Liberal Smear Machine

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Liberal Smear Machine is an informal term for the liberal organized tactic of attempting to discredit conservative ideology and public figures through the methods of media bias, professor bias, vandalism, censorship and outright slander of conservative ideas on wikis and blogs. For decades, the Left has smeared conservatives who strongly and effectively opposed left-wing policies.[1]

2008 Presidential elections

Main article: 2008 Presidential election

The JournoList functioned as a private email list of liberal journalists, educators, and pundits.[2] Members of the list planned to insert the Democrat race card in stories attacking critics who were hesitant or with reservations in supporting Barack Hussein Obama as "racist".

There were also coordinated attacks on Sarah Palin and her family.[3] Also, there were postings to the listserv talking gleefully about how one of the listserv members would love to see the death of Rush Limbaugh.[4][5]

Early leftist smear machines

In 1949 the California State Senate published a report stating,

Through their newspapers, magazines, books, symposiums, pamphlets, handbills and analytical publications, the Communists train and educate their converts in Marxism-Leninism-Stalinism; and, at the same time, they spread their propaganda to confuse, disrupt and divide.... Equally important ... is the fundamental requirement for machinery and methods for attack and smear. Anyone who opposes or exposes the Communist conspiracy must be destroyed.

A continuous program of character assassination is conducted by the Communist publication-system designed to discredit anyone who attacks or exposes Communism. Public officials and law enforcement agencies are to be constantly smeared and discredited in the minds of members of mass organizations. (emphasis in original)...they are able to organize a propaganda campaign on a few hours notice. They will produce publications, press releases, plant Red propaganda in all media, and circulate resolutions, protests, denunciations and confusing reports on any subject on short notice.[6]

Trump-Russia hoax

See also: Steele dossier and Russian collusion hoax

Kavanaugh smear

Main article: Kavanaugh smear

The New Yorker publicized in March 2012 that Brett Kavanaugh was the most likely next nominee if a Republican were to win the election.[7] Within a few months, Christine Blasey Ford for the first time allegedly told her therapist that she had been fondled at a drinking party and felt threatened. The therapist notes, however, do not name Kavanaugh.

In the Spring of 2018 President Donald Trump nominated Judge Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. Ricki Seidman, who orchestrated the 1991 Clarence Thomas smear mapped out the plan to defame Kavanaugh in July 2018:
"Over the coming days and weeks there will be a strategy that will emerge, and I think it’s possible that that strategy might ultimately defeat the nominee."[8]
Like the attack on Justice Thomas, outrageous last-minute personal smears were intended to force the game into extra innings.

The Washington Post first published Blasey Ford's allegations in a letter under an anonymous op-ed byline. The op-ed named Kavanaugh as one of the boys at the drinking party in high school. Sen. Dianne Feinstein did not ask the FBI to investigate when she received the letter in July 2018, held it for two months during hearings, then passed the anonymous slanders along to WaPo when the regular hearings ended.[9][10] In the interim Blasey Ford was directed by unknown operatives to take a polygraph test in August 2018. The allegations were withheld by Feinstein and the Democrats from the FBI during the FBI's pre-hearing investigation and vetting process.[11]

Then, during the period in which the Senate Judiciary Committee delayed the vote 10 days to accommodate Blasey Ford's testimony, the New Yorker published an allegation Kavanaugh exposed himself at a drinking party at Yale to a female classmate.[12] The New Yorker wrote:
"The magazine contacted several dozen classmates of Ramirez and Kavanaugh regarding the incident...The New Yorker has not confirmed with other eyewitnesses that Kavanaugh was present at the party."
The accuser did give the New Yorker six names to support her claim. Six witnesses Deborah Ramirez stated could substantiate her accusation. And when the New Yorker interviewed them, all six said it never happened, 100% of the evidence discovered by the New Yorker refuted the claim, yet the New Yorker still published the article.

Creepy porn lawyer Michael Avenatti all week long before the extra hearing publicly announced he was in contact with an anonymous accuser who claimed Kavanaugh participated in drug-induced gang rapes in college.[13] A woman phoned him claiming he was 51 years old and was victimized by Kavanaugh and his friend. She gave Avenatti a phone number of another male friend who then confirmed all the allegations. Avenatti promised to bring forward the accuser before the Thursday hearing. The story was repeated by ABC News, CBS News, PBS, USA Today and other mainstream outlets.

Avenatti called the alleged accuser back 10 times. He asked her to go on Anderson Cooper 360. She has reticent. He then offered her $20,000 for a one-on-one interview with Poppy Harlow of CNN.

The night before the hearing, Avenatti was exposed to have been hoaxed by two trolls on 4ch using burner phones.[14]

Other examples

  • In January 2019, the mainstream media, left-wingers, and many token conservatives rushed to judgment against a group of Catholic students wearing MAGA hats, claiming they harassed an American Indian activist when the activist actually harassed them in a publicity stunt.[15] The media engaged in character assassination and falsely smeared the students as "racists" and "bigots,"[16] while self-righteous pundits and liberal activists made racist[17][18] and nasty attacks against them[19] and they called for violence against them, all based solely on contrived and manipulated fake news opinion pieces disguised as "news" churned out by the liberal media to fit its narrative.[20]

Further reading

See also


  1. Kirkwood, R. Cort (January 11, 2019). 80 Years of Smears. The New American. Retrieved January 11, 2019.
  2. On Journolist, and Dave Weigel, WashingtonPost, June 25, 2010.
  3. When McCain picked Palin, liberal journalists coordinated the best line of attack, The Daily Caller, July 22, 2010.
  4. Noel Sheppard. Rush Limbaugh Responds to JournoLister Wishing His Death, Newsbusters, July 21, 2010.
  5. Rush Limbaugh. Journolisters Want to Shut Down Fox! (and Wish Rush Death, Too),, July 21, 2010.
  6. Fifth Report of the Senate Fact-Finding Committee On Un-American Activities, California Legislature, 1949, pp. 544-545.
  8. Begins at 3:20.
  15. Multiple references: See also: Phillips rejected meeting with the students and continued slandering them:
  16. Multiple references: Double standards by The New York Times: See also:
  18. Bomberger, Ryan (January 22, 2019). Those pro-life Covington Catholic teens weren’t the racists. LifeSiteNews. Retrieved January 22, 2019.
  19. Multiple references: A rush to judgment from the establishment conservative media: Several Roman Catholics caved to the Left rather than defend their students: See also:
  20. Multiple references: Twitter refused to remove death threats against the students from its site: See also: