ‘em, North and South, had whipped up public passions into a frenzy and brought on this infernal war. You G--d------ right, I blamed the journalists for causing it.”
“I wrote my brother John: “I would rather be ruled by Jefferson Davis than be abused by a set of dirty newspaper scribblers who have the impudence of Satan. They come into camp, poke about among the lazy shirkers and pick up their camp rumors and publish them as facts, and the avidity with which these rumors are swallowed by the public makes even some of our officers bow to them. I will not.” And I did not. I wrote John what really happened on the first day of Shiloh. He was a U.S. Senator of great influence in Washington and could show my letters to the president and anybody else who doubted us. I told John that the hue and cry against Grant was all wrong. Not a man was bayoneted in or near his tent. As to surprise, we’d had constant skirmishes with the enemy cavalry the week before, and I had strong guards out in front of each brigade. Yes, the guards were driven in on the morning of the battle, but before the enemy came within cannon range of my position every regiment was under arms at the post I’d assigned them. “I am out of all patience,” I told John, “that our people should prefer to believe the horrid stories of butchery, ridiculous in themselves, gotten up by cowards to cover their shame, than the plain natural reports of the officers who were responsible and who saw what they described.”
“I sent a note to Grant: “Military men are chained to a rock, while the vultures are turned loose. We must be silent, while our defamers are allowed the widest liberty and license. Reputations are not made by honest soldiers who stand by their colors, but by the crowd that flies back to their homes and employs the press. I’m not dependent on the press in any manner, never having sought popularity. In fact, I despise popularity obtained by the usual process of flattery and pusillanimity.” As for the croaking bastards who called themselves newsmen, I declared unrelenting warfare on the whole stinking lot.”
“Grant bore the newspaper tirades in silence. But I knew they hurt him.” (Id. p. 165)
Well there you have it. Sherman’s view of the press 146 years ago. We now have added Television and mindless Teleprompter readers for the drive-by liberal ideologue media; and the liberals also have control of the scribblers in the press. But other than the addition of liberals controlling the drive-by media and scribblers in the press; the incompetence, and unprincipled lack of journalistic ethics seems to have continued without much abatement.
Subscribe