You are currently browsing the archives for the Media Bias category.


Archive for the ‘Media Bias’ Category

If the St. Cloud Times ever insists that they aren’t biased, I’ll have tons of proof that they are. Their latest editorial is one of their worst anti-truth hit pieces since I started reading their editorials. It didn’t take long for the Times’ bias to surface. The Times’ opening paragraph says “Much to the anguish those who believe in the vision of the United States as a melting pot, President Trump is making good on his campaign theme of aggressively pursuing policies that are not friendly to immigrants.”

It’s dishonest for the Times to say that President Trump is “aggressively pursuing policies that are not friendly to immigrants.” I triple-dog dare the Times to offer proof that President Trump’s policies aren’t friendly to legal immigrants. The Times isn’t that sloppy. This ‘slip’ was intentional. The Times’ intent was to paint Republicans, especially President Trump, as hating immigration. Later, the editors wrote “Citing legal overreach by his predecessor and a desire for comprehensive immigration reform, Trump has given Congress six months to draft a legally binding legislative solution to DACA. It maybe a savvy legal maneuver, but it’s a cruel blow to people who had no say in coming here yet are embracing the American dream. Not to mention the message it sends to the rest of the world.”

It finishes with paragraphs that could’ve been written by the DNC:

Again, there is no doubt Trump’s push to revoke DACA is another punch to the face of immigrants.

For the sake of these 800,000 people and to preserve America as a beacon of hope and freedom for the world, Congress must counter that punch with a legislative solution, ideally one that finally fixes our long-broken immigration system.

In the minds of leftists like the St. Cloud Times, there isn’t any doubt. In the minds of thoughtful, analytical people, there’s no doubt that Republicans, especially President Trump, insist that people coming to the United States must do it legally.

Here’s a question people should ask themselves. Why do Democratic activists, including those in the media, insist on conflating illegal immigration with legal immigration? Further, let’s ask ourselves if people see the US as a “beacon of hope and freedom” because we don’t enforce our laws.

This editorial would disappear if I removed the DFL/DNC talking points from it. When America was great, we believed in enforcing laws. We believed in the First Amendment. We fought for the Bill of Rights. We thought, correctly, that we were the planet’s last, best hope. Somewhere along the way, America’s major institutions stopped enforcing laws and believing in the First Amendment. We started cheap labor flood into the US. We started looking the other direction when presidents created new laws because the law was something we agreed with.

If we continue looking the opposite direction, we won’t be the “beacon of hope and freedom for the world” much longer.

Technorati: , , , ,

It shouldn’t surprise anyone that the Washington Post has published another shoddy article that criticizes Republicans. The only surprise is that, this time, it’s written by a Republican.

Jennifer Rubin’s hit piece insists that “Republican reaction to President Trump’s decision to rescind Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) so far falls into one of three categories, none of them positive if you want to prevent the deportation of 800,000 young people who came here through no fault of their own.” With that out of the way, she then starts speaking in circles. The first category, Ms. Rubin says, is that “One reaction among Republicans is to throw it back in the president’s court, as if there is a contest to see whether the president or Republican lawmakers can be more spineless.” Ms. Rubin says that the second category “is to suggest DACA be part of comprehensive immigration reform.” The third category “is to spout platitudes and tamp down on any sense of urgency to fix the problem.”

What Ms. Rubin didn’t include is the indisputable fact that DACA was dead the minute 12 states’ attorneys generals filed the lawsuit questioning DACA’s constitutionality. What Ms. Rubin didn’t include in her hissy fit was the part about then-President Obama’s heartlessness in creating this legislation unilaterally.

Supposedly, Ms. Rubin is a Republican, though you wouldn’t know it by her latest article. She’s all criticism all the time. Where she starts talking in circles is in the first paragraph. That’s where she says “No one on the GOP side is offering a quick bill to fix DACA that could be expedited through Congress.” Late in her article, though, she said “Here is the real test for both parties: If they are serious about protecting dreamers they need to pass a quick fix addressing that single problem, likely by passing it to legislation that cannot be delayed.”

If Ms. Rubin were a better strategist, she’d notice that this presents a golden opportunity for Republicans. I’m positive that they’d pass DACA in a heartbeat if Democrats agreed to not block funding for President Trump’s wall. Apparently, Ms. Rubin hasn’t heard of thing called legislating. She should read up on it.

Of course, what Ms. Rubin wrote isn’t as bad as President Obama’s response to DACA ending:

Here’s the most dishonest part of President Obama’s statement:

Let’s be clear: the action taken today isn’t required legally. It’s a political decision, and a moral question. Whatever concerns or complaints Americans may have about immigration in general, we shouldn’t threaten the future of this group of young people who are here through no fault of their own, who pose no threat, who are not taking away anything from the rest of us.

When President Trump was inaugurated, President Obama should’ve disappeared like a bad memory. We put up with 8 years of his dishonesty and his animosity towards the Constitution. Saying that this decision “isn’t required legally” is dishonest in the extreme. As I said earlier, DACA was essentially dead the minute the states’ attorneys general filed their lawsuit. Then again, President Obama hasn’t fared well in the Supreme Court. He’s gotten slapped down, unanimously I might add, frequently. His biggest loss was when he got slapped by the Supremes with a 9-0 decision when he tried to stuff the NLRB through recess appointments.

Had DACA been passed by Congress, then signed by President Obama, it would’ve become the law of the land. That isn’t what happened, opening the possibility for President Trump to rescind it.

Technorati: , , , , ,

Scott Johnson’s latest post on Sen. Franken and Sen. Klobuchar blocking the confirmation of Minnesota Supreme Court Justice David Stras to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals is informative in that it show how dishonest Franken and Klobuchar are. It also highlights how corrupt the Twin Cities media is.

Speaking to the latter, Scott writes “I have done my best to bring to light the machinations involved in the blocking of the Stras nomination. Wheels are in spin. The story is of interest to many Minnesota citizens of different stripes, yet it has received virtually no coverage in the Star Tribune or the Minnesota media. The story is also of interest to a national audience following the Minnesota senators, each of whom has big plans for the future. From the perspective of their aspirations, Justice Stras is a bit player.”

It isn’t a secret that both Klobuchar and Franken see themselves as part of a national ticket in the next couple of elections. That they see themselves that way is why the Twin Cities media is doing their best to protect them from being called obstructionists.

To the former, Scott writes “Senator Klobuchar has carved a niche projecting an aura of bipartisan good feelings that conceals pure partisan hackery. As I think our coverage has demonstrated, the Stras nomination presents a powerful case in point, several times over.”

This weekend, I saw a liberal pundit address the Stras nomination on At Issue. This pundit tried justifying the Stras nomination obstructionism by saying (I’m paraphrasing this) Republicans blocked a Supreme Court nominee from even getting a hearing. This pundit was talking about Merrick Garland’s nomination. I’d just argue that Republicans didn’t attempt to hide their strategy.

They announced that they weren’t going to give him a hearing and they said why they were employing this strategy. Compare that with the secrecy that St. Amy of Hennepin County and Sen. Stuart Smalley, my nicknames for Sen. Klobuchar and Sen. Franken, have operated under while obstructing Stras’s nomination.

Simply put, Franken is a political hatchetman who’s part of the Resistance Movement that’s done everything to obstruct everything that President Trump has tried doing to fix the mess that the Obama administration dumped into his lap.

Franken hasn’t done anything to pretend that he’s got Minnesota’s or the nation’s best interest at heart. Klobuchar is a political hack, too, though she has more political talent than Franken. They, along with Gov. Dayton, have gotten elected because people still think today’s DFL is like the party of Humphrey, Mondale and Wellstone.

The truth is that party disappeared years ago. Today’s DFL doesn’t represent farmers or laborers, the F and L in DFL. Farmers have abandoned the DFL in recent years, as evidenced by the fact that rural Minnesota is what’s helped Republicans regain the majority in both houses of the Minnesota legislature. Further, Hillary Clinton got buried in northern Minnesota, losing the Eighth District to President Trump by almost 60,000 votes.

It’s time for the Twin Cities media to prove that they’re professionals, not DFL activists. Thus far, I’ve seen little proof that they aren’t DFL activists.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

This week, we watched Houstonians and other heroes appear before our eyes. They volunteered their time to help families in convention centers who had lost everything. They loaded up their boats and helped first responders rescue families from flooded homes. This week, we saw the best of America while seeing Harvey’s destruction.

This week, the MSM got pushed to the side. It wasn’t relevant most of this week. It isn’t coincidental that Americans saw American exceptionalism at its finest. Now that we’re coming to the end of Phase One of the recovery, the MSM and The Swamp are reasserting itself in an attempt to take control again. This time, Chris Cillizza’s article focuses its attention on dividing the nation once again. How sad.

Like a moth being drawn to a flame, the MSM and other creatures of the Swamp can’t help themselves. They’re drawn to conflict and division. Cillizza’s article starts by saying “Back in the fall of 2012, as Superstorm Sandy ravaged the New Jersey coastline, a whole lot of political myths got started. One was that Gov. Chris Christie’s hug of then-President Barack Obama amid the crisis was somehow the linchpin to Obama’s re-election. The second was that the disaster relief package for Sandy became a congressional Christmas tree — decorated with every little pet project that any member wanted, all under the guise of helping New Jersey.”

This is what’s wrong with Democrats. Truly patriotic Americans don’t want to rehash old fights. They’d prefer getting on with the nation’s business. At this moment, that means immediately putting a clean disaster relief bill together and getting it to President Trump’s desk ASAP.

It’s time for Americans to reject the MSM’s and The Swamp’s agenda of division and discord. That isn’t who we are. We’re better than that.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

The Left’s latest chanting point is that President Trump’s pardon of Sheriff Arpaio means that he might pardon his friends facing federal investigations. That’s why it isn’t surprising to read Phillip Bump’s article, which reads like a liberal hissy fit on the subject.

Bump writes “The broader question raised by the pardon, then, is where Trump would draw the line. If he’s willing to pardon Joe Arpaio for ignoring a court order in service of a political goal Trump embraces, why wouldn’t he pardon another individual he respects for similarly ignoring a demand from the court.”

First, Bump’s premise is beyond flimsy. Presupposing that members of President Trump’s administration have committed crimes isn’t supported by any investigations. Until there’s more than unsubstantiated allegations of crimes being committed, I’ll ignore Bump’s liberal bias. The naming of a special counsel doesn’t prove anything except that Democrats will do anything in their attempt to delegitimize President Trump’s election. I’ll categorize that as the longest case of sour grapes in political history.

If there’s any doubt that this is the Democrats’ latest talking point to delegitimize President Trump’s election, check out this interview:

Then check out how similar this interview is to the first interview:

The clear message that I think President Trump is sending is that he isn’t like President Obama because he’s serious about protecting Arizona’s people from drug cartels and human traffickers. If Democrats want to pick that fight, let’s get it on. The Obama administration found a liberal judge to torment Sheriff Arpaio with a BS verdict.

Further, the Obama administration wasn’t serious about fighting illegal immigration. That’s indisputable because they frequently tied law enforcement’s hands behind their backs on immigration:

A group of immigration agents filed a lawsuit against the Obama administration Thursday, saying they are sick of being told not to do their jobs, a feeling intensified by the president’s new non-deportation policy and a previous memo directing them not to arrest certain illegal immigrants.

Sen. McCain, Sen. Flake, former President Obama and essentially all of the Democratic Party serving in DC have fought against enforcing the Tex-Mex border. Most importantly, they’ve fought against protecting law-abiding U.S. citizens.

As for the possibility of a president pardoning people whenever they want, that’s always been a possibility. There’s no reason to think that President Trump will pardon his political cronies, partially because his campaign staffers aren’t in trouble. The other faulty part of Bump’s premise is that there isn’t any proof anyone’s broken any laws. Why would anyone lie if they didn’t need to?

Watching Friday night’s Almanac Roundtable verified for the zillionth time that their panelists consistently have an anti-Trump bias. This week’s panelists were Larry Jacobs, Kathryn Pearson and David Schultz. One of the first questions was about whether the Trump administration’s response to Hurricane Harvey would sink the Trump administration. Each of the panelists approached the question from the standpoint that Trump would screw things up, thereby effectively ending his time in office.

Though I’m not totally surprised by their answers, I was astonished by the appearance that they didn’t even consider the possibility that the Trump administration would get the important things right. As I wrote in this post, “states that come through hurricanes with a minimal amount of physical damage and/or casualties do so because sheriffs and governors have handled their responsibilities without incident. The federal government is there to help when called upon.”

In this instance, Gov. Abbott said that his team had been interacting smoothly with the Trump administration and that he didn’t expect any difficulties from a logistical standpoint. This USAToday article indicates that Gov. Abbott and President Trump have worked successfully together:

How has the federal government responded?
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) granted Texas Gov. Greg Abbott’s request for a Presidential Disaster Declaration in response to the hurricane. In advance of the storm, Abbott declared a state of disaster for 30 counties.

Almost 233,000 homes on the Texas coast are at risk, with a potential reconstruction bill of almost $40 billion, according to CoreLogic, a company that conducts global property analysis.

Abbott warned of record-setting flooding in multiple regions of the state and urged people to get out of harm’s way. “You don’t want to put yourself in a situation where you could be subject to a search and rescue.” Early Saturday morning, President Trump said on Twitter his office would “remain fully engaged w/ open lines of communication.” Trump also tweeted that he was in contact with the governors of Texas and Louisiana. “I have spoken w/ @GovAbbot of Texas and @LouisianaGov Edwards. Closely monitoring #HurricaneHarvey developments & here to assist as needed,” Trump’s tweet read.

In other words, Professors Jacobs, Pearson and especially Schultz didn’t know what they were talking about. As usual, Schultz spoke from a theoretical perspective, not a reality-based perspective. It isn’t a stretch to think that that’s because he was wishing President Trump would fail. It’s equally fair to say that Prof. Schultz just didn’t know what he was talking about. Here’s a report from Gov. Abbott himself:

That isn’t theoretical. That’s coming from the man charged with maintaining order. It’s apparent that the decisions that Gov. Abbott made have put have given Texans the information they needed to survive. It’s equally apparent that the disaster declaration signed by President Trump has given FEMA permission to help Texans.

Saying that Ana Navarro is an angry woman is understatement. Unhinged is another word that fits. After President Trump pardoned Sheriff Joe Arpaio, Ms. Navarro went off. She started by saying “what message that he’s sending through this Joe Arpaio thing is a message to his base, is a message to anyone who is anti-Hispanic, to anyone who is…(inaudible) No, sweetheart, I’m America first and you don’t get to tell me I’m not. But I’m also not anti-Hispanic. I’m not anti-immigrant. I’m not anti-black. I’m not (inaudible). I’m not anti-gay. So you don’t get to tell me that I’m not America first because I’m an immigrant and I’m Hispanic. You’re inferring that I’m a little bit older. So let me tell you something. He’s sending a message by pardoning Joe Arpaio. Try to control yourself from interrupting me because you’re a little too close and you’re getting into my danger zone. Don’t interrupt. Let me just tell you, the message that he’s sending is ‘I’m ok with profiling Latinos in Arizona. I’m ok with attacking immigrants. I’m ok with attacking Hispanics. I’m ok with mistreating prisoners. I’m ok with everything that Joe Arpaio represents.’ And that’s the message that he’s sending to his base and to those of us who are not his base.”

Words alone don’t do Ms. Navarro’s diatribe justice. Watch how irate and unhinged she is:

That’s breathtaking. Ms. Navarro has gone off at least twice this week. Put differently, she’s lost it on national TV. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand that she needs anger management training.

For all of Don Lemon’s and Jim Clapper’s pontificating about how President Trump isn’t fit for office, the only proof that anyone isn’t mentally fit for their job is watching Ms. Navarro’s multiple meltdowns. When Ms. Navarro’s fellow panelist started laughing at her, she said that he was “getting into my danger zone.” That’s something that a person that’s lost it does. That isn’t how a rational person reacts.

CNN bears responsibility for their anchors’ and pundits’ behavior. This week, they’ve been out of control and disrespectful in the extreme. They obviously think that this plays well with their audience. That’s probably true but it’s also why their ratings rarely improve for more than a blip at a time. People who have just finished a long work week don’t want to turn on the TV and watch that type of stuff. In 10 seconds or less, they’re flipping to another channel.

After President Trump’s speech in Phoenix Tuesday night, Jim Clapper and Don Lemon proclaimed on national TV that President Trump was unfit to hold office. It was just a matter of time until a qualified psychiatrist weighed in on the subject. Dr. Keith Ablow’s evaluation should (but won’t) put this talk to rest. It should stop these statements in the sense that amateurs like Lemon and Clapper will look like idiots when they spew their BS. It won’t stop this BS because it’s the only thing that the Democrats have going for themselves. But I digress.

Dr. Ablow wrote “At the risk of sounding a bit narcissistic myself: These people should quiet down, enjoy a nice Trump cigar or glass of Trump wine and listen to me. My insights are basic ones that an average medical student or below-average political science major in a college should be able to grasp, immediately. So, chill.” After telling the pundits to chill, Dr. Ablow said “Now, here is my assessment, once again: Donald Trump is stone cold sane and more than mentally fit to be president of the United States. When a man acquires billions of dollars through complex real estate transactions, invests in many countries, goes on to phenomenal success in television and turns his name into a worldwide brand, it is very unlikely that he is mentally unstable.”

Dr. Ablow didn’t stop there. Here’s more:

When the same man obviously enjoys the love and respect of his children and his wife, who seem to rely on him for support and guidance, it is extraordinarily unlikely that he is mentally unstable. When the same man obviously enjoys the love and respect of his children and his wife, who seem to rely on him for support and guidance, it is extraordinarily unlikely that he is mentally unstable. When the same man walks into the political arena and deftly defeats 16 Republican opponents and then the Democratic heir-apparent to a two-term president’s administration, the odds of that man being mentally unstable become vanishingly thin.

Unlike people like Clapper and Lemon, Dr. Ablow is qualified to analyze people from a psychiatric perspective. I love Dr. Ablow’s closing argument:

Now, think about those who are rabble-rousing about the president’s mental status. Take Sen. Al Franken. Remember? He was all worried about the president allegedly overestimating the crowd size at his inauguration. But Franken is allied with Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who asserted she is Native American, when there is no evidence of that whatsoever. And they’re still calling Trump’s sanity into question? Really, you can’t make this stuff up.

The good news is that Messrs. Clapper and Lemon don’t actually believe what they’re saying. They’re just saying what’s most politically advantageous for themselves. Lemon isn’t a journalist. He’s a political activist who is getting paid to do a journalist’s job. Clapper is a liberal hatchet man.

It’s a mistake to think either is a serious professional.

The press apparently doesn’t understand that they’re viewed as mean-spirited, dishonest and undeserving of the nation’s trust. Tuesday night, CNN’s political anchors and invited pundits jumped the political shark. Their pundits spoke authoritatively about President Trump’s mental health. Then they questioned his fitness for office. They spoke the words with total conviction. Still later, Ana Navarro implied that President Trump had an early onset of dementia. Then she denied implying that. In this tweet, Navarro said “Only possible defensible explanation for Trump’s disgusting, unpresidential, narcissistic behavior, would be early-on-set dementia. Maybe.”

Let’s point something important out before going further. Don Lemon, Ana Navarro and Jim Clapper aren’t qualified to make statements about anyone’s mental health. When they started making statements about President Trump’s mental health, everyone in the Heartland questioned their opinions because everyone knows that they aren’t qualified to make statements on another person’s mental health.

When Alyson Camerota interviewed Ben Ferguson and Ms. Navarro on her show Wednesday, Ms. Navarro denied that she implied that President Trump had dementia. What Ms. Navarro apparently doesn’t understand is that she came across as a mean-spirited bitch. The minute Ferguson started challenging her statements, Ms. Navarro got visibly angry. The tone in her voice got angrier. She started interrupting, then denying. In short, she lost it.

Here’s a debate tip for Ms. Navarro: the minute you start denying that you said what you said, you’ve lost. That’s what she did Wednesday morning:

Late in the interview (about 8 minutes in), Navarro took another cheapshot at President Trump, saying “When he speaks from the heart or the lack thereof…” It’s funny to hear the press criticize President Trump for not being presidential, then acting like spoiled little brats themselves. Why do these people think that they’ve earned the right to be thought of as professional journalists? Just because they get paid for dispersing their opinions doesn’t make them professionals. In this instance, it just means that they’re paid gasbags.

Greg Jarrett sums things up beautifully:

They will persist in predicting Trump’s imminent demise and assert their own intellectual and moral superiority. In so doing, they are sowing the seeds of their own destruction. Not as a professional endeavor. There will always be journalists.

But America will no longer hold them in respectable regard.

Amen to that last sentence.

Jim Clapper, the former DNI, aka Director of National Intelligence, has been a political hatchet man for years. Now employed by CNN, all that’s changed is that he isn’t a hatchet man for the federal government. Instead, he’s a political hatchet man for CNN. This article highlights Mr. Clappers propensity for political shenanigans.

After Don Lemon’s anti-Trump diatribe, he continued with the theme that Trump wasn’t fit to be president, this time getting Clapper to echo Lemon’s accusations. During the interview, Dir. Clapper said “I really question his ability, his fitness to be in this office and I also am beginning to wonder about his motivation for it. Maybe he is looking for a way out. I do wonder, as well about the people that attracted to this, to this rally as others. You know, what are they thinking? Or why am I so far off base? Because I don’t understand the adulation. Of course, that’s why I think he gravitated to having this rally as ill-timed as it is.”

The first obvious question that Clapper needs to be asked is why he thinks President Trump is “looking for a way out.” Since the Russia collusion investigation pretty much collapsed, Democrat operatives starting conducting a stealth campaign questioning President Trump’s stability. At this year’s Netroots Nation gathering, DNC Vice-Chair Keith Ellison didn’t mince words. He said that President Trump was less stable than Kim Jung Un. This week, the storyline from Don Lemon and James Clapper has been that President Trump is unhinged.

To fully understand this story, let’s understand who Jim Clapper is. This is the opening paragraph of Sen. Wyden’s statement after DNI Clapper resigned:

During Director Clapper’s tenure, senior intelligence officials engaged in a deception spree regarding mass surveillance. Top officials, officials who reported to Director Clapper, repeatedly misled the American people and even lied to them.

It’s worth noting that Sen. Wyden isn’t a diehard movement conservative. He’s a liberal Democrat from Oregon. There’s more from Sen. Wyden’s official statement:

After the NSA Director declined to correct these statements, I put the question to the Director of National Intelligence in March 2013.  I wouldn’t have been doing my job if I hadn’t asked that question.  My staff and I spent weeks preparing it, and I had my staff send him the question in advance so that he would be prepared to answer it.  

Director Clapper famously gave an untrue answer to that question.  So I had my intelligence staffer call his office afterward and ask them to correct the record. The Director’s office refused to correct the record. Regardless of what was going through the director’s head when he testified, failing to correct the record was a deliberate decision to lie to the American people about what their government was doing. And within a few months, of course, the truth came out.

That isn’t all that DNI Clapper did, though. Here’s more:

Former President Barack Obama’s intelligence chief issued revised procedures in 2013 that made it easier for executive branch officials to “unmask” the names of lawmakers or congressional staffers caught up in intelligence intercepts overseas, according to interviews and documents reviewed by The Hill. Procedures issued by Director of National Intelligence James Clapper in March 2013 formally supplanted a 1992 set of rules that made the dissemination of names of intercepted lawmakers or congressional aides an act of last resort.

The new standard allowed for a lawmaker’s or staffer’s name to be unmasked if  “an executive branch recipient of intelligence” believed that learning “the identity of the Member of Congress or the Congressional staff is necessary to understand and assess the associated intelligence and further a lawful activity of the recipient agency,” according to a memo released earlier this month by the DNI’s office with little public fanfare.

Unmasking these people’s identities wasn’t done for national security purposes. It was done for political purposes.

UPDATE: During Brian Kilmeade’s interview of Lt. Col. Tony Schaffer, Lt. Col. Schaffer highlighted the fact that former DNI Clapper got caught lying under oath. Democrats first tried delegitimizing President Trump’s victory by saying Trump colluded with Russia to win the election. When that investigation fell apart, Democrats switched to insinuating that President Trump wasn’t fit for office. Who knows what’s next?

Here’s the video of Schaffer’s interview with Kilmeade: