America’s Media Just Writes What Obama Tells Them To

Photo credit: Facebook/Barack Obama

The self-important Boston Globe ran an editorial that is a microcosm of how the Left manages to be so consistently wrong on so many substantive issues. The piece had to do with the supposed wrongheadedness of Republican House Speaker John Boehner. It seems that according to the Globe, Boehner has committed some kind of treasonous act by inviting Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s Prime Minister, to address a joint session of Congress without asking permission from their boss, President Barack Obama.

The writer moans that such an undercutting of Obama’s authority will damage the delicate negotiations Obama is in with the Iranians, negotiations aimed at curtailing Tehran’s nuclear weapons development program.

According to the Globe’s faulty logic, Boehner’s invitation will make the sworn enemies of our only ally in the Middle East less likely to discontinue their nuclear weapons development plans.

If this stance was taken by a legitimately neutral third party, as the media ought to be, this initially counterintuitive position might be worth listening to. Honest public discourse on such vital matters as nuclear weapons in the hands of fanatical lunatics would be helpful if it actually existed, which of course it does not.

The Obama Cheerleaders in Boston and elsewhere see themselves as above “common sense” because it is, well, “common”; and they see themselves as smarter than everyone else. The media believe that Republican conservatives are evil, but dedicated Islamists are not. They believe Israel should roll over and die so that THEY can beat their breasts and piously proclaim how open-minded they are.

They don’t accept the fact that given the chance, the same people who run Iran would eagerly chop off their head and make them physically open minded.

These self-hating “Americans” don’t want Obama to be exposed as the fraud he is. They don’t want to remind the few people who still read daily newspapers that it was they who pushed Obama on us to make themselves feel good. They constantly lie by omission and commission to prop up their boss.

The media will never acknowledge there is no progress to be made in dissuading Islamist lunatics from building weapons they intend to use to destroy Israel’s Jews–and eventually America’s Jews as well.

They won’t allow the truth to be spoken. That truth is that Obama is merely helping the Iranians appear to be “negotiating” in what even those with only a slight understanding of Islam recognize is a kind of “Hudna,” or fake “truce” designed to allow them to regroup for their next attack.

Instead of calling Benjamin Netanyahu shameless because he is doing everything he can to protect his people, an honest media would be demanding that Barack Obama be so “shameless.” But alas this swipe at Israel and Republicans reminds us that America’s media are merely Obama’s steno pool ready to write or say whatever the boss tells them.          

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

Don’t Tell Me “I Saw The Three Minute Video” And “The Lady Really Was Sawed In Half”

Photo credit: coleyboley (Creative Commons)

There is an expression in police work: “If you weren’t there, you don’t know what happened.” Cops know you need all available information to make a good judgment. When a cop sees a lady “sawed in half” on a stage, he/she understands that what is being presented is a carefully crafted illusion. They understand that seeing a brief video, even one that was “shown on television thousands of times,” doesn’t necessarily provide proof of what happened.

The Rodney King case brought acquittals for the police when the first jury saw all of the available video, but there was a conviction when the second jury saw a carefully edited version of the same incident.

Lately, we have been seeing videos of police interactions with civilians that have ended badly. Apparently, far too many people who must believe professional wrestling is real and magicians really do cut the lady in half are being heard from. They reason that since they saw these things, they must be true.

In the Eric Garner case, many people couldn’t be bothered looking any further than the three minute cell phone video presented to them by a media with a recognizable bias against cops. Fifty eight witnesses and six weeks of testimony meant nothing, so “Don’t tell me; I saw the 3 minute video” prevailed.

While we don’t have the exact number of police–civilian interactions that occur each year nationwide, there are some numbers from the New York City Police Department that give us an idea.

The NYPD has 34,500 officers; among residents, commuters, and tourists they deal with over 10 million people each day. Last year, the Department had 25 million interactions with the public that led to only 5500 civilian complaints (that’s 1/5th of one percent).

In 2013, NYPD cops shot just 81 people; that’s once every 330,000 interactions. Experts say we have a 1 in 3000 chance of being hit by lightning, which means we are 1,100 times more likely to be hit by lightning than shot by a New York cop.

Since there is no reason to think things are much different elsewhere, these numbers tell us a lot. They say cops don’t hunt people; they help people regardless of race, creed, or ethnic background. And submission is the best policy when dealing with the police.

These numbers also tell us those who believe the lady is actually being sawed in half, Hulk Hogan really is a champion wrestler, and a three-minute video is all they need to make a judgment about police officer conduct ought not be listened to while serious people are trying to decide the matter.

Get your free PDF of Coach’s book “Crooks Thugs & Bigots: the lost, hidden and changed history of the Democrat Party.” If you don’t know the truth, all you’ll have are Democrat lies.

Just ask at

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

News Anchor Reveals Shocking Examples Of Media Covering For Obama


Journalists of all stripes have long complained about the current administration’s lack of openness in dealing with the media despite claims that it is the “most transparent” in history.

While plenty of reporters lament their limited access to unbiased information, however, Fox News correspondent Monica Crowley revealed that many of her colleagues are more than happy using their influence to shill for Barack Obama.

Crowley penned a recent editorial for the Washington Times in which she recalled a conversation with one broadcast network reporter who revealed the sycophantic inner workings of her newsroom.

The unidentified woman described herself as a conservative, Crowley wrote, though she explained that she has never revealed that information for fear of losing her job. The veteran newswoman said that, while her industry has long leaned to the left, reporters have taken an even more partisan tone in dealing with the current White House.

“Every morning,” she told Crowley, “we hold a meeting about how to build that evening’s broadcast. We’ve been doing this for decades.”

Those meeting have always had an “unspoken” liberal undertone, she noted; however, the 2008 presidential election cycle showed a specific bias toward Obama.

“Once Obama pulled ahead of Hillary and certainly once he became president, the bias came out of the closet,” the source told Crowley. “Now, every morning when we meet to discuss that night’s show, they literally say – out loud – ‘How do we protect Barack Obama today?’”

This anecdote is hardly the only evidence suggesting newsrooms actively work on Obama’s behalf instead of fulfilling a commitment to impartiality. Crowley shared a conversation with another fellow journalist, Fox Business’ Melilssa Francis, who recalled a similar pressure to carry water for the administration.

When Francis reported inaccuracies surrounding the math behind Obamacare during her time at CNBC, she said executives raked her over the coals for “disrespecting the office of the president.”

Former CBS reporter Sharyl Attkisson has also made news in recent months for her assertion that she was forced out of her job due in large part to her criticism of the Obama administration.

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

Ever Wonder Why Liberals Lie About Republicans?

Photo credit: youtube

By now, it’s common knowledge that Lena Dunham lied about being raped at a fraternity party at the University of Virginia by a Republican student.  Sadly, this is just one incident in a long list of similar episodes where liberals lie to implicate Republicans in crimes they didn’t commit. The strange thing is, you don’t see conservatives lying about liberal behavior.

The question is, why do liberals do this?

Remember that Vladimir Lenin famously said: “A lie told often enough becomes the truth.” 

At their core, what do liberals want?  They want power and money. They want control.

They are corrupt. They are liars. They are ruthless in using any tool available in order to get the control they want.

The marxists in Russia and Eastern Europe were the same. So was Chairman Mao, Castro, etc., etc.

Remind me again how many people have died due to leftist regimes? Mao alone killed over sixty-million.

So it comes very naturally to liberals to accuse a Republican of a crime in order to foster the narrative they are trying to create in the national psyche. Al Sharpton did it with the Tawana Brawley case, corrupt prosecutors did it with the Duke lacrosse team, and now we have the incident with Rolling Stone magazine. Liberals are desperate to paint conservatives as anti-women neanderthals.

By the way, tell me again the position of the National Organization for Women on female genital mutilation in Islamic societies? I’m glad they are speaking out about that – NOT. Somehow, the Muslims get a pass (but that’s for another column.)

The only way to stop this trainwreck of progressive manipulation, lies, and distortion is to aggressively fight back and ultimately defeat them in the arena of ideas. You see, they will continue to do the same thing over and over again. They just don’t care that it’s wrong.

To them, the end (being able to control you) justifies the means.

We are nearing a tipping point in our society. America either ceases to exist as the Founders intended, or we conservatives stand up and fight for what is right and wrong, for our children’s sake.

How is it that Rolling Stone magazine is still in business? How is it that CBS News is still in business after publishing false stories about George W. Bush during the 2004 election? (Yes, Dan Rather is gone–but his overlords are still there.)

As a conservative, you do have a weapon. It’s called your consumer freedom of choice.

If you believe in America, then never read, buy, or click on a Rolling Stone story again. Add it to the list of other liberal publications you will never support. That is choice you can agree with.  

Photo credit: youtube

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

Media Exacerbates Ferguson Riots


Looking back on the death and destruction in Ferguson, we can see the dirty hands of the media, especially CNN, now basking in the glow of (relatively) high ratings. Racial violence is a ratings booster and winner.

It is certainly correct to say, as the media have said millions of times, that a white police officer shot an unarmed black teenager to death in Ferguson. But this was never the whole truth, and the media knew it. After all, the Trayvon Martin case had proven that the idea of innocent black teenagers being killed for no reason didn’t stand up to scrutiny. In that case, like that of Michael Brown, we discovered the case involved a marijuana-abusing young thug with criminal activity in his background. Martin and Brown turned out to be the aggressors, a fact that comports with statistics on racial violence in America that few in the media want to talk about.

Colin Flaherty writes about it in his book, White Girl Bleed a Lot: The Return of Racial Violence to America and How the Media Ignore It.

The media’s addition of the terms “white” and “black” in the Michael Brown case reflected the prevailing liberal media bias, in the sense that it was assumed that a racial component was at work and that whites were at fault. The white police officer was presumed guilty. The black teenager was presumed innocent.

In the Trayvon Martin case, it involved a black teenager and a “white Hispanic.”

Now that the grand jury has released the facts of the Michael Brown case, we can see that Officer Darren Wilson was completely justified in his actions. Yet Wilson has left the police force as a result of death threats against him and fellow officers. He has been punished for doing his job.

There is no outrage in the media over that. Instead, on Tuesday, CNN tried to inflame racial passions once again by suggesting that it would be a miscarriage of justice for Michael Brown’s stepfather to be charged with incitement to riot. He had yelled “Burn this bitch down” to demonstrators in Ferguson.

The stepfather, Louis Head, is black. But it appears that most of the violence has been organized by communist groups led by whites. They view blacks as cannon fodder for the revolution. Again, however, the media have shown no interest in this issue.

Not content with a dead, black teenager, the media-mob alliance has forced a respected police officer who dealt with Michael Brown by the book to ultimately leave the city. From this point on, like somebody in the witness protection program, Wilson will have to conceal his identity in order to protect himself and members of his family.

If these members of our media had a conscience, then they would go back and try to correct, even at this late date, all of their misleading coverage, in an effort to restore some level of sanity to the narrative about what happened. But don’t count on it.

The media “mistakes,” to put it charitably, can be easily documented.

Almost immediately after Brown’s death, we were treated to the slogan, “Hands up, don’t shoot,” based on what happened, according to Brown’s best friend, Dorian Johnson. Wolf Blitzer described him as an “eyewitness” and gave him an opportunity to spew what we now know were lies. Johnson, who was present when Brown robbed a convenience store, seems to have originated the misleading “Hands up, don’t shoot” narrative, falsely insisting that Brown was shot in the back. However, the forensic evidence and eyewitness testimony show that Michael Brown was the aggressor and tried to grab Wilson’s gun.

Even before the grand jury report was in, we were treated to outrage over the local police releasing video of Brown robbing the convenience store of swisher sweet cigars.  Only later would we learn the cigars were used to assemble high-powered marijuana “blunts.”

On Sunday, when black members of the St. Louis Rams showed up in a display of “Hands up, don’t shoot” at a football game, the St. Louis Police Officers Association naturally took exception. They noted that the display has become “synonymous with assertions that Michael Brown was innocent of any wrongdoing and attempting to surrender peacefully when Wilson, according to some now-discredited witnesses, gunned him down in cold blood.”

The only additional comment that has to be made is that the false narrative originated with “witnesses” procured by the media—who turned out to be liars.

This is why the media have now changed the meaning of “Hands up, don’t shoot” to refer to a “gesture of solidarity” with the protesters. They have made this change without acknowledging that its original meaning has been proven false.

The coverage took another unusual turn during the riots when CNN’s Don Lemon came under fire for noting the use of marijuana by violent protesters. Lemon, who is black, apparently did not realize that by doing that, he was drawing attention to the criminal element in Ferguson. Such an observation reminded some people of Michael Brown’s use of marijuana and theft of cigarillos that are used to make the marijuana “blunts.”

Ferguson did demonstrate the existence of a black criminal element running rampant through the streets and high on drugs. Our media have done their best to whitewash the nature of this domestic threat in order to perpetuate a false narrative of white racist police violence.

We might think that the media would be interested in answering the lingering question during the most recent riots of why the police and the National Guard let various businesses burn down.  But the problem is even far worse than the media have let on.

Colin Flaherty, author of White Girl Bleed a Lot, has produced a YouTube video of recordings from a police scanner in Ferguson, demonstrating how law enforcement was overwhelmed and scrambling to address the black mob violence. The police can be heard describing gun shots, even fired at police headquarters; multiple calls for help; burglaries in progress; and stores and police cars being set on fire.

At one point, police can be heard describing retreats from certain areas of Ferguson, citing “officer safety” issues. In other words, the mobs were more “militarized” than the police.

Film footage of the destruction and violence is bad enough. But what Flaherty has put together shows how the mobs were in charge of Ferguson and had more manpower and firepower than the police.

Flaherty wonders if all the talk about the alleged “militarization” of police led Missouri’s Democratic Governor Jay Nixon to deliberately let the looting and riots continue without an effective response or challenge. According to this theory, Nixon didn’t want the police or National Guard to look like they were overpowering the mob.

If so, the media bear some of the blame here, too. As we noted from the beginning of the Michael Brown case, our media had talked incessantly about the “militarized” police being the problem in Ferguson. But when the riots actually took place, the police were outgunned and outmanned.

It’s difficult to see how the media could have done a worse job of covering this anti-police violence.

If the past is any guide, the media will keep Ferguson smoldering while providing more face time for the agitators. Then they might move on to another case in which they can try to blame police for alleged misconduct.

Almost on cue, CNN is now focusing on a pending decision in an incident involving a large black man resisting arrest that the media have labeled the “chokehold death” case in New York City.

The issues they won’t address include the problem of black violence—specifically black-on-white violence—and drug use and family breakdown in the black community.


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

Photo Credit: YouTube

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