To Sir Bob Dadae, Governor General of Paua New Guinea

From {name witheld} US Ambassador to Papua New Guinea

Your Excellency, 

Please accept this letter as my nation's formal apology for the unfortunate statement accidentally misspoken three times (over a relentless 6-hour period) this week by President Joseph Robinette Biden. It was merely a misunderstanding that the president deeply and profoundly regrets. 

He has a stutter, you know? 

When President Biden said his Uncle was shot down and crashed in New Guinea during World War 2 and that his body was never recovered, he did not mean to imply that he had been eaten by residents of your beautiful island nation. Of course, President Biden's gratuitous mention that "there used to be a lot of cannibals in that part of New Guinea" was just a further manifestation of his chronic stutter and was in no way meant to imply that his dear uncle was devoured by your great grandfather.

It will comfort you to know that the insinuation (brought on by his stutter) that his uncle fell victim to New Guinea cannibals was just the least of President Biden's er... misstatements in re-telling the tale of poor, unfortunate Uncle Bosie. 

If you will permit me... 

And when D-Day occurred, the next day, on Monday, all four of my mother’s brothers went down and volunteered to join the military.  And four of them — three of them made it.  One was 4-F — couldn’t go.

We think that, perhaps, President Biden was referring to the attack on Pearl Harbor, not the D-Day invasion of Normandy. It does not make any sense that his four uncles would wait until the June 1944 invasion to enlist.

And, considering Uncle Bosie's plane went down one month before the Normandy invasion, it's logical to assume that his chronic stutter made him say "D-Day" instead of "Pearl Harbor Day."

And Ambrose Finnegan — we called him “Uncle Bosie” — he — he was shot down.  

It turns out the plane carrying the president's brother was "forced to ditch" due to apparent engine failure, it was not shot down. 

He was Army Air Corps before there was an Air Force.  He flew single-engine planes, reconnaissance flights over New Guinea.  He had volunteered because someone couldn’t make it.  

By all accounts, the mission was not a reconnaissance mission but, rather, a courier mission. 

He got shot down in an area where there were a lot of cannibals in New Guinea at the time. They never recovered his body.  

Again... the plane was not shot down. And, to make matters even more uncomfortable for all of us, the plane was ditched in the Pacific, not on the island of New Guinea. So, even if there were "a lot of cannibals in New Guinea at the time" they wouldn't have had the opportunity to roast and devour the president's uncle unless they did some pretty impressive swimming. 

So, to sum up: The president's uncle did not enlist after D-Day, he was not on a reconnaissance mission, he was not shot down, he did not crash on the island of New Guinea and he was most certainly not eaten by cannibals. 

Other than that, the story was completely accurate and any misstatements that may have confused you or the good people of New Guinea should be completely blamed on the president's chronic, persistent, and damnable stutter. 

I hope this clears up any confusion or consternation the fine people of Papua New Guinea may be experiencing at this delicate time. Please, rest assured, the president does not, I repeat does not believe his uncle was eaten by your island's greatest generation. 

In fact, President Biden doesn't even remember what he said earlier this week. To him, it is literally as if it had never happened. He has no memory of it whatsoever. 

With Sincerest Regards, 

{name witheld}

US Ambassador to Papua New Guinea (for now)

PS: For verification of all these facts regarding MIA 2d Lt. Amrose J. Finnegan, please refer to this official record: 2d Lt AMBROSE J. FINNEGAN - Service Member Profile (crmforce.mil)

Yesterday, I wrote about the arrogance at NPR and their hubris in refusing to address the obvious political bias and journalistic malfeasance their long-time editor, Uri Berliner, revealed in his whistleblower essay at The Free Press. 

I finished that article with this:  

They're grappling with the fallout, not the actual issues he pointed out. It's all about the fallout. They read the article about their bias and journalistic malfeasance and could only focus on the fallout, not the actual bias and journalistic problems Mr. Berliner highlighted. 

 

Their response was to suspend the whistleblower and to go into spin mode. 

 

It would be funny, if we weren't paying for it.

Since that article was published, there have been several developments. 

Uri Berliner, the whistleblower NPR suspended without pay had now formally resigned after over 50 NPR employees sent a letter to the network bosses whining about how they felt unsafe as a result of Berliner telling the truth. 

Further, independent journalist Chris Rufo did some digging on the new CEO of NPR and found that she is the quintessential, chardonnay-swigging, suburban liberal hell-bent on sending MAGA to internment camps and censoring any opposition to the Democrat regime. 

The new CEO of NPR, then, is a left-wing ideologue who supports wide-scale censorship and considers the First Amendment an impediment to her campaign to sanitize the world of wrong opinions.

 

Maher is no aberration. She is part of a rising cohort of affluent, left-wing, female managers who dominate the departments of university administration, human resources, and DEI. They are the matriarchs of the American Longhouse: they value safety over liberty, censorship over debate, and relativism over truth.

 

Each social gambit is designed for smothering the institution in ideology. Maher says that she knows “that hysteric white woman voice.” She has “done it.” And while she might not be proud of it—she is aware that she has “a big fat privilege pass”—she is willing to do what it takes to move the dictates of conventional left-wing opinion into a position of domination.

So, needless to say, the case against the journalistic, propaganda audio machine known as "National Public Radio" has gotten even more intense over the past 24 hours. 

This brings us to the last line of yesterday's article:  "It would be funny if we weren't paying for it."

And that needs to end right now.

Not one single penny of our tax dollars should be handed over to this state-funded propaganda factory designed to prop up the elite intelligentsia's obtuse and destructive agenda and stifle any opposition in this country still trying to hold on to any semblance of free market principles and freedoms. 

Republicans in the House of Representatives must move to defund NPR today! 

This is not only just and sound policy, but it's also great politics. Pass this out of the House and force Democrats in the senate, especially the ones running for re-election this year, to explain to their constituents (you know, tax-paying voters) why they need to pay for this Orwellian crap.

I want to see Tim Kaine explain to Virginians who are having trouble paying for their weekly eggs, milk, and hamburger meat why they need to pay taxes to fund the one-sided, propaganda produced by NPR from their palacious studios. 

Defund NPR. 

Do it now.

Make Democrats explain why we need to pay for this crap.

National Public Radio (NPR) has been exposed as a left-wing, propaganda mouthpiece for Democrats that we've always known it to be. And now, one week after the blockbuster, whistleblower essay exposing their bias and lack of journalistic standards, they've just proven that they not only don't get it, but they're arrogantly phishing the one honest voice in the newsroom: The whistleblower. 

By now you've heard about the great article in The Free Press by Uri Berliner, the veteran financial editor at the tax-funded network, who had had enough of the organization's left-wing bias: 

Back in 2011, although NPR’s audience tilted a bit to the left, it still bore a resemblance to America at large. Twenty-six percent of listeners described themselves as conservative, 23 percent as middle of the road, and 37 percent as liberal.

 

By 2023, the picture was completely different: only 11 percent described themselves as very or somewhat conservative, 21 percent as middle of the road, and 67 percent of listeners said they were very or somewhat liberal. We weren’t just losing conservatives; we were also losing moderates and traditional liberals. 

 

An open-minded spirit no longer exists within NPR, and now, predictably, we don’t have an audience that reflects America. 

It's a great essay and Berliner nails it on many issues. However, he's still a little blinded by the reality of when this all started. Most of us saw the liberal bias for many decades, Berliner thinks it all started with Trump. 

Like many unfortunate things, the rise of advocacy took off with Donald Trump. As in many newsrooms, his election in 2016 was greeted at NPR with a mixture of disbelief, anger, and despair. (Just to note, I eagerly voted against Trump twice but felt we were obliged to cover him fairly.) But what began as tough, straightforward coverage of a belligerent, truth-impaired president veered toward efforts to damage or topple Trump’s presidency. 

 

Persistent rumors that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia over the election became the catnip that drove reporting. At NPR, we hitched our wagon to Trump’s most visible antagonist, Representative Adam Schiff. 

 

Schiff, who was the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, became NPR’s guiding hand, its ever-present muse. By my count, NPR hosts interviewed Schiff 25 times about Trump and Russia. During many of those conversations, Schiff alluded to purported evidence of collusion. The Schiff talking points became the drumbeat of NPR news reports.

 

But when the Mueller report found no credible evidence of collusion, NPR’s coverage was notably sparse. Russiagate quietly faded from our programming. 

If Mr. Berliner is looking for the real tipping point, he might want to check out his network's coverage of the Obama Administration, eight years before Trump was inaugurated. 

You see, it's very simple to see journalistic bias when everyone in your newsroom is lined up to destroy the man you all hate, it's much more subtle when your same colleagues are lined up to support and promote the man you all love and admire. 

NPR's lack of journalistic curiosity or investigative instinct during the Obama presidency was the real point of no return. 

NPR has finally taken decisive action in the wake of Berliner's allegations of bias and journalistic malpractice. NPR decided that something had to change and that heads would roll. Well.. actually, one head would roll. Specifically, Mr. Berliner's head. 

He's been suspended. For telling the truth. 

NPR's own write-up of the entire affair reads more like a subchapter in George Orwell's 1984 than a news report. This tweet from the article's author says it all: 

See that? "As the network grapples with fallout over his essay." 

They're grappling with the fallout, not the actual issues he pointed out. It's all about the fallout. They read the article about their bias and journalistic malfeasance and could only focus on the fallout, not the actual bias and journalistic problems Mr. Berliner highlighted. 

Their response was to suspend the whistleblower and to go into spin mode. 

It would be funny, if we weren't paying for it.