Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘Liberal Media’

High-Res Version of Mom, Children Tear Gas Photo Emerges, 5 Weird Background Images Spotted


Reported By Cillian Zeal | November 27, 2018 at 6:03am

As you wake up this morning, you’ll no doubt turn on your TV and hear a debate over the use of tear gas against caravan members by the Border Patrol as said caravan members tried to rush the border.

By debate, of course, I mean that one person will say, “How could they?” and another will say “How could they?” See, completely different positions — the stress is on a different word. Who’s to say that the media doesn’t allow an exchange of ideas?

Completely unmentioned, of course, will be any questions about why parents would bring their children on or near a manifestly illegal border incursion that was almost certainly going to end like this or what the authorities ought to have done in the first place. These seem like important questions, but the problem is that they’re Not Empathetic™, the same way enforcing any sort of border law isn’t, either.

What you also won’t see is a lot of examination of this picture.

I’m sure you’ve seen it. As no less than Pulitzer winner Jason Szep of Reuters noted in his tweet, the picture is “(i)ncredibly moving and poignant.”

If you look closely enough, it’s also a little odd.

Take a look at these tweets, which show that skepticism over the photograph isn’t just Infowarsy nonsense. Take a look at the five weird things in the background in the first one:

As you can see, there are plenty of photographers who aren’t running anywhere (as well as other members of the caravan who seem perfectly willing to stay put in the face of the tear gas) while there seem to be individuals with the caravan doing things that are, for lack of a better description, darkly photogenic.

As The Daily Wire points out, there were also doubts expressed on Reddit, albeit of a different sort.

“We’re supposed to believe that this person dragged those poor, pant-less children 2888 miles in 45 days? Walking ~20 hours a day? And we’re supposed to believe it is a totally organic thing, not paid for by anyone?” one user wrote.

That’s not going to make the rounds on “Today,” particularly now that Megyn Kelly is unemployed and wallowing in her money. However, it’s something we need to ask ourselves as the coverage of the caravan continues. We’re treating this quote-unquote outrage as if it were something like Tiananmen Square, and we’ll continue to do so until we come across the next quote-unquote outrage and treat it the exact same way.

In the meantime, we’ll never question where this caravan came from, why they should be allowed to break immigration law and why parents are putting their children in situations where they might be exposed to tear gas. Some things, it seems, are just a bridge too far.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: 

Summary
More Info Recent Posts

Writing under a pseudonym, Cillian Zeal is a conservative writer who is currently living abroad in a country that doesn’t value free speech. Exercising it there under his given name could put him in danger.

Sarah Sanders Is Asked How Christians Can Support Trump, Gives Best Answer We’ve Ever Heard


Reported By Bryan Chai | November 5, 2018 at 10:10am

Far-left Democrats have made their general disdain for Christianity very well known. It’s no secret to anyone who has even remotely kept up with their narrative in recent years. Despite that, leftists like to bring up Christianity as some sort of barometer when criticizing conservatives — and especially when criticizing anyone who supports President Donald Trump.

To the surprise of nobody, many liberals and Democrats only seems to applaud the merits of Christianity when the faith can be used to attack conservatives and Republicans. In fairness, that line of liberal thinking has certainly befuddled some Christians. Do devout Christians sometimes struggle with supporting an organization or person who can at times do or say un-Christian things?

While that can certainly be hard for some to answer, it was no problem for White House press secretary Sarah Sanders. In fact, it may be the best response I’ve ever heard. In a recently published interview with the New Yorker, Sanders perfectly responded to any and all critics who claim Christians can’t work in or support the Trump administration.

“Frankly, if people of faith don’t get involved in the dirty process, then you’re missing the entire point of what we’re called to do,” Sanders said.

Honestly, had Sanders simply stopped right there, it would have been a simply great answer. Of course, she elaborated on the issue to further cement her point.

The New Yorker cited Trump’s alleged sexual encounter with a porn star as one of the reasons why many outsiders condemned Christians who hold high positions in the Trump administration. Sanders again had the perfect response

“I’m not going to my office expecting it to be my church,” she said. Again, this is a very valid point. For many Americans and Christians, work is a wholly separate place from church.

Even if work involves unsavory accusations, Sanders is 100 percent correct to say that believing in Christianity means she should be wanting to go into work to spread the good word.

“You’re not called to go into the places where everyone already thinks like you and is a believer — you have to go onto a stage where they’re not,” Sanders said.

Sanders did clarify that she was not speaking directly about the White House, but rather her mission as a Christian in general.

“You have to take that message into the darkest places, and the dirtiest places, and the most tainted and dysfunctional places. If you can influence even one person, that’s what you’re supposed to do,” she added.

When the New Yorker writer Paige Williams pointed out that she thought Trump specifically needed the most help, Sanders didn’t miss a beat.

“We all need help,” Sanders responded. “That’s the whole basis of Christianity. No one is perfect. We are all sinners.”

That, in particular, seems to be the biggest point the media is missing. Nobody is perfect, and Sanders clearly realizes that. The mainstream media that’s so intent on attacking the Trump administration that it seems blind to its own flaws ought to remind itself of that every once in a while.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

If I could have two television shows and two movies on a desert island, they’d be “The Office,” (the American version) “Breaking Bad,” “The Dark Knight,” and “Die Hard.” I love sports, video games, comics, movies and television. And I guess my job, too.

 

Opinion: Scenes from the Kavanaugh Clash — And What the Media Badly Missed


Commentary By Amy Swearer | October 7, 2018 at 3:56pm

URL of the original posting site: https://www.westernjournal.com/opinion-scenes-kavanaugh-clash-media-badly-missed/

Friday morning, as the Senate prepared to vote to advance Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination, I took a field trip with some of our interns. It wasn’t anything intensive — just a lap around the Capitol to observe the anti-Kavanaugh protests.

One of our female interns carried a sign. It was a simple sign with four words: “I stand with Brett.”

I somewhat expected those words to attract attention — they are, after all, words so contrary to the sentiments expressed by the majority of individuals who held signs around the Capitol this week.

What I did not expect was the type of attention it would draw and from what type of people.

You see, we were mostly ignored by the large groups of screaming, borderline-hysterical, anti-Kavanaugh protesters. Occasionally, a lone individual would heap some abuse our way, often in the form of telling us we ought to be ashamed of ourselves. But overall, it appeared they had bigger fights to pick than with four fairly innocuous young adults who kept a respectful distance.

No, the attention we attracted was from people largely overlooked amid the shouting. And they were almost unanimously supportive.

Normal, everyday people — tourists from all areas of the country, couples pushing strollers, families with teenage daughters, middle-aged friends, elderly women out for a walk — all quietly, calmly approaching us for a word of thanks.

We could not go 50 yards without being stopped by someone expressing their gratitude or asking if we had any extra signs. I can’t tell you how many wanted to take pictures with the sign. I gave up counting the thumbs ups and smiles. I can’t tell you the number of ways we were thanked by different individuals.

What I do know is that the amount of encouragement received by people who would otherwise have stayed silent in the shadow of the larger anti-Kavanaugh mobs gave me hope.

More than anything, I was heartened by the women. For too many women, “I stand with Brett” is a phrase we’ve been told we mustn’t utter in public. It’s a conclusion we’ve been told we mustn’t reach. A rationale we’ve been told we mustn’t embrace.

And so many women have stayed silent. We’ve quietly absorbed the abuse aimed at us. Without retort, we have stood by and refrained from engaging in a prolonged ideological battle we fear we’ll fight alone.

But inside, we know. We know that there is not and has never been a shred of corroboration for the claims of sexual misconduct against Kavanaugh. We know that “Believe all women” is an irrational and untenable ideology that undermines every argument that we should be treated equally to men. We know that a good man has been forced to go to war for his honor and his family because he is being slandered on the altar of social justice run amok.

For dozens of women today, these four words printed on poster board were their voice, and they let us know it.

Reason and truth do not always belong to the loudest in the room. Sometimes, they belong to the whisperers the world barely acknowledges, and castigates when it does.

So let me unequivocally state today what so many of us have long known, but have too often refused to say publicly: Women, it’s OK.

It’s OK to not believe other women when the evidence is contrary to their claims.

It’s OK to adhere to basic concepts of rationality and fairness when making a judgment about a man accused of sexual misconduct.

It’s OK to stand with Kavanaugh if your reason so implores you.

These are things we need not only whisper in private. We can say them out loud, and boldly. Behind our whispers is a mighty roar to let others know they are not alone in thinking for themselves.

Amy Swearer is a legal policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation.

A version of this Op-Ed appeared Friday on The Daily Signal website under the headline “The Power of ‘I Stand With Brett.’”

Police: Democrat Ended Political Argument by Driving to Man’s Home, Opening Fire


Reported By Kara Pendleton | September 12, 2018 at

2:46pm

Brian Sebring of Tampa, Florida, was arrested last month for allegedly shooting a man who he had a political disagreement with on social media. The victim suffered non-life threatening injuries.

Tampa Police DepartmentBrian Sebring of Tampa, Florida, was arrested last month for allegedly shooting a man after the two had a political argument on social media. The victim suffered non-life threatening injuries. (Tampa Police Department)

Perhaps when President Barack Obama, known for being divisive, left office, some held out hope for a more unified nation. Instead, there has been a ramping up of not only violent political rhetoric, but acts of violence, as well. Social media has been one place where that aggression has been seen surging. Take the example of a political disagreement on social media that resulted in a Florida man being shot.

According to the Tampa Bay Times, 44-year-old Brian Sebring — a registered Democrat — and Facebook friend Alex Stephens, 46, a convicted felon with no political registration, got into an online dispute last month involving politics. It ended with Sebring driving to Stephens’ home and shooting him.

“After receiving several explicit messages and threats, the defendant responded to the victim’s home to confront him (regarding) the messages,” according to a police report cited by the Tampa Bay Times. Sebring was arrested and told police that Stephens had threatened him, so he drove to his home in order to confront him.

However, Sebring took a Glock, in a waistband holster, and an AR-15 with him when he went to confront Stephens. After arriving at Stephen’s home, Sebring allegedly honked his truck horn and waited outside of the vehicle for Stephens. Stephens went outside and allegedly “charged at” Sebring. It was at this point that Sebring allegedly opened fire, hitting Stephens in the buttocks.

Despite Stephens fleeing and Sebring leaving the scene, police ultimately found and arrested Sebring for the shooting. He was charged with aggravated battery with a deadly weapon and carrying a concealed firearm. His bail was set at $9,500.

“I’m not a bad guy,” Sebring said in an interview with the Tampa Bay Times a few days after the incident. “But I mean, this guy threatened to hurt my family, and I went off the deep end. I wasn’t thinking right. You know, after this I’m going to go see a therapist or something, man, because that’s some scary s—, that I could lose my temper like that and do something so stupid.”

The exact topic of the men’s dispute is not known, other than it had to do with politics. What we do know is that in the current political climate, violent rhetoric and violent acts are on the rise. And that makes it even more fool-hardy for anyone to make threats.

What we also know is that, overall, the violence is being perpetrated more heavily in one direction. And those violent threats and acts are leaning heavily against those on the right.

Breitbart has reported that instances ofviolence against the right are increasing as media outlets “amp up hate-rhetoric against Trump.” In July, Breitbart began documenting “acts of media-approved violence and harassment against Trump supporters.” The running total is now up to 564.

In mid-July, The Gateway Pundit noted that Breitbart’s running total at that time was just over 300. This means that in  approximately two month’s time, the number has almost doubled. And more reports of violence continue to pour in.

It has long-since gone beyond an increase in violent threats on social media to actual attacks in real life.

Meanwhile, few on the left have said anything to discourage such behavior. Some, such as Democratic Rep. Maxine Waters, have been blamed for amping up the hate and violence.

Some believe the incitement is intentional, with the ultimate goal being that of a civil war. Others point to mental disorders on a mass scale, with such tags as “liberalism” and “Trump Derangement Syndrome.”

While such labels are sometimes used in jest, the injuries sustained by victims of the violence is no laughing matter. Something needs to be done and it needs to include Democratic leadership and media taking responsibility.

Violent rhetoric and violent acts against political opponents are not OK. This should be something both sides of the political aisle can agree upon and commit to fighting against. What actually happens, as reports continue to pour in and public outrage continues to grow, is yet to be seen.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Specializing in news, politics and human interest stories, Kara Pendleton has been a professional writer and author since 2002. One of her proudest professional moments was landing an interview that even mainstream media couldn’t get.

OPINION COMMENTARY: NYT Credibility Shot: Senior Official Turned Out To Be Intern in Past Hit Piece


Commentary By Ben Marquis | September 6, 2018 at 3:05pm

The New York Times published an opinionated hit piece against President Donald Trump on Wednesday, but what else is new?

The anonymously written op-ed article, titled “I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration,” was purportedly penned by a “senior official” in Trump’s administration. It asserted that a collection of other “senior officials” are part of a broader, right-leaning “resistance” inside the administration that is “thwarting” the president’s “misguided impulses” to save the country from Trump’s petty recklessness.

This, even as the supposed “senior official” author admitted that many of Trump’s policies “have already made America safer and more prosperous,” though the author insisted that was the case in spite of, and not because of, Trump himself.

Unsurprisingly, the op-ed sparked plenty of controversy and outrage on all sides and provoked conspiratorial conversations about exactly who this anonymous “senior official” is.

Using clues such as linguistic mannerisms and specific words contained within the article, guesses have ranged from Vice President Mike Pence to a number of different cabinet-level officials to other truly “senior” officials in the top tier of the administration’s several agencies and departments.

But if Trump’s White House has engaged in a “witch hunt” of its own to identify the anonymous author of The Times’ hit piece, an op-ed in Townhall suggested the hunters avert their gaze from the cabinet and top tier of the administration and search a little bit lower on the totem pole to find the potentially seditious insider.

That Townhall piece noted that The Times has a history of inflating and over-exaggerating the stature or seniority of its anonymous sources from within the government, and pointed to a rather glaring example of the practice that occurred in 2011.

At that time, the explosive growth in natural gas energy production was gaining steam in large part because of technological progress in a new method of drilling known as hydraulic fracturing. Better known as “fracking,” it was widely opposed by the left, to include the Obama administration and its liberal mouthpieces at The Times.

A writer for The Times published a series of anti-fracking articles in the paper, one of which anonymously cited emails from three “senior” insiders — an energy industry analyst, a federal analyst and a senior administration official — who were all opposed to the shale energy boom and the industry’s methods used to extract it.

A Senate investigation into the matter determined that the emails had all originated in the federal government’s Energy Information Agency, and even better than that, all the emails from the three “different” sources had actually come from just one person employed by the EIA.

On top of that, the one EIA employee was nowhere close to truly being a “senior” official of any sort. At the time he wrote the first email quoted by The Times, he was actually an intern with the EIA. He had been promoted one rung on the ladder to be an entry-level analyst when he wrote the others.

A deeper dive into that particular scandal was well documented in a 2011 article published by Energy In Depth, including a look at how harshly The Times’ own ombudsman judged the newspaper’s product.

There’s no way of knowing who The Times’ source is in this case, but history suggests the possibility that The Times has similarly exaggerated or inflated the seniority of this anti-Trump “senior official” who is part of a resistance movement inside Trump’s own administration.

The Times editors — who stated in an introduction to the op-ed that they know who the author is — have refused to reveal that individual’s identity, ostensibly to protect the writer from potential blowback or career-ending punishment.

Perhaps just as likely is that they are protecting that person’s identity because it will be quite embarrassing for them if it is revealed that the “senior” official is in actuality some Trump-hating mid-level bureaucrat or low-level intern.

That’s if the op-ed was even written by a member of the administration at all, and wasn’t just some piece of fiction cooked up by The Times itself to smear Trump. (Hard as that might be to believe, it can’t be completely ruled out, given how fake some of the media’s “fake news” stories have been proven to be.)

Keep this in mind the next time somebody tries to assert how credible The New York Times is, when in reality it’s staffed by narrative-driven, leftist hacks who care more about pushing an agenda than actually reporting the news.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Writer and researcher. Constitutional conservatarian with a strong focus on protecting the Second and First Amendments.

Slow Death: CNN Dropped Below “Pawn Stars” Channel in Ratings


Reported By Ben Marquis | August 20, 2018 at 4:44pm

By now it has become predictable old news to hear that Fox News Channel defeated their cable news rivals CNN and MSNBC in the weekly ratings, as they have finished number one out of the big three in total average viewers per day for 31 consecutive weeks, according to Adweek.

Nor is it a surprise to hear that Fox beat their rivals in prime time viewership either, as they have done so for 11 consecutive weeks now.

What is somewhat surprising, and incredibly laughable, is that CNN — the formerly vaunted crown jewel of the establishment media — has sunk so low in the ratings that they are losing out to other basic cable networks in terms of prime time viewers, networks with decidedly less important topics to air than the serious news of the day.

The Daily Caller noted that while Fox ranked number one in total prime time viewers for the week of August 6-12 — 2.18 million viewers on the average evening — and were followed closely by MSNBC — 1.75 million viewers — both were trailed significantly by CNN, which averaged only 992,000 viewers during the prime time hours.

That placed CNN at seventh on the list, behind such basic cable networks as Home and Garden Television (1.33 million), USA Network (1.25 million), the History Channel (1.06 million) and TBS Network (1.02 million).

Essentially, CNN’s prime time stars like Anderson Cooper and Chris Cuomo are drawing fewer viewers than History Channel shows such as “Pawn Stars,” “American Pickers,” “Counting Cars,” “Mountain Men,” and perhaps funniest of all, “Ancient Aliens.”

Indeed, it would appear that more Americans would prefer to watch people haggle over the price of obscure antiques and old cars — or dive into the conspiracy theory of intelligent aliens visiting ancient civilizations on earth to help build the pyramids and teach them other civilization-building knowledge — than watch Cooper or Cuomo prattle on about Russians or bash the Trump administration on a daily basis.

Some of our readers who frequent social media have likely seen the memes of “Ancient Aliens” crazy-haired star Giorgio Tsoukalos stating “I’m not saying it was aliens, but it was aliens.”

That meme has recently been transformed in light of the ratings news to now feature Cooper or Cuomo stating, “I’m not saying it was the Russians, but it was probably the Russians.”

It is worth noting that while CNN lost out to the History Channel during prime time hours, the media outlet did manage to beat the History Channel in terms of total day viewers — 674,000 to 548,000. That means that at least some day time viewers seem to prefer watching CNN compare the current administration to Nazis than watching documentaries on actual Nazis during WWII.

So there is that, I guess, that CNN has going for them. Now if only CNN can find a way to woo viewers away from Nickelodeon, HGTV and Investigation Discovery … but they’d still be trailing Fox and MSNBC during the day.

It is also worth pointing out that while Adweek had noted that number one Fox News had seen a slight decline in its total numbers over last year — down 4 percent in total day viewers and down 18 percent among the key 25-54 demographic — CNN saw an even greater decline in their viewer numbers over last year.

Indeed, CNN’s daytime total was off by 13 percent and they fell by 23 percent in terms of the key 25-54 demographic of viewers that advertisers are so fond of.

We are witnessing the slow death of the overtly biased liberal media — which isn’t confined simply to TV, as formerly widely-read legacy newspapers have also seen immense drops in their numbers. This decline has been brought about their own actions, and no amount of kicking and screaming about Russia, Trump is Hitler or racism everywhere is going to save them.

Reporting the news in a straight-forward and objective manner is the only remedy that will save them now, but that might as well be buried beneath an alien spacecraft hidden inside a pyramid or tucked away on the back shelf of a pawn shop, given the media’s continued lurch leftward in spite of their plummeting ratings.

Media Celebrate Trump Mishandling $280k. Forget Obama Mishandled $88 Million.


Reported By Kara Pendleton | August 22, 2018 at

12:44pm

Another day, another “we’ve got him now. No, really, we’ve really, truly, madly, deeply got him, now!” series of headlines from the establishment media about President Donald Trump.

This time the focus is on campaign finance.

And once again, voters are left to their own devices to figure out what the truth really is and if there actually is a crime involved. Add to that the way the establishment media addressed the topic when President Barack Obama was involved in similar “scandals,” and you have more evidence as to why the establishment media outlets are so often called “fake news.”

The latest “Get Trump” establishment media feeding frenzy stems from a plea deal made by Trump’s former attorney, Michael Cohen. On Tuesday, Cohen pleaded guilty to eight criminal charges against him, including two alleged campaign finance violations. One involved a payment of $130,000 in 2016 from then-candidate Trump to porn star Stormy Daniels. The other involved coordinating a $150,000 payment by the National Enquirer’s publisher to former Playboy model Karen McDougal, according to The Wall Street Journal.

A great breakdown of the situation comes from radio and television personality Mark Levin, who is also a lawyer and worked in the Justice Department during the Reagan administration.

Appearing on “Hannity,” Levin offered his “help to the “the law professors, the constitutional experts, the criminal defense lawyers, the former prosecutors, and of course the professors” in regards to “what the law is” surrounding the campaign finance issue and Michael Cohen plea deal.

“The general counsel for the Clinton Mob Family, Lanny Davis, he had his client plead to two counts of criminality that don’t exist. These campaign finance violations that they are saying all over TV implicates the president directly.”

“First, let’s back up. It’s a guilty plea. It is a plea bargain between a prosecutor and a criminal. A criminal who doesn’t want to spend the rest of his life in prison. That is not precedent. That applies only to that specific case,” Levin said.

“Nobody cites plea bargains for precedent. That’s number one.

“Number two: Just because a prosecutor says that somebody violated a campaign law, doesn’t make it so. He’s not the judge, he’s not the jury. We didn’t adjudicate anything–it never went to court. That’s number two.

“A campaign expenditure, under our federal campaign laws, is an expenditure solely for campaign activity. A candidate who spends his own money, or even corporate money, for an event that occurred not as a result of the campaign, it is not a campaign expenditure.”

Levin then gave some examples, one being a candidate for office having disputes with a vendor and not wanting the negative publicity. In this scenario, the hypothetical candidate instructs his private attorney to just pay the vendors and he (the candidate) will reimburse the attorney.”

Levin adds that this is “perfectly legal” and a “point” made that such an act would “influence an election” was “stupid.”

Earlier this year, Newsweek tackled the “the question of whether longtime Trump attorney Michael Cohen’s $130,000 hush money payment to adult actress Stormy Daniels was an illegal campaign contribution.”  Ex-Federal Election Commission Chairman Bradley Smith told Newsweek in March that, “It looks like Trump has made these kinds of payments to people before unrelated to his campaign or as a candidate. It’s hard to show this payment was made solely because he was running for election.”

By way of comparison as to how the media handled a “campaign finance scandal” when it came to Trump’s predecessor, let’s first ask if anyone was aware there even was one.

In one of the few mainstream media reports about it, a U.S. News & World Report headline from 2013 announced, “Obama Campaign Fined Big for Hiding Donors, Keeping Illegal Donations.”

The article went on to note that,The FEC levied one of its largest fines ever against Obama’s campaign committee, new documents show.” The Federal Election Commission fined his campaign $375,000 for “a failure to disclose or improperly disclosing thousands of contributions to Obama for America during the then-senator’s 2008 presidential run.”

More specifically, citing the FEC, the article stated that “the Obama campaign failed to disclose the sources of 1,300 large donations, which together accounted for nearly $1.9 million. Election Commission rules state campaigns must report donations of $1,000 or more within 20 days of Election Day.”

“Obama for America was also fined for ‘untimely resolution of excessive contributions,’ according to the conciliation agreement, FEC says,” the report continues. “The campaign accepted more than $1.3 million in contributions that came from donors who had already given $46,000 — the maximum allowed by FEC rules. The campaign eventually refunded the excess cash but did not do so within the 60-day window allotted for resolving such cases.

“In addition to failing to report big donors and excess donations in a timely manner, the Obama campaign incorrectly dated the filings dealing with $85 million in funds, the FEC claims. This error appears to have been primarily the result of one transfer to the campaign committee from the Obama Victory Fund, a fundraising group that includes money raised by the Democratic National Committee that is earmarked for the presidential race.”

Do you remember the media having a field-day with the news and screaming for Obama to be impeached?

Was anyone sent to jail over actual mishandling of actual campaign funds? (No Russians were implicated in the commission of those violations of federal election law, either.)

The sharp contrast between the two situations is undeniable.

To anyone with eyes to read, there is a distinct appearance of the establishment media using extreme measures to smear a sitting president and build public pressure for impeachment. Neither of which is the duty of a free press or an honorable Fourth Estate.

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: