Wednesday, January 23, 2019
Rush Exposing The Democrat Party For What They Are...
More Rush:
Limbaugh: NRO Pushed Covington Hoax to Win ‘Approval of the Mainstream Media’
Rush Limbaugh Celebrates 30 Years of Syndication
Rush: Hillary Just Admitted I’ve Been Right All Along
Rush Limbaugh: Capture of Benghazi Plotter Destroys Obama, Clinton Narrative
Crooked Hillary's Whitewater Scandal For Dummies (Rush Limbaugh)
Rush Limbaugh Lampoons Hillary's Bathroom Server..
Rush Limbaugh Is Right Again...
Former Intelligence Analyst: Political Correctness Is A Manipulative Tool For Centralizing Power
LIMBAUGH: 'Net neutrality as honest a name as Affordable Care Act'...
Remember When Government Misdoings Was Taken Seriously By The Press?
Rush On Defunding Obamacare..
Nathan Phillips’s Interview with CNN Is Full of Falsehoods, Inconsistencies, and Nonsense
It’s disturbing to see the left-wing hate that is still being directed at the Covington Catholic students — days after the initial framing of the story was thoroughly debunked. Judging from the vitriolic online responses to my piece, it’s apparent that many folks on the left are basing their understanding of the incident by still taking Nathan Phillips entirely at his word about the incident. They credit his good intentions. They credit his good faith. And they credit his version of the story.
This is a grave mistake. As my colleague Kyle Smith documented in a viral piece this weekend, in his initial account of the event, Phillips gave substantially different accounts to the Washington Post and the Detroit Free Press. But the inconsistencies don’t stop there. Perhaps his longest statement is contained in this CNN interview, and — quite frankly, it’s simply incredible. There’s an alarming number of falsehoods, inconsistencies, and nonsensical statements. For example, there’s the interesting question of his alleged service in Vietnam (the Washington Post reported today that he served in the Marines from 1972 to 1976 but was not deployed). In the transcript, he appears to falsely state that he served in Vietnam twice:
CNN: Let me ask you about what happened to you. These boys in the middle of this group and you find yourself surrounded. How did that happen and what did that feel like as a person standing there face to face with a young man who seems to be staring at you or glaring at you? How would you describe that moment?
Phillips: When I was there and I was standing there and I seen that group of people in front of me and I seen the angry faces and all of that, I realized I had put myself in a really dangerous situation. Here’s a group of people who were angry at somebody else and I put myself in front of that, and all of a sudden, I’m the one whose all that anger and all that wanting to have the freedom to just rip me apart, that was scary. And I’m a Vietnam veteran and I know that mentality of “There’s enough of us. We can do this.” (Emphasis added.)
Here’s the second:
CNN: One of the things they said is we weren’t protesting against Native Americans. We were there for the March for Life and we were just chanting — and this is kind of putting the blame on you — and that this person came into our space and we were just getting all hyped up. Do you buy that?
Phillips: Not in the least.
CNN: What really happened?
Phillips: They were there looking for trouble, looking for something. Everybody knows the right to life and (pro-choice), it’s been like this and they’re hateful to each other. And it’s because I’m a veteran —I’m a Vietnam veteran — that these two groups even have the right in this country to have protests, to have conflicting opinions. If they were doing that, they should’ve done that there and then when they come into public, that wasn’t the place for that. That was a public forum where we was at. We were still under the protection of our permit for the indigenous peoples rally. (Emphasis added.)If you watch the available video, the first transcript entry is wrong. He says the more ambiguous “Vietnam-times.” I can’t find video of his second statement (CNN apparently aired only excerpts of the larger interview), but why emphasize Vietnam when you didn’t serve there? This is deceptive at best and an outright lie at worst. But look closer at those same transcript excerpts. Do they comport with the video evidence of the event? He disagrees with the kids’ defense that Phillips “came into our space and we were just getting hyped up.” He says that is “not in the least what happened.” But the video is crystal clear. He walked into their midst just after they did a series of school cheers.
Moreover, he says they were “looking for trouble, looking for something.” Yet again, the video shows something substantially different. The Black Israeliteswere hurling homophobic and racist taunts. If anyone was “looking for trouble,” it was the people who were calling kids homophobic slurs, “crackers” and “incest babies.” But “looking for trouble” is a subjective judgment, so it’s difficult to categorize as a flat-out lie. Let’s be charitable and simply say that his statement is flat-out inconsistent with the available evidence. Moreover, read the way he describes the confrontation between Black Israelites and the Covington Catholic kids:
Phillips: Oh, what I was witnessing was just hate? Racism? Well, hate. What I’m saying is that when these folks came there, these other folks were saying their piece, and these others they got offended with it because they were both just expressing their own views. And if it’s racism, that’s what it was because the folks that were having their moment there, they were saying things that I don’t know if I agreed with them or not, but some of it was educational, and it was truth, and it was history about religious views and ideologies, but these other folks, the young students, they couldn’t see it. They had one point of view, it seemed, and that was that their point of view was the only point of view that was worthwhile. And that’s now what I was feeling.
Again, this is an astounding statement. Is this at all consistent with the video? The adult Black Israelites were taunting the kids, relentlessly. Anyone who has encountered the Black Israelites (and I have) knows how they conduct themselves. You know they are full of rage and hate. But, right, the kids were the real problem. (Or, as Phillips described them to the Detroit Free Press, they were the “beast,” and the Black Israelites were the “prey.”) But there is no video evidence I’ve seen that indicates these boys threatened the Black Israelites — and at the point where Phillips walked into their midst, the boys were...
Stand Your Ground...
The Media Inadvertently Exposed This Young Man And His Classmates As The Great Americans That They Are!
They Also Inadvertently Exposed Themselves As The Creepy, Hateful, Lying Propagandists That They Are.
68 major Media Mistakes in the Trump Era: The Definitive List
We the media have “fact-checked” President Trump like we have fact-checked no other human being on the planet—and he’s certainly given us plenty to write about. That’s probably why it’s so easy to find lists enumerating and examining his mistakes, missteps and “lies.”
But as self-appointed arbiters of truth, we’ve largely excused our own unprecedented string of fact-challenged reporting. The truth is, formerly well-respected, top news organizations are making repeat, unforced errors in numbers that were unheard of just a couple of years ago.
Our repeat mistakes involve declaring that Trump’s claims are “lies” when they are matters of opinion, or when the truth between conflicting sources is unknowable; taking Trump’s statements and events out of context; reporting secondhand accounts against Trump without attribution as if they’re established fact; relying on untruthful, conflicted sources; and presenting reporter opinions in news stories—without labeling them as opinions.
What’s worse, we defend ourselves by trying to convince the public that our mistakes are actually a virtue because we (sometimes) correct them. Or we blame Trump for why we’re getting so much wrong. It’s a little bit like a police officer taking someone to jail for DUI, then driving home drunk himself: he may be correct to arrest the suspect, but he should certainly know better than to commit the same violation.
So since nobody else has compiled an updated, extensive list of this kind, here are:
68 Notable Mistakes and Missteps in Major Media Reporting on Donald Trump
1. Aug. 2016-Nov. 2016:
The New York Post published modeling photos of Trump’s wife Melania and reported they were taken in 1995. Various news outlets relied on that date to imply that Melania—an immigrant—had violated her visa status. But the media got the date wrong. Politico was among the news agencies that later issued a photo date correction.
2. Oct. 1, 2016:
The New York Times and other media widely suggested or implied that Trump had not paid income taxes for 18 years. Later, tax return pages leaked to MSNBC ultimately showed that Trump actually paid a higher rate than Democrats Bernie Sanders and President Obama.
3. Oct. 18, 2016:
In a Washington Post piece not labelled opinion or analysis, Stuart Rothenberg reported that Trump’s path to an electoral college victory was “nonexistent.”
4. Nov. 4, 2016:
USA Today misstated Melania Trump’s “arrival date from Slovenia” amid a flurry of reporting that questioned her immigration status from the mid-1990s.
5. Nov. 9, 2016:
Early on election night, the Detroit Free Press called the state of Michigan for Hillary Clinton. Trump actually won Michigan.
Early on election night, the Detroit Free Press called the state of Michigan for Hillary Clinton. Trump actually won Michigan.
6. Jan. 20, 2017:
CNN claimed Nancy Sinatra was “not happy” at her father’s song being used at Trump’s inauguration. Sinatra responded, “That’s not true. I never said that. Why do you lie, CNN?…Actually I’m wishing him the best.”
7. Jan. 20, 2017:
Trump Administration Asks Supreme Court to Review Census Citizenship Case
Last week, federal Judge Jesse M. Furman of the Southern District of New York ruled the Census Bureau could not ask about citizenship. The judge ruled the question would lead to undercounting illegal residents and Hispanics.
“This is the right step for the administration to take, as the 2020 census needs to be printed soon. The United States is a nation-state constituted to safeguard the rights of American citizens, and the only distinction colorblind government should take note of is citizenship. It is irrational that the census can ask a question on race, ethnicity, sex and everything else, but not citizenship,” says Mike Gonzalez, a senior fellow at the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy at The Heritage Foundation.
On Tuesday, the Trump administration moved to bypass the appeals courts, and take the issue straight to the Supreme Court, given the urgency to prepare the U.S. Census. The case would normally be appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit.
“Time is of the essence,” Hans von Spakovsky, senior legal fellow with The Heritage Foundation, told The Daily Signal. “It takes a long lead time to print the millions of census forms.”
He noted bypassing the regular appeals process is a very rare request and very rarely granted.
Von Spakovsky and Gonzalez published an op-ed in The Daily Signal Saturday, saying, “The administration must wage a fierce fight to get this decision overturned,” referring to Furman’s ruling.
Solicitor General Noel Francisco petitioned the court, arguing, the “case is of such imperative public importance as to justify deviation from normal appellate practice and to require immediate determination in this Court.”
The plaintiffs challenging the citizenship question include several advocacy groups, 18 states, and several cities and jurisdictions.
Currently, all 50 states count the entire population when it comes to redistricting for state legislative seats. However, based on a 2015 Supreme Court ruling, states would be allowed to set their own standards—such as citizenship or even registered voters—so long as the standard is uniform and complies with the 14th Amendment, said Logan Churchwell, a spokesman for the Public Interest Legal Foundation.
The entire population includes illegal immigrants.
The organization has filed an amicus brief on the side of the administration in the case.
“Without citizenship data in the census, where you live determines the protection you have under the Voting Rights Act,” Churchwell told The Daily Signal.
Churchwell said citizenship data would also make it easier for...
Yes, MAGA Hats Symbolize Something. But Not Hate.
Initially, the boys were condemned by the left and the right. More video of the incident, however, revealed the boys were not the instigators.
After that hasty condemnation, some high-profile figures actually had the grace to apologize for their rush to judgment about the boys from Covington Catholic High School in Kentucky and their encounter Friday with Nathan Phillips, 64, on the National Mall.
When actress Jamie Lee Curtis issued an olive branch, hoping for something as noncontroversial as finding “common ground,” some of her left-leaning followers went nuts.
Journalist and author Victoria Brownworth called Curtis’ apology “terribly disappointing.”
“DID YOU MISS THE MAGA HATS?” Brownworth asked.
This is terribly disappointing. I thought you were someone dedicated to honesty and truth and here you are saying a press release convinced you that what you saw was false. What's next--defense of Trump?
DID YOU MISS THE MAGA HATS?
604 people are talking about this
Throughout the Twitterverse, otherwise intelligent adults are pointing to the hats as confirmation that the boys 1) were asking for trouble and 2) are racists.
We do believe that #MAGA and the MAGA hats represent something. Wearing the MAGA hat is not a neutral act. But the left’s “Resist” movement once again is completely missing the point.
It’s not a symbol of racism. It’s actually the right’s symbol of resistance to leftist intolerance.
A perfect example of the left’s missing the mark is actress and activist Alyssa Milano, who tweeted:
The 90 Miles Mystery Box: Episode #510
You have come across a mystery box. But what is inside?
It could be literally anything from the serene to the horrific,
from the beautiful to the repugnant,
from the mysterious to the familiar.
If you decide to open it, you could be disappointed,
you could be inspired, you could be appalled.
This is not for the faint of heart or the easily offended.
You have been warned.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)