Media Still Covering Up Obama’s Immigration Agenda

Once again, the Obama administration is deceiving the courts, and the American people, about its plans for amnesty for millions of current and future illegal aliens. And to make things worse, the Trans-Pacific Partnership Treaty, for which President Obama is seeking fast-track authority, would, according to Dick Morris, writing in The Hill, “override national immigration restrictions in the name of facilitating the free flow of labor.” And in this instance, whether wittingly or otherwise, Republicans are lining up to support the president in the name of free trade.

The proposed free trade agreement would undermine Congressional oversight over immigration, adding more power to the presidency, Morris argues. Pair this development with President Obama’s push to legalize illegal immigrants as U.S. residents, and this could become a dangerous policy combination.

Immigration reform is often presented by the media in terms of the human cost, and the alleged inhumanity in not allowing these persons to stay in the United States. The liberal media therefore, delight in pointing to any evidence they can find suggesting hypocrisy on the right on this issue and ignore the blatant abuses by the Obama administration in pursuit of his amnesty agenda.

News coverage of the recent hearing before the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ignores the fact that the Obama administration misled a lower court judge, U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen, about the implementation of the Department of Homeland Security’s, and therefore President Obama’s, offer of “temporary legal status to millions of illegal immigrants, along with an indefinite reprieve from deportation.” The administration claims it is acting with prosecutorial discretion, and that it should be able to prioritize the removal of illegal immigrant criminal elements.

The reality is that illegal immigrant rapists and murderers are being released by this administration, and that arrests and deportations of that group have declined, as well.

The administration has acted deceptively. “For three months while the lawsuit was pending and Judge Hanen was reviewing briefs and holding hearings and conference calls with the parties, [Department of Justice] lawyers were telling him that none of the president’s announced new policies were being implemented,” wrote Hans A. Von Spakovsky for National Review on March 20. “However, on March 3, Justice suddenly filed an ‘Advisory’ notifying the court that the administration had, in fact, issued three-year deferrals to more than 100,000 aliens.”

The Department of Justice apparently “knew all along that the administration had started issuing three-year terms of deferred action and work permits” in November 2014, even though “it knew the states’ lawsuit challenged the entirety of the DHS Directive,” he reports.

When Judge Hanen realized what he had been told was false, he told Deputy Assistant Attorney General Kathleen Hartnett, “When I asked you what would happen and you said nothing, I took it to heart. I was made to look like an idiot,” He added, “I believed your word that nothing would happen. . . . Like an idiot, I believed that.”

During the April 17 hearing, Benjamin C. Mizer, acting Assistant U.S. Attorney General for the Justice Department’s Civil Division, argued that, “For an employer to employ an individual who does not have work authorization, that employer has engaged in a crime. So giving the deferred action and giving the employment authorization actually reduces crime by reducing the third party employer crime.”

In other words, the administration wants to ignore the alleged illegal acts of one favored group in order to reduce crime by another less favored one.

On April 16, the day before this Fifth Circuit hearing, CNN’s Ariane de Vogue characterized illegal immigrants as the victims of political forces. She reported that President Obama’s unilateral executive policies were “announced with great fanfare” and would “shield” up to “5 million undocumented immigrants from deportation.”

Similarly, Politico’s Josh Gerstein, the day of the hearing, expressed his concern that, “If the administration can’t get its new moves underway sometime this year it may have difficulty getting them done before Obama leaves office,” and called Obama’s plan a “legacy agenda item.”

Clearly, the media are more interested in the success of programs such as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA) than holding the administration accountable.

“It will be an uphill climb for the programs’ supporters, made worse by the fact that two of the judges are Republican appointees who may be hostile to their position,” wrote de Vogue in advance of the hearing—revealing her transparent concern for the administration’s success.

Pundits in the Hispanic media community also continue to mislead their audience by running segments which promote a culture of fear.

MSNBC’s biography of Jose Diaz-Balart lists him as “one of the most respected voices in Hispanic journalism in the United States.” During his April 16 show, he brought on two Democratic congressmen and asked them softball leading questions all about the climate of fear and uncertainty for those “waiting” in “legal limbo.”

Diaz-Balart asked, “What do you tell them when there’s so much uncertainty about these programs?”

“That fear is not going to go anywhere while this legal limbo continues, and really nothing is being done in Washington as far as immigration reform,” he said.

“But you know there are a lot of families that are being separated that do qualify right now under DACA or DAPA and nothing’s being done,” he commented. In other words, President Obama should act more, not less, to shield illegal immigrants from the consequences of breaking U.S. laws.

An El Paso Intelligence Center report using Obama administration data released last year indicated that, “Of the 230 total migrants interviewed, 219 cited the primary reason for migrating to the United States was the perception of U.S. immigration laws granting free passes or permisos…”

Diaz-Balart’s congressional guests spoke about how illegal immigrants can protect themselves and said that lawyers will be provided to them, and the show featured pictures of people rallying to the cause.

One must ask, however, whether lawyers, rallies, and endless sympathetic media coverage will also be provided for the potential victims of the dangerous criminals who are currently being released by the administration.

“…both arrests and deportations of criminal aliens are down about 30 percent through the first six months of fiscal year 2015, signaling that agents, who have been told to stop focusing on rank-and-file illegal immigrants, have not been able to refocus on criminal illegal immigrants instead,” wrote Stephen Dinan for The Washington Times on April 14.

A hearing with “U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Director Sarah Saldana, also showed that the 30,558 criminal aliens ICE knowingly released back into the community in 2014 had amassed nearly 80,000 convictions, including 250 homicides, 186 kidnappings and 373 sexual assaults,” reports Dinan.

These predators released back into the American community are very likely to strike again.

But the media are not concerned about reporting on the facts which might sully the administration’s reputation or harm the left’s illegal immigration agenda.

This article originally appeared at and is reprinted here with permission.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

‘Religion Of Peace’ Adherent Cut Off Head, Played Soccer With It!

Historians someday will look back at our era as a time when honesty in the mainstream news media was virtually nonexistent.

Take, for example, this news story that was ignored by 99% of all media: A member of the so-called Religion of Peace cut off the head of his victim and played soccer with the head.

Had this been an Israeli cutting off someone’s head you can bet around 99% of the news media would have covered this story.

So where is the outrage on media bias?

This is just one of many crimes committed by the barbaric members of the religion Barack Obama calls “a religion of peace.” It occurred in Yarmouk, Syria, where they also reportedly killed children in front of their parents.

Why does anyone believe anything reported by mainstream media anymore?

When your grandchildren ask you, “What did you do when you saw all the lies broadcast by those news fakers we just read about in our history books?”, what will you say?

Please forward a copy of this video to anyone you know in the news media or to your elected representatives to see what their opinion is on this matter.

Better still, forward a link to this video to friends and family–or post it on Twitter or Facebook and become the media, giving out news that otherwise will go unreported.

Then someday, you will have an answer to your grandchild’s question, being able to say that you personally did something while most of the rest of the world slept.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Revealed: How The New Host Of This Prestigious TV Politics Show Has Ranted About Republicans

Image Credit: New York Times/CBS News

For more than sixty years, “Face the Nation” has been a programming fixture on CBS. It’s one of the longest-running news/talk shows in the history of television, bringing political interviews, roundtable debates, and commentary to Sundays since 1954.

Without a doubt, being named moderator of “Face the Nation” is a distinct honor and a privilege — one just bestowed on John Dickerson, who will replace the retiring Bob Schieffer as host of the program on June 7th.

Image Credit: New York Times/CBS News

Image Credit: New York Times/CBS News

Dickerson — a former correspondent for TIME who spent 12 years covering politics for the magazine — is currently the political director of CBS News. So the move into the “Face the Nation” role would seem to be a natural one.

By the way, the president of CBS News, David Rhodes, just happens to be the brother of one of Barack Obama’s top White House aides, Ben Rhodes. But certainly, one would hope, that has nothing to do with his naming Dickerson to the top spot at “Face the Nation.”

John Dickerson is a glaringly transparent partisan who used to appear weekly on The Al Franken Show on the now-defunct Air America Radio Network, and he remains the chief political correspondent for the far-left Slate magazine.

As Breitbart points out, it was in a column that he wrote for Slate as President Obama was about to begin his second term that John Dickerson let drop any pretense of nonpartisan objectivity in his politics and cut loose with a full-throated attack on the GOP.

Dated January 18, 2013, that nasty, blatantly biased screed entitled “Go for the Throat!” urged Obama not to waste any more time trying to work with the GOP. Instead, Dickerson advised, the president should declare war on the Republicans.

A post on Newsbusters at the time described the harshly antagonistic piece as a “2,000-word battle plan disguised as a column.”

The newly-named “Face the Nation” host said Obama should “pulverize,” “destroy,” and “delegitimize” the Republicans in an effort to ram through his agenda, dismissing the concerns of millions of American voters.

The president who came into office speaking in lofty terms about bipartisanship and cooperation can only cement his legacy if he destroys the GOP. If he wants to transform American politics, he must go for the throat.

Newsbusters writer Tom Blumer also took note of Dickerson’s long-running political leanings that he has barely tried to conceal: “Dickerson’s biases have been obvious since 2003, when he co-authored a hit piece in Time Magazine trying to make something out of absolutely nothing in the Valerie Plame-Joe Wilson affair.”

So, one of the Sunday morning network news shows will soon have a new host with clearly-stated animosities toward Republicans–and an equally obvious bias in favor of progressive Democrats.

The #1 Sunday morning public affairs program for the first quarter of 2015 will welcome a new moderator named on the same weekend that Hillary Clinton jumped into the 2016 presidential race — a new moderator who assumes his powerful position just in time for that crucial contest to get into full swing.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Revealed: How Top Dems Hope This Pasta Dish Will Help Hillary Win The White House

Images Credit: YouTube/Wiki Commons

You’ve no doubt heard the familiar saying, “the way to a man’s heart is through his stomach.” Now, in a variation on that old saw, top aides to Hillary Clinton are hoping that the way to the media’s heart is also through their stomachs.

It’s become clear over the last few weeks — ever since Mrs. Clinton’s email scandal erupted — that even left-leaning media types like reporters and editors at The New York Times weren’t going to reflexively look the other way and ignore issues that raise concerns about the former secretary of state’s electability in 2016.

With Hillary’s long-anticipated announcement expected to come midday on Sunday that she is officially in the race for president, serious efforts are underway to cozy up to the correspondents, analysts, and pundits whose coverage and opinions will play a crucial role in the race.

Politico has just published a revealing report detailing how a big campaign such as Mrs. Clinton’s sets about winning hearts and minds in the media. And even though one might think that “objective” reporters wouldn’t, or shouldn’t, get too close to the candidates they’re covering, well, you might think again.

“On Thursday night, Hillary Clinton’s chief of staff John Podesta held a private dinner with campaign reporters at his Washington home, where he served his signature pasta puttanesca, as well as a pasta with a walnut sauce….”

The Politico piece notes how important it is to actively woo key media figures who have ranged from cool on Clinton to borderline hostile. And there’s no indication the reporters invited to be seen (as well as to be fed) have balked at the invitation from Clinton confidants and gatekeepers.

“On Friday night, Clinton strategist Joel Benenson will hold a similar dinner with reporters, correspondents and even some television anchors at his apartment in New York.”

Trying to win their way into the reporting graces of The New York Times, even Politico itself seems to be a key objective of Clinton aides and allies intent on improving rapport with reporters.

“To date, The New York Times alone has published more than 40 articles related to Clinton’s use of a private email account while secretary of state, and many other news outlets, including POLITICO, have come forward with revelations of their own.”

In a sign of the times as well as an acknowledgement of the political power of social media, Hillary Clinton is expected to announce her second bid for the White House in a highly produced YouTube video to be released around noon Eastern time on Sunday.

That means that, for many, Hillary 2016 will officially launch just after or just before church…and too late for the Sunday TV talk shows to get a crack at the candidate’s coming out message.

As an article in Reuters observes: “Clinton’s use of social media to announce her White House run amounts to the adoption of tactics deployed by Obama in 2008 to raise large sums through small donations and appeal to young voters.”

The Clinton camp is no doubt keenly aware of Hillary’s topple off the political pedestal from which she once held sway over her Republican rivals.

Western Journalism reported on Thursday the results of a new voter survey by the independent pollster Quinnipiac that showed Mrs. Clinton’s popularity has suffered significantly in the turbulent wake of emailgate.

“…Clinton’s lead is wilting against leading Republican presidential candidates in three critical swing states, Colorado, Iowa and Virginia, and she finds herself in a close race with U.S. Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky in each state….”

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Small Minority Has Powerful Voice For Homosexual Agenda

Flickr/Guillaume Paumier

Statistics show that 1.6 percent of the population identifies itself as gay or lesbian. But judging from the hysteria over Indiana’s religious freedom law, it seems that many of them are in positions of power in the media. These power brokers are not only openly gay, but also anti-Christian. Even Holy Week hasn’t kept them from demonstrating their anti-Christian animus.

Indiana’s Republican Governor Mike Pence spoke on Tuesday about the media misinformation over his state’s religious freedom bill. The “perception problem” he referred to is of the liberal media’s making. In fact, one can argue that the misperception was deliberately created by the media.

“I have to tell you,” he said to the press and the public, “that the gross mischaracterizations about this bill early on and some of the reckless reporting by some in the media about what this bill was all about was deeply disappointing to me and to millions of Hoosiers.” He called the coverage a “smear.”

Pence was reluctant to identify the source of the bias—homosexual influence in the major media. But until conservative politicians step forward to identity the real source of the problem, the homosexuals will continue to win the public relations battle and hide behind the façade of “objective” coverage when none exists. The fact is that the liberal media and the gay lobby are essentially one and the same.

It’s this kind of media bias that should not have come as a surprise to Pence, a former member of Congress and a strong conservative.

Liberal media bias is an old problem. The new wrinkle over the last several years has been the relentless promotion of the homosexual lifestyle.

Two years ago, a Pew Research Center study of news media coverage of the gay marriage debate found that “Stories with more statements supporting same-sex marriage outweighed those with more statements opposing it by a margin of roughly 5-to-1.” Pew reported, “The findings show how same-sex marriage supporters have had a clear message and succeeded in getting that message across all sectors of mainstream media.”

The media know they’re biased, of course. They are careful to conceal the depth and extent of the bias, in the sense that few members of the public are being told that most of the major news organizations are financial backers of the National Lesbian & Gay Journalists Association (NLGJA). Literally all of the major media, ranging from MSNBC on the left to Fox News on the right, are in bed with the NLGJA.

However, we were somewhat surprised to find that even a financial channel such as CNBC is not above the slanted coverage. On Monday, as we reported, coverage of the markets and economics gave way to a lengthy interview with open lesbian Kara Swisher, who smeared opponents of gay rights as the equivalent of racists.

Regardless of what happens in Indiana, where Pence has vowed to clarify the statute, the issue won’t go away.

The Indiana case should serve as a lesson in how the media distort the news. The clear homosexual/media strategy, in this case, has been to redefine discrimination as the failure to do what homosexuals have demanded that you do, without explaining to the public how the meaning of the term has been changed to meet the demands of the powerful gay lobby.

Since our major media organs are openly pro-homosexual, we have to conclude that the bias in the Indiana case is deliberately designed to fool the American people into thinking that homosexuals are the victims when they are, in fact, the victimizers.

In practical terms, this bias is reflected in the typical ongoing failure of the media to quote pro-family and Christian voices, such as American Family Association of Indiana Executive Director Micah Clark, who has called the claim that the law bestows a “license to discriminate” as “perhaps the biggest lie about this law.” Pence said much the same thing at this press conference.

If our media had simply bothered to cover the other side of the story, rather than rely on pro-homosexual interest groups, we might have gotten some truth and facts in the national debate.

The victims of this bias, unfortunately, include top CEOs and businesspeople, such as Marriott International CEO Arne Sorensen, who called Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act “madness.”

Upon reflection, Sorensen must himself be mad, or completely misinformed. Or, perhaps, he’s just pandering to homosexuals for their business. Marriott was named Corporation of the Year by the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce in 2014. It received a 100 percent score on the Human Rights Campaign’s “Corporate Equality Index.”

The Human Rights Campaign is the group whose co-founder, Terry Bean, has been arrested on child sex-abuse charges.

Perhaps people like Sorensen don’t want to know the facts and simply don’t care whether the rights of Christians are violated in the pursuit of providing special rights for homosexuals.

Micah Clark, of the American Family Association (AFA) of Indiana, explains how the Indiana law works: “This law does not allow a person of faith to deny service to someone, nor should it,” he points out. “No Christian bakery owner should say that people involved in homosexual behavior couldn’t shop in their bakery. That, in my opinion is wrong, un-Christian and discriminatory unless the patron is misbehaving ( i.e., ‘no shirt, no shoes, no service’). However, when a customer seeks special participation from the baker, asking him or her to specially decorate a ‘gay’ wedding cake and come set it up at a homosexual wedding, then there is a very different line crossed, and a problem for most people of faith.”

The Indiana law attempts to protect people of faith from being forced to participate in activities that they have religious objections to.

The American Family Association has noted the following four cases in states without a religious freedom law involving Christian business owners being prosecuted, fined, or punished for refusing to bow to homosexual demands:

  • Washington: Florist Barronelle Stutzman was fined by the state for not providing flowers for a homosexual wedding.
  • New Mexico: Photographer Elaine Huguenin was ordered by the state to give a lesbian $7,000 for declining to take pictures of a lesbian wedding.
  • Oregon: Aaron and Melissa Klein were fined $150,000 by the state for refusal to bake a cake for a lesbian wedding.
  • Kentucky: Blaine Adamson was ordered by the city of Lexington to undergo “sensitivity training” for refusing to print T-shirts for a gay pride festival.

Alliance Defending Freedom, a legal group involved in several of these cases, says there are three key issues at stake:

  • Whether the government can force Americans in expressive professions to communicate messages and ideas against their will
  • The freedom of Americans to live and do business according to the teachings of their faith and the dictates of their conscience
  • Whether Americans should be forced to compromise freedoms guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution

The case of the florist in Richland, Wash., Barronelle Stutzman, owner of Arlene’s Flowers, illustrates the stakes. She is being sued by the Attorney General because she declined to decorate for a same-sex ceremony, and may be forced into financial bankruptcy.

Joseph Backholm of the Family Policy Institute of Washington state has commented about the case:  “…there’s a problem with the argument that she discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation. She has consistently and happily done business with people who identify as gay for years, including the individuals involved in this case. She considered them friends.” What she objected to was being part of a same-sex marriage ceremony.

In this case, as noted by her attorneys with the Alliance Defending Freedom, a state judge ruled that the government can force her to do custom design work and provide wedding support services “even if she has a religious conviction that marriage is between one man and one woman.”

As such, this is a violation of the basic God-given right to freedom of religion that the founders of the United States gave to the American people. It is as sacred as freedom of the press.

This is the issue: In the name of “non-discrimination,” homosexuals want to force Christians and other religious believers to violate the principles of their faith. But this is precisely the point that has been deliberately obscured by a media that functions as the propaganda arm of the militant gay lobby.

ADF Senior Counsel Kristen Waggoner noted, “The couple had no problem getting the flowers they needed. In fact, they received several offers for free flowers. So, where’s the tolerance for Barronelle Stutzman? It’s hard to believe that Barronelle should prepare to have everything she has earned and built seized by the state just because of her beliefs about marriage.”

Apple CEO Tim Cook, an open homosexual, attacked Indiana’s religious freedom law, saying, “There’s something very dangerous happening in states across the country.” What is dangerous is how a small minority is trying to dictate the acceptance of their lifestyle by the majority. They have gotten this far because the same small minority also seems to control major centers of media and corporate power in the United States.

This article originally appeared at and is reprinted here with permission.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom