Fear and loathing in the Media..

It always has been apparent during this campaign that the media has despised and feared Donald trump since emerged as the nominee of the Republican party back in June. They have been unabashed partisans and have considered it their mission to take him down, objectivity and journalistic credentials be damned.

But it is now becoming evident -- to them -- that he has a very good chance of winning. He is leading in a number of swing states, is close in others, and his surge over the last month had been a formidable and irreversible tide rising across the land.

Basically, they are triggered, quaking in their boots, hunkered down in their safe spaces, sucking on their thumbs, clutching their teddy bears, with their "binkies" pressed firmly aside their heads.

The hooligan horde of Visigoths -- We, the Deplorables -- are at the gates, pitchforks and torches in hand, effigies of Hillary Clintoon either aflame or strung up on miniature scaffolds. We scream for her blood, for their blood, for revenge for the years of their arrogance and tyranny and elitism.

One can easily conjure images of the "national barber" to be set up in the town square, a latter-day Robespierre and Madame Dafarge at the head of the phalanxes of a bloodthirsty citizenry, and a new Reign of Terror to eventuate.

Well, good! Any terror that creeps in and chills their stony little hearts is more than welcome! They have confounded us for years, no, decades, with their pontificating and pronouncements, their coronations and ordinations of their heroes and their haughty decrees of how things will be. All the while, we toil in our pathetic, work-a-day struggles to eke out our daily crust.

But now they are in full flight and their horror is evident. Consider:

In a move reminiscent of remarks made by Jefferson Davis after Lee surrendered at Appomattox (wherein he said this would free the remaining Confederate forces to fight without the strictures of territory), the NYT has recanted and decreed that Ohio is no longer a battleground state of significance.

This is especially convenient since Clinton has essentially ceded this state to Trump and he has been leading in polls there since the beginning of September when she hacked her way through a labor day speech appearance int he state and a follow-up discussion on her "Dump One" campaign aircraft.

Also, after the first debate when all of the Hacks for Hillary were lying abed, smoking a post-coital stogie over her perceived victory - the ability to remain vertical and cough free for 90 minutes while hurling petulant zingers at Trump and glowering smugly - the afterglow dissipated rapidly with the appearance of a torrential wave of pro-Trump snap poll results.

Basically Hillbag, it seems, had won the skirmish but was losing the war. We, the great unwashed masses with all our inherent computer techno-whiz hacker genius had conspired to rig these overnighters with a ton of upvotes for DJT countering an unenthusiastic paucity of hits rippling for the Hillster.

Oh my! What to do?

No problem! Just disavow those little device you put on your website as clickbait like Buzzfeed did:

Dunno why these dull, plodding, unagile cretins could not have seen this. I mean, if you go out to ANY YouTube video that deals with Trump, Hillary, or the election and look at the thread of comments you will see pro-Trump remarks that are variously lively, enthusiastic, obnoxious, and supportive of The Donald. They are similarly vicious and merciless in savaging the dullards who post their pathetic anti-Trump or pro-diseased lying cow bleatings. The same holds true even for such establishment sites as the WaPo, WSJ, ABC, NBC, CBS, etc. where one finds fusillades of invective. Why did these geniuses believe this enthusiasm would NOT translate into keyclick support on their stupid-assed polls?

So now, with the horror penetrating all the way to their very marrow, they have come up with possibly the last "civilized" weapon in their arsenal: the "historic" editorial endorsement.

The Arizona Republic has, for the first time in its history, chosen a Democrat over a Republican to endorse. (I am not going to provide a link. If you want to give them the traffic, then Google it yourself.) Their editorial just flat overlooks the steaming mountain of corruption and graft and nefarious activities that this woman has raked up during her stretch in the public arena all because they hate The Donald. Of course, the comments are loaded up with sycophantic responses (no doubt from campaign plants and trolls) disgorging such effluvia as the fact that the Dallas Morning News and Cincinnati Enquirer have done the same.

"Well, Jimmy, if all of the kids in your class jumped off the cliff, would you have jumped off as well?"

But here's the kicker: according to Jim Hoft over at The Gateway Pundit, the paper is putting those calling into the paper to cancel their subscriptions on hold for up to 45 minutes:

Waiting on the phone for 45 minutes for anything is monumentally stupid. Just send registered letter informing them of your intent to cancel the subscription. Also insist on a return receipt signed by the circulation manager. About 1,000 such letters would straighten these fools out.

The pièce de résistance, however, seems to belong to USA Today -- that fishwrap conveniently available at each checkout counter of your local supermarket. In that paper's endorsement of Clinton and denigration of Donald Trump, the language is so over the top that you can almost see the white knuckles on the hands typing this:

In the 34-year history of USA TODAY, the Editorial Board has never taken sides in the presidential race. Instead, we’ve expressed opinions about the major issues and haven’t presumed to tell our readers, who have a variety of priorities and values, which choice is best for them. Because every presidential race is different, we revisit our no-endorsement policy every four years. We’ve never seen reason to alter our approach. Until now.

This year, the choice isn’t between two capable major party nominees who happen to have significant ideological differences. This year, one of the candidates — Republican nominee Donald Trump — is, by unanimous consensus of the Editorial Board, unfit for the presidency.

From the day he declared his candidacy 15 months ago through this week’s first presidential debate, Trump has demonstrated repeatedly that he lacks the temperament, knowledge, steadiness and honesty that America needs from its presidents.

Whether through indifference or ignorance, Trump has betrayed fundamental commitments made by all presidents since the end of World War II. These commitments include unwavering support for NATO allies, steadfast opposition to Russian aggression, and the absolute certainty that the United States will make good on its debts. He has expressed troubling admiration for authoritarian leaders and scant regard for constitutional protections.

Jesus! Take a deep breath, pal!

Are these guys clueless or what? Not knowing where to begin a rebuttal, again I'll leave Googling the link to you.

But it seems that the final word in knee-buckling goes that august assemblage of parking-ticket accumulators-on-the-Hudson, the United Nations:

..it was only a tweet and, true to form, these gutless wimps withdrew it an hour or so later. But still in all..

The instances above only scratch the surface. There were, are, and will be much more of this crap because the creators live in stark terror of the following:

Donald J. Trump is winning, he will be the champion of ALL AMERICANS and these clowns' time in power and at the reins is ticking down to zero.