Archive for the ‘Media Bias’ Category

Anyone that thinks that Ken Martin, the DFL State Party Chairman, is controlling his faculties is kidding themselves. Either that or they’re part of the Twin Cities media. Matt Dean retweeted Martin’s diatribe. After reading Martin’s diatribe, it’s difficult to think that he isn’t a lunatic. Read Martin’s statement, then tell me he doesn’t sound like he’s leading the DFL off a cliff:

Yikes! Reading his diatribe, I count too many lies to count. For instance, Martin insists that President Trump is “destroying this country.” Seriously? Martin apparently hates prosperity because this is the best economy of my lifetime.

Further, Martin ranted this:

The occupant of the White House, Donald Trump, has through his words and actions, given rise to hate speech and violence throughout this country- he is a White nationalist, racist, homophobic, zenophobe [sic], who is destroying our country.

That’s a lengthy list of accusations. Notice that Martin, or any other DFL politician for that matter, hasn’t offered even a tiny morsel of proof to substantiate this wild-eyed diatribe.

That isn’t to say there’s nothing noteworthy in Martin’s diatribe. Martin hasn’t figured this out but it’s what’s actually wrong:

If these shootings were perpetrated by black or brown men, you could bet would have acted by now. However, it seems that our leaders are ok not acting because white people killing people from marginalized communities.

Martin just accused the entire Republican Party of being racist. In his attempt to score political points for the DFL, he threw 40+ percent of Minnesotans under the bus. What a disgusting little man.

Good question, Matt. I didn’t know that it had become acceptable. That being said, I agree with you that the Twin Cities media will fall all over themselves attempting to protect the DFL chairman’s reckless remarks. In fact, a quick Google news search on Martin’s name for the past week shows zero results. It doesn’t get much more silent than zero coverage.

I’ve been writing for months that today’s Democrats are anti-American. This article provides verifiable proof that I’ve been right all along. It provides quotes of major media personalities that aren’t shy about touting their Democrat credentials cheering for America’s failure.

How sick is that? Bill Maher, a man who used to be funny about a generation ago, agreed with “NBC News correspondent Richard Engel.” Engel said “Short-term pain might be better than long-term destruction of the Constitution.” Maher replied “Right. Thank you very much.”

First, what the hell is Engel babbling about? What did he mean when he talked about the “long-term destruction of the Constitution”? Aren’t Democrats the political party that believes that the Constitution is a “living, breathing document” that’s forever malleable to fit their policy goals? If Democrats aren’t that party anymore, when did they morph into strict constructionists who think fighting for principles like the presumption of innocence, separation of powers and federalism is a politician’s highest calling?

Further, I’ve yet to hear a single Democrat explain how President Trump is trashing the Constitution. The next time I hear Democrats cite a specific example of President Trump trashing the Constitution, it’ll be the first time. That isn’t the same as hearing Democrats using the phrase “constitutional crisis.” Any blithering idiot can use that phrase. For a week+, Democrats used that phrase what seemed like once every 10 seconds.

These Democrats, starting with but not exclusive to Pelosi, Schumer, Nadler and Schiff, rattled that phrase off constantly on CNN and MSNBC. Of course, each time these Democrats regurgitated that line, media personalities like Don Lemon, Chris Cuomo, Joe Scarborough, Mika Brzezinski and Rachel Maddow either nodded in agreement or just accepted it as Gospel fact.

Now that’s a shock, isn’t it? People need to stop looking to these idiots for information. Lemon, Cuomo, Scarborough, Brzezinski and Maddow are idiots. Mika’s father was the worst NSA in US history, best known for his failings during the Iran Hostage Crisis. Lemon would be a late-night TV talk show host if he wasn’t so scatterbrained. Scarborough was a congressman and a flake. Cuomo failed at the family business. Maddow is known for this:

But I digress. Returning to the initial story, it’s clear that the Democrats’ hatred of anything Trump is causing their judgment to be impaired. Why would voters pick a candidate whose hatred of a sitting president is so great that these Democrats are rooting for failure?

Democrats that cheer for failure so they can win elections are sick people. They aren’t leaders. They’re parasites. For this group of Democrats, winning is everything. Making America great isn’t high on their priority list whatsoever.

How sick is that?

All week, Democrat Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee Jerry Nadler has insisted that there was abundant proof that President Trump had committed one crime after another after another. Nadler and other Democrats on the Judiciary and Intel committees repeatedly made these accusations all week long. The thing that these Democrats didn’t provide was forensic evidence that substantiated their claims.

Repeatedly, we were told that the evidence was “hiding in plain sight.” Each time, we were left wondering what these Democrats were babbling about. If Democrats won’t state who committed the crime, what the crime is and what proof the Democrats have that will slam the door shut, then President Trump should simply laugh in the Democrats’ faces.

Part II of the report reads like a 175+ page Democrat op-ed. Nowhere does it cite specific evidence proving the commission of a crime. The ‘it’s hiding in plain sight’ test doesn’t work. As the old saying goes, “one lies and the other one swears to it.” In the US judicial system, that system doesn’t work.

Further, I’m tired of Democrats treating the Mueller (Weissman?) report as proof of anything. It isn’t proof of anything except the fact that some people wrote lots of things. The Mueller Report is totally one-sided. It’s a report that makes lots of allegations. I’ve yet to hear a single Democrat highlight a specific piece of evidence that proves obstruction of justice.

I suspect that’s because that proof doesn’t exist. Without that, the Democrats’ case crumbles like a cheap suit. If Democrats want to keep chasing their impeachment fantasy, that’s their option as committee chairs. If Democrats keep pursuing that option, they should start preparing their concession speeches for next November because they’ll lose in droves.

For several years, Politifact has been seen by conservatives as a joke. Their ‘fact-checks’ have been more opinion than objective fact. This weekend, a controversy erupted over whether AOC had gotten her picture taken in front of an empty parking lot. This article sets the record straight.

The fact-check, titled “No, this isn’t a photo of Alexandria Ocasio Cortez crying over a parking lot,” was written by Ciara O’Rourke and Duke University student Stefanie Pousoulides. It was reviewed by several editors, Fox News is told.

Their approach didn’t pass muster among commentators Tuesday, who said the site had missed the point intentionally, for the sake of issuing a “false” rating that would help bury stories unfavorable to Ocasio-Cortez about the episode.

Politifact deserves a misleading rating. Here’s why:

Wrote humorist Frank Fleming: “‘Ha! AOC was crying over a parking lot!'” POLITIFACT: ‘False, haters, we checked a satellite image and it was an empty road.’ I might be paraphrasing @jamestaranto, but fact checks are like editorials but dumber.”

“IMPORTANT CORRECTION: @AOC Was Weeping Over an Empty Road, Not an Empty Parking Lot,” joked PJ Media’s Jim Treacher.

Whether AOC was ‘crying’ over an empty road or empty parking lot is immaterial except in the most nit-pickiest of senses. Nothing there is nothing there except in the most insignificant of details.

The story started by saying that AOC was crying over little children being kept in a cage. As usual, the initial story was intentionally fake. It was legitimately called fake news. Someone named Ivan Pierre Aguirre started the story with this tweet:

Now that you’ve seen AOC’s fiction, take a look at what AOC actually saw:

The fact that Politifact stands by their false rating against Jim Treacher’s article earns them a new name. They shouldn’t be called Politifact. They should be called PolitiFiction. Either that or they should be called another weapon in the DNC’s ministry of propaganda, aka the MSM.

One last thing: here’s how AOC laid it on thick about being heartbroken for the children:

Now that’s empathy. Caring about children that aren’t even there.

When it comes to Robert Mueller’s report, the Loony Left can’t resist hearing what Mueller didn’t say. That’s the take I got from this dishonest diatribe masquerading as journalism.

Jill Lawrence’s dishonesty is only exceeded by her writing deficiencies. This is what passes for journalism? That’s frightening. Apparently, Ms. Lawrence’s column is based on what she thinks Robert Mueller really thinks. It’s apparent that she doesn’t understand the US legal system. I’ll give Ms. Lawrence an A in creativity but that’s the only passing grade I’d give her. Check out this paragraph:

If I could stand up to raise my right hand, I’d swear to tell the truth. And it would be this: Of course I would have indicted Donald Trump if I could have. What don’t you get about “if we had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said that”? Or 10 textbook cases of obstruction of justice? Or the difference between “no collusion” and insufficient evidence to nail down a criminal conspiracy with the Russians?

One of the cornerstones of the Mueller report was what he said about collusion/conspiracy. The American Bar Association quoted from the report, saying this:

The special counsel found that Russia did interfere with the election, but “did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple efforts from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign.”

There’s nothing in that paragraph that says they didn’t have enough evidence to charge. There’s nothing in that paragraph that suggests that the Trump campaign was that receptive to the Russians. So much for Ms. Lawrence’s theories, which, by the way, doesn’t constitute proof.

Then there’s this:

I regret being overly considerate of the president and his right to a “speedy and public trial.” We faced so many limits on our investigation and obstacles in our path, I should not have added more restrictions of my own free will and out of a sense of good sportsmanship. We are in a crisis that demands clarity and, alas, I did not recognize just how dire our circumstances — Barr’s perfidious misrepresentations, maddening Democratic caution, scandalous Republican indifference — until too late.

Ms. Lawrence thinks that a person’s right to a “speedy and public trial” is a nicety? I suppose she thinks other parts of the Constitution’s Bill of Rights are niceties, too? Here’s what the Speedy Trial Clause says:

“[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy trial”

As for the statement that Mueller’s investigation faced tons of limits and obstacles, that’s ridiculous. Over 1,400,000 documents were turned over. Not once during the investigation did President Trump invoke Executive Privilege. In fact, he let the White House Counsel testify for over 30 hours. The Trump administration’s level of transparency was historic in a positive way. It’d be interesting to see what Ms. Lawrence thought of when she said that Mueller’s investigation faced lots of limitations.

What the hell was Lawrence thinking when she wrote about “10 textbook cases of obstruction of justice?” We don’t know whether any of the charges met the probable cause burden of proof. If those examples couldn’t meet that level of proof, they certainly couldn’t meet the “beyond a reasonable doubt” level of proof that’s required to convict. It’s frightening that journalists have left that field to become published activists while masquerading to be journalists. The truth is that Ms. Lawrence is just a paid political hack.

It isn’t surprising that Ilhan Omar would grant Al-Jazeera this interview. While avoiding answering difficult questions at home, it’s predictable that she’d sit down with an organization that’s famous for their spin.

One of the topics they spun together was Omar’s comments to CAIR about 9/11. That’s when she said “some people did something.” Notice how different her response is during her interview is:

Trump has made defamatory comments accusing her of praising al-Qaeda, and saying that she downplayed the 9/11 terror attacks.

Responding to Trump’s accusations, Omar tells Al Jazeera: “Those [9/11] are horrific attacks. There’s no question about it, that’s not a debatable thing. Innocent Americans lost their lives that day, we all mourn their deaths…And I think it’s quite disgusting that people even question that and want to debate that.”

If Omar thinks that the 9/11 attacks are “horrific”, then why did she spin it like it wasn’t a big deal? When she said that 9/11 was about “some people did something”, that’s the ultimate in disrespect.

Further, in that speech, Omar said that “CAIR was founded after 9/11 because some people did something and all of us were starting to lose our civil liberties”:

Notice the faux outrage on Rep. Omar’s part. It’s almost realistic. IF she hadn’t lied about when CAIR was created and if she hadn’t been so flippant about 9/11. Omar is quoted as saying 9/11 was horrific and that “we all mourn their deaths.” If that’s true, then act like you’re actually grieving.

Naturally, AOC defended Omar:

Disapproving of Trump’s remark, Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said, “Members of Congress have a duty to respond to the president’s explicit attack today. Ilhan Omar’s life is in danger.”

Remember that AOC isn’t the most trustworthy person. She’s the person who said that Border Patrol agents had told women to drink out of toilets. She pointed out that these women were first put in a room that didn’t have running water. Trusting a pathological liar isn’t the smartest decision. That’s why I won’t trust her. She’s demolished her credibility.

More Omar Spin

“I always said it wasn’t the question of whether he should be impeached, but when. And we are seeing now so many people are coming to that conclusion,” she says. “This president said he didn’t see any problem in having a foreign, hostile government [Russia] intervene in our elections. He didn’t understand how that could be a problem … We do not accept information that is going to change the trajectory of our elections, from hostile governments.”

First, President Trump never said that it wasn’t a big deal for Russia to intervene in our elections. It didn’t happen.

Next, Rep. Omar, if that’s her correct family name, said that “so many people are coming to that conclusion” about impeachment. Seriously? If that’s the truth, why did Al Green’s impeachment resolution get defeated 332-95? That’s 22.2% of Congress reaching that conclusion.

It’s worth reading the entire spin piece. It isn’t particularly accurate but it’s a picture of how dishonest Omar, if that’s her real last name, is.

Democrats these days insist that white privilege is altogether too real. Further, Democrats insist that white privilege is dangerous to civilized society. Why hasn’t the MSM, aka the Agenda Media, written about leftist privilege? Is it because the MSM’s goal is to provide cover for leftists? Is it because the MSM is well to the left of Rust Belt Democrats?

It’s disgusting that the Twin Cities media treats Rep. Omar with kid gloves. In fact, they treat her better than Hindus treat sacred cows. How else can you explain what’s in this article? I find it more than a little ironic to notice that a blogger and a writer for a conservative website outperformed the supposedly well-staffed media outlet (I won’t call the Star Tribune a newspaper just like I won’t call WCCO-TV a news station.) Star Tribune. Powerline’s Scott Johnson and Pajama Media’s David Steinberg simply ate the Strib’s lunch. In fact, they did that pretty much on a daily basis. Let’s get into what the Twin Cities media either missed or, more likely, omitted from their articles.

Reporters Preya Samsundar of AlphaNewsMN, Scott Johnson of Powerline, myself, and virtually no one else attempted to sway the most influential media decision on Omar: that of Minnesota’s largest outlet, the Star Tribune. In addition to our many published articles, the Star Tribune received calls and emails from us offering to privately share additional leads we had gathered.

This isn’t surprising but it’s definitely appalling:

the Star Tribune received calls and emails from us offering to privately share additional leads we had gathered.

Forget the notion of the Strib being a news-gathering organization. Let’s call them what they truly are — the propaganda operation of the DFL. In addition to not reporting about Rep. Omar’s indiscretions, where were they on reporting about the child care fraud scandal that’s gripping the Department of Human Services? Nowhere to be found, as near as I can tell.

After the 2:00 mark of this video, check out the things said by Omar’s constituents:

Those are the faces of the loony left. This might explain why hardline progressives get a virtual free pass with the MSM. The thought that the Trump administration is building a militia is delusional. Unfortunately, Omar’s constituents think that it’s virtually certain. Being free from meaningful media scrutiny is a better privilege than white privilege.

This LTE sounds authoritative without being authoritative. It focuses on the subject of xenophobia as it relates to my friend Dr. John Palmer.

The LTE opens by saying “Xenophobia is the fear of anything this is “alien” to, or different from what’s ‘normal’ for a person. What’s normal for a white German Catholic from Stearns County is likely not normal for a Muslim from Somalia. That doesn’t make one person’s ‘normal’ better or worse, just different. In the case of John Palmer and his group, what they fear isn’t brown Somali immigrants, as much as it is people who are DIFFERENT from white German Catholics.”

It’s worth noting that the man who wrote the LTE has never met Dr. Palmer, which renders the entire LTE worthless. It’s worthless because it’s based on suppositions rather than anything verifiable. The ‘foundation’ for the premise is that xenophobia is a real word that’s been around centuries. According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, that isn’t true:

Xenophobia—”fear or hatred of strangers or foreigners”—has the look and feel of a word that has been in the English language for hundreds of years, borne of the tumultuous political climates of the Renaissance and the penchant that many writers back then had for fashioning fancy new words from Latin and Greek. It is not that old.

Let’s entertain another possibility. Let’s entertain the possibility that the people getting called xenophobic are simply people who disagree with a philosophy or religion. For instance, isn’t it possible that Roman Catholics (or Baptists or evangelical Christians) aren’t afraid of people who are different but rather, are highly principled people who simply disagree with people of other religious or governing beliefs?

Let’s also dig into the word phobia a little.’s definition of phobia is:

a persistent, irrational fear of a specific object, activity, or situation that leads to a compelling desire to avoid it.

What proof does the person who wrote this LTE have that Dr. Palmer or others in C-Cubed have an irrational fear of anything? Just from a technical standpoint, how would this person determine what Dr. Palmer or others in his group think of anyone? Frankly, from a technical standpoint, this LTE sounds like a big pile of opinionizing.

That’s fine but it shouldn’t be treated like an authoritative writing. Rather, it should be seen, I’d argue, as the opinions of a mediocre (at best) researcher.

Finally, let’s ponder the possibility that Dr. Palmer’s religious beliefs are right. The presumption of the LTE appears to be that Dr. Palmer’s religious beliefs aren’t legitimate or, at minimum, the product of an irrational way of thinking. Again, where’s the proof that Dr. Palmer’s thinking is irrational or illegitimate?

Joan Walsh’s article highlights the extremism of progressive illogic. Democrat presidential candidates are coming from such a different place that it isn’t possible to work with them.

The article starts by saying “Anyone who had any doubt that the 2020 election was a contest for the soul of the United States had to lose that doubt watching Thursday night’s Democratic debate. The photo of the late Óscar Alberto Martínez Ramírez and his daughter, Valeria, drowned in the Rio Grande thanks to Donald Trump’s policies, framed the night. It’s tough to overstate how much Democrats have changed the way they’ve approached these issues in the last decade.”

These Democrats’ extremism doesn’t permit them to think why this father and daughter attempted to illegally come into the US. That thought is overwhelmed by the emotion of seeing their dead bodies. These Democrats don’t realize that this father and daughter’s blood in on Democrats’ hands. The situation in northern triangle countries isn’t any worse today than it was 30 years ago. It was a violence-filled hellhole then. It’s still a violence-filled hellhole. What’s changed is the Democrats’ attitude toward illegal immigration.

Walsh lets the cat out of the bag in this outburst:

“There are also those who claim that our reform effort will insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false—the reforms I’m proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally,” Obama intoned. Wilson was the actual liar. But today, it’s worth noting: Not one prominent Democrat uses the term “illegal immigrants” anymore.

The special interest masters have reshaped the Democratic Party. Frank Luntz put it best in this interview:

At the start of the interview, Luntz said, correctly, that “This isn’t your parents’ Democrat Party. It isn’t even your older sister’s Democrat Party.” He then provided proof that verified his claim. The Bernie Sanders-Elizabeth Warren wing of today’s Democratic Party would go to war with JFK, Scoop Jackson and Daniel Patrick Moynihan. Today on The Five, Juan Williams insisted that Democrats who support giving health care to illegal aliens while stripping US citizens who get their health care from their employers are “maybe they’re standing up for American values”:

If Ms. Walsh thinks that taking away employer-provided health care from US citizens, then giving free health care to illegal aliens is a winning issue for Democrats, let them have at it. It’s impossible for intelligent people to say that giving illegal aliens free health care while decriminalizing coming here illegally isn’t a monstrous incentive for illegal immigration.

This NY Times article has a loose affiliation with the truth. Saying that it’s slanted is understatement. Like much of its political ‘reporting’, the article has an obvious agenda. That agenda is intended to vilify President Trump and his supporters. (Shocking, I know, but it’s pretty obvious.)

Having known Dr. Palmer for almost 15 years, I won’t hide my contempt for the NY Times hit piece. Yes, it’s safe to say that that last sentence meant that the gloves just came off. The NY Times’ article pretends to be an authority on John Palmer. That’s laughable. Becoming an authority on Dr. Palmer takes more than the afternoon that the NY Times spent on the interview.

It’s pretty obvious that the NY Times’ article was intended to be a hit piece. Why else would they send a reporter and a photographer to St. Cloud, MN? This wasn’t meant to provide their readers with information. This was meant to slant opinions against Trump supporters. That’s apparent because of what the Times reporter quoted and what he didn’t quote.

For instance, the ‘reporter’ wrote “Mr. Palmer said at a recent meeting he viewed them as innately less intelligent than the ‘typical’ American citizen, as well as a threat.” The NY Times’ reporter interprets Dr. Palmer as saying that Somalis as being “less intelligent” than white Americans.

The fact that the NY Times didn’t quote Dr. Palmer directly is proof that they cut corners. They have the transcript or something close to it. How else would they be able to quote Dr. Palmer saying someone is “less intelligent”?

“The very word ‘Islamophobia’ is a false narrative,” Mr. Palmer, 70, said. “A phobia is an irrational fear.” Raising his voice, he added, “An irrational fear! There are many reasons we are not being irrational.”

In this predominantly white region of central Minnesota, the influx of Somalis, most of whom are Muslim, has spurred the sort of demographic and cultural shifts that President Trump and right-wing conservatives have stoked fears about for years. The resettlement has divided many politically active residents of St. Cloud, with some saying they welcome the migrants.

Newt Gingrich famously said that the United States isn’t a multi-cultural nation, that it’s multi-ethnic. He’s right. As a St. Cloud citizen, I haven’t seen much proof that suggests that the Somali refugees are interested in adopting the principles of the US Constitution. I’ve seen plenty of proof that says Somali refugees receive preferential treatment from St. Cloud law enforcement and other parts of the government.

Dave Kleis, the mayor of St. Cloud and a longtime Republican who now identifies as an independent, has voiced support for the resettlement program, but he has also drawn criticism for not forcefully denouncing groups like C-Cubed, which he refused to discuss in an interview.

It isn’t surprising that Kleis identifies as an independent. The reality is that he’s closer to a Libertarian than anything else. Kleis hasn’t shown leadership on the resettlement issue because he isn’t a leader. He’s argued, incorrectly, that refugee resettlement is a federal issue.

That’s partially true. It’s indisputable that the federal government sets naturalization policy. What’s equally indisputable is the fact that the Refugee Act of 1980 gives city government a role in the process, too:

The Director and the Federal agency administering subsection (b)(1) shall consult regularly (not less often than quarterly) with State and local governments and private nonprofit voluntary agencies concerning the sponsorship process and the intended distribution of refugees among the States and localities before their placement in those States and localities.

(B)The Director shall develop and implement, in consultation with representatives of voluntary agencies and State and local governments, policies and strategies for the placement and resettlement of refugees within the United States.

Kleis insists that this part of US Statutes doesn’t exist. Isn’t it interesting that the people who insist on the government enforce existing laws are getting called Islamophobic while those that ignore the law are considered enlightened? One of those enlightened souls is St. Cloud State President Robbyn Wacker:

Listen to the loaded language in the NY Times’ article:

Two years ago in St. Cloud, Jeff Johnson, a city councilman, introduced a resolution that would temporarily halt refugee resettlement until a study of its economic impact was completed. The idea arose, Mr. Johnson said, after he spoke by phone with officials from the Center for Immigration Studies in Washington, an anti-immigration firm that has gained influence in the Trump era. The resolution was defeated, but its introduction caused significant uproar in St. Cloud, and pushed some residents to form or join opposing community groups.

What a crock of BS. CIS isn’t anti-immigration. It’s anti-illegal immigration. Notice how the NY Times conflates the 2 things as though they were the same thing? These aren’t idiots. They’re intentionally trying to put people like Dr. Palmer and Trump supporters on the defensive. Good luck with that.

The NY Times will undoubtedly use this hit piece to influence voters in their blatant attempt to defeat President Trump. The truth is that there’s a rational basis for distrusting the refugee resettlement program. Part of that rational basis is financial. Another part of that rational basis is religious. Unfortunately, from what I’ve seen in St. Cloud, the biggest rational basis for opposing this program is because it’s establishing a 2-tiered system of laws.

I’m not talking about imposing Sharia. I’m talking about health inspections of Somali restaurants getting bypassed. I’m talking about citizens near Lake George calling in neighborhood violence, only to have the police show up 45 minutes later. (For those not familiar with St. Cloud, the SCPD station house is less than 2 miles away from Lake George. There’s no way it should take law enforcement 45 minutes to show up.)

I’ll finish by asking this simple question: does this sound like equal application of the law?