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


Archive for the ‘Media Bias’ Category

When Politico published excerpts of Donna Brazile’s book, they set off a media firestorm. That firestorm required pushback by the Clinton-Media Complex. Glenn Greenwald’s article highlights the Clintons’ dishonest tactics in fighting against the truth by writing about 4 viral falsehoods.

The first viral falsehood is “The Clinton/DNC agreement cited by Brazile only applied to the General Election, not the primary.” Greenwald’s article exposed that by saying “The following day, NBC published an article by Alex Seitz-Wald that recited and endorsed the Clinton camp’s primary defense: that Brazile was wrong because the agreement in question (a copy of which they provided to Seitz-Wald) applied ‘only to preparations for the general election,’ and had nothing to do with the primary season.” Greenwald then wrote “The problem with this claim is that it is blatantly and obviously false. All one has to do to know this is read the agreement. Unlike the journalists spreading this DNC defense, Campaign Legal Defense’s Brendan Fischer bothered to read it, and immediately saw, and documented, how obviously false this claim is.”

Hillary’s media, like her, can’t be trusted. They’re as willing to ignore the truth as she’s been all her life. Hillary’s vast right wing conspiracy still rates as her biggest fabrication but it isn’t her only fabrication. Another attack made against Brazile is equally dishonest:

Viral Falsehood #3: Brazile stupidly thought she could unilaterally remove Clinton as the nominee.
Yesterday, the Washington Post published an article reporting on various claims made in Brazile’s new book. The headline, which was widely tweeted, made it seem as though Brazile delusionally believed she had a power which, obviously, she did not in fact possess: “Donna Brazile: I considered replacing Clinton with Biden as 2016 Democratic nominee.”

This fabrication was killed by reporting the facts:

But the entire attack on Brazile was false. She did not claim, at least according to the Post article being cited, that she had the power to unilaterally remove Clinton. The original Post article, buried deep down in the article, well after the headline, made clear that she was referencing a complicated process in the DNC charter that allowed for removal of a nominee who had become incapacitated.

This isn’t my attempt to rehabilitate Ms. Brazile’s reputation. I wrote this post to highlight how corrupt she is. This post’s goal is to highlight how dishonest the Clinton media is. Greenwald’s closing paragraph is good advice:

It can certainly be menacing for Russian bots to disseminate divisive messaging on Twitter. But it’s at least equally menacing if journalists with the loudest claim to authoritative credibility are using that platform constantly to entrench falsehoods in the public’s mind.

Amen to that.

Technorati: , , , ,

This St. Cloud Times Our View editorial is littered with gun control advocates’ BS from beginning to end. It starts with “No matter the body count (and injury count) last week in Las Vegas. No matter how many will die in the next U.S. mass shooting, which statistically is expected to happen today. No matter how long this madness keeps up, don’t expect federal laws to help stem it anytime soon.”

I hate bursting Randy’s bubble but it’s pretty likely that Congress will pass a law prohibiting bump stocks. So much for not expecting new “federal laws” to stop gun violence. It doesn’t end there. The editorial continues, saying “That’s why this board, along with most Americans, sees a good starting point being the long-proposed plan to require background checks for all gun purchases online and at gun shows. It’s not the perfect answer alone. But it is a needed addition to existing laws.”

Actually, it isn’t a needed addition since it’s already the law of the land. Whether a person buys a gun at gun shop or gun show, the buyer must undergo a background check. Period. This paragraph is filled with misinformation:

This board stated in 2015 that’s worth a discussion, given rapid gunfire is common to so many mass shootings. Congress from 1994 to 2004 banned certain semi-automatic assault weapons and magazines holding more than 10 rounds. Did it help? Hard to say, but back then America was not averaging one mass shooting a day, either.

It isn’t difficult to say. Leah Libresco studied the subject.

Here’s what she discovered:

In real life, silencers limit hearing damage for shooters but don’t make gunfire dangerously quiet. An AR-15 with a silencer is about as loud as a jackhammer. Magazine limits were a little more promising, but a practiced shooter could still change magazines so fast as to make the limit meaningless.

It’s apparent that the Times Editorial Board haven’t done the extensive research that Ms. Libresco has done. If they had, they’d know the things that she’s written about.

Remember, though, the priority of any legislative package is to identify people who pose risks, not inanimate objects.

Tell that to the Democrats. Most Republicans understand that inanimate objects can’t kill people without help from people.

In the Times latest Our View editorial, titled “Consider this: Just outlaw cigarettes”, the Times talks about the fact that the “city of St. Cloud is considering whether to increase the age to buy tobacco in the city to 21.” Put differently, the geniuses on the St. Cloud City Council are thinking about hurting St. Cloud convenience stores.

Despite the fact that this doesn’t make any economic sense, the Times wrote “Really, though, if elected and professional officials of any government wanted to do what’s best for their constituents, they would simply outlaw tobacco.” Though the Times has denied the fact that it’s biased against conservative, this is proof that the Times Editorial Board displays progressive traits. Specifically, they show that they’re control freaks, which is the first trait to look for with progressives.

In this post, I cited statistics verifying that raising the cigarette tax hurts revenues. The article I cited said “In 2009, Washington, D.C. raised its cigarette tax from $2.00 to $2.50 per pack. The District projected the new tax would generate $45 million in revenue, about 20 percent above 2009 levels. Instead, revenues came in $12 million below projections and $4.2 million lower than before the tax was imposed. Similarly, New Jersey reported a $52 million shortfall in tobacco tax revenues after it raised its cigarette tax by 17.5 cents in 2007.”

Do the city council members think that raising the legal smoking age from 18 to 21 will cause 18-20 year-olds to quit smoking? If that’s what they think, they’re too stupid to represent me. That isn’t what will happen:

Should Gov. Mark Dayton’s proposed 94 cent per pack cigarette tax increase succeed, it is likely that the state will see a large revenue shortfall due to smokers shifting their consumption across state lines, to the Internet, or to illicit black market tobacco.

Young people won’t quit. They’ll just find out different places to buy cigarettes. The thought that the other cities will follow suit is foolish. They won’t.

Crave the Change, a Central Minnesota organization that’s spent the past decade fighting tobacco use, offers an array of statistics on why boosting the age to 21 makes sense.

CtC might have some decent ideas but it’s irrelevant. Kids simply find other ways of buying things they want.

Finally, as the St. Cloud City Council approaches a Nov. 9 public hearing on the matter, residents of neighboring cities Sartell, Sauk Rapids, St. Joseph, Waite Park and St. Augusta should urge their elected leaders to act, too.

Joseph Curl’s article on the Democrats’ attempt to turn Hurricane Maria into “Trump’s Katrina” is verifiably dishonest. For instance, Curl’s article starts by saying “From the moment Hurricane Maria smashed through Puerto Rico, ripping off roofs and crushing the island’s electrical grid, President Trump activated all avenues of response by the U.S. government. The military and throngs of first responders rushed in and tons of water and food were sent to the U.S. territory.”

Despite those verifiable facts, Mika Brzezinski couldn’t resist publishing a dishonest tweet that said “First the President attacks an American hero fighting for his life, now he attacks AMERICANS suffering through 2017’s Katrina. #hesnotfit” Actually, President Trump didn’t attack Americans (plural). He attacked grandstanding San Juan Mayor Carmen Yulin-Cruz. President Trump, BTW, wasn’t the only person criticizing Mayor Yulin-Cruz.

Guaynabo “Mayor Angel Perez Otero says that Mayor Yulin Cruz has been a no show at coordination meetings between FEMA, U.S. military officials, and Puerto Rican leaders”, adding that “We are receiving a lot of help from FEMA and the Red Cross…there is lots of help coming to us,” adding, “they won’t leave until Puerto Rico is good.”

This might be beyond the intellect of an elitist MSNBC anchor but I’m betting that it isn’t difficult for blue collar workers to figure out. For Mika’s benefit, I’ll spell this out. Mayor Yulin-Cruz is Puerto Rico’s version of Ray Nagin. Mayor Perez-Otero is Puerto Rico’s version of Gov. Abbott.

A month ago, people were praising President Trump and FEMA Administrator Brock Long for their performance during Harvey and Irma. The operations worked like clockwork, both from a local standpoint and a federal standpoint. It isn’t likely that Brock Long suddenly went from genius to incompetent. The advance supplies were in place in Puerto Rico just like they’d been pre-positioned for Harvey. In Houston, the ‘recovery machine’ functioned efficiently and beautifully. In Florida, ditto. In most of Puerto Rico, things are going as well as can be expected considering the amount of devastation. The only hiccup in Puerto Rico is where Mayor Yulin-Cruz has been officially in charge. Check out this video, then tell me President Trump is the bottleneck:

This paragraph is devastating to MSNBC’s and CNN’s attempt to turn Maria into Trump’s Katrina because Brock Long lays it all out:

“The problem that we have with the mayor unfortunately is that unity of command is ultimately what’s needed to be successful in this response” and “What we need is for the mayor, the good mayor, to make her way to the joint field office and get plugged into what’s going on and be successful,” he continued, “I think that’s the bottom line on that tweet.”

Here’s a question for Mika. If a) the supplies are pre-positioned where they’re supposed to be and b) other cities are getting those pre-positioned supplies to their constituents, wouldn’t it be wise to find out why only 1 city is having difficulty? Wouldn’t it be reasonable to think that leadership matters? Further, since other mayors have praised President Trump and FEMA, isn’t it reasonable to question whether the problem might not be President Trump?

Trump Derangement Syndrome is alive and unwell. Look how it’s making Democrats stupid beyond repair. The proof of that is Mika’s Twitterstorm. First, there’s this tweet:

Listen and then ask yourself whether this man is fit to lead any country, let alone the most important one in the world. #heisnotfit

Then there’s this tweet:

Enough with your distractions and doddering games. There are lives to save in Puerto Rico. Focus Mr. President, focus. #heisnotfit

The proof is there for all to see. Mayor Yulin-Cruz is whining into the TV cameras while the other mayors are getting FEMA’s pre-positioned supplies out to their constituents. That’s pointing the finger at one politician and it isn’t President Trump. The other finger that’s getting pointed is at CNN and MSNBC. They’re losing credibility daily by lying about President Trump. Their hatred is disgusting because it’s unprofessional.

Last Friday, Gov. Dayton made a point of repeatedly saying that he’d been lied to, saying “in my 40 years dealing with Minnesota government I have never ever been lied to”, adding that “the people of Minnesota have been lied to and the Supreme Court has been lied to about the predicament that my vetoes supposedly put the Legislature in.”

First, it’s undisputed fact that Gov. Dayton’s veto will cause the legislature to run out of money. Gov. Dayton vetoed the appropriation for the biennium, not just until the 2018 session. Next, it’s worth noting that Gov. Dayton said that he’d “never been lied to” in his 40 years of government. That might be but he’s lied to us. Remember this golden oldie? It’s the article about then-Sen. Dayton “closed his Capitol Hill office Tuesday until after the November 2 election, fearing a possible terrorist attack that could harm his staff or visitors.” The thing is that then-Sen. Dayton closed the office despite the fact that the Capitol Police and the Department of Homeland Security denied there being a terrorist threat.

Sgt. Contricia Ford of the U.S. Capitol Police said “There’s no new threat or information pertaining to a threat that’s come in. We continue to advise (people) to take caution … but there’s no new information that we’ve put out.” Further, “Brian Roehrkasse, a spokesman for the Department of Homeland Security, added: ‘We have not made a recommendation for any members of Congress to close their offices, and we do not have any specific threat reporting indicating that Washington, D.C., and the Capitol is a target.'”

This happened in October, 2004, right before the presidential election in which terrorism and homeland security were the biggest issues. Let’s remember that then-Sen. Dayton was the only person on Capitol Hill to shut his office. It’s worth noting that he’s the only member of the Senate who claims he got briefed by then-Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist about this terrorist attack.

I remember that election well. It was right before I started blogging. What I remember clearly is that CBS ran a fake story telling the nation that then-President Bush had gone AWOL while he was serving in the Texas Air National Guard. Powerline blew that story to smithereens the night CBS aired the segment.

For those too young to have experienced the onslaught, the Media wing of the Democratic Party, working in concert with congressional Democrats, tried destroying President Bush’s national security credentials with CBS’s fake story. While it wasn’t proven, people suspected that then-Sen. Dayton tried undermining President Bush’s credibility with his own fake national security story.

The fact that jumps out at me is that everyone on Capitol Hill, whether left, right or in between, denies having received the briefing. Either then-Sen. Dayton has an over-active imagination or he’s a pathetic liar. Either option is a possibility.

The point to the trip down memory lane is to remind people that then-Sen. Dayton was heading for defeat until he retired after a single term. Then-Sen. Dayton wasn’t a trustworthy person. For him now to accuse Republicans of lying to him is utterly laughable.

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?