Why adhere to the ludicrous?

The Left Continues to Peddle the Lie that Trump Represents a Threat to Press Freedom. William Sullivan – “the organizers of the event dropped the façade of humor in favor of a “funerary tone” led by a historian rather than the traditional choice of a comedian.”

“For the record, Trump has never threatened to imprison a journalist or prevent a citizen journalist from reentering the country from abroad. If Knox were an honest man, he might have told his son: “No, son, none of that will happen. You only believe that because a lot of people make their living by making up such nonsensical stories about how this president might do such things.”

But he certainly wouldn’t say that, because those are the lies upon which this entire event was centered. There was a calculated effort to portray this administration as uniquely at odds with a free and critical press in the scope of American history.
The difference is that Trump hasn’t used his power to clamp down on his opposition in the press beyond offering harsh criticism.
But with some other presidents in American history, such a threat might have been very real.
And yet, the same leftist media mouthpieces claiming that Trump is some monumental threat to press freedom were oddly silent during Obama’s presidency while all of that was going on.

Members of the media today suggesting that Donald Trump represents some uniquely dangerous presidential threat to our free press are either in desperate need of education, or they knowingly lack an interest in truth. And all of the evidence suggests the latter, and that they are willing to sell lies in order to claim some specious mantle of victimhood.

Son, It Was Obama We Journalists Had to Fear. Jack Cashill – “In May 2013, the illusion of an unfettered press disappeared like a magician’s bunny.”

“Unlike Richard Nixon, who had good reason to distrust the media, Obama has no apparent motive for his secrecy other than that it gave him the space to do as he pleased and get away with it.
It has been said that a political incident becomes a scandal only when the Times calls it a “scandal” on its front page. Despite Obama’s shocking disregard of his commitment and the media’s acknowledgement of the same, the Times editors chose to reserve the S-word for bigger things like, say, a president’s failure to attend a dinner where even eleven-year-olds get to ding him.

Former Ken Starr aide gets it wildly wrong. Paul Mirengoff – “By how many fold would Trump’s alleged attempts at obstruction be blunter than Clinton’s if Trump had perjured himself before a grand jury and during a deposition? … Wait! That’s what Starr found Clinton did.”

“There’s no doubt in my mind that Trump, under the pressure of an investigation into allegations of collusion he knew to be false, behaved badly in a number of ways. But Rosenzweig’s suggestion that Trump behaved a thousandfold worse than Clinton is ludicrous, and the less extreme claim that he behaved as badly as “Slick Willy” lacks merit.

Gingrich Battles ‘The View’ Over Charlottesville: You Are ‘Intellectually Dishonest’. Pam Key – “There’s this myth on the left that’s not true. If you go back and look at what Trump said, Trump says clearly that he was opposed to white supremacists, that he’s opposed to Klansmen, that he’s opposed to Nazis. He says it clearly.” And that gets into a no he didn’t versus yes he did argument. Perceptions should bias towards the positive but, for many in the media, not when it comes to Trump. There, guilty until proven innocent or else it is and there is no way to prove innocence in any acceptable way for them.

Comments are closed.