Socialist Journalism Is Mainstream

Univision’s Jorge Ramos, whose daughter works for the Hillary Clinton for President campaign, doesn’t care about fair and balanced journalism. He is only concerned about representing his people. This is what journalism has become—news coverage that casts ethnic groups and special interests as victims of the white racist capitalist power structure.

Thanks to Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), the socialist running for president, we are learning that one of the latest examples of victim groups are students, who freely decide to go to college and in many cases take on student debt to pay for it.

Of this victim group, black and Hispanic college students are suffering tremendously, according to a story appearing last Wednesday in The Washington Post. It claimed that blacks and Hispanics are “at a higher risk of financial instability based on their college majors…” The paper trumpeted the news in a headline, “Racial disparity in degree selection.” The news was this: “African American and Hispanic students disproportionately earn more bachelor’s degrees in low-paying majors, putting them at higher risk for financial instability after graduation, according to a new study from Young Invincibles, an advocacy group.”

This “advocacy group” has decided that representatives of certain minority groups are somehow entitled to be awarded certain jobs with certain pay grades. In the Post story touting this so-called study, blacks and Hispanics are considered victims of racism, creating wealth ‘inequality,” because of the college degrees and majors they have freely decided to pursue.

But wait: didn’t these blacks and Hispanics freely choose those majors and fields of study? Wasn’t freedom of choice involved?

In the eyes of the liberal media, such freedom does not exist. People are being forced into their choices in life by the forces of capitalism and white supremacy.

Here’s what the paper said: “There is no singular reason for the racial disparities within majors, but centuries of racial discrimination, uneven budgetary support for K-12 education and poor academic advising and student support contribute to the problem, said Tom Allison, deputy director of policy and research at Young Invincibles, and one of the authors of the study.”

In other words, the heavy hand of racism and the capitalist system somehow forced these students to choose these majors, in order to put them at a disadvantage.

Still, the story by Danielle Douglas-Gabriel left me in the dark about how these factors may determine the selection of majors. The explanation was offered in the next paragraph: “At the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, chemistry professor William LaCourse has seen his share of students of color with a lot of potential lose interest in science fields when they struggle in a course.”

Those science fields paid better than the majors and careers they ended up pursuing. The students gave up their “potential,” a subjective measurement, to go for the easier courses of study.

The phrase “when they struggle in a course” could mean they were goofing off, not smart enough, or just not interested. In any case, it seems hard to argue that this is because of some racist plot or budget axe. But that is indeed what the Post was implying.

The purpose is to depict minority groups as somehow victims of their own choices.

Could it be that blacks and Hispanics are giving up on the harder fields of study because they either require more work or because they have decided to pick a different major for some other reason? This fact of life has been transformed from a “study” into a Washington Post story attempting to blame everything and everyone else for this “problem” except the students themselves.

The whole point of the story is that the students can’t be blamed for their own decisions. They are victims of the system, by virtue of the fact that they are black or Hispanic. That’s why “centuries of racial discrimination, uneven budgetary support for K-12 education and poor academic advising and student support” have to be blamed.

This is socialist “journalism,” if you can call it journalism, based on the idea that people are members of groups victimized by the capitalist system, trapped into lower incomes and denied their right to make more money. This evil system forced them to “struggle” for higher grades.

It is this kind of “journalism” that also depicts students taking out college loans and going into debt as somehow being victims of capitalism. They are given an opportunity to go to college but they have to pay for it. What an injustice! The Young Invincibles says student debt has “exploded,” as if it has been inflicted on these young people through no choice of their own.

Since these students have been brainwashed into believing that taking on debt is not their fault, it is no wonder they are suckers for the Bernie Sanders brand of socialism which says that their burden must be lifted and a college education should be made available for “free.”

It is a sad commentary on what colleges are teaching that such a scheme is attracting thousands of students to the Sanders campaign.

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

Megyn Kelly Exposes Liberal Media Double Standard Regarding ‘Black Lives Matter’

The ‘Black Lives Matter’ movement and its anti-cop rhetoric has come under serious fire recently, as the body count for police officers continues to grow across America.

Protesters: Pigs in a blanket! Fry ‘em like bacon! Pigs in a blanket! Fry ‘em like bacon!

Black Panther Leader: Oink, oink!

Militia: Bang, bang!

Black Panther Leader: Oink, oink!

Militia: Bang, bang!

Black Panther Leader: Oink, oink!

Militia: Bang, bang!

Fox News’ Megyn Kelly called out the media by showing clips of its blatant double standard in how it reported on the “dangerous” Tea Party movement in 2011 versus how they report on the ‘Black Lives Matter’ movement now.

Durbin: But it shouldn’t be acceptable rhetoric. We shouldn’t invite it on the radio talkshows or the TV, at least without comment. We ought to say, ‘That just goes too far.’

Schultz: I’m proud of the young people who have been pushing that “Black Lives Matter” movement. We brought the Confederate Flag down. We’ve made sure…

Crowd: [Cheers]

Schultz: …that symbols of hate, symbols of hate are unacceptable in America.

Kelly: Suddenly, the actions of a few do not apply to the many. Why the double standard?

With the liberal media, the Democratic Party and President Obama himself not denouncing the movement, some, like former Marine Michael Whaley and Milwaukee Country Sheriff David Clarke, have condemned it.

Clarke: This whole movement, Black Lies, I’ve renamed it, L-I-E-S because it’s based on a lie – the “Hands Up Don’t Shoot.” That’s why I said this slime needs to be eradicated from American society and American culture.

Whaley: Like this Black Lives Matter Movement, ya’ll have to stop because ya’ll promoting racism. Ya’ll only teaching black people to hate white people and they encouraging black people to throw their lives down a drain? By taking away someone else’s life?

Megyn Kelly’s guest, Richard Fowler, who is a liberal contributor to the network, refused to acknowledge the idea that the movement is racist, is violent and encourages the killing of cops.

Fowler: They will tell you they’re a non-violent movement. That all they want to do is end the disparities.

Kelly: Why were they chanting ‘pigs in a blanket?’

Pavlich: Right.

Fowler: I won’t. You’re sure right. I will not condemn them. I will not condemn people who are saying.. police, that unarmed black men should be shot by police. I will not condemn anyone who is against that.

Pavlich: Protesters who want, who want, who want police, Richard! Richard! You refuse to condemn ‘Black Lives Matter’ who want officers to be executed in their police vehicle. That is what, that is what you are promoting tonight!

Kelly: Richard!

Fowler: You can’t, there’s no clear connection, there’s no evidence…

Is the “Black Lives Matter” movement racist? Is there a double standard? Share and comment below.

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

Ben Carson Hits Back Hard Against CNN’s Secular-Progressive Movement

In an unfamiliar fashion, Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson reared his hackles in a CNN interview after Jim Acosta took Carson’s comments about using drones at the border out of context.

“Listen. Read my lips. Read my lips, listen very carefully to what I am saying,” Carson said.

Carson chalked it up to the liberal media’s commitment to sidetrack his campaign.

They don’t want people to take me seriously. And they’re very afraid of my message getting out there because if flies directly in the face of the secular-progressive movement. I’m a huge threat to them. And therefore, if they can find a chink in the armor and they can concentrate on that, they can get you off of the things that are so important to our nation.

Carson had even predicted the liberal media would misrepresent his comments about using drones.

You guys, some of you are going to go out and say, “Carson wants to use drones to kill people on the borders, how ridiculous!” At some point I hope we have some responsible media which actually focuses on the problem.

The former neurosurgeon’s point was to use drones for surveillance and to eliminate caves where illegal goods and immigrants are hidden. He would not use drones to kill people.

He argued that the use of military assets like drones and the National Guard was “common sense” due to the “huge security risk” at the border coupled with the shortage of staffing.

Do you agree with Dr. Carson? Is there a security risk at the border? Is the secular-progressive movement eroding Judeo-Christian values? Share and comment below.

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

WATCH: Ben Carson Pulls A Trump And Launches A Scathing Attack On CNN

The recent actions of a CNN reporter who droned on by taking remarks out of context illustrated the depth of the liberal media’s commitment to sidetrack his campaign, Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson said Monday.

NewsMax TV host Steve Malzberg on Monday asked Carson about a Sunday interview on CNN’s “State of the Union,” during which guest host Jim Acosta focused extensively on comments Carson had made at the U.S.-Mexico border that there was a role for America’s vast drone technology in sealing the leaky border.

“Why are they badgering you?” Malzberg asked.

“Because they don’t want people to take me seriously. And they’re very afraid of my message getting out there because it flies directly in the face of the secular-progressive movement. I’m a huge threat to them. Therefore, if they can find a chink in the armor and they can concentrate on that, they can get you off of the things that are so important to our nation,” Carson replied.

In response to a question from Malzberg, who mentioned past CNN efforts he felt were designed to harass Carson, the candidate responded: “The liberal media in general, but certainly the people you just mentioned are problematic.”

Last week, at the border, Carson had predicted that after he spoke about incorporating drone technology into defending America’s borders, his comments would be misrepresented.

“I said that to the media at the time. I said you guys, some of the left wing media, are going to be saying that Carson wants to use drones to kill people on the border, and how ridiculous!” he said Monday. “They went out and did it.”

On Sunday, as Carson discussed the needs of local law enforcement in the border area, Acosta asked about drones. After explaining his concept of using drones to eliminate caves where illegal goods and immigrants are hidden, Carson finally replied with a touch of evident heat.

Read my lips and listen carefully to what I am saying. I said that there are caves. There are caves that they utilize, and those caves can be eliminated. There are a number of possibilities, and that could be one of them. I am not talking about killing people. No people with drones,” he said.

Carson said using military assets along the border is a matter of common sense to address the shortage of staffing along the border.

“The sheriffs down there are being outgunned. They do not have the full support of the federal government. … I’ve been talking to some of the sheriffs down there on the border… listen to the frustration. You should have them on your show and let them talk about what is actually going on down there,” Carson said. “We have a huge security risk there.”

Carson has long defined his campaign as a counter to what he called the secular-progressive movement. In a 2014 interview boosting cultural conservatism, he had this to say:

The secular progressive agenda, quite frankly, is at odds with the Judeo-Christian value system. If you just keep quiet about it, they win by default. I’m a person that believes in live and let live; but I don’t believe you should suppress what you believe so that you don’t create waves or cause a problem.

h/t: The Gateway Pundit

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

Watch: Biden Just Said Two Words About Radical Islam You Would Never Expect Obama To Say

During a recent memorial service for the five U.S. military service members killed last month in Chattanooga, Vice President Joe Biden squarely addressed the radical Islamic teachings believed to have inspired shooting suspect Mohammad Youssef Abdulazeez.

“These perverse ideologues, warped theocrats,” Biden said, “they may be able to inspire a single lone wolf to commit a savage act; but they can never, never threaten who we are.”

He went on to describe Abdulazeez in a direct manner missing from Barack Obama’s rhetoric.

“When this perverted jihadist struck,” he said, “everyone responded.”

The message obviously resonated with a wide array of social media users.

The Associated Press, however, earned some criticism when its edited version of Biden’s remarks notably excluded the phrase “perverted jihadist.”

Obama, on the other hand, has been criticized by the likes of notable lawman David Clarke Jr., who said the president gave a “shoulder shrug” to the incident because none of the victims “look like [Trayvon] Martin.”

Biden went on to offer not only his condolences to those who lost loved ones in the attack, but a message of hope for America’s future.

“This country has and still stands with you,” he said, “and it will remember what you’ve done. It will remember and remind everyone who we are at our best.”

He had “a message for those perverted cowards around the world,” informing them that “America never yields, never bends, never cowers, never stands down, endures, responds, and always overcomes; for we are Americans, and never underestimate us.”

Was Joe Biden’s depiction of radical Islam accurate? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.

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