With illegals flipping elections now, Democrats' opposition to a wall is all about their grip on power

By Monica Showalter

For Democrats, opposition to a wall at the U.S. southern border, where thousands of illegals are pouring in, isn't about "women and children."  It's not about compassion; it's not about a wall's "effectiveness" (we know that a wall is effective); it's not about the environment; it's not about locking up the legal Latino-American vote; it's not even (all that much) about doling goodies to indigents to expand the underclass and, with it, the size of government.
It's about winning elections.

Illegals in bellwether California have shown that they are the margin of victory in even the reddest counties, such as Orange County, where illegal aliens served as ballot-harvesters to collect up all the ballots of indifferent voters who weren't otherwise planning to vote.  Harvesting ballots by foreigners is actually legal in California, even as it's illegal almost everywhere else, and illegals demonstrated the power it has.
You notice the curious silence of the Democrats regarding an illegal ballot-harvesting case out in North Carolina done by a Republican?  They aren't saying much at all, likely because they don't want to be speaking ill of ballot-harvesting, given that good thing they've got going in California.  The foreign ballot-harvesters in California "helped" indifferent and absentee California voters to "fill out their ballots" and then harvested and harvested, turning these harvested ballots in until they got the electoral result they wanted, often weeks after the actual election concluded. 
You can bet that other Democrats, who are losing the black vote in droves over President Trump's stellar economy and all the jobs created, are noticing that one.  The critical role of illegals here can't be escaping them.  For Democrats, illegals are the arriving reinforcements, the ship coming in, the margin of victory, as they seek to rig the electoral landscape to secure power permanently.  Last thing in the world they would want to see is Trump stopping their entry via a border wall or through any scintilla of immigration enforcement, even in cases of violent crime against Americans and legal aliens.  Illegals are now the Democrats' meal ticket.
Investor's Business Daily has a terrific piece (and thanks for the hat tip!) that effectively ties lockstep Democratic opposition to the wall and support for illegals to the mounting evidence that illegals are now how they win elections.  The editorial effectively ties efforts to rig the vote through ballot-harvesting, automatic motor-voter registrations, and an uncleared inactive voter database (promised a clean-up conveniently after the midterms) to the actual participation of illegal aliens in U.S. elections.  Illegals right now are legally ballot-harvesting votes, and the people they are harvesting from – Latinos, with that 94% Latino turnout rate – could easily include many non-citizens voting illegally.  California's motor-voter laws already have "mistakenly" registered more than 100,000 ineligible voters, and the system itself is an "honor system," meaning that actually ineligible foreigners most certainly can register to vote if they want to, saying they are citizens on their forms because no one is going to check.
IBD asks:

Is it any wonder that Democrats are now refusing to support even the rudimentary step of securing the southern border?  As California has shown, an army of noncitizens can help sway elections.  And keeping the border open will only bring in more.

That sums up well the Democrat intransigence on that most basic of security measures: a much needed border wall.  Democrats aren't just potential benefactors to illegals, as they claim; they are actually in their political debt.  In the past, Democrats put out the "narrative" that illegals should never be deported because of the critical role they play in harvesting our food.  What a long time ago that was.  Today, illegals harvest ballots, and that's critical for not the food supply, but the power supply of elected Democrats.

For Democrats, opposition to a wall at the U.S. southern border, where thousands of illegals are pouring in, isn't about "women and children."  It's not about compassion; it's not about a wall's "effectiveness" (we know that a wall is effective); it's not about the environment; it's not about locking up the legal Latino-American vote; it's not even (all that much) about doling goodies to indigents to expand the underclass and, with it, the size of government.
It's about winning elections.
Illegals in bellwether California have shown that they are the margin of victory in even the reddest counties, such as Orange County, where illegal aliens served as ballot-harvesters to collect up all the ballots of indifferent voters who weren't otherwise planning to vote.  Harvesting ballots by foreigners is actually legal in California, even as it's illegal almost everywhere else, and illegals demonstrated the power it has.
You notice the curious silence of the Democrats regarding an illegal ballot-harvesting case out in North Carolina done by a Republican?  They aren't saying much at all, likely because they don't want to be speaking ill of ballot-harvesting, given that good thing they've got going in California.  The foreign ballot-harvesters in California "helped" indifferent and absentee California voters to "fill out their ballots" and then harvested and harvested, turning these harvested ballots in until they got the electoral result they wanted, often weeks after the actual election concluded. 
You can bet that other Democrats, who are losing the black vote in droves over President Trump's stellar economy and all the jobs created, are noticing that one.  The critical role of illegals here can't be escaping them.  For Democrats, illegals are the arriving reinforcements, the ship coming in, the margin of victory, as they seek to rig the electoral landscape to secure power permanently.  Last thing in the world they would want to see is Trump stopping their entry via a border wall or through any scintilla of immigration enforcement, even in cases of violent crime against Americans and legal aliens.  Illegals are now the Democrats' meal ticket.

Investor's Business Daily has a terrific piece (and thanks for the hat tip!) that effectively ties lockstep Democratic opposition to the wall and support for illegals to the mounting evidence that illegals are now how they win elections.  The editorial effectively ties efforts to rig the vote through ballot-harvesting, automatic motor-voter registrations, and an uncleared inactive voter database (promised a clean-up conveniently after the midterms) to the actual participation of illegal aliens in U.S. elections.  Illegals right now are legally ballot-harvesting votes, and the people they are harvesting from – Latinos, with that 94% Latino turnout rate – could easily include many non-citizens voting illegally.  California's motor-voter laws already have "mistakenly" registered more than 100,000 ineligible voters, and the system itself is an "honor system," meaning that actually ineligible foreigners most certainly can register to vote if they want to, saying they are citizens on their forms because no one is going to check.
IBD asks:

Is it any wonder that Democrats are now refusing to support even the rudimentary step of securing the southern border?  As California has shown, an army of noncitizens can help sway elections.  And keeping the border open will only bring in more.

That sums up well the Democrat intransigence on that most basic of security measures: a much needed border wall.  Democrats aren't just potential benefactors to illegals, as they claim; they are actually in their political debt.  In the past, Democrats put out the "narrative" that illegals should never be deported because of the critical role they play in harvesting our food.  What a long time ago that was.  Today, illegals harvest ballots, and that's critical for not the food supply, but the power supply of elected Democrats.

Read more: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/01/with_illegals_flipping_elections_now_democrats_opposition_to_a_wall_is_existential.html#ixzz5e0TXKdyz
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

“THEY NEED TO START WITH THEMSELVES”

BY SCOTT JOHNSON IN 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, RUSSIA INVESTIGATION

Maria Bartiromo interviewed former House Intelligence Committee Chairman and current Ranking Member Devin Nunes on her FOX News Sunday Morning Fugures show yesterday. I have posted the 16-minute video clip of Rep. Nunes’s appearance below.

Mocked and reviled by the Democrats and their media adjunct, Nunes is the voice of truth on the Mueller Switch Project and related issues. What did he have to say yesterday?

Bartiromo asked Nunes to comment on the indictment of Roger Stone by Team Mueller. Five of the seven charges lodged against Stone derive from his testimony to the House Intelligence Committee in the course of the investigation that Nunes ran. On Friday Byron York took a first look at the Stone indictment here. Yesterday he took a second look here.

Nunes responded to Bartiromo: “I think the Mueller investigation is really at the bottom of the barrel when they’re looking at people like this because we already found in our report that Roger Stone wasn’t colluding with the Russians, which that was the original intent of all this, remember?”

He continued: “Supposedly Trump campaign operatives, so-called, were colluding with Russians. They must be embarrassed that they actually have to come to House Republicans in order to have us give them the information, the transcripts so that they go and get Roger Stone on a process foul that occurred in 2017 that Roger Stone himself is going to fight.”

Nunes went on to discuss the Department of Justice’s abuse of the FISA process, the members of the Mueller team, the continuing mystery of the scope of Mueller’s investigation and the apparent “collusion” of the Clinton campaign with the friends of Vladimir Putin. I hereby certify that the two segments with Nunes warrant your time.

Quotable quote (1): “I am happy that now [the Department of Justice] is going to take seriously lying to Congress — they’re going to go after Roger Stone for lying to Congress and obstructing a congressional investigation. They need to start with themselves. They need to start with the former leadership of the Department of Justice and the FBI.”

Quotable quote (2): “We don’t even know what Mueller’s doing. We haven’t seen the scope memo. We don’t know what he’s supposed to be up to. I think it’s possible that the Steele Dossier — the Clinton dirt — is what’s in that scope memo that they refuse to make public…”

NOTE: I relied on Daniel Chaitin’s Washington Examiner article for the quotes in paragraphs 4 and 5 above.

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/01/they-need-to-start-with-themselves.php

How Anti-Christian Bias in #FakeNews Media Is Encouraging Anti-Semitism

This is a topic I am reluctant to write about, but in the wake of the Covington Catholic school story, the elephant in the room is now so large that it is more dangerous to ignore it than to mention it:

It’s rare to see a major media outlet be so honest about its ideological bias. But yet there was New York Times reporter Dan Levin on Twitter the other day, openly soliciting negative stories about Christian schools. “I’m a New York Times reporter writing about #exposechristianschools,” Levin tweeted, “Are you in your 20s or younger who went to a Christian school? I’d like to hear about your experience and its impact on your life. Please DM me.” . . .
You probably won’t be surprised to learn . . . that the #exposechristianschools hashtag Levin used did not initially go viral because Twitter users were anxious to share their enriching experiences in Christian-based educational institutions. The tag was predominately used to dox and smear the Covington Catholic School kids. . . .
The New York Times’ long history of prejudicial coverage of religious Christians should cement your skepticism about its intentions. Even while the newspaper was rifling through Twitter looking for people who had been damaged by a traditional Christian education, it was running a fawning profile on the overtly racist and anti-Semitic “Black Hebrew Israelites.” The piece opens with the line: “They are sidewalk ministers who use confrontation as their gospel.”
Christian schools, of course, irritate the sensibilities of contemporary Democrats for a number of reasons. It’s not only that students who attend them are often saved from the leftist cultural and political indoctrination, but also that the very existence of parochial schools, private schools and home schooling undermines their institutional political monopoly.

(Hat-tip: Instapundit via Hogewash.)

Wow. That’s what they call a “bad look,” Dan Levin.

Or perhaps as some would say, it’s a shanda fur die goyim.

As David Harsanyi says, the anti-Christian bias of the New York Timeshas long been notorious, and this bias is transparently partisan: The Times has always been a propaganda organ of the Democrat Party and, ever since the 1980s, when the so-called “religious Right” was identified as a core constituency of the Reagan coalition, attacking Christianity has become a more or less regular “beat” in Times coverage.

Understanding this as a partisan bias is important. Whenever religion can be used as an issue in favor of Democrats, we find the liberal media singing from the same hymnal, so to speak. When John F. Kennedy’s Catholic faith became an issue in the 1960 campaign, the New York Times became more ardently Catholic than the Pope. When the Southern Baptist Jimmy Carter was the Democrat presidential candidate, the New York Times coverage was almost evangelical in its endorsement. Over and over, we can see it is the partisan political value of religion that dictates how the topic is covered in the New York Times — anything that helps Democrats is good, anything that helps Republicans is bad.

This partisan explanation of why the New York Times hates Christians is important to understand, because otherwise people might notice a name like Dan Levin and then point at the paper’s masthead — nudge, nudge, wink, wink — and you had better believe that this has been happening since Covington Catholic fiasco. How is it, as David Harsanyi points out, that a New York Times reporter is seeking to “expose” Christian schools while at the same time his newspaper is giving softball coverage to a bizarre racialist cult like the Black Hebrew Israelites? Doesn’t such obvious bias lend credence to hateful stereotypes and conspiracy theories about Jewish influence? As a conservative Christian who is the exact opposite of an anti-Semite, I get tired of dealing with the anti-Semitic comments that crop up online whenever one of (((those names))) features prominently in a story about media bias.

Why Are Jews Liberals? the late Norman Podhoretz asked in a 2010 book that ought to be required reading in political science classes. Anyone can look at the exit poll numbers. In 2004, for example, Democrat John Kerry got 74% of the Jewish vote, which was more than his percentage of union members (61%) or Latino voters (53%).

That Jews voted 3-to-1 against Bush, who had invaded Iraq to crush the Jew-hating dictator Saddam Hussein, should have aroused critical scrutiny from the media, but for (((some reason))) it didn’t. Instead, the media were so blatant in their partisan loyalty to the Democrats that their negative coverage of the Bush administration lent credence to anti-Semitic conspiracy theories about “Zionist” neoconservatives.

Am I the only one who sees the feedback loop at work here?

1. A majority of Jews are Democrats;
2. Many Jews have prominent positions in the news media;
3. The allegedly “objective” media are in fact dishonest partisans, consistently promoting pro-Democrat messages;
4. Republican voters express resentment of the media’s dishonest propaganda;
   and
5. The media then cite these complaints about bias as proof of Republican anti-Semitism.

Isn’t it obvious, in such a situation, that assigning (((Dan Levin))) to “expose” Christian schools was a very bad idea? And what I fear most is that this feedback-loop effect could create a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy. The media uses accusations of anti-Semitism to justify their blind fanatical hatred of Trump, and this might actually (a) increase the partisan skew toward Democrats among Jewish voters while at the same time (b) encouraging avowed anti-Semites to support Trump, and then (c) lather, rinse, repeat with potentially dangerous consequences.

Democrats and the media (but I repeat myself) seem to believe that there is no downside to their divisive identity-politics game, so that even if there is some kind of backlash, they’ll be able to exploit this to their advantage, and never mind if innocent people actually get hurt. The media have recently tried to play victim — “Orange Man Bad!” — with CNN’s Jim Acosta actually getting a contract to write a book about how that evil bully Donald Trump is mean to famous millionaire TV reporters. So it can be expected that this media victimhood narrative will be merged with the “Republicans hate Jews” theme to create a new message: Criticism of liberal media bias is an anti-Semitic “dog whistle.”

Meanwhile, of course, Dan Levin will “expose” Christian schools and if you dare mention the hateful bias involved, you’re literally Hitler.

https://theothermccain.com/2019/01/27/how-anti-christian-bias-in-fakenews-media-is-encouraging-anti-semitism/

LIBERAL HATE TURNED TO 11

BY STEVEN HAYWARD IN FOOD AND WINE, LIBERALS

The erratic Andrew Sullivan has a pretty good piece up at New York magazine about the Covington boys school affair on the Washington mall, and correctly notes that the mainstream media totally lets the Black Hebrew Israelites off the hook. Even the egregious Southern Poverty Law Center identifies the Black Hebrew Israelites as a hate group, but, as Sullivan notes:

And yet the elite media seemed eager to downplay their role, referring to them only in passing, noting briefly that they were known to be anti-Semitic and anti-gay. After several days, the New York Times ran a news analysis on the group by John Eligon that reads like a press release from the sect: “They shout, use blunt and sometimes offensive language, and gamely engage in arguments aimed at drawing listeners near.” He notes that “they group people based on what they call nations, believing that there are 12 tribes among God’s chosen people. White people are not among those tribes, they believe, and will therefore be servants when Christ returns to Earth.” Nothing to see here, folks. Just a bunch of people preaching the enslavement of another race in public on speakers in the most inflammatory language imaginable. . .

The Washington Post ran a Style section headline about “the calculated art of making people uncomfortable.” In a news story entirely about the Black Israelites, the Washington Post did not quote a single thing they had said on the tape, gave a respectful account of their theology, and only mentioned their status as a “hate group” in the 24th paragraph, and put the term in scare quotes. Vox managed to write an explainer that also did not include a single example of any of the actual insults hurled at the Covington kids. Countless near-treatises were written parsing the layers of bigotry inside a silent schoolboy’s smirk.

This is why more and more Americans don’t just distrust the mainstream media—they are coming to loathe and despise them, and deservedly so. Sullivan is more mild in his language, but essentially agrees:

There’s a reason why, in the crucial battle for the legitimacy of a free press, Trump is still on the offensive. Our mainstream press has been poisoned by tribalism. My own trust in it is eroding. I’m far from the only one. . .

What was so depressing to me about the Covington incident was how so many liberals felt comfortable taking a random teenager and, purely because of his race and gender, projected onto him all their resentments and hatred of “white men” in general.

David Bernstein of Scalia Law School at George Mason took note of a comment on Sullivan’s article that had been posted to another site:

NOW I’ve simplified the situation for myself. I don’t know who was truly the aggressor/bad guy in this situation (outside the black KKK shitheads) BUT I DO KNOW THIS:
These were wealthy, privileged, white teenagers in MAGA hats marching against abortion.
That is plenty of reason to want to skullfuck all of them until there is nothing left but giblets and red jelly. I don’t hate them for smirking and (peacefully!) protesting against people they disagree with, and I don’t hate them for they did necessarily, I hate them for what they are and what they represent.
Fuck these kids for their politics, fuck them for their Catholicism and their kkkuntserveatism and their hateful hats. You shouldn’t need a video of some shitheel with a punchable face to know that.
Also, lulz at Andrew Sullivan for complaining about anti-Catholicism like that’s a bad thing.

But remember everybody, it’s conservatives who are hate-filled bigots who judge people because of the color of their skin.

Since living well is the best revenge, it is worth celebrating this parody Gillette ad based on the fiasco:

And in the “living well is the best revenge” department, may I recommend something for your tasting list:

Actually I haven’t tasted it yet myself, but it gets a 95 rating from the Wine Spectator, so this looks like an obvious Cellar Selection for the Power Line Wine Club. I’ve ordered a half-case.

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/01/liberal-hate-turned-to-11.php

Long Term, How Do We Live With the Sorts of People Smearing Covington Catholic Teen Nick Sandmann?

Long Term, How Do We Live With the Sorts of People Smearing Covington Catholic Teen Nick Sandmann?

 

BY JOHN HAWKINS 

"I ask you to judge me by the standard that you would want applied to your father, your husband, your brother or your son." --  Brett Kavanaugh

“Let justice be done though the heavens should fall.” – John Adams

“A general dissolution of principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy. While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but when once they lose their virtue then will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader.” — Samuel Adams

Politics ain’t pattycake and expecting someone to love and adore people on the other side of the aisle who disagree with him on fundamental issues is probably a bridge too far.

Still, every American has a right to expect equal treatment under the law and from government agencies. There’s also a fundamental American belief in fair play. That means whatever rules we come up with get applied to everyone equally. It means that right is right even if you don’t agree with the person who benefits from that. It means that it is immoral to lie about someone even if you disagree with him. It means that at the end of the day, we put the good of the country ahead of our own petty political disagreements.

Those are the sorts of foundational customs and mores that allow people with wildly divergent viewpoints to live together in a functional society. The very fact that the Left has rapidly moved away from those principles is why our society has become increasingly dysfunctional. This is a tendency liberals have not just here, but everywhere. As Margaret Thatcher said,

Left-wing zealots have often been prepared to ride roughshod over due process and basic considerations of fairness when they think they can get away with it. For them the ends always seems to justify the means. That is precisely how their predecessors came to create the gulag.

Conservatives have long since tired of being smeared in the very schools where they send their kids to be educated, in mainstream media outlets that have become little more than open propaganda outlets for the Democratic Party, and by vacuous celebrities and professional athletes who know about as much about constitutional governance as they do about quantum physics. We have noted with dismay that it has become mainstream on the Left to vilify conservatives merely for our being white, male, or Christian. It became even more dismaying to see Obama’s IRS targeting Tea Party groups and Obama’s FBI showing political partisanship in 2016 because if those two DANGEROUS government agencies can’t be trusted to be evenhanded, then it is a long-term threat to the stability of our republic.

But, what we’ve seen in the Kavanaugh hearings and with the Covington Catholic High School debacle is even more disturbing.

How do you live with people who are happily willing to brand a man as a sexual predator with no evidence against him merely because it benefits them politically? When you reach a point where a large percentage of liberals are willing to ruin a man’s life work and brand him as a rapist, not because of their honest appraisal of his guilt or innocence, but because he’s in the wrong political party, how do you live with them?

As disgusting as the Kavanaugh hearings were, what has been done to Nick Sandmann is even worse. Keep in mind, we’re talking about a teenager here and not someone like David Hogg who became a public figure by being on cable news every night. Nick Sandmann was minding his own business with his schoolmates and doing some school cheers in response to vicious homophobic slurs being hurled at his group by nutjob Black Hebrew Israelites. Despite the provocation, there was no brawl and there were no slurs hurled back at the kooky racists insulting Sandmann and his classmates.

Then, publicity-seeking liberal activist Nathan Phillips walked a long way to get in Sandmann’s face while chanting and beating on drums. Meanwhile, one of the people with him insulted the kids. This could fairly be seen as a provocative act, yet Sandmann didn’t insult him or push him away; he stood there smiling.

Then after it was all over, Phillips blatantly lied about what happened. He claimed the Covington high school kids surrounded him and that Sandmann was intimidating him. Had that happened, Sandmann would have deserved condemnation, but no evidence was ever provided that this happened and the initial video showed nothing more than Phillips chanting and beating a drum in Sandmann’s face. Still, the condemnation of Nick Sandmann, who literally did nothing wrong whatsoever, was overwhelming.

Later, as more videos came out, Phillips’ story crumbled. Within 12 hours, he had changed his story completely and soon thereafter, it was revealed that he lied about being a Vietnam veteran. Numerous conservatives who jumped to conclusions about Sandmann at least had the decency to apologize. On the other hand, while SOME liberals did at least admit that they got the story wrong, most of them doubled down and continued portraying an innocent 17-year-old kid as a racist and a Nazi. When the pushback on that came, the basic response came down to, “He’s a smiling white kid wearing a MAGA hat, therefore he deserves everything he gets.”

It would be nice to make it into a joke by calling it what it really is, a “hat crime,” but it’s not funny. If you’re willing to falsely brand a kid as a racist, a Nazi, and a horrible person because he stood there and smiled while some weirdo beat a drum in his face, where do we go from there? Do we declare every person who wore an “I’m With Her” shirt to be a pedophile? If Joe Biden wins the Democratic nomination in 2020, is it acceptable to try to destroy the lives of random liberal teenagers for wearing “I’m With Joe” shirts?

This is the world liberals are dragging us into with their myopic vision, unquenchable hatred for people who disagree with them, and their raging intolerance. Is this good for the country? No way. Will it produce a better America? No. Is it entirely possible that this sort of thinking could lead to increasing amounts of political violence? Absolutely, because you can’t live in harmony with people who think there’s no punishment too great for people who wear hats designed to support their political opponents. We keep hoping against hope that saner heads will eventually prevail on the Left, but so far voices of sanity are few and far between.

https://pjmedia.com/trending/long-term-how-do-we-live-with-the-sorts-of-people-smearing-maga-hat-teen-nick-sandmann/

Don's Tuesday Column

               THE WAY I SEE IT   by Don Polson    Red Bluff Daily News   2/29/2019

        Shutdown drama; totalitarian left

On Friday, President Trump announced a “deal” to reopen the parts of government idled by the shutdown. It appears that, for about 3 weeks, attempts will be made to negotiate the improvement of Southern border security with barriers or walls. That such physical impediments to illegal entry are essential, to stem the flow of alien migrants, drugs, human trafficking and foreigners with malign intent, is as obvious as the phrase “no brainer” could suggest.

Commentary, analysis, spin and partisan scoring abounds, but I see the most shameful, irresponsible abuse of governing leverage—by Democratic Speaker Nancy Pelosi—that has ever in my adult lifetime been perpetrated. It’s comparable to, on the one hand, the air traffic controllers’ strike under President Reagan, effectively solved when he boldly fired striking workers. It’s also similar to the recently settled teachers’ strike in Los Angeles except that Supreme Union Boss Pelosi forced government workers to effectively go on strike against us, the taxpayers; she treated their personal lives and misfortunes as if they were bargaining chips in a game of chicken with President Trump. Even some Democrats were saying “give Trump his money for a wall” in exchange for their pet projects: legalization of Dreamers, etc.

Strident conservative voices (ahem, Ann Coulter) should be discounted for their apparent obsession with publicizing their opinions. I don’t see Trump losing support from his base—he’s probably gaining with the independent middle who see the need for border barriers and the duplicity of Democrats who, up until Trump proposed it, voted for border fencing.

Trump would, however, see weak-kneed Republican Senators start to cave in to media pressure. Any “sick-out” work slowdown by TSA workers (mistakenly unionized at TSA’s inception) could have led to problems for Trump, who knows when to fold ‘em.

As it stands, I see no political downside to playing hardball with the radicalized, “open borders” leftist Democrats led by Pelosi. We wanted Trump over other Republicans because he fights and, the present retreat aside, he will never go soft on his principles in order to appease the Democrat/media left. MAGA!

More reprehensible than what Trump has supposedly said, done or tweeted—or even the despicable tactics of Pelosi holding federal workers hostage to her pathological hatred for Trump’s border wall—has been the diabolical, abusive way the Covington Catholic boys were treated.

Just reverse the roles for a moment and write the narrative: Some African-American boys wearing Obama “HOPE” shirts, waiting for a bus after a “Million Man March,” are regaled with racist, offensive, homophobic slurs by white men. Add a Tea Party hat-wearing guy who intentionally walks up to within inches of one of the boys, loudly singing “God Bless America” and reciting the Pledge of Allegiance while the young black high schooler does his best to maintain his composure, standing his ground on the sidewalk.

His fellow students might respond to the provocation with some verbal comments while shouting a school “spirit” chant to drown out the Tea Party man. Do you honestly think for one minute that the news media would have portrayed TP man sympathetically, focusing on the supposed “smirk” in the kid’s expression, and the threatening black kids’ actions and words?

Of course not! Would anyone have blathered hatefully about the “toxic” threat of black boys and the implied socialist message of their HOPE shirts? No way! Would Barack Obama have been held responsible if any black kids lost their cool and pushed or shoved TP man? Not for one minute!

And yet, NBC’s Savanah Guthrie had the gall to suggestively ask Make America Great Again hat-wearing 16-year-old Nick Sandmann, “Do you see your own fault?” The world, certainly Ms. Guthrie, had ample time to review the entirety of the tape that graphically showed the Black Hebrew Israelites’ racist, homophobic shouted slurs and Native American Nathan Philips clearly walking into the face of young Sandmann rather than around the group to the Lincoln Memorial. Philips had no intention of calming the confrontation down or he would have interceded to temper the B.H.I. invective. Every word of his Saturday CNN interview was a lie.

Another NBC News person, Noah Berlatsky, disputed that Sandmann was a “silent bystander”; Noah tweeted ludicrously that “his MAGA hat spoke for him.” Is Margaret Carlson allowed to lie for the Daily Beast and tweet that Sandmann “(got) up in the face of” tribal drummer Philips, when it was the opposite, as the video proves? One cable news woman actually bloviated that the MAGA hat was like the white KKK hood. Are these loons so surrounded by like-minded idiots that that makes sense?

Reverse the roles; it’s inconceivable that there would be death threats, exposure of personal information (“doxxing”; GQ’s Nathaniel Friedman urged people to “Doxx ‘em all”), and efforts to get the relatives of the black students fired and their school destroyed. Best-selling author Reza Aslan said the kid had a “punchable face.” Howard Dean: Covington Catholic is “a hate factory.” Even The Atlantic noticed that “The Media Botched the Covington Catholic Story. And the damage to their credibility will be lasting.”

 In “This is How the Left Destroys Itself,” Conor Friedersdorf asks “why the left gets caught in politically counter-productive overreaction like over the Covington kid.” Maybe what we need are 63,000,000 MAGA hat-wearing Trump supporters rallying “to tell these totalitarian freaks that we still have a First Amendment in this country where people are allowed to peaceably assemble and support their president through speech or attire.”

Finally, the Native American drummer turns out to have a violent, criminal past, including the military brig, and is a serial fabricator who never served in Vietnam, never saw combat, never had an “honorable” discharge, tried to break into a Catholic mass the day before the confrontation and routinely creates confrontation only to play the victim for the press. What a 24-carat phony and troublemaker.

Exposing the Times’ anti-Christian bias

By David Harsanyi

Modal Trigger

Shutterstock

It’s rare to see a major media outlet be so honest about its ideological bias. But yet there was New York Times reporter Dan Levin on Twitter the other day, openly soliciting negative stories about Christian schools. “I’m a New York Times reporter writing about #exposechristianschools,” Levin tweeted, “Are you in your 20s or younger who went to a Christian school? I’d like to hear about your experience and its impact on your life. Please DM me.”

SEE ALSO

NY Times reporter blasted over #exposechristianschools tweet

The Times reporting was no doubt provoked by a now-infamous episode in which a group of boys from the Covington Catholic school in Kentucky were smeared by an online mob set off by mainstream media. At first, most outlets ran with a story of a fabulist American Indian activist named Nathan Phillips, who had falsely accused the MAGA hat-wearing kids attending the March for Life of ganging up and bullying him.

Videos, as most folks now know, later showed that it had been the teens who had to deal with a torrent of racist insults from Black Hebrew Israelites and who had been confronted by Phillips.

As it turns out, the teens had exhibited a great deal of self-control for boys their age. Maybe more parents should be sending their kids to Christian schools.

On a broader level, the recklessness of the media had, once again, needlessly stoked national division. On another level, it had tangibly damaged the lives of a bunch of kids and parents for no reason.

What it didn’t do is encourage any genuine self-evaluation. Rather than simply admitting their mistake, the media decided to recast the entire incident as a learning experience for the people they had victimized.

And yet another way to muddy the story would be to cobble together another unscientific piece highlighting the horrors of a Catholic education.

It would take a saint-like leap of faith to believe that Levin, as he later claimed, was merely looking for an array of stories related to Christian schools. Anyone who’s ever worked as a journalist can tell you that “exposing” someone does not typically — or perhaps, ever — entail the pursuit of positive stories.

MORE ON:

NEW YORK TIMES

NYT reporter blasted over 'Expose Christian Schools' tweet

Famed humorist, columnist Russell Baker dead at 93

Trump rages about FBI's reported probe into firing of 'total sleaze' Comey

NY Times missed coverage on trove of new 2019 downtown apartments

You probably won’t be surprised to learn, then, that the #exposechristianschools hashtag Levin used did not initially go viral because Twitter users were anxious to share their enriching experiences in Christian-based educational institutions. The tag was predominately used to dox and smear the Covington Catholic School kids.

In this regard, the effort was successful. Users unearthed pictures of the kids flashing white supremacist hand signals (they turned out to be just a universal sign for three-point basketball shots), dressing in blackface (it turned out the school had “black out” games and “white out” games for fans of the sports team) and the banning of a gay valedictorian’s speech (it turned out that openly gay boy had both handed his speech in late and broken school rules about political rhetoric.)

The New York Times’ long history of prejudicial coverage of religious Christians should cement your skepticism about its intentions. Even while the newspaper was rifling through Twitter looking for people who had been damaged by a traditional Christian education, it was running a fawning profile on the overtly racist and anti-Semitic “Black Hebrew Israelites.” The piece opens with the line: “They are sidewalk ministers who use confrontation as their gospel.”

Christian schools, of course, irritate the sensibilities of contemporary Democrats for a number of reasons. It’s not only that students who attend them are often saved from the leftist cultural and political indoctrination, but also that the very existence of parochial schools, private schools and home schooling undermines their institutional political monopoly.

The New York Times, for example, was one of many outlets that negatively reported that Second Lady Karen Pence had recently begun teaching at a private school that adhered to the Christian doctrine of her church.

Editors at The Washington Post and other large outlets incredulously wondered how Christian schools that still embraced traditional social values could even “happen” in contemporary American society.

On the bright side, like Levin, at least they were honest.

https://nypost.com/2019/01/25/exposing-the-times-anti-christian-bias/