• Meta

  • Click on the calendar for summaries of posts by day, week, or month.

    June 2018
    M T W T F S S
    « May    
     123
    45678910
    11121314151617
    18192021222324
    252627282930  
  • Recent Posts

  • Recent Comments

    Orville on Religion of Peace Update: Musl…
    Desi Chinese on Religion of Peace Update: Musl…
    Oto ekspertiz Kaç li… on Religion of Peace Update: Musl…
    Al Dajjal (@AlDajjal… on Where are the “Moderate…
    esgort on Religion of Peace Update: Musl…
  • Archives

  • Advertisements

“Scary” Guns vs. Abortion Tools

Rifles vs Abortion Tools

Advertisements

Lt Col Ralph Peters Goes Full Retard on Gun Control

Lt Col Peters, I have agreed with you on so much in the past, but here is where we part company. You are now attacking my fundamental rights, which I can not stand by and allow you to do without response.

You attempt to give yourself absolute moral authority and “unimpeachable” qualifications by stating “I served in the US Army, including unforgettable years in an infantry battalion. I fired my share of automatic weapons, from M16A1s to machine guns and even Kalashnikovs.” How does that qualify you to opine about limiting or ELIMINATING MY RIGHTS? It does not. I’ve written lots of checks. Does that give me the authority to tell someone else that they can’t have or write checks? Obviously not. I’ve eaten lots of food, most of which I purchase at grocery stores. Does that give me the authority or tell someone they can’t either shop at a grocery store or grow their own food if they choose? Again, obviously not. However, that’s the faulty logic you use in an attempt to establish your authority.

You then display your actual ignorance on this topic when you say “These are military weapons. Their purpose is to kill human beings. They’re not used for hunting (unless you want to destroy the animal’s meat). They’re lousy for target shooting.” Yes, the AR-15, AK47 and similar weapons were originally designed as military weapons. No one denies that, but to deny the FACTS that these guns also have peaceful uses is ignorant, dishonest, or both. When you say ARs, and even AKs, are not used for hunting, that is patently and absolutely false. They are rapidly becoming the most popular weapons for that use. AR pattern rifles chambered in .223 Remington/5.56 NATO and similar calibers are ideally suited for varmint hunting and small to medium game. AR pattern rifles in larger calibers such as .308 Win/7.62 NATO are ideal for larger game like deer, elk, etc. There are bolt action and other type rifles used for similar purposes chambered in these EXACT SAME calibers. Being a “scary looking” military-style gun does not limit the usefulness of a gun for LAW ABIDING purpose. Then you say “They’re lousy for target shooting,” which shows the exact same type and level of ignorance or malice on your part. These weapons are used recreationally by millions of people for target shooting and competition ALL THE TIME. Where are you getting your so-called facts?

The next asinine statement you make is “The latest school shooter could not have done what he did with a sports rifle or shotgun.” Really? With any shotgun common to bird hunting today, such as a Remington 1100 or Beretta pump or semi-automatic, Nikolas Cruz could have easily killed and wounded just as many, and perhaps more people than he did. Using buckshot, he could potentially have hit more than one target at once. Have you ever seen what a deer slug fired from a shotgun can do? It’s a lot more gruesome than the damage a .223 can inflict, and at close range it would probably go through more than one body, potentially killing more than one person with each shot. Your ignorance continues unabated…

Next, you say “The Las Vegas shooter could not have done what he did with hunting arms.” Seriously? If the Las Vegas shooter actually slowed down to aim rather than using the spray-and-pray method, which is about all you can do with a bump-stock equipped weapon, he could have EASILY and PRECISELY killed just as many or more with a bolt action rifle. From his vantage point, he was shooting fish in a barrel.

Now, sir, you go full left retard with this quote. “That “well regulated militia” part always gets left out. It’s called the “National Guard” and “the Reserves.” You can’t honestly be this ignorant of the founding fathers intent. You are a college graduate, and former commissioned officer in the United States military. I would expect more from you. You apply the MODERN, often intentionally misunderstood meaning of “well regulated.” Let me clear things up for you.

►To determine the meaning of the Constitution, one must start with the words of the Constitution itself. If the meaning is plain, that meaning controls. To ascertain the meaning of the term “well regulated” as it was used in the Second Amendment, it is necessary to begin with the purpose of the Second Amendment itself. The overriding purpose of the Framers in guaranteeing the right of the people to keep and bear arms was as a check on the standing army, which the Constitution gave the Congress the power to “raise and support.”

As Noah Webster put it in a pamphlet urging ratification of the Constitution, “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe.” George Mason remarked to his Virginia delegates regarding the colonies’ recent experience with Britain, in which the Monarch’s goal had been “to disarm the people; that [that] . . . was the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” A widely reprinted article by Tench Coxe, an ally and correspondent of James Madison, described the Second Amendment’s overriding goal as a check upon the national government’s standing army: As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.

Thus, the well regulated militia necessary to the security of a free state was a militia that might someday fight against a standing army raised and supported by a tyrannical national government. Obviously, for that reason, the Framers did not say “A Militia well regulated by the Congress, being necessary to the security of a free State” — because a militia so regulated might not be separate enough from, or free enough from, the national government, in the sense of both physical and operational control, to preserve the “security of a free State.”◄
https://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm

In other words, “well regulated” means REGULAR as in similar in makeup. Citizens were to be armed with weapons similar to those in use by the military SPECIFICALLY to serve as a check and balance to government. Hunting was not mentioned as that was an assumed part of normal life. Have you not figured out that EVERYTHING in our form of government was designed to serve as a check and balance to EVERYTHING ELSE in our government? When those checks and balances are eroded or ignored, what then? When a benevolent government is freed from the constraints placed upon it, it has almost always throughout history become MALEVOLENT and oppressive towards the citizens it is supposed to serve. Our founders were painfully aware of this, and expressly included a provision in our Constitution to act as a final failsafe to return our government to its constitutional reservation should it stray. Are you honestly that ignorant of history?

To add insult to injury, you then personally attack the character and patriotism of EVERY American who has not served in the military or as a member of law enforcement. You say, “As a matter of fact, I have not been able to identify a senior NRA executive who’s served in our military or in law enforcement — that’s patriotism for ya.” I know many people who have never served in either capacity who would willingly lay down their life for this country should that be required. You have abandoned sound logic, and resorted to the emotional attacks of a COWARD, sir.

Again, you attempt to establish some form of absolute moral authority when you say, “As an Army officer, I pledged my life to the Constitution of the United States. I live by that pledge even now. But when the Second Amendment was drafted, the Redcoats really were coming.” I, too, swore the very same oath you did, as have many thousands of others, and will uphold it until my last breath. Apparently, I and many others under that oath seem to more fully understand what it means than you do.

Nearing the end of your painfully ignorant piece, which I am becoming convinced is also intentionally deceitful, you posit the following: “Does any serious-minded, morally centered reader believe that George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson or any of our other geniuses of freedom intended that a disturbed young man or a disgruntled employee or just a vicious drunk should be guaranteed the right to a personal arsenal of weapons designed for mass murder?” My question to you, sir, is do YOU or any other “serious-minded, morally centered reader” believe that any of our founding fathers, or “geniuses” as you snarkily refer to them, would have intended for the law-abiding citizenry to be disarmed and unable to defend themselves should someone decide to employ their weapon illegally and with malice? Do YOU or any other “serious-minded, morally centered reader” believe that the founding fathers intended for the citizenry to sit back and await the arrival of law enforcement to save them from a hostile person intent on killing them? You can’t possibly be this ignorant, can you?

Moving on to your next emotional, ignorant question, “We’ve lost far more American kids to mass shootings than we have to terrorism of any kind. How can members of Congress live with themselves?” I have some questions for you, Mr. Peters. Where have ALL of these mass shootings taken place? ANSWER: In “gun-free” zones where LAW-ABIDING citizens could not carry firearms to defend themselves and stop an attacker before it turned into a “mass” killing. Where are the places in America where the most people are murdered with firearms? ANSWER: In cities that already have the strictest gun control laws in the country. Do criminals obey laws? ANSWER: If I have to answer this for you, you need to ensure you never appear on television, write an article, or open your mouth in public ever again. But as for pure numbers of children murdered, why don’t I hear you decrying the slaughter of MILLIONS of children via abortion? There are more children murdered in this country EVERY. SINGLE. DAY by abortion than ALL PEOPLE OF ANY AGE who are killed by rifles of ALL types in an ENTIRE YEAR. Where’s your indignation about that?

Your next question, “How many kids or law-abiding adults have to be gunned down before we apply common sense and simple decency?” That’s a great question. Let’s look at a few facts to help establish what “common sense” on this issue really is, shall we? Most mass shootings are over before law enforcement arrives. Either the murderer has left the scene, or has killed a large number of people before SOMEONE WITH A GUN shows up to stop him. As we previously established, ALL of these shootings were CHOSEN by the murderer largely because they were soft targets full of unarmed people. In all cases, when the murderer was confronted by a good-guy with a gun, the killing stopped. With that in mind, it would be COMMON SENSE and the most decent thing to do to have MORE good-guys with guns to counter any bad guys with guns, and more importantly to serve as a DETERRENT to those who intend harm to others. You continue by saying “As for putting weapons in schools, that’s a punk idea. More innocents would die.” ALL the evidence and actual historic facts DO NOT back up your assertion. Is it possible that some might be hit by friendly fire as you assert when you say ““Friendly fire” would simply add to the danger?” Yes, it is. But, again, what you are attempting to pass off as logic is flawed. Do I only eat raw meat because there’s a chance I’ll be burned on a stove or campfire? Do I refrain from using pens and pencils because I might write a misspelled word? Do we ban all cars because there are a few drunk drivers? As a military officer, and supposedly a leader in the military, you should understand the concept of “calculated risk.” It’s a SURE BET that many will die if the murderer is allowed to shoot at will, without opposition. There’s a VERY HIGH probability that the shooter will cease targeting innocent people when confronted by someone with a gun because they now have to defend themselves. There is also a HIGH PROBABILITY that even with friendly fire casualties, fewer will die than if you allow the shooter to remain unopposed. You just haven’t thought this out, have you?

Your emotional diatribe is completely void of sound reasoning or fact. Based on your history debating and discussing other issues, this surprises and disappoints me. I’m sure in your lengthy military career you must have heard the saying “One ‘aw sh**’ wipes out a hundred ‘atta-boys.’” In one article, you have managed to do exactly that, sir.



I’m a military man and I think we should ban assault weapons

Guns and I go back a long way.

My father was a champion skeet shooter. A picture of him aiming his favorite pump skyward has pride of place in our living room. He owned fine rifles and shotguns, and he valued them.

My first experience with pulling a trigger came late, by family standards. I was already 7 or 8 when my dad and “Uncle” George took me out back of Old Lily’s house and handed me a sawed-off shotgun (illegal then and now) kept handy for woodchucks and rattlesnakes. The recoil didn’t knock me off my feet, but my shoulder ached for weeks.

I’m blessed to have few material regrets, but I still feel a sting when I recall how, after my father’s bankruptcy, we had to sell his guns to put food on the table. Those arms were important to him and, thus, to me.

I served in the US Army, including unforgettable years in an infantry battalion. I fired my share of automatic weapons, from M16A1s to machine guns and even Kalashnikovs. (Let’s not talk about dud-grenade disposal . . .)

And I’m a gun owner. As I write these lines, there’s an 1858 Tower musket behind me and a Colt on my desk.

But I believe, on moral, practical and constitutional grounds, that no private citizen should own an automatic weapon or a semi-automatic weapon that can easily be modified for automatic effects.

These are military weapons. Their purpose is to kill human beings. They’re not used for hunting (unless you want to destroy the animal’s meat). They’re lousy for target shooting. But they’re excellent tools for mass murder.

The latest school shooter could not have done what he did with a sports rifle or shotgun. The Las Vegas shooter could not have done what he did with hunting arms. No end of school massacres and other slaughters have tallied horrific body counts because of military-grade weapons in the hands of mass murderers.

The old saw runs that “Guns don’t kill people, people do.” But people with rapid-fire weapons kill a lot more folks a whole lot faster.

These are cop-killer weapons, too.

The standard argument deployed in reply to demands that military-grade weapons be banned or mildly restricted from public sale cites the Second Amendment to our Constitution. Well, here’s what the Second Amendment actually says:

“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

That “well regulated militia” part always gets left out. It’s called the “National Guard” and “the Reserves.” Did any of the recent shooters belong to a “well regulated militia”? As a matter of fact, I have not been able to identify a senior NRA executive who’s served in our military or in law enforcement — that’s patriotism for ya.

As an Army officer, I pledged my life to the Constitution of the United States. I live by that pledge even now. But when the Second Amendment was drafted, the Redcoats really were coming. Our standing army numbered in the hundreds.

Does any serious-minded, morally centered reader believe that George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson or any of our other geniuses of freedom intended that a disturbed young man or a disgruntled employee or just a vicious drunk should be guaranteed the right to a personal arsenal of weapons designed for mass murder?

How can members of our Congress or state legislators put their re-election campaigns above the lives of children? How can they do that? We’ve lost far more American kids to mass shootings than we have to terrorism of any kind. How can members of Congress live with themselves?

How many kids or law-abiding adults have to be gunned down before we apply common sense and simple decency?

The demagogues who grow wealthy by convincing responsible gun owners that some shadowy government agency can’t wait to seize their deer rifles will have a great deal to answer for on Judgment Day.

As for putting weapons in schools, that’s a punk idea. More innocents would die.

When the shooting starts, even the best-trained, most disciplined soldiers and cops — US Army Rangers or NYPD SWAT members — don’t put every round on target. The notion that a guard or teacher who goes to the range once a quarter would keep kids safe is profoundly divorced from reality. “Friendly fire” would simply add to the danger.

Again, I support gun ownership. Always have, always will. But if anyone feels irresistibly compelled to fire automatic weapons or their surrogates, I have a deal for them: Join the US Army or the Marines as a combat infantryman. You’ll even get paid to pull triggers.

Ralph Peters is a retired Army officer and former enlisted man.

Link to article:  https://nypost.com/2018/02/22/automatic-weapons-dont-belong-in-the-hands-of-everyone/

+

 

More than 100 Million Gun Owners Did NOT Kill Anyone Today, but Abortion Doctors Did ⋆ Constitution.com

Why is it that we correctly see one nut with a gun killing 59 people as horrific, but shrug our shoulders at one “doctor” with a scalpel who kills THOUSANDS of babies? Why aren’t 55 MILLION dead babies since Roe v. Wade making America sick to its collective stomach? What about blacks, who were/are SPECIFICALLY targeted by the eugenicists who brought us abortion? You would think that blacks would be doing everything they could to end abortion since it is being used to eliminate them BECAUSE they are black.

Using the “logic” of the left, shouldn’t we be banning scalpels?



Source: More than 100 Million Gun Owners Did NOT Kill Anyone Today, but Abortion Doctors Did ⋆ The US Constitution ⋆ Constitution.com

Boehner 2.0? Don’t Expect Much From Paul Ryan. He’s Already Surrendering

You remember John Boehner, don’t you?  You know.  That fake (R)epublican who as Speaker of the House oversaw an increase in the debt of more than $4 trillion.  That RINO who surrendered to Barack Obama at EVERY turn.  That gutless wonder who when given the leadership of the House said “What do you expect me to do? We only control one half of one branch of government?”  Then, when actual conservatives gave the GOP control of both houses, surrender-monkey Boehner said “What do you expect me to do?  Obama will just veto what we send him if we don’t give him what he wants.”  Yeah, that guy.  The one that everyone except democrats hated, and were ready to take up pitchforks and torches to run out of town.  The good news?  He’s now GONE.  Thank the Lord for that.  The bad news?  Boehner’s mini-me has been crowned as Speaker.

First of all, when Nancy Pelosi and many other democrats are praising Paul Ryan, you KNOW you’ve picked the wrong guy.  We didn’t have to wait long for confirmation.  Case in point, Ryan’s pre-battle surrender over defunding Planned Parenthood.

When you have an organization that has been PROVEN to be breaking the law, that is murdering millions of babies and selling their body parts for profit in violation of the law, that provides little in the way of actual healthcare services contrary to the claims of supporters, AND taxpayers are being forced to pay for it despite moral and religious objections, it should be a NO-BRAINER to end taxpayer funding for such an organization.

So, what does the new Speaker of the House Paul Ryan say about the fight to end taxpayer funding for Planned Parenthood? 

“I think we need to be very clear about what we can and cannot achieve and not set expectations that we know we can’t reach given the constraints of the Constitution,”

The only reason Ryan and the GOP CAN’T achieve what conservatives want is because the establishment, spineless, surrender-monkeys refuse to even engage in battle for what is RIGHT.  They are only interested in keeping their seat at the table, no matter who they have to lie to so they can.  They are “conservatives” when they want to be reelected, but immediately betray those who put them in power as soon as the polls close.

What does this mean?  It means that the GOP led by establishment RINOs is merely the democrat wing of the Republican party.  We effectively have one party socialist rule now, with a small handful of conservatives leading the insurgency to restore constitutional sanity.

What it also means is that the same fervor that unseated Eric Cantor, forced Boehner to resign and retire, and prevented Kevin McCarthy from running for Speaker must be rekindled and fanned into an inferno to get rid of more RINOs.  I hate to say this, but we must FIGHT LIKE DEMOCRATS.  They are relentless in pursuit of their agenda.  I hope it’s not already too late to save this nation, but I fear it is.  We must keep fighting and save what we can.
+


Paul Ryan Doubtful About Defunding Planned Parenthood

November 1, 2015 5:02 pm

(CNN) – Paul Ryan doesn’t believe Planned Parenthood should get one “red cent” from taxpayers — but he cautioned Sunday against expectations that he’ll be able to pull federal funding for the organization now that he’s House speaker.

“I think we need to be very clear about what we can and cannot achieve and not set expectations that we know we can’t reach given the constraints of the Constitution,” Ryan told CNN’s Dana Bash on “State of the Union.”

The women’s health organization has long drawn the ire of anti-abortion lawmakers, but efforts to pull federal funding for it increased after activists released undercover videos accusing Planned Parenthood of breaking federal laws by selling tissue and organs from aborted fetuses.

“I don’t think Planned Parenthood should get a red cent from the taxpayer. I’ve always believed that, even before these disgusting videos came out,” Ryan said. “But I believe we need to do our oversight. We’re just beginning to start a committee to investigate Planned Parenthood. That’s important. So the special committee on Planned Parenthood, I think, should be in the driver’s seat overseeing this process.”

Bash asked, “Will you defund Planned Parenthood?”

“This is what I mean when I say being an effective opposition party. I think being an effective opposition party means being honest with people upfront about what it is we can and cannot achieve,” he said.

“But we also have to push issues where we can push issues, we have to speak truth to power,” he added. “We have a president that isn’t willing to listen, that isn’t going to sign lots of our bills into law, we have a Senate that has a very difficult process when it comes to actually getting bills voted on, so knowing that we have those constraints, we have to operate within those constraints.”

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/01/politics/paul-ryan-planned-parenthood/index.html

– See more at: http://www.teaparty.org/paul-ryan-doubtful-defunding-planned-parenthood-127593/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=paul-ryan-doubtful-defunding-planned-parenthood#sthash.QLf70KxA.dpuf

+


America: A Nation on Her Death Bed

What is the single biggest reason for this decay in our society?
Biblical illiteracy.

+
+


50 Facts That Show How Far America Has Fallen In This Generation

American-Flag-Tattered-Public-Domain-300x225

What has happened to America?  Please show these numbers to anyone that does not believe that the United States is in decline.  It is time for all of us to humble ourselves and face the reality of what has happened to our once great nation.  For those of us that love America, it is heartbreaking to watch the foundations of our society rot and decay in thousands of different ways.  The following are 50 facts that show how far America has fallen in this generation, but the truth is that this list could have been far, far longer…

#1 According to a survey that was just conducted, only 36 percent of all Americans can name the three branches of government.

#2 Only 25 percent of all Americans know how long U.S. Senators are elected for (6 years), and only 20 percent of all Americans know how many U.S. senators there are. Continue reading

Summary of the Obamacare Train Wreck

In a nutshell, here’s the summary of the careening trainwreck of economic destruction and forced government dependency that is the implementation of Obamacare.  Take time to read through all the article, and to seek out other information about the destruction of our liberty. If we don’t resist this, even at the risk of going without health insurance, or going to jail, we are finished.



“Do I fix Obamacare, address the massive spending problem and skyrocketing debt, and work on helping the imploding economy? Or do I go fundraising?”
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/obama-poised-for-fundraising-spree-98745.html

Sebelius to Attend Gala, but Unable to Testify About Obamacare. Fixing the problems with Obamacare must not be that important.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/sebelius-attend-gala-unable-testify-about-obamacare_763713.html

It’s worse than we know…
http://www.nationaljournal.com/white-house/why-obama-should-be-freaked-out-over-obamacare-20131021

Builders of Obama’s health website saw red flags; Obama paid $400 million to a CANADIAN company to design website
http://news.yahoo.com/builders-obamas-health-website-saw-red-flags-070429400.html

Dickerson: Obama Headed Toward “Credibility Death Spiral” On Obamacare
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/10/21/john_dickerson_obama_headed_toward_credibility_death_spiral_over_obamacare.html

Obama hints that govt ‘shutdown’ is tied to Obamacare rollout; as usual his narcissism prevents him from accepting ANY blame for his bastard creation.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-ties-govt-shutdown-obamacare-rollout_763765.html

Obama administration: Lawmakers, staff can get abortion coverage (Taxpayer funded abortion which they denied was in the law)
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/30/white-house-lawmakers-staff-get-abortion-coverage/

At President’s Urging, People Call Exchange Hotline But Can’t Get Through
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/361771/presidents-urging-people-call-exchange-hotline-cant-get-through-andrew-johnson

Jay “Porky Pig” Carney can’t answer the mail on Obama and the Obamacare stupidity
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/361800/jay-carneys-worst-press-briefing-alec-torres?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Canada has death panels. It WILL be the case here.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2013/10/canada_has_death_panels_and_that_s_a_good_thing.html

476,000 People “May” Have Signed Up For Obamacare. Real numbers MUCH smaller
http://downtrend.com/emilyh/476000newapplicants/

Healthcare.gov Refers Users to Uncertified Navigators and Assisters
http://pjmedia.com/blog/breaking-identity-theft-russian-roulette-healthcare-gov-refers-users-to-uncertified-navigators-and-assisters/

People could end up paying DOUBLE of what they see on the website
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505269_162-57608843/healthcare.gov-pricing-feature-can-be-off-the-mark/

Obamacare law and website tell you that you “have no reasonable expectation of privacy” on Healthcare.gov, but while you get a body cavity search from the IRS and NSA, government workers are using a “personal privacy” exemption in the law to shield them from scrutiny.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/feds-invoke-privacy-to-shield-public-employees-while-snooping-on-americans/article/2537682

YOUR tax dollars are being used to sell Obamacare
http://washingtonexaminer.com/super-bowl-champ-baltimore-ravens-getting-paid-130000-to-promote-obamacare/article/2537602

Ted Cruz and conservatives are ‘terrorists’ for wanting to delay Obamacare, but democrats now wanting to delay it UNTIL AFTER THEY GET REELECTED are somehow reasonable
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/obamacare-mandate-may-be-delayed-2013-10-23?link=MW_home_latest_news

The same people who are going to ruin you financially whether or not you buy Obamacare owe millions in back taxes.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/10/23/700-IRS-contract-workers-owe–54M-in-back-taxes

Hawaii Relaunching Obamacare Exchange After Not Selling Any Health Insurance Due To Software Problems
http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/10/10/hawaii-relaunching-obamacare-exchange-after-not-selling-any-health-insurance-due-to-software-problems/

Only 5 Iowans Have Signed Up for Obamacare
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/report-only-5-iowans-have-signed-obamacare_762379.html


The Top 50 Liberal Media Bias Examples

I really find it amusing, and at the same time frustrating, when liberals try to deny a liberal media bias. They ignore the overwhelming pro-liberal/anti-conservative reporting from the mainstream media outlets, while continually whining about the lone conservative “mainstream” media outlet, that being Fox News. They act as if there were a thousand Fox News type outlets, and that the liberal outlets were the minority. Don’t you just love Alinsky tactics?

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

The Top 50 Liberal Media Bias Examples

December 10, 2011 by Warner Todd Huston

Examples of Liberal Media Bias

Let’s face it, liberal media bias has been around since there have been liberals to do the “reporting” of the news. But this fact should surprise no one. After all, the news media has always been filled with bias of one type or another. In fact, there was a time when American customers of the news knew exactly which newspapers sported which point of view. It was taken for granted that one newspaper supported one side and another newspaper a different side.

But in the late 1950s and early 1960s that all changed. Suddenly the folks in the news media began to present themselves as unbiased pursuers of “the truth.” Gone was the out-in-front bias and instead the media cloaked itself in a new air of detachment, a new just-the-facts mien.

This new era in media conceit coincided with the advent of a liberal mindset that took on the weight of the world, a new era in which liberals felt that their ideals rose above God, tradition and country.

Suddenly a journalist’s work was divorced from the trade in local news and became a profession increasingly assuming a national and ideological agenda, one fueled by journalism schools and professors that began to disgorge university trained “journalists” with a left-wing agenda. These people then went forth to replace the grizzled local reporters that were wedded to their local political culture. This new wave of “journalists” did not want to report what was going on in their local news as much as they wanted to “save the world.”

In pursuit of that left-wing national agenda — if not a leftist world agenda — “reporters” began to spin all news stories, from the most mundane stories to the hottest national news, toward a left-wing agenda. These “journalists” slipped in bias in every way they could to push the leftist’s meme.

For decades this left-wing agenda drove the coverage of the news. Then in the 1980s talk radio came and conservative talkers began to point out this obvious bias. Even so the bias continued unabated.

Only one thing has begun to turn the tide — or at least succeed in educating news consumers — against liberal media bias. Since the advent of the New Media, Internet forums, blogs, podcasts, and on-line news sources, what I call the Old Media has had a much tougher time getting away with the bias that has plagued its work since the 1960s.

But that won’t stop them from trying!

Certainly any list will be somewhat subjective, and some may quibble with what is and is not on the list. But following is, if not the top 50 examples of media bias, 50 egregious and well-known examples of it.

So, without further ado, and in no particular order except a loose historical timeline, here are some of the top 50 examples of liberal media bias.

1) Better Red Than Informed: Probably the single worst example of liberal media bias is the media’s steadfast refusal to accurately report the monstrous evils of the Soviet Union — even still to this day. It didn’t matter how many millions of Soviet citizens that Joseph Stalin and his successors murdered, it didn’t matter how evil the Soviet Union was, the liberal media was not going to report about it. The media even awarded itself a Pulitzer Prize through the lies of one Walter Duranty a New York Times columnist that was a shill for the murderous Soviet Union.

2). Castro’s Cheerleaders: The Soviets weren’t the only communists that America’s liberal media establishment has for years worked to shore up. Cuba’s Fidel Castro was also a communist dear to the hearts of the Old Media establishment. Never an unkind word for dear leader.

Continue reading

%d bloggers like this: