Case to Point on Liberal Media Distortion - the Crying Child #NothingBurger

Migrant families separation poster girl not taken from mum

Excerpt:

A little girl who became the public face of US migrant family separations was not taken away from her mother at the US border, says her father. A photograph of the Honduran toddler sobbing in a pink jacket was snapped at the scene of a border detention. Time magazine has used the image for its latest cover, depicting President Donald Trump looming over the girl with the caption: "Welcome to America".

Comment: After all the falderal, hysteria, and Rachel Maddow tears & Time cover ... a #nothingburger. The Fourth Estate is out to get Trump! Elected by no one! And the average person who watches CNN, MSNBC or the mindless Today Show is none the wiser! See Yes, Obama separated families at the border, too

President Barack Obama separated parents from their children at the border. Obama prosecuted mothers for coming to the United States illegally. He fast tracked deportations. And yes, he housed unaccompanied children in tent cities. For much of the country — and President Donald Trump — the prevailing belief is that Obama was the president who went easier on immigrants.

So about that picture... “Denis said his wife and daughter were never separated by border control agents and remain together.” https://t.co/0kV4Tngr5j”

— Amanda House (@AmandaLeeHouse) June 22, 2018

I’m for comprehensive immigration reform. I don’t use the words “fake news”, believing reporters don’t err on purpose. They make mistakes.

But Time’s cover crossed the line. They separated themselves from the truth. MSM’s dedication to a narrative is killing their credibility.

— Ari Fleischer (@AriFleischer) June 22, 2018

Opinion: "Most people are only exposed to one distorted version of reality, completely missing out on an equally ludicrous alternative version of events." https://t.co/DZGx2lxrnB pic.twitter.com/yApBaGtrDZ

— The Babylon Bee (@TheBabylonBee) June 22, 2018

Perspective | Time magazine’s major mistake on the crying-girl cover https://t.co/0acNDfzvUO

— James Peet (@jrpeet) June 22, 2018

The crying Honduran girl on the cover of Time was not separated from her mother https://t.co/4FqEUvidK5

— James Peet (@jrpeet) June 22, 2018

Time cover backlash: Magazine stands by illustration of crying girl next to Trump https://t.co/EfBhHH4msq via @CNNMoney

— James Peet (@jrpeet) June 22, 2018

Facts don't matter:

JUST IN: Time magazine standing by the cover: pic.twitter.com/gXKg4shL6F

— Hadas Gold (@Hadas_Gold) June 22, 2018

TIME Stands By Erroneous, Misleading Crying Girl Cover Photo And Story https://t.co/BjZde8uOb0

— James Peet (@jrpeet) June 23, 2018

Border Patrol agent on TIME magazine girl: "I personally went up to the mother and asked her 'Are you doing OK? Is the kid OK?' and she said, 'Yes. She's tired and thirsty. It's 11 o'clock at night.'" https://t.co/zBZBDYs3By

— David Martosko (@dmartosko) June 22, 2018

Hey, Time Magazine, propaganda much? #RapidReactions @ckchumley #BestOfWashTimes https://t.co/bN3O4qh7J8

— The Washington Times (@WashTimes) June 23, 2018

A.F. Branco Cartoon – Out of Time https://t.co/e0ZGX6rtv6 #TrumpDerangementSyndrome #time #Democrats pic.twitter.com/3Q4RTRo72I

— A.F. Branco Cartoons (@afbranco) June 28, 2018

Finally burying the Sarah Palin - Gabby Giffords "targeting" link

The New York Times Runs The Worst Editorial In Human History, Blames SARAH PALIN For Giffords Shooting AGAIN https://t.co/kO9HDBy2oK pic.twitter.com/a8fbb2rQMw

— Ben Shapiro (@benshapiro) June 15, 2017

The Deeper Problem With the NYT's Editorial Blaming Republicans for Political Violence https://t.co/6ZJB8tghNa via @WeeklyStandard

— Brit Hume (@brithume) June 16, 2017

The bogus claim that a map of crosshairs by Sarah Palin’s PAC incited Rep. Gabby Giffords’s shooting

Excerpt:

“Was this attack evidence of how vicious American politics has become? Probably. In 2011, Jared Lee Loughner opened fire in a supermarket parking lot, grievously wounding Representative Gabby Giffords and killing six people, including a 9-year-old girl. At the time, we and others were sharply critical of the heated political rhetoric on the right. Before the shooting, Sarah Palin’s political action committee circulated a map of targeted electoral districts that put Ms. Giffords and 19 other Democrats under stylized cross hairs. But in that case no connection to the shooting was ever established.” — New York Times editorial board, June 14

This quote is from a corrected version of a New York Times editorial that had falsely claimed that the gunman in the 2011 Giffords shooting was politically incited by Palin’s political action committee. Many readers asked about the uncorrected version, which initially claimed “the link to political incitement was clear” between the gunman’s actions and the map portraying crosshairs, including one over Giffords’s congressional district in Southern Arizona.

Comment: More from above link under the heading "The Facts"

Gun control is back in the national debate, after the shooting Wednesday at a baseball practice among congressional Republicans. House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) was critically injured, and four others were wounded. The shooting quickly became political. The gunman, who died after a shootout with police, had volunteered for the 2016 Democratic presidential campaign of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and posted angry and vulgar comments on social media aimed at President Trump.

The Times argued that our politics has become lethal, and argued for stricter gun control measures. The Fact Checker obviously has no opinion on this matter.XXX Here’s what happened in 2011.

Jared Lee Loughner shot Giffords in the head during a Jan. 8, 2011, constituent event, then opened fire on the people lined up to meet her there — injuring 14 and killing six. Contemporaneous news reports noted that Giffords was one of 20 Democrats targeted in a map circulated by Sarah Palin’s political action committee in March 2010. The map portrayed stylized crosshairs to mark each of their districts, in a “Take Back the 20″ campaign to reclaim seats in the 2010 midterm elections.

After the map was published, Giffords said in an interview: “We’re on Sarah Palin’s targeted list, but the thing is that the way that she has it depicted has the crosshairs of a gun sight over our district, and when people do that, they’ve got to realize there are consequences to that action.”

As the corrected version of the Times’s editorial notes, no connection was established between this map and the 2011 shooting.

After Loughner’s shooting, some of Palin’s surrogates claimed the map was never intended to portray crosshairs, and instead said they were “surveyor’s symbols.” But that was debunked by Palin herself, when she acknowledged that the symbols were intended to be crosshairs.

It’s unclear whether Loughner even knew of Palin’s map, but it probably would not have changed the outcome. His focus on Giffords began as early as 2007, long before the map was published. He became fixated on her since he met her at a constituent event in 2007, and decided he was unsatisfied by her answer to his question: “If words could not be understood, then what does government mean?”

Three days after the shooting, authorities filed criminal charges against Loughner after finding items in his home that showed he had plotted her assassination. They found in his safe a 2007 letter from Giffords thanking him for attending the constituent event, and an envelope stating “I planned ahead,” and the words “assassination” and “Giffords,” along with his signature.

Loughner had no clear political views. Instead, he was a troubled man who abused alcohol and drugs, and whose mental illness was apparent to his classmates and family even before he was diagnosed as schizophrenic during his court trial.

... We’re glad to see this fixed in the editorial, but it’s not a good sign that the debunked talking point was included as fact in the editorial of a major media outlet. Any future references to this talking point by politicians or political groups will receive Four Pinocchios.

MORE: New York Times corrects editorial that drew huge backlash for blaming Sarah Palin in Gabby Giffords' shooting

New Fact Checker: The bogus claim that a map of crosshairs by Sarah Palin's PAC incited Gabby Giffords 2011 shooting https://t.co/1sw0T4AFTf

— Michelle Ye Hee Lee (@myhlee) June 15, 2017

"Female Genital Mutilation" & the NY Times

'Politically correct' NY Times hides horror of female genital mutilation

Excerpt:

The New York Times does not use the term “Female Genital Mutilation” (FGM) in its article about a Michigan doctor who is being prosecuted for allegedly performing that procedure on two seven-year-old girls. The Times calls the offense, “genital cutting,” despite the fact that the prosecution is based on a federal criminal provision entitled, “Female genital mutilation.” If convicted, the doctor can be sentenced to incarceration for up to five years. According to Celia Dugger, the Times’ Health and Science editor, “genital cutting” is a “less culturally loaded” term than “FGM.” It will not widen the “chasm” between “advocates who campaign against the practice and the people who follow the rite.”

Comment: P/C run amuck. Must never tolerate in the United States. Consider: A case of female genital mutilation (FGM) is either discovered or treated at a medical appointment in England every hour, according to analysis of NHS statistics by a charity.

An Archbishop's outrage and the column that sparked it

Archbishop's blog slams Gray Lady's

Excerpt:

New York Archbishop Timothy Dolan has condemned The New York Times -- blasting the Gray Lady and its columnist Maureen Dowd for what he says are examples of unfair, prejudicial and just downright mean anti-Catholicism.

Dolan used his blog last Thursday on the Archdiocese of New York's Web site to rail against the Times a day after the paper refused to print his critique as an op-ed piece.

He singled out Dowd -- a poison-penned, Pulitzer winner and former Catholic-school girl -- for "the most combustible," "intemperate and scurrilous" "diatribe" she wrote on Oct. 25, which "rightly never would have passed muster with the editors had it so criticized an Islamic, Jewish or African-American religious issue."

Comment: Full blog post here.

Maureen Dowd: The Nuns’ Story

Excerpt:

Nuns were second-class citizens then and — 40 years after feminism utterly changed America — they still are. The matter of women as priests is closed, a forbidden topic.

In 2004, the cardinal who would become Pope Benedict XVI wrote a Vatican document urging women to be submissive partners, resisting any adversarial roles with men and cultivating “feminine values” like “listening, welcoming, humility, faithfulness, praise and waiting.”

Nuns need to be even more sepia-toned for the über-conservative pope, who was christened “God’s Rottweiler” for his enforcement of orthodoxy. Once a conscripted member of the Hitler Youth, Benedict pardoned a schismatic bishop who claimed that there was no Nazi gas chamber. He also argued on a trip to Africa that distributing condoms could make the AIDS crisis worse.

The Vatican is now conducting two inquisitions into the “quality of life” of American nuns, a dwindling group with an average age of about 70, hoping to herd them back into their old-fashioned habits and convents and curb any speck of modernity or independence.

Nuns who took Vatican II as a mandate for reimagining their mission “started to look uppity to an awful lot of bishops and priests and, of course, the Vatican,” said Kenneth Briggs, the author of “Double Crossed: Uncovering the Catholic Church’s Betrayal of American Nuns.”

The church enabled rampant pedophilia, but nuns who live in apartments and do social work with ailing gays? Sacrilegious! The pope can wear Serengeti sunglasses and expensive red loafers, but shorter hems for nuns? Disgraceful!

Comments: I'm not a Catholic, but I think the Archbishop is onto something. More on Maureen Dowd AND Timothy Dolan.

An article where Dolan takes on Pelosi and Biden over abortion: How can anyone be silent on this key civil rights question?

Excerpt:

It was not the bishops who started this rhubarb but House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.), who took it upon themselves to explain Catholic teaching on abortion to the nation - and blundered badly.

Now, to be sure, church teaching highly respects the charism of civic responsibility and political leadership as belonging to the laity, not the clergy, a tenet especially strong in the writings of Pope John Paul II and Benedict XVI, and defends as well a properly understood separation of church and state, so clear in Pope Benedict's remarks in France just two weeks ago.

But church tradition is equally clear that bishops are the authentic teachers of the faith. So, when prominent Catholics publicly misrepresent timeless Church doctrine - as Biden and Pelosi regrettably did (to say nothing of erring in biology!) - a bishop has the duty to clarify. Cardinal Justin Rigali and Bishop William E. Lori were thus hardly acting as politicians, "telling people how to vote," but as teachers.

Even more significantly, when all is said and done, abortion is hardly a religious issue at all. Women and men of every religion, or none at all, express grave reservations about our abortion-on-demand culture, insisting that it is not a theological matter but a civil rights one.

Does the baby alive in the womb (a biological, not a doctrinal, fact) deserve the full protection of the law or not? Does one have the right to terminate the life of another at will? Can we consider one form of life - that of the innocent, fragile baby in the womb - inferior and expendable?

Or does the American proposition of certain self-evident truths mentioned in our foundational documents, the first of which is the right to life, have a say in all of this? Was Robert Kennedy correct in observing that the true test of a society's mettle is how it treats the most vulnerable among us, which has to include the tiny baby in the womb?

On "reading aloud"

Some Thoughts on the Lost Art of Reading Aloud

Excerpt:

Reading aloud recaptures the physicality of words. To read with your lungs and diaphragm, with your tongue and lips, is very different than reading with your eyes alone. The language becomes a part of the body, which is why there is always a curious tenderness, almost an erotic quality, in those 18th- and 19th-century literary scenes where a book is being read aloud in mixed company. The words are not mere words. They are the breath and mind, perhaps even the soul, of the person who is reading.

No one understood this better than Jane Austen. One of the late turning points in “Mansfield Park” comes when Henry Crawford picks up a volume of Shakespeare, “which had the air of being very recently closed,” and begins to read aloud to the young Bertrams and their cousin, Fanny Price. Fanny discovers in Crawford’s reading “a variety of excellence beyond what she had ever met with.” And yet his ability to do every part “with equal beauty” is a clear sign to us, if not entirely to Fanny, of his superficiality.

I read aloud to my writing students, and when students read aloud to me I notice something odd. They are smart and literate, and most of them had parents who read to them as children. But when students read aloud at first, I notice that they are trying to read the meaning of the words. If the work is their own, they are usually trying to read the intention of the writer.

It’s as though they’re reading what the words represent rather than the words themselves. What gets lost is the inner voice of the prose, the life of the language. This is reflected in their writing, too, at first.

Comment: K and I read aloud the Scriptures. I Timothy 4:13, "Till I come, give attention to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine."

Unemployment rates: Interactive map

Geography of a Recession


Comment: From the NYTimes. Companion article: Job Losses Show Breadth of Recession

Unlike the last two recessions — earlier this decade and in the early 1990s — this one is causing much more job loss among the less educated than among college graduates. Those earlier recessions introduced the country to the concept of mass white-collar layoffs. The brunt of the layoffs in this recession is falling on construction workers, hotel workers, retail workers and others without a four-year degree.

The Great Recession of 2008 (and beyond) is hurting men more than women. It is hurting homeowners and investors more than renters or retirees who rely on Social Security checks. It is hurting Latinos more than any other ethnic group. A year ago, a greater share of Latinos held jobs than whites. Today, the two have switched places.

Half the news fit to print

California Asks Court to Weigh Ban on Gay Marriage

Excerpts:

The California attorney general asked the State Supreme Court on Monday to review the constitutionality of Proposition 8, the voter initiative passed two weeks ago that bans same-sex marriage.

The central argument in the recently filed lawsuits is that Proposition 8 is a significant enough revision to the State Constitution to require approval by the Legislature.

Supporters of the proposition, led by the group Protect Marriage, reject that argument, suggesting in legal papers filed Monday on behalf of five California residents that “when using the initiative process to amend the Constitution, the people exercise their sovereign power of self-government.”

What The Times Forgot to Mention about California’s Marriage Amendment

Excerpt:

Here’s what the paper that makes all the news fit its agenda forgot to mention:

• Same-sex marriage was never part of the California Constitution. It was forced on the state in May, by an edict of the same court now being asked to rule on the legality of Prop. 8.
  
• Despite massive opposition by the mainstream media (The New York Times included), the initiative passed by a vote of 52% to 48%.
  
• In 2000, 61% of California voters approved Prop 22, a statute limiting marriage to a man and a woman. The Court swept this aside with its mandate, necessitating the amendment.
  
• With the passage of ballot questions in California, Arizona and Florida this year, voters in 30 states have enacted constitutional bans on gay marriage, by an average vote of 68%.
  
• Those demonstrations by opponents of Proposition 8 the paper mentioned in passing are often aimed at the Mormon (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) and Catholic Churches and are frequently violent. In San Francisco last Friday, the police had to intervene to save a group of Christians who were set-upon by homosexual militants. In Palm Springs, an elderly woman holding a pro-Prop 8 sign was physically assaulted and had a cross ripped from her hands and trampled by the mob.
  

Comment: The title of this blog is a comments of the NY Times motto "All the News That's Fit to Print"

Spoof NYTimes

Liberal Pranksters Hand Out Times Spoof

Excerpt:

In an elaborate hoax, pranksters distributed thousands of free copies of a spoof edition of The New York Times on Wednesday morning at busy subway stations around the city, including Grand Central Terminal, Washington and Union Squares, the 14th and 23rd Street stations along Eighth Avenue, and Pacific Street in Brooklyn, among others.

The spurious 14-page papers — with a headline “IRAQ WAR ENDS” — surprised commuters, many of whom took the free copies thinking they were legitimate.

The paper is dated July 4, 2009, and imagines a liberal utopia of national health care, a rebuilt economy, progressive taxation, a national oil fund to study climate change, and other goals of progressive politics.

Comment: www.nytimes-se.com (may time some time to load! Note: "liberal utopia" where their is complete peace and socialism

NYT Ombudsman rips NYTimes

NYT Ombudsman Rips the McCain Hit Piece