A Post-Mortem for Mainstream Media Journalism [Video]

Mainstream media, Fake newsWatching the performance “journalism” of the supposed ‘Mainstream’ media during Trump’s presidency often evokes reactions from laughter to rage among supporters of the President. However, this is a significant moment in the history of journalism itself, for we are witnessing the death knell of the MSM, and are on the precipice of an entirely new era of media journalism which is rising to fill the void.

The fall of MSM journalism began in earnest a little more than a half-century ago during the turbulent decade of the 1960s. The event that became the impetus for journalism’s wholesale embrace of Leftist activism was the Vietnam War.

Leftist Journalism and The War in Vietnam

Photo shows soldier lying down in high grass during patrol on Jan. 10, 1966 in Vietnam, soldier is unidentified. (AP Photo)

The Vietnam War was unique in the annals of journalism in that it was the first time journalists could cover a war in close to real-time and deliver that coverage to the entirety of America via video reports on television. Prior to this, most news was disseminated via the newspaper and on the radio or in short news clips that preceded a movie showing at the theater.

This meant that the destruction and horror of war were starting to be beamed into living rooms across the nation and the globe on an almost daily basis. Moreover, the analysis and commentary of media stars such as Walter Cronkite began charting a leftward media course that was instrumental in ignominiously ending the Vietnam War.

The February 1968 assessment by Walter Cronkite, the anchor of the CBS Evening News (known as “the most trusted man in America”), that the conflict was “mired in stalemate” was seen by many as the signal of a sea change in reporting about Vietnam, and it is said to have inspired Pres. Lyndon B. Johnson to state, “If I’ve lost Cronkite, I’ve lost Middle America.”

The influence of network journalists on the “big three” alphabet stations, CBS, ABC, and NBC continued to grow and continued to inch ever-leftward through the 1970s. The Watergate hearings in 1974 seemed to permanently place MSM journalism as the news authority and raised the Washington Post to greater fame than ever after reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein broke the story wide open with information obtained by a secret informant known then as ‘Deep Throat.’

However, that dominance was soon to become threatened by the advent of cable television, and the innovative and determined mind of a media mogul named Ted Turner. His creation of a 24-hour news channel was a brand new invention that changed the journalistic landscape forever.

The Emergence of Cable News and the Case of Richard Jewell

The original Cable News Network, CNN, was the brainchild of Ted Turner and came meekly onto the media scene in 1980.

CNN was created by maverick broadcasting executive Ted Turner as part of his Turner Broadcasting System (TBS), allegedly because industry professionals had told him it could not be done. After four years in development, CNN signed on the air June 1, 1980, with a news telecast anchored by the husband-and-wife team of Dave Walker and Lois Hart.

Ted Turner was enamored of Leftist causes throughout his career, most notably as a champion of ‘environmentalism.’ Early hints of other left-wing views like globalism emerged right from the beginning of CNN’s existence.

Endeavouring to accommodate its worldwide audience, CNN adopted a policy of banning such exclusionary words and phrases as “foreign” and “here at home” from its newscasts.

The fledgling news network struggled to gain much of an audience for the first few years after its premiere. CNN began to climb in the ratings when it scooped the networks on the Challenger Space Shuttle disaster in 1986, and especially with its in-country coverage of the Gulf War in the early 1990s.

Richard Jewell, Mainstream mediaThe world got a glimpse of the power of the leftist MSM and how that power can be abused on July 27, 1996, with the bombing at the Summer Olympics in Atlanta, Georgia. A man by the name of Richard Jewell discovered the bomb, notified law enforcement and helped clear the area before the bomb detonated.

However, within two days Jewell went from hero to prime suspect of the FBI, which was reported first in headlines from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution on July 30. The networks and print media began to descend upon Jewell like a pack of ravenous wolves, beginning with Atlanta-based CNN.

For the next few months, Jewell was hounded by reporters from all three national networks as well as CNN and vilified in national newspapers as the likely bomber. In one particularly egregious case of journalistic overreach, an August 1, 1996 column by David Kindred of the AJC linked Jewell to a convicted murderer.

Once upon a terrible time, federal agents came to this town to deal with another suspect who lived with his mother. Like this one, that suspect was drawn to the blue lights and sirens of police work. Like this one, he became famous in the aftermath of murder. His name was Wayne Williams. This one is Richard Jewell. …Richard Jewell sits in the shadows today. Wayne Williams sits in prison forever.

It wasn’t until October 26 that Jewell was officially cleared. Years later the actual bomber was arrested and convicted of the Olympic bombing as well as several other bombings in the area.

The Rise of Social Media

During this same period, another technological breakthrough took place which would change the media universe and bring a host of other players outside the normal circle of journalism into play. That was the ascendance of the internet and the subsequent explosion of ‘social media’ onto the scene.

The development of the internet began in the 1960s as an American military effort to link computers together in the event that a nuclear attack destroyed the telephone-based communications of the time. However, the internet as we know it today came about in 1991.

That year, a computer programmer in Switzerland named Tim Berners-Lee introduced the World Wide Web: an internet that was not simply a way to send files from one place to another but was itself a “web” of information that anyone on the Internet could retrieve. Berners-Lee created the Internet that we know today.

Six years later the first ‘social media’ network was launched. It was known as “Six Degrees.”

It was officially launched in 1997, and it lasted until about 2001. It’s number of users peaked at around 3.5  million. It was bought out by YouthStream Media Networks in 1999 for $125 million, but it shut down just one year later.

The next social media platform came out in 2002 and was called “Friendster.” It became the first such site to claim over 100 million users but eventually went bust in 2015.

Social media influenceThen the floodgates began to open. In 2003 it was “MySpace,” followed by “Facebook” in 2004 which grew to the largest social media platform ever with 2.45 billion active monthly users so far in 2019.  “Twitter” came along in 2006 and has now grown to 330 million monthly active users according to figures from the first quarter of 2019.

This explosive growth did more than simply make people like Mark Zuckerburg and Jim Dorsey extremely wealthy. It opened up a brand new media arena for journalism in the digital age and the Leftmedia quickly took full advantage of that.

The fact that the heads of the social media giants such as Facebook and Twitter were also of Leftist persuasions tended to favor a Leftmedia slant toward what has been allowed and what has not on both these platforms. This slant remained relatively unnoticed until the 2016 election of Donald Trump.

The 2016 Election, the Birth of ‘Fake News’, and TDS

Donald Trump became the GOP nominee for President in July of 2016, and the Leftmedia hasn’t stopped howling about him ever since. However, since most of the “experts” gave Trump no chance to defeat Hillary Clinton, that howling was a mere murmur compared to what was to come.

Since the election of Donald Trump, the Leftmedia has earned the label of “fake news” that the President employs with such success. However, the term was not one he invented.

Fake news, Mainstream mediaIn the 2016 campaign for President, the term “fake news” was first used by the Clinton camp speaking about the Wikileaks release of emails from Hillary’s campaign manager John Podesta. They claimed these released emails were not authentic and called them “fake news.”

President Trump masterfully appropriated and used this term to reveal bit-by-bit the duplicity of the Leftmedia as a whole for the last three years. Moreover, it likely contributed to the creation and spread of another term used to describe the anti-Trump crowd in society as suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome or TDS.

I have written about the realitydanger, and spread of TDS on several occasions in this journal. Though this pernicious disease is not limited to Leftmedia ‘journalism’, TDS is expressed there more starkly and in more abundance than anywhere else.

The relationship between TDS and “fake news” as one of its symptoms can be demonstrated through a “thread” which I found while sifting through the muck on my Twitter feed. A “thread” is a series of posts from one user concerning the same subject.

Since Twitter has a strict limit on how many characters a person is allowed to put into one post, a “thread” is a way to write a longer story with a series of shorter ‘chapters’, so to speak. These are employed by most who use Twitter, however, this “thread” was unusual for both its length and content.

It consisted of over 100 postings and the content was mainly side-by-side screenshots of headlines from both digital and print Leftmedia ‘news’ stories highlighting the hypocrisy and deception employed by their ilk.

Here is how this posting by user “Incarcerated_ET” begins:

Ladies and Gentlemen,
Anons present to you:
THE FAKE NEWS
-their duplicity
-their hypocrisy
-their agenda
-their coordinated efforts
-and out right lies
>>side by side for easy dissemination
>>just like Q asked

A thread!

View image on Twitter

 

This example is a mild introduction beginning with the obvious TDS of Ms. Wellington gushing over the “dream come true” of HRC in a plain white pantsuit and then declaring that Melania’s white dress was equivalent to the GOP being for whites only!

These instructive comparisons continue on and reveal many which seem petty, like the one above, and others that are outright furious and hostile towards the President or anything associated with him.

Here is one item in the same stream from the Leftist site “Slate,” on why the electoral college is a great idea, and then why it is not only terrible but was a racist idea from the beginning.

Image

Note how Slate’s opinion changed dramatically when it was Obama winning in 2012 versus when Trump won in 2016. Here is another example of the 100+ samples in the thread from dear old reliable CNN.

Image

CNN begins with the assertion that “paid family leave” is a wonderful concept which should be embraced by everyone. But then, Trump agrees and places it in his budget and viola, “paid family leave” is suddenly a bad thing!

Here is the last piece I will share from the thread demonstrating both TDS and “fake news” on the very same page.

Image

The “fake news” was the large headline printed directly under the actual truth about the President’s statement which did condemn “white supremacists” and everyone else involved in the violent protests at Charlottesville. Guess which one of these assertions is still being used as ammunition against President Trump even today.

TDS and “fake news” have been the SOP of the Left from the very start of Trump’s presidency, including the failed “Mueller Report,” and has continued into the current phony “impeachment inquiry” in the House of Representatives. Here is a brief video ensemble showing why this is simply another dose of “fake news” and TDS by the Leftmedia.

Erick Erickson

@EWErickson

Dear members of the media, if you want to understand why no one cares about impeachment and minds are not being changed, watch this and understand.

Embedded video

The narrative of the Leftmedia is crumbling under the onslaught brought about by those
who actually pay attention to the Leftist’s diatribes on social media. Moreover, that
number of people is growing by the day and portends the death of Leftmedia
“journalism.

What is also being slowly realized by those same people is that the “media” is no longer what is spoon-fed to us by the elites in the mainstream. We will explore the recent declaration of this new phenomenon by the phrase, “We are the media now,” in part two of this series.

“Their throat is an open grave; they use their tongues to deceive. The venom of asps is under their lips. Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness. Their feet are swift to shed blood; in their paths are ruin and misery, and the way of peace they have not known. There is no fear of God before their eyes.” Romans 3:13-18 [ESV]

D.T. Osborn

Featured and Top Image courtesy of Jose Martins’ Flickr page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 1 courtesy of manhhai’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 2 courtesy of Abbott’s Patch Collection’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 3 courtesy of Paul Inkles’ Flickr page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 4 courtesy of Christoph Scholz’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License

 

All other sources linked or cited in the text

Originally published in TIL Journal

Advertisements

The Evil Insanity of Gender Identity, Part Three: Legitimizing Lunacy and Dissolving Sexuality

LGBT, Gender Identity

In part one of this series, we explored how the children who are pushed into ‘transitioning’ from one sex to another are exploited and victimized. Part two was a glimpse at the damage done to society overall by the ‘trans-rights’ movement.

As this aberrant movement has grown in influence in society, the push to legitimize ‘trans-rights’ has rapidly moved beyond cultural acceptance and now reaches to acquire the federal status of law. As noted in this journal, the first stage of the process is already finished with the passage of HR-5 in the U.S. House of Representatives.

The bill was sent on to the Senate in May of this year, where it now sits in the Judiciary Committee and no further action has been taken. No hearings or debates or votes have yet taken place.

Making Lunacy a Legitimate “Right”

Inset.1.11.17.2019The goal of the ‘trans-rights’ community is not the social acceptance of their cause. As important as this is, it is merely one step toward the goal.

The real goal is to make the cause socially ascendant so that ‘transgenderism’s’  claim as some sort of ‘civil right’ is both culturally and legally established. For the Left, whether that conforms to scientific or moral norms is irrelevant to accomplishing that end.

In the previous parts of this series, we have observed how ‘trans-rights’ advocacy and claims have asserted themselves in the areas of family court, women’s sports, and public education. Regulations and the law have been used to promote ‘transgenderism’ as a civil right in each of these areas.

However, since this movement isn’t scientifically or morally correct, the Left’s favorite new social activists, ‘trans-rights’ proponents, began their legal maneuvering by taking aim at the language. Thus was born the epic redefinition of gender as expressed in pronouns.

The Left decided that no longer should anyone be allowed to use the designation “he” or “she” to speak to or about someone who claimed they were ‘transitioning’ from one sex to another. This materialized at a national level in Canada in 2016.

One of the most infamous defiers of this Canadian law is Dr. Jordan Peterson. He has decided that he will not comply with a law that requires him to state what is untrue as if it were true.

In an article about Canada’s Federal Bill C16, Peterson writes that as a part of a video series,

I also indicated my refusal to apply what are now known as “preferred” pronouns to people who do not fit easily into traditional gender categories (although I am willing to call someone “he” or “she” in accordance with their manner of self-presentation).

Inset.2.11.17.2019He also goes on to point out in 2016, that such legal lunacy was already beginning a legislative creep into America.

If you are wondering, reasonably, why any of this might be relevant to Americans, you might note that legislation very similar to Bill C-16 has already been passed in New York City.  Authorities there now fine citizens up to $250,000 for the novel crime of “mis-gendering” — referring to people by any words other than their pronouns of choice (including newly constructed words such as zie/hir, ey/em/eir and co).

Other cities and states have been following suit with enacting ‘misgendering’ legislation. In one example from October of 2017, the California legislature passed, and the Governor signed into law,

SB 219 …was introduced by state senator Scott Weiner (D-San Francisco) and sponsored by Equality California. It penalizes senior healthcare workers who “misgender” any patients identifying as transgender by failing to address the patient by their preferred gender pronouns. Any employees who “willfully or repeatedly violate” SB 219 could be charged with a misdemeanor and subject to punishment of a $1000 fine, or even up to one year in jail.

The battlefront of labor law has not been neglected by ‘trans-rights’ advocates in America. Recently, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission decided to embrace the ‘gender identity’ movement.

the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) interpreted Title VII Sex Discrimination to include the transgender population, and this radically changes employment. …the EEOC believes that a transgender woman should be allowed to use the common women’s restroom, and when not allowed, this is considered disparate treatment. Intentional misgendering or misuse of a transgender employee’s new pronoun or name could also be considered sex discrimination.

Since the language has to change on the pronoun level, it follows that public facilities must also change their designations, i.e. ‘men’s’ or ‘women’s’ restrooms or locker rooms, to reflect the official policy of lunacy in action. It is ironic that should these efforts prove successful, the end result will be the insane dissolution of human sexual nature forever.

Human Sexual Identity Is Dissolved by Gender ‘Fluidity’

30224839423_cf6a9317cd_w

Gender Identity Map with over 100 different divisions

The main premise of the Left’s ‘trans-rights’ crowd is the notion that gender is twofold. First, gender is not a biological designation, it is merely a “social construct” that can and should be ignored.

Second is the belief that gender is somehow ‘fluid’ in nature. That is, gender is not simply male or female but rather exists in a range between these two and can move like a fluid from one pole to another, or settle anywhere in between.

Therefore, when a person is born, their sexual identity is not identified, it is “assigned” and need not be that person’s ‘actual’ identity. In fact, that is what motivates other legislation such as Oregon’s law that one’s designation on a driver’s license or state identification or birth certificate can be marked “x” in place of “m” or “f”.

This legal option is not limited to Oregon alone. Other states with similar laws include California, Washington, Maine, Minnesota, Arkansas, Colorado, Maryland, and Massachusetts, with New Hampshire, Hawaii and, Pennsylvania set to enact such measures in 2020.

What seems to go unrecognized is the logical implication of accepting the ‘trans-rights’ claim upon the people that designate themselves as LGBT rights proponents. For if the ‘gender is fluid’ thesis is accepted, all of human sexuality is called into question.

The ‘binary’ nature of human sexual identity is antithetical to transgenderism, as has already been noted. That being so, any claim that only males are gay, or that only a female could be a lesbian, or even that anyone could be bisexual is rendered null and void.

The claim of the ‘transgendered’ person that gender is fluid means that one might claim they are a gay man today, but tomorrow claim that they are instead a “male lesbian.” In other words, if gender fluidity is real it must always be fluid which means that gender identity can never be settled.

Inset.4.11.17.2019Incidentally, the concept of someone being a “male lesbian” is a real thing and was written about a long time ago in psychology circles. A Montana State University professor who is now retired defined a “male lesbian” in 1987 as,

a heterosexual man who wishes that he had been born a woman, but who (even if he had been a woman) could only make love to another woman and never to a man. Unlike the transsexual, the “male lesbian” does not feel himself to be “a woman trapped inside the body of a man”.

It cannot be that gender fluidity is a temporary reality for anyone if the ‘trans-rights’ advocates are correct. That would mean that ‘gender identity’ is a choice, or a preference, rather than a fact of existence.

This also contradicts the long-held claim by gay-rights activists that homosexuality is not a preference but an inherent condition and thus not able to be changed. If transgender ideas are accepted, one could be a lesbian, a gay male, and perhaps even bisexual within mere moments depending on one’s mindset at the time.

The absurdity of this concept should be apparent but is it less absurd than the idea that “male lesbians” are a real thing? The evil of the ‘gender identity’ offensive is the attempt to force insanity upon everyone who doesn’t believe the lunacy.

‘Gender fluidity’ only dissolves all other categories of gender to create a chaotic mass of madness. That is the logical result of allowing disturbed and irrational minds to determine truth and reality, and it must be shown for the danger that it poses to our children, our society, and to our freedom to speak out and oppose its destructive delusion.

You felt secure in your wickedness; you said, “No one sees me”; your wisdom and your knowledge led you astray, and you said in your heart, “I am, and there is no one besides me.” But evil shall come upon you, which you will not know how to charm away; disaster shall fall upon you, for which you will not be able to atone; and ruin shall come upon you suddenly, of which you know nothing. Isaiah 47:10-11 [ESV]

D.T. Osborn

Sources: The Holy Bible, English Standard Version, Crossway Bibles, 2001

Featured and Top Image courtesy of Mike’s Flickr Page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 1 courtesy of Christopher Sessums’ Flickr Page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 2 courtesy of Gage Skidmore’s Flickr Page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 3 courtesy of Ant Smith’s Flickr Page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 4 courtesy of Heather’s Flickr Page – Creative Commons License

All other sources linked or cited in the text

Originally published in TIL Journal

The Evil Insanity of Gender Identity, Part Two: Societal Madness [Video]

Gender Identity, transgenderism

The first part of this series examined the horrible sacrifice of very young children and their futures that are a tragic consequence of the newly ascendant ‘trans-rights’ movement as a so-called civil rights cause. There are other, widely-spread societal consequences which threaten to remake western culture wholesale and send us careening toward oblivion.

There are three primary areas of concern within our society that are negatively affected by ‘trans-rights’ advocates in our time. These areas are all forms of the Leftmedia, the world of competitive sports, and the monolith of both primary and secondary public education.

Transgender Propaganda Reigns in Leftmedia

The gaggle of networks and media outlets which I have chosen to call the “Leftmedia,” has been aggressively promoting the ‘trans-rights’ social program as something good or, at the worst, simply benign. In order to accomplish their goals, the Leftmedia must engage in blatant propaganda hoping that what thinking people might still exist on the Left won’t notice or if they do notice won’t care.

The following video by Steve Crowder and company highlights the false narrative coming from the Left on this issue. Maher’s attempt to feign ignorance about the facts that Dennis Prager presents seems very weak at best.

Two critical facts were presented in the video are indisputable. One is that the newest claim by the transgender community that ‘men can have periods too’ is far from a fringe view in the Leftmedia!

Crowder names media outlets such as MTV, HuffPo, The London Telegraph, and even People magazine that have featured headlines claiming that ‘men get periods too!’ In fact, as he notes, the campaign of propaganda has been so influential that the “woke” among the retail sales crowd have been actively promoting the sales of tampons and feminine pads to ‘transitioning’ persons.

However, there is a bit of sleight-of-hand involved in all of this. The advertisement for the international tampon company in the video employs this tactic by featuring a woman who is trying to change into a man and her statement that for a time during her attempts to reverse nature, she was still menstruating as a woman does.

The trickery is twofold. First of all, she was a biologically normal woman who was experiencing normal cycles that apply only to the female of the species before she began the process.

Therefore, this does not apply to the case of the opposite, a man attempting to change into a woman. They didn’t have periods before they ‘identified’ as a woman, and they won’t have periods even after hormones and surgery.

However, and this is the second part of the deceptive propaganda, the advertisement carefully arranges the video sequence to conflate both types of ‘gender identity’ claims as basically the same. Moreover, this falsehood is enforced throughout various social media avenues such as Twitter or Facebook.

Transgenderism Is Destroying Women’s Sports

transgenderismThe transgender ‘athlete’ has made a definite impact on women’s sports in recent years. Men ‘identifying’ as women have been routinely dominating women’s competitions at the state, national, and international levels. As an article in “Human Events” online states,

The victory of New Zealander Laurel Hubbard is just the latest in a growing line of instances in which transgender women are claiming the top spot in women’s sporting events. The 41-year-old dominated the Pacific Games weightlifting competition this week, winning a gold medal for her efforts – and breaking women’s records in the process.

Despite the politically correct pronoun usage, the article argues against the practice of allowing biological males to compete against females if they ‘identify’ as a female. They note that recent scientific research supports the author’s arguments.

In a paper published in the BMJ Journal of Medical Ethics, researcher Lynley Anderson and her associates Alison Heather and Taryn Knox argued that capping testosterone levels, which has been proposed as a solution to maintaining a level playing field, just won’t cut it. …The researchers also argue that the advantages transgender women have over biologically female counterparts extends well beyond testosterone levels. Namely, they have denser and larger muscles, better muscle distribution, and higher lung capacities. Males even have an advantage when it comes to the amount of oxygen they can accumulate. All this lends to greater strength, agility, dexterity, stamina, and endurance.

A prime example of this is seen in a viral YouTube video with former Olympic women’s gymnastics champions Nastia Liukin and Shawn Johnson reacting to men doing women’s gymnastics.

In 2017, the state of Connecticut modified the rules of high school competition to allow biological males who ‘identify’ as females to compete in women’s athletics with no other requirements. Here is one result of the new policy that should convince any rational person this is not a good idea.

Connecticut’s 2017 rule change that allowed students to compete based on gender identity has terribly harmed women’s sports. A single male transgender student now holds 10 state records which previously belonged to 10 different girls.

What is worse, female athletes who rightly object to this practice are vilified and punished by ‘trans-rights’ activists. Tennis great Martina Navratilova, a fierce defender of LGBT rights was no exception to this.

In December, Navratilova tweeted: “You can’t just proclaim yourself a female and be able to compete against women. There must be some standards and having a penis and competing as a woman would not fit that standard.” McKinnon was not pleased by this and began a tirade against Navratilova. In her Sunday Times essay, Navratilova describes this behavior as bullyish and argues that, while she feels able to take a stand, she worries that other women will be “cowed into silence or submission.”

McKinnon refers to Rachel Mckinnon, a “transgendered woman,” who recently won the Gold Medal at the World Indoor Women’s Cycling Championship. McKinnon had competed in cycling as a male until the age of 29.

In reward for her stand, Navratilova was thrown off the board of the LGBT advocacy group Athlete Ally. So much for tolerance and free speech by ‘trans-rights’ activists on the Left.

Transgender Dominance in Public Education is Dangerous

Inset.2.11.13.2019This is the most serious area of all for both the present and future of American and western society for as one goes, so goes the other. The forced progression of ‘trans-rights’ advocacy in public education is appalling and cause for grave concern.

This insidious movement is requiring access to K-12 public students to present a biologically false and unhealthy premise as a required part of the curriculum. Children as young as five years old are to be indoctrinated into advocacy for transgenderism and, as noted in part one of this series, potentially turned into sacrifices for mentally disturbed adults.

Moreover, these policies in public education force young children and teens of different biological sexes together in potentially hazardous situations, especially for young girls. One prominent example of such forcing comes from the Fairfax, County, Virginia school district, just south of Washington D.C.

The new policy holds that boys who self-identify as female can use the girls’ shower facilities, locker rooms, and bathrooms, and it was voted in without any time for public debate and adopted within weeks.

The article is from 2018 and the author notes the policy passed in 2015 and faced harsh criticism from parents when it was announced. The policy was apparently put on indefinite hold as the action to draft regulations for it has been tabled until further notice.

One of the obvious factors the Leftist advocates don’t want to mention is that this is far more than simply teaching something in a classroom. It has dangerous real-life effects on children at vulnerable stages of their sexual development and could be traumatized or worse by seeing a male ‘identifying’ as a female in the locker room environment, as evidenced by a recent incident in Pennsylvania.

Attorneys for a female Pennsylvania high school student filed a federal complaint last week alleging her privacy was violated and that she was subjected to sexual harassment when a transgender student was using the same locker room, WNEP-TV reported. …Lawyers for the student posted a video online describing what they say happened. The unnamed female student appears in the clip and said “while I was putting on my pants I heard a man’s voice, so I turned around, and he’s standing there on the opposite aisle looking at me. I glanced down and could tell that he was wearing women’s underwear and what was underneath it.” She added: “When I knew that a man was looking at me, I felt very violated and very scared — especially looking at me while I’m getting dressed.”

The school district stood behind its policy but did not offer any further comments. However, some of the criticism this young lady received on social media was disgustingly brutal.

Some observers commenting on the Facebook page for the Law Office of Andrew H. Shaw, which is handling the case, also sided with the complaining female student, others were decidedly against her and her attorneys:

…“Sounds like your client is the one who is guilty of voyeurism. WTF is she doing checking out other people’s genitals? Shameful ambulance chasers.”                            …“The student called the trans student a ‘man.’ I think we all know where this hate is coming from. From her parents. Using ‘man’ is scary! Transphobia is bigotry.”    …“F*** you transphobes.”

transphobia, gender identityAs nasty and idiotic as these statements may be, they manifest and reveal much about the attitudes from Leftist ‘trans-rights’ activists. For instance, the second comment says that the girl’s reactions are full of “hate,” and accuses her of being “transphobic” and therefore bigoted.

A phobia is an irrational fear. This student had a perfectly reasonable trepidation about a man being in the women’s locker room while she is dressing. Moreover, who is actually phobic when they state that “using [the word] ‘man’ is scary!”?

As far as being hateful goes, the third comment should dispel any illusions as to which side of this argument is projecting hate. Another reminder that the Left is always projecting their behavior to accuse their adversaries.

These things are the result of faculty lounge nonsense in higher education swiftly becoming mainstream. “Gender Study” departments in universities across the land have been teaching ‘Gender Identity’ theory as gospel for years especially since 2013 when the DSM-V changed the designation of people suffering from this mental illness from Gender Identity Disorder to Gender Dysphoria.

This movement was also given support by former President Barack Obama in 2016, through addition to current Title IX anti-discrimination law. This served to give a Presidential ‘seal of approval’ to ‘trans-rights’ advocacy and education in public schools across the land.

The Obama administration is sending out an edict today [5/13/2016] to every school district in the country, insisting they open bathrooms, locker rooms, and showers to all children, regardless of sex, or risk federal discrimination lawsuits and yanked federal funds. Schools must treat children as transgender and thus entitled to open facilities access as soon as parents say they are, not after a medical diagnosis or birth certificate change.

The goal of such an accelerated pace to inject ‘gender identity’ teaching is apparent. The Left’s ‘trans-rights’ advocates wish to normalize their disturbing practice by “reproducing” the only way they can, through recruiting children to expand their population.

The many risks to society posed by the ‘trans-rights’ movement threaten the basic fabric of civilization. Moreover, the battleground of this gender ‘identity’ war includes even more intrusive edicts than Obama’s 2016 pronouncement from various legal venues in America today.

Part three of this series will examine that phenomenon of the incremental establishment of legal status upon the transgender ‘community,’ at local, state and national levels in America, as well as why the “T” should be dropped from the LGBT acronym.

Why do you boast of evil, O mighty man? The steadfast love of God endures all the day. Your tongue plots destruction, like a sharp razor, you worker of deceit. You love evil more than good, and lying more than speaking what is right. Selah Psalm 52:1-3 [ESV]

D.T. Osborn

Sources: The Holy Bible, English Standard Version, Crossway Bibles, 2001

Featured and Top Image courtesy of Penn State’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 1 courtesy of Sangudo’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 2 courtesy of torbakhopper’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 3 courtesy of melissa.meister’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License

All other sources linked or cited in the text

Originally published in TIL Journal

The Left’s Illegal, Immoral, and Idiotic Pseudo-Impeachment [Video]

Trump, Impeachment

Photo from a February 2017 demonstration

In the past few weeks, the world has witnessed a series of historically unique political events courtesy of the Leftists occupying the United States Congress. All of these events are honed in on their last-ditch, desperation shot to stop the juggernaut that is President Donald J. Trump.

It is evident that the Left realizes the truth of the situation heading into a presidential election year in 2020. Each day Trump succeeds in any area, whether a speech electrifying mammoth crowds or his foreign policy victories, hammers home the understanding within the progressive psyche that no Democrat can defeat the President in this election.

This has whittled the choices of the Left down to three measures. Their chances of succeeding with these are slim and none and, as the saying goes, ‘slim just left town.’

The choices are first, that the Left can somehow engage in enough widespread voter fraud to snatch a phony ‘victory’ from the jaws of defeat. That possibility should not be taken lightly and measures such as a mandatory voter-ID law should be passed to help prevent this.

However, this avenue of attack is almost certain to fail should the forces on the Left attempt it. The 2020 elections will likely be the most scrutinized in history, and conservatives in all arenas have become much more aware of potential voter fraud since 2016.

Second, the Left can put its full efforts into influencing the vote through social media manipulation, however, this is also a vain effort 2020. The recent testimony of Dr. Robert Epstein revealed that millions of votes had been influenced toward Hillary Clinton through the machinations of the giant internet platform in 2016.

Of course, that hidden effort did not result in Hillary winning the presidency. Now that this information is public going into 2020, it is highly unlikely that another such attempt would be successful in defeating the President.

This leaves choice number three, which is the course the Left is currently embarking upon, to attempt to impeach President Trump. In their view, if somehow they can get rid of Trump in this manner, then the election will be theirs by default.

I’m not one to rain on the Left’s parade, well actually I am, but this effort is also doomed to failure for three big reasons. It is a pseudo-Impeachment that is illegal, immoral, and idiotic.

It Is Illegal

Inset.1.10.26.2019The U.S. Constitution gives the Impeachment power to the House of Representatives with but one statement within Clause 5, Section 2 of Article 1;

The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

Section 3 of Article 1 deals with the functions of the Senate. The Impeachment process is explained in more detail concerning the role of the Senate in Clause 6 and 7.

The Senate shall have the sole power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be under Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment, and Punishment, according to the law.

Article 2 of the Constitution establishes the working rules of the Executive Branch of the Federal government. Section 4 of Article 2 provides the conditions under which a President could be impeached and removed.

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, and other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Inset.2.10.26.2019The current ‘Impeachment’ inquiry by the House Intelligence Committee violates the Constitution with its limited and secretive procedures and is thus fundamentally illegal. The legal requirement is that the House, not a committee in the House, has Impeachment power.

Rep. Adam Schiff [D-CA], the Committee Chair invoked rules keeping testimony ‘secret’ and not allowing subpoenas or ‘witnesses’ other than from Democratic sources. This is an unprecedented procedure by the House when dealing with the Impeachment of the President.

In prior Impeachment proceedings of any sort, nothing was conducted in secret and advocates for the President were allowed to participate. That was rightly the case because of the unique importance and seriousness of Impeachment.

Impeachment is arguably the most important criminal procedure in the nation for it seeks to remove the choice of the people who voted. Thus every part of the procedure should be open to public observance and legal participation by both sides of the argument which has been the case until now.

Moreover, the failure to even name a potential charge for any particular crime and keep the proceedings cloaked from view is more reminiscent of secret courts in tyrannical regimes throughout history.

Schiff and his allies have attempted to justify the secrecy by likening the Committee’s sessions to Grand Jury indictment proceedings. These are secret and designed to indict and move forward with criminal prosecution.

However, Impeachment functions more as a pre-trial hearing then as a Grand Jury indictment. When actual Impeachment happens, the real trial begins in the Senate, and both procedures are rightly public with representation for both accused and accuser.

To deny all of this is to foist an illegal pseudo-Impeachment upon the people of the United States. The determination of the Left to do so regardless of this and other destructive consequences renders the effort immoral as well.

It Is Immoral

ImpeachmentThe intent of the Left is simply to gain unassailable political power over America and its citizenry. Much like the Borg of Star Trek fame, they possess a hive mentality toward that end such that any means, moral or immoral to accomplish its goal is justified for the Left.

The pseudo-Impeachment attempt is one of those immoral means employed by the Left against America. It is immoral because it is aimed at forcing the removal of a duly elected President illegally without due cause and thus usurping the will of the people of the nation.

The accusation against President Trump is both ludicrous and fallacious. He is accused of pressuring the Ukrainian President Kesleyev to investigate a political rival for corruption in order to gain a political advantage in the 2020 election in a phone conversation in July of this year.

We know this accusation is bogus because President Trump provided the actual transcript of the phone call to the public, including the members of the House of Representatives. The transcript reveals that nothing resembling the Left’s preposterous claims is true.

At this point, some readers might ask, “What about the ‘whistleblower’ complaint?” First of all, the ‘whistleblower’s’ complaint which began this newest fiasco is a moot point since we have the transcript of the call.

In fact, the so-called ‘whistleblower’ is now so clearly irrelevant that Chairman Schiff has decided he or she might not need to testify at all.

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) on Sunday said that testimony from the intelligence community whistleblower at the center of the House impeachment inquiry against President Trump may no longer be necessary. “Given that we already have the call record, we don’t need the whistleblower who wasn’t on the call to tell us what took place during the call,” he told Margaret Brennan during an interview on CBS’s “Face the Nation.”

It is telling that this pseudo-Impeachment is the culmination of the TDS infected Left’s efforts since before Donald Trump became the President. This was evidenced by a ‘celebrity’ video attempt in December of 2016 to convince the electors to change their pledged votes and go against Donald Trump.

The celebrity video was accompanied by numerous street protests demanding electors not support the then President-elect, against the voters of their respective states. As seen in the video, electors received a lot of pressure from Leftists in the form of calls, letters, emails to abandon their trust regardless of their promises.

The first national public official to call for impeachment was Rep. Maxine Waters [D-CA]. In a recent interview with ESSENCE online, Waters stated,

I have been calling for and talking about the impeachment of this president since his inauguration.

When that statement is considered closely, it actually means that Waters believed it was a right or moral action to impeach a President who had literally not done anything in the office of the President! She would have been deliriously happy if formal Impeachment hearings would have begun on January 20, 2017, immediately after Trump took the oath of office.

Moreover, as can be seen from the top photograph, public demonstrations pushing for Trump’s Impeachment began a month after his inauguration.

Essentially for the Left, the entirety of Trump’s presidency has been an Impeachment investigation searching for a crime. Any possible crime, even with invented evidence, is tossed to the salivating Leftmedia and they invariably use it to excoriate the President and his supporters, while calling for Trump’s destruction.

It is immoral to visit political and personal destruction upon this President as the Left is doing with their pseudo-Impeachment. It has been so since the calls for Impeachment began.

It Is Idiotic 

Inset.4.10.26.2019The Left’s illegal, immoral, pseudo-Impeachment is also an idiotic political move. Moreover, there is already evidence that simply efforts at an ‘Inquiry’ concerning Impeachment have backfired with increasing support for President Trump.

For instance, since the rhetoric of Impeachment became incessant, Trump’s re-election campaign coffers grew by 125 million dollars last quarter, which is a record and many times the DNC’s fundraising efforts.

“President Trump has built a juggernaut of a campaign, raising record amounts of money at a record pace,” said Trump campaign manager Brad Parscale.  RNC Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel credited Democratic attacks on Trump for motivating supporters to donate in record numbers.

This surge was a reflection of over 300,000 new donors added to the RNC in the third quarter as well.

President Trump’s 2020 re-election effort raised $45 million online in the third quarter on a surge of small-dollar donations driven by 313,000 first-time donors, campaign officials said. The money, which the campaign raised jointly with the Republican National Committee, was part of the $125 million overall raised in the quarter. The online amount wasn’t previously disclosed and represents a 29% increase over the second quarter.

 

The reality is that going through with this pseudo-Impeachment only ends badly for the Democratic party. If they manage to actually vote to ‘Impeach’ and can’t get the votes, they look petty and Trump wins 2020 in a landslide.

If they vote for Impeachment’ it is dead on arrival in the Senate, and Trump remains in office. The Democrats look foolish and petty and Trump destroys them in 2020.

The President is already packing out stadiums and campaigning at a furious pace. The Left’s ‘Impeachment’ furor is only serving to create a backlash that increases his support.

However, the political Left may now be cornered by reality. They cannot beat Trump at the ballot box, so they hope against hope to damage him with a pseudo-Impeachment.

The attempt will be futile, but that fact won’t stop the attempt from being made. Moreover, it is what the Left may try after failing with pseudo-Impeachment that is perhaps more concerning, but that is another article.

Why do you boast of evil, O mighty man? The steadfast love of God endures all the day. Your tongue plots destruction, like a sharp razor, you worker of deceit. Psalm 52:1-2 [ESV]

D.T. Osborn

Sources: The Holy Bible, English Standard Version, Crossway Bibles, 2001

Featured and Top Image courtesy of Elvert Barnes Flickr page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 1 courtesy of The COM Library’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 2 courtesy of Brookings Institution’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 3 courtesy of Gerard Girbes Berges’ Flickr page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 4 courtesy of Quinn Dombrowski’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License

All other sources linked or cited in the text

Originally published in TIL Journal

 

 

Why We Must Not ‘Move on’ from Mueller [Video]

2082098332_2bedcff005_b

On Wednesday, July 24, 2019, former Special Counsel Robert Mueller gave testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee concerning the ‘Mueller Report’ which could not nail President Trump on any charges of or related to collusion with Russia in the 2016 presidential campaign. Mueller’s team of lawyers, dedicated Democrats, and Trump haters all, spent over two years investigating almost anyone remotely associated with the President.

As everybody in the world now knows, this team of ‘professionals’ could not find any evidence against President Trump of, well anything, which was clear when Mueller held his rather bizarre press conference on May 29, 2019. However, during that press conference, Mr. Mueller gave us this gem.

If we had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.

Mueller also stated that he would not testify and that anything he would say should that happen would simply repeat “his” report. However, it turned out that he was pressured enough to come before Congress and testify, and that performance is one the Leftists have come to regret.

A Pitiful And Revealing Testimony of Leftist Bias

The entire testimony was an over six-hour marathon in which Mr. Mueller stumbled and bumbled over his words and numerous times needed to be read back words from “his” report. Even so, with the careful questioning of the Republican members of the Judiciary Committee some critical items became clear which might have been overlooked, and certainly would not have been mentioned at all on CNN or MSNBC or the alphabet network Leftmedia.

One of those items was exposed by the questioning of Rep. Jim Jordan, a Republican from Ohio.

Jordan’s questions cut through the fog to show the blatant bias of Mueller and his team. Mueller’s hit squad was more than happy to charge Republicans who worked with Trump, but not the man who began this sorry saga and lied to the FBI three times!

This was an abuse of the power of “prosecutorial discretion,” to the highest degree. It resulted in an especially gross miscarriage of justice with the case of General Michael  Flynn.

In addition to being a three-star General, Flynn was also a former Director of National Intelligence for President Trump. In a nutshell, the FBI arranged a deceptive ‘interview’ with Flynn and the agents who conducted it did so under false pretenses.

Mueller testimonyFlynn pleaded guilty to the charge of lying to the FBI, but only after the legal bills had forced him to go bankrupt and sell his sole remaining asset, the family home. He was also concerned about a possible threat from authorities to go after his son, who had accompanied Flynn as a business partner on overseas ventures.

Moreover, after the initial FBI agents conducted their interview, they did not believe Flynn had lied.

According to Flynn sentencing requests, then-deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe pressured then-National Security Adviser Flynn not to have a lawyer present during a seemingly relaxed, casual meeting with the FBI – the one that they said he lied at. …This might be part of the worst part of Michael Flynn’s political persecution: The agents interviewing him never thought he lied.

Andrew McCabe was later fired from the FBI for lying to the Office of the Inspector General in 2017. He lied three times, according to the OIG report, once to the FBI and twice to the OIG concerning whether he had authorized illegal leaks to the Wall Street Journal newspaper.

What he told investigators may also contradict what former FBI director James Comey testified before Congress, and indicates Obama’s Justice Department pressured the FBI during its investigation of Hillary Clinton.

Eventually, McCabe admitted he had authorized the leaks,  and yet, McCabe has not been charged to this day with any crime. Hopefully, Rep. Jordan is correct and the current investigation of the investigators under Attorney General Bill Barr can remedy that.

The Mysterious ‘Non-Exoneration’ Statement

The Mueller report was split into two sections. Part 1 dealt with the so-called Russia collusion matter, and Part 2 delved into whether or not Trump obstructed the collusion investigation itself.

The conclusion of Mueller’s team as stated in the report was that they could not find evidence of any collusion or obstruction of justice. However, a very mysterious and dangerous statement about not exonerating the President was also put into the report, and Rep. John Ratcliffe [R-TX] honed in on that statement.

Ratcliffe’s questioning revealed two critical points concerning this farce the Left has tried to push upon the American people, both of which connect with the statement that the Special Counsel’s findings “did not exonerate” the President of guilt.

The first point is that the Left’s obsession with taking down President Trump led them to believe they were justified in using tactics counter to every legal guideline that exists in America today. Tactics they would employ against no one else except someone they viewed as a mortal enemy, which in this case was Trump.

The second point concerns the nature of this particular tactic of non-exoneration as stated in the report. As Rep. Ratcliffe noted, this tries to invert the bedrock of American jurisprudence that every person is to be presumed innocent until proven guilty!

The importance of that principle cannot be overstated. It is the reason that verdicts, whether by a judge or jury, are always stated as the defendant is “guilty” or “not guilty,” and never stated as innocent or exonerated of a crime.

It is never the job of any prosecutor to try to “prove” the innocence of anyone because that is already assumed until it can be proved they are guilty. If this cannot be done, exoneration is automatically conferred to the accused.

Mueller testimonyThus, President Trump is indeed exonerated here regardless of any statements in any report, or the Leftist’s attempts to make exoneration something that needs proving. However, it also should alert us to the dangerous precedent the statement could set if not challenged.

The peril is that if the Left is allowed to get away with such manipulation of the truth and ‘exoneration’ as a justice standard is embraced, true justice will become a thing of the past in America. We would become no better than any tyrannical government that has ever existed if anyone has to prove they didn’t commit a crime of which they were accused.

The blatant Leftist bias and the presumption of guilt rather than innocence are why we cannot just ‘move on’ from this. I hope and pray that A.G. Barr’s investigation into the Mueller travesty will result in an official repudiation of the investigative methods and the dangerous judicial philosophy which was behind it.

When justice is done, it is a joy to the righteous but terror to evildoers. Proverbs 21:15 [ESV]

D.T. Osborn

Sources: The Holy Bible, English Standard Version, Crossway Bibles, 2001

Featured and Top image courtesy of Hans Splinter’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 1 courtesy of OhLizz’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 2 courtesy of Trending Topics 2019’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License

All other sources linked or cited in the text

Originally published in TIL Journal

Mueller Confirms His Anti-Trump Bias With His Own Mouth and More [Video]

Mueller impeachment

Special Counsel Robert Mueller made a short public statement on May 29, 2019, which confirmed the Leftist bias of the Russia ‘investigation’ and of his report. Moreover, he banished all doubt of his personal bias against the President of the United States and passed the baton to Congress to complete the attempt to destroy him.

The most remarkable part of this was that Mueller did all of that with one sentence.

If we had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.

To the Leftist press and anyone else who believes this is somehow a plausible accusation against Trump, I would ask this question. Doe’s anyone seriously believe that if Mueller’s team did have confidence the president committed a crime, they wouldn’t have said so?

It would have been shouted from every Leftist media outlet in the world! Which, after the most thorough and hostile of investigations over two years, clearly means Mueller was indeed confident that no crime had been committed.

In other words, we couldn’t find Trump guilty of anything, but that doesn’t mean he should be considered innocent. First of all, this turns the millennia of civilized jurisprudence on its head by assuming that the individual must prove he is innocent, rather than making the state prove he is guilty.

Secondly, this gives verbal confirmation of what most conservatives have known all along, Mueller and his cohorts are Leftist anti-Trump zealots and are hopelessly and dangerously bias.

Mueller’s Investigation Was Tainted from the Start

Mueller and impeachmentWhen Mueller became the Special Counsel in the investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election he put together a very select team of 16 lawyers to help carry it out. 13 of those were Democrats, and 3 have no political affiliation. Mueller himself is an anti-Trump Republican, of that there is now no reasonable doubt.

Thus the very makeup of Mueller’s team manifested a conflict of interest and exhibited Leftist anti-Trump bias at the beginning. Many prominent conservative commentators have mentioned this concern before, and the President himself recently mentioned that, in addition to another interesting fact about Mueller being turned down for the FBI Director’s job.

Robert Mueller came to the Oval Office (along with other potential candidates) seeking to be named the Director of the FBI. He had already been in that position for 12 years, I told him NO. The next day he was named Special Counsel – A total Conflict of Interest. NICE!

Over two years ago this whole fiasco was launched into motion by a blatantly anti-Trump panel of lawyers out to take down the President of the United States. Yet, despite their best [or worst] efforts, they couldn’t accomplish that task for the Left.

Mueller and impeachmentOnce the Mueller report was fully released six weeks ago the Leftmedia could no longer provide any semblance of cover for failing to destroy Trump. The accurate ruling of no evidence of collusion or obstruction by the Trump campaign or Trump himself had dashed their flimsy hopes of defeating their mortal enemy.

Moreover, some of what was revealed cast grave suspicion upon the FBI in particular. Enough to raise the eyebrows of Attorney General William Barr and cause him to begin an investigation into the investigators.

This, along with the upcoming Justice Department Inspector General’s report which is expected to have bad news for the FBI, put real pressure on the anti-Trump Left. Enough pressure to scuttle their hopes to defeat President Trump in 2020.

Well never fear dear anti-Trumpers because your hero ‘Bobby boy’ Mueller came riding to the rescue with his one-and-only public statement [maybe?] about this. In effect, he opines, I couldn’t do what you and I both wanted, but I can help you punish this dastardly, horrible president.

Mueller Passes the ‘Impeachment’ Baton

It appears that Mueller, who also announced the closing of the office of Special Counsel and his return to private practice in his statement, gave his final gift to the Left with the suggestion of impeaching President Trump. However this may seem, it was not a move born of desperation, but a deliberate and planned effort on Mueller’s part.

The introduction to the volume two of our report explains that decision. It explains that under long-standing department policy a president cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional. …Charging the president with a crime was, therefore, not an option we could consider. …the constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing.

Mueller and impeachmentThe ‘process’ Mueller means is, of course, impeachment by the House of Representatives. In effect, Mueller is saying to his fellow anti-Trumpers, I’ve done my part, now it’s your part to finish the job of destroying President Trump.

Understand that Mueller already knew from the beginning that he couldn’t actually charge the president with a crime because he wasn’t conducting a criminal investigation in the first place. He didn’t even charge the Russians because he knew he couldn’t so he sent their cases to the District Court of Washington D.C. for legal indictment.

That indictment was filed officially in February of 2018 under this heading.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA …

INDICTMENT

The Grand Jury for the District of Columbia charges:

Mueller also knew from the start that his investigation would never take down Trump on its own. He knew that his real job was to provide impeachment fodder for the Democrats going into the 2020 election cycle.

The reactions of the Left politicos and the Leftmedia, as Tucker Carlson pointed out, show that Mueller was successful in passing on the impeachment baton. The clamor for impeaching President Trump is now at an all-time high in those quarters, thanks to Robert Mueller.

Now that this baton has been passed, we will see if the House will run with it. I believe they will try, and they will make the attempt relatively soon.

The Left really has no choice but to go for impeachment before the 2020 election if they do it at all. Otherwise, they will have to live with four more years of a renewed Trump administration advancing American greatness, and for them, that thought is anathema.

So, get ready for the impeachment show, America. I hope and pray that in the midst of this dangerous foolishness, the majority of the country may see the real Leftist agenda of destruction displayed as never before and reject it completely.

The wise lay up knowledge, but the mouth of a fool brings ruin near. Proverbs 10:14 [ESV]

D.T. Osborn

Sources: The Holy Bible, English Standard Version, Crossway Bibles, 2001

Featured and Top Image courtesy of Marco Verch’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 1 courtesy of DonkeyHotey’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 2 courtesy of Charles Edward Miller’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 3 courtesy of Master Steve Rapport’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License

All other sources linked or cited in the text

Originally published in TIL Journal

A Behavioral Experiment: Predicting the Pro-Abortion Left’s Response to Alabama and Company [Video]

Scientist.article.5.23.2019

There has been a number of states who recently passed measures to severely limit and outlaw abortion. These pro-life laws have brought down the wrath of the Leftists who favor abortion at all times and for any reason.

The most controversial of these so far is the new Alabama law criminalizing abortion except for saving the life of the mother. With this and other such activities in mind, I decided to conduct an experiment concerning Leftist’s mindsets on abortion and see if they really were as easy to predict as I surmised.

This experiment was conducted in two steps. First, I drew from my experience in the pro-life movement for 36 years and predicted seven reactions from the Left to this law in advance. Then I compared my predictions to the actual responses represented by 10 articles either giving the Leftist response or pieces talking about multiple responses.

Predicting the Predictable

Leftist, pro-abortion

My predictions took the form of generalizations, as I had no way of knowing in advance the precise wording which was used in the articles. Here are my seven prognostications of Leftist responses to the new pro-life legislation in states such as Alabama and Georgia.

1.) In at least one article, [and likely many] the response that the new law is attempting to regulate women’s bodies will be mentioned.
2.) Ditto for one or more mentions that the law is a threat to Roe v. Wade.
3.)There will be false assertions of what the law actually requires.
4.) In some manner, the humanity of the unborn child will be denied.
5.) It will be asserted that the law will harm women.
6.) Trump will be criticized because he is pro-life.
7.) The ‘far-right’ and/or the ‘religious right,’ will be blamed and scorned.

I made these predictions at 8:51AM, CDT,  on May 18, 2019. I realize that the reader will have no way of knowing for certain that I didn’t read the article responses ahead of time except for my word that I didn’t do so.

However, besides my assurance, when the results are tabulated it should bolster my claims… I hope. I returned to the experiment for part two on 5/21/2019 and checked on how my predictions panned out.

The results are calculated by number for each source that was cited. Whether or not a particular prediction was actually used more than once in an article was not noted, merely counted as one ‘fulfillment’ of a prediction.

It should be noted that this is far from any kind of scientific survey. I selected 10 examples only, which is insufficient for any definitive conclusion according to statistical science.

I suggest, however, that even this small sample could be expanded over a longer period of time with more responses and the results would vary only slightly. More importantly, even this smattering of evidence reveals the priorities and motivations of the Left when they try to argue for a woman’s ‘right to choose.’

Each example of at least one predicted response is noted in the list below. I read each article and recorded the instances when a predicted Leftist reaction/response occurred and assigning it a number from my list of 7.

218px-Protesting_Illinois_6th_District_Republican_Congressman_Peter_Roskam_Chicago_Illinois_7-26-18_2843_(42951185284)In other words, in the first article, I found at least one example of my number 2 prediction that the new laws would be seen as a threat to Roe v. Wade. This ‘raw data’ if you will, is compiled and analyzed afterward, as will be seen.

1.) From a Reuters story, 5/16/2019: Responses 2, 4, and 6 were shown in this.  https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-abortion-republicans-idUSKCN1SM2KL

2.) From a Washington Post story, 5/15/2019: Responses 2, 4, 5, and 6 occurred here. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/democratic-2020-candidates-warn-roe-v-wade-at-stake-after-alabama-abortion-bans-passage/2019/05/15/f4f77c7a-7719-11e9-bd25-c989555e7766_story.html?utm_term=.9f0f3f2842b3

3.) From Townhall.com story about the reactions 5/16/2019: Responses 1, 2, and 4 are used in this example.   https://townhall.com/columnists/davidlimbaugh/2019/05/17/democrats-unhinged-over-alabamas-abortion-bill-n2546477

4.) From a NY Times article on 5/14/2019: This uses predicted responses 2 and 5  https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/14/us/abortion-law-alabama.html

5.) From a NY Times ‘op-ed’ with a pro-abortion actress, 5/15/2019: Here we find responses 1, 4, and 5.  https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/15/style/busy-philipps-abortion-youknowme.html?  action=click&module=RelatedCoverage&pgtype=Article&region=Footer

6.) From an article concerning Leftist talking points on “The Federalist” site highlighting social media posts from the pro-abort crowd: Here it can be seen that points 1, 2, 4, and 5 are used.  https://thefederalist.com/2019/05/17/many-pro-choice-talking-points-border-propaganda/?utm_source=The+Federalist+List&utm_campaign=215d30f116-RSS_The_Federalist_Daily_Updates_w_Transom&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_cfcb868ceb-215d30f116-84040107

7.)From a National Review article concerning NPR’s rules for discussing abortion: Predicted response number 4 is mentioned.  https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/nprs-abortion-rules/

8.)From a May 19, 2019 ‘Intellectual Conservative’ article on leftist reactions: Here predictions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7 can be found. http://www.intellectualconservative.com/the-progressives-socialist-anti-science-on-abortion/

9.)From a May 21, 2019, Townhall Article on a pro-abortion rally in D.C.: Numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 are featured. https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bethbaumann/2019/05/21/pro-abortionists-held-a-stopthebans-rally-outside-the-supreme-court-heres-what-n2546698?utm_source=thdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&newsletterad=05/22/2019&bcid=8620a513a8eac12722df4b6aed35298b&recip=27779030

10.)From May 21, 2019, on ‘Twitchy.com’ about the pro-abort protest in D.C.: This piece featured responses 1, 3, 4, and 5. https://twitchy.com/sarahd-313035/2019/05/21/wtf-is-she-smoking-dem-rep-jackie-speier-takes-a-page-from-aocs-book-to-argue-for-abortion-rights-video/?utm_source=twtydaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&bcid=8620a513a8eac12722df4b6aed35298b

Results and Some Surprises

Leftist, Pro-abortionThe results of this ‘experiment’ yielded a mixed bag of the expected and the surprising among the pro-abort Left’s responses.

All of the predicted responses appeared at least once. However, the top four responses are revealing about the mindset of the Leftists as these give vital clues to what they consider most important in the abortion battle.

The highest frequency pro-abort response among those I had predicted was number ‘4.) In some manner, the humanity of the unborn child will be denied.’  In 9 of the 10 examples, this response was observed.

The next most frequent Leftist response was number ‘2.) …mentions that the law is a threat to Roe v. Wade.’ This was used in 7 different pieces.

The third most frequent response was recorded 6 times in two different articles. First is prediction ‘1.) In at least one article, [and likely many] the response that the new law is attempting to regulate women’s bodies will be mentioned’ which is tied with response number ‘5.) It will be asserted that the law will harm women.’

The other three predicted responses had a large drop in stating what I assumed they would. Only 3 pieces used predicted reaction number ‘3.) There will be false assertions of what the law actually requires.’ Two articles used the number 6 prediction that ‘Trump will be criticized because he is pro-life.’

The most unexpected result to this author was that only one response used number 7.) The ‘far-right’ and/or the ‘religious right,’ will be blamed and scorned. In some cases responses that I should have predicted also appear in these articles I examined.

One of those is the false claim that the Bible and Christianity are supportive of abortion, which was cited in at least one case. This journal has covered that claim in a number of past articles.

Another false claim from the Left that I should have expected was the accusation that these laws are a reflection of ‘racism’ on the part of conservatives. The racism claim did surface, however, I did not record the number of times it appeared.

In The Final Analysis

From this small experiment, we can only make limited assumptions rather than hard conclusions. Yet, these assumptions are not without merit and can be instructive to gain some understanding of the destructive worldview that pro-abort Leftists embrace, in order to rightly oppose its evil design.

Of course, the pro-abort Left could as easily make predictions about the pro-life responses to these new state laws concerning abortion. I would concede that, however, I also would stress that one side is predictable for its object to preserve life, while the other is staunch in a campaign to destroy life.

Leftist, pro-abortion

If the frequency of occurrence indicates importance, the factor the pro-abort Left considers most important is that the humanity of the unborn is denied always, regardless of the truth. The pro-abortion mindset is that above all else and at any cost, it cannot be admitted that the unborn child is a living human being.

The second most important point is that Roe v. Wade must be untouchable. Roe v. Wade is the Left’s symbolic Holy Grail and it is considered a sacred validation of an absolute right.

The problem with that position is the history of bad precedent from the U.S. Supreme Court, namely the 1857 “Dred Scott” decision. “Roe” has been compared many times with this infamous SCOTUS ruling which enshrined the institution of slavery as a supposed constitutional ‘right’.

The comparison is from a different era and addresses a different issue, but the point is the same. That point being that just because the SCOTUS makes a ruling does not automatically create a newly-imagined Constitutional right.

The third item on the pro-abortion acolytes’ list of most cherished beliefs is that pro-life advocates wish to regulate and control women’s bodies. Any threat to the full legalization without exception of abortion on demand is a perceived threat to a woman’s bodily autonomy, and therefore must be opposed.

The final important finding is that abortion is portrayed as good for women’s ‘health,’ while any other solution to a pregnancy, including birth, is harmful to women. This fiction is peddled constantly and is easily refuted by many facts, not the least of which is this, as Anna Paprocki writes in the Federalist,

There is no federal abortion reporting requirement. Even the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute acknowledges that the current “patchwork of surveillance efforts” relies on “incomplete” reports from states and that California—estimated to account for 17 percent, or one out of every six abortions in the country—is one of three states that “do not report to the CDC at all.” Guttmacher uses voluntary reporting from abortionists, filtered through its own ideological lens, which fails to fill these gaping holes.

The following video demonstrates the use of these four beliefs employed by the pro-abort Left in a brief debate recently shown on CNN.

The desperation of the Leftist pro-aborts is evident from the blatant denial of reality especially on the part of the woman in the video, as well as the deflection of the host. For example, Cuomo is correct when he says that no states currently allow for the killing of a child already born in an attempted abortion.

However, he also fails to mention that Virginia recently tried to pass such a law which was proposed in January of this year. The law failed to pass in that state, but it is a harbinger of things to come if Leftists have their way.

America must make the choice to embrace either life or death and in doing so embrace either God’s curse or His blessings. The lovers of abortion today are clearly favoring a choice of death without understanding the terrible consequences that will follow.

I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse. Therefore choose life, that you and your offspring may live.  Deuteronomy 30:19 [ESV]

D.T. Osborn

Sources: The Holy Bible, English Standard Version, Crossway Bibles, 2001

Featured and Top Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons by Isaiah Mahanga – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 1 courtesy of Wikimedia Commons by JRBrown – Public Domain
Inset Image 2 courtesy of Wikimedia Commons by Charles Edward Miller – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 3 courtesy of Wikimedia Commons by Sam Pullara – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 4 courtesy of Wikimedia Commons by Rebecca W. – Creative Commons License

All other sources linked or cited in the text

Originally published in TIL Journal

The Mueller Collusion Circus Theatre of the Absurd [Video]

Collusion Obstruction

Since the release of the Mueller report the Leftist political-media mafia in America has behaved like a teen caught altering an F to an A. In other words, they are being true to character, especially during the era of President Trump.

The Left is increasingly at a loss to provide actual reasons for opposing the President now that the Mueller boogeyman has been defeated. For two years these fanatical miscreants have awakened each morning and offered obeisance to the office of the special counsel only to find their fervent prayers to that idol unanswered.

In spite of all of their spite, President Trump remains in office and moreover has done an outstanding job on behalf of the American people. All the while, this President has labored against unprecedented opposition both in the Congress and the Judiciary, as well as virulent and truly ugly Leftmedia hatred.

How is the Left handling the revelation that President Trump did not collude with the Russians, or anyone else, to ‘fix’ the 2016 election? They are handling it with all the immaturity and obtuse deflection of a toddler, which is what has come to be expected these days.

The Mueller Collusion Circus headlines the political ‘theatre of the absurd,’ in 2019. It is a classic comedy of errors, which is to say it is a tragedy, in two acts.

Act 1: The Collusion Delusion

Collusion ObstructionIt has now been almost two months since Attorney General William Barr released his four-page summary of the Mueller report. The immediate reaction from the Left to its release was twofold.

The most common response was along the lines of, “we have to see the whole report because we think you, the AG, are a partisan liar.” This was a typical quote from the political spectrum.

his letter leaves more questions than answers. A sanitized summary from Trump’s hand-picked bodyguard is not acceptable. Barr has his finger on the scale to protect Trump. The full report should be released immediately,” Rep. Bill Pascrell Jr., D-N.J., in a tweet. [italics added]

AG Barr was more than accommodating to the demands and has presented the full, over 400 page Mueller report, at the beginning of May with as much material revealed as is legally allowable. Yet that was not enough for the Leftists, and they demanded the AG actually break the law or he should be held in contempt of Congress for… umm…not breaking the law! Rep. Jarrold Nadler [D-NY] was,

“…asking in a subpoena for Attorney General Barr to break the law or else he would hold him in contempt,”… After voting to hold Barr in contempt, the New York Democrat told reporters that he and his fellow Democrats “did not relish” holding the attorney general in contempt for not turning over the entire fully unredacted special counsel Robert Mueller’s report and its underlying evidence, but felt they “had no choice.”

There is a particular phrase here that can easily be ignored but is extremely important in determining the intentions of Leftists in Congress. Nadler said that they wanted not simply the unredacted Mueller report, but also ‘its underlying evidence.’

Obstruction collusionThe ‘underlying evidence’ refers to the over 1 million documents provided to the special counsel during his investigation. This generates a natural question, ‘Why would they want so many documents?’

The answer would be that those documents spread over six congressional committees and their staff would most likely be leaked to the Leftmedia in a desperate attempt to try and damage Trump in 2020. When one considers that an illegal leak from former FBI Director James Comey started the absurdity circus rolling, Trump was both prudent and justified by exerting executive privilege over that material.

“The Attorney General has been transparent and accommodating throughout this process, including by releasing the no-collusion, no-conspiracy, no-obstruction Mueller Report to the public and offering to testify before the Committee. These attempts to work with the Committee have been flatly rejected. They didn’t like the results of the report, and now they want a redo,” Press Secretary Sarah Sanders said in a statement on Wednesday. “Faced with Chairman Nadler’s blatant abuse of power, and at the Attorney General’s request, the President has no other option than to make a protective assertion of executive privilege.”

However, many on the Left also realize that the Russia collusion angle isn’t working especially since the Mueller investigation produced no charges from it. Thus, they are moving forward in another direction linked to the second half of the Mueller tome, that the President somehow obstructed justice by trying to stop the investigation, cue Act 2.

Act 2: The Obstruction Construction

Russia collusionSince the collusion story doesn’t pass muster, the Left is more focused at present with the idea that President Trump interfered in some manner with the Mueller investigation, and that this constitutes obstruction of justice. However, there remain two very large facts that negate this construction of obstruction.

The most obvious fact is what is missing from either part of the Mueller report. There are no charges for obstruction recommended in it.

If the Mueller team could have found actual obstruction of justice, does anyone believe they would not have recommended charges? Moreover, since we are not now watching the impeachment proceedings against President Trump it is safe to assume no obstruction occurred.

However, it has been noted on the Left that though Trump did not fire the special counsel, he thought about it. Yet, upon advice from his chief counsel Don McGhan, the President changed his mind.

Trump asked McGahn if he would talk to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein (who has authority over the special counsel) about it …McGahn, though, told the president in no uncertain terms that firing Mueller – the head of the probe into possible collusion by Trump associates with Moscow – would be a horrible idea and blow up in his face, the source said. Trump took McGahn’s advice and dropped active consideration of firing Mueller

Russia collusion, obstructionSo …Trump was justifiably upset at being railroaded on a false accusation of “collusion” and being roasted by the Leftmedia and wanted to fire Mueller but instead took the wise advice of his staff and he is to be punished for that!? By the way, even if he had fired Mueller, it still wouldn’t be obstruction because the investigation would have continued with someone else in charge.

The second large fact which destroys the accusation of obstruction of justice is that “collusion” is not a crime. Thus, the Mueller investigation was not a criminal investigation which means there should never have been a special counsel appointed at all!

The Russia investigation is instead a counterintelligence investigation. Such investigations are designed to gather information about suspected harmful activities against the nation, and not to bring criminal charges.

Former U.S. Attorney Andrew McCarthy writes,

It is worth repeating that the Russia investigation is a counterintelligence probe; it was not a judicial proceeding or a criminal investigation. Counterintelligence probes are not conducted to enforce the law through judicial proceedings; they are conducted to inform the president of threats posed by foreign powers. The president may shut them down at will, and doing so does not obstruct justice in any way.

McCarthy nails what the Leftists can’t [or won’t] understand when he specifies that the purpose of a counterintelligence probe is “to inform the president of threats posed by foreign powers.” The results of this investigation were never meant to be seen by anyone besides the President and the investigating team.

The so-called ‘deep state’ simply ignored this mandate and manipulated the DOJ and the press, aided by the leak from James Comey, to get a special counsel appointed anyway. The result is that an improper and possibly illegal investigation targeting the President of the United States was conducted under false pretenses and the Left wants to continue investigating under a false allegation of obstruction of justice.

Epilog: The Left May Be ‘Reaping the Whirlwind’

There may just be a ‘silver lining’ in the midst of the Leftist absurdity and insanity about the Mueller report and hatred for all things Trump. The time is perhaps upon us to conduct a real criminal investigation into the Mueller investigators themselves.

At least this is the judgment of AG Barr who has recently decided to do that, and the Left isn’t happy about it. Conservative pundit Jon Miller explains in the video below.

The Left will try to denounce Barr’s new investigation and deflect attention from it. However, they may soon experience the biblical truth that you reap both what you sow and more than you sow, and that can sometimes be a very bad thing.

For they sow the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind. Hosea 8:7 [ESV]

D.T. Osborn

Sources: The Holy Bible, English Standard Version, Crossway Bibles, 2001

Featured and Top Image courtesy of HarshLight’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 1 courtesy of I am R’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 2 courtesy of Kevin Harber’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 3 courtesy of Martin Deutsch’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 4 courtesy of Edward Liu’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License

All other sources linked or cited in the text

Originally published in TIL Journal

 

Struggle

Life is all about struggle.

You never live without struggle.

Life begins with a struggle.

Life ends with a struggle.

Struggle is the part of our life.

A mother struggles to give birth to her child.

Every living creature struggles for survival.

Struggle is the rule of life.

If you struggle to get something today,

Tomorrow or in your near future, you’ll receive your grand rewards.

Don’t scare to struggle.

Enjoy your struggle and hug it like your true pal.

Your grand success and victory is always waiting for you.

Source: POSITIVE THOUGHTS OF SELF-MOTIVATION! Only you can motivate yourself… Only you can bring positive changes in your life…. Birister Sharma

To Buy this Book- POSITIVE THOUGHTS OF SELF-MOTIVATION!

Thank you for reading. Let us make a beautiful world together. God bless!

Follow me On Twitter

Follow me On Facebook

COPYRIGHT © Shubham Verma

The Left and Islamofascism: A Strange and Troubling Alliance, Part One [Video]

Leftism

Much has been written here and elsewhere about the many detrimental elements that the 2019 crop of Democratic congressional rookies have brought to American society. However, there is at least one somewhat positive service these neophytes have done for the public, they have visibly revealed the mind of the activist Left.

One of the more troubling revelations that have come to light is the political and societal alliance between the far Left and Islamofascists in the United States. No, there isn’t a formal written agreement between the two groups, nor could there be one that truly states the intentions of either party, as will be seen.

However, each of these ‘movements’ has something to gain through cooperation in their fight against a common foe, the traditional, conservative Judeo-Christian society of the West. Whatever differences they may have they are unified in this immediate goal.

The Political Alliance

IslamofascismThe political alliance of the Left with Islamofascism in America began immediately following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and the opportunity was unwittingly provided by former President George W. Bush. In a speech six days after 9/11, Bush declared that,

The face of terror is not the true faith of Islam. That’s not what Islam is all about. Islam is peace.

The naivety of President Bush was a denial of the brutal history of Islamic Jihad and its resurgence in modern times. Yet the refrain that “Islam is a religion of peace,” became the moral pedestal for the Left to the present day.

Most political conservatives at that time were approving of Bush’s call for tolerance out of a sense of solidarity and the inherent conservative tendency to place blame for evil acts on the individual perpetrators. The other side of that coin is conservatives, in general, tend to trust others until given a good reason not to trust them.

During the remainder of the Bush presidency, Islamic terrorists focused on America’s efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the homefront was relatively quiet. However, that situation began to change after the ascension of Barak Obama to the Oval Office.

One of the first actions President Obama took after his inauguration was to embark upon what became known as his ‘apology tour,’ in various countries. During that international speaking jaunt, Obama routinely degraded American policy, both with dictators in places such as Cuba, and shamed our conduct of the ‘war on terror’ in Islamic nations.

LeftismPresident Obama then proceeded to initiate secretive ties to the Muslim Brotherhood around the time of the so-called ‘Arab spring,’ uprisings in Egypt during 2011. Obama supported the uprisings which were aided by the Muslim Brotherhood.

At the same time, Obama began to withdraw troops from Iraq, which quickly resulted in the rise of ISIS and their successive military conquests in the Middle East. This set the stage for the veil to be lifted on any pretense that our Commander in Chief and his cohorts were not aligning with radical Islamofascism against American interests.

The veil came off on September 11, 2012, at Benghazi, Libya. The Obama administration, in a strategic alliance with Islamic terrorism backed by Leftist political players including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, covered up a clear Islamic attack on Americans by falsely blaming the attack on an internet video.

This horrible event cemented the troubling alliance between the political Left and Islamofascism. The stage was now set for a new crop of eager young Leftists and Muslim terror apologists to arrive in 2018.

The chief representative of the Left is, of course, the ever verbose Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez [D-NY]. The main apologist for Islamic terrorism is the slightly less infamous Representative Ilhan Omar [D-MN].

Rep. Omar has been featured in a previous article and the clear danger she poses to America was thoroughly outlined in that piece. However, there is another necessary element which supports the pernicious alliance between the Left and Islamofascism. That element is the Leftmedia.

The Leftmedia Supports Islamofascism

IslamofascismThe conglomerate of the Leftist media apparatus has shown unwavering support for the assault of Islamofascists upon Western civilization at every juncture, especially during Obama’s tenure. The pre-eminent example of this was the lack of honest coverage by the Leftmedia network outlets after the terrorist attack on Benghazi.

For the seventh night in a row, ABC’s World NewsCBS Evening News, and NBC Nightly News refused to give one single second of coverage to the Obama administration’s deceitful response to the terrorist attack on the US consulate in Benghazi on September 11.

However, there are many other examples where Islamic terrorist attacks on American soil were downplayed or dismissed altogether. One prominent example that has faded from memory, especially if one is of the millennial generation, occurred in 2009 at my former military home base of Food Hood, Texas.

U.S. Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan went on a premeditated murderous rampage at Ft. Hood on November 5, 2009. As was later uncovered, Hasan was a sympathizer with Islamofascism groups and vocally declared his allegiance to Islamic Jihad as he shot and killed 13 American soldiers.

The response of the Leftmedia was to cover-up Hasan’s clear connections to Jihadists with every lame reason they could concoct including PTSD, though Hasan never served overseas. Prominent among the fables was the Left’s favorite screed of ‘racism’ directed against Hasan which caused him to kill his fellow soldiers.

Media outlets found another convenient motive that would fit its worldview — racist U.S. soldiers drove Hasan to kill. ABC News ran a story the day after the attack titled Nidal Malik Hasan, “Suspected Fort Hood Shooter, Was Called “Camel Jockey.” This allowed the media to ignore any relationship between the attack and Islam and blame it on “racist” U.S. military personnel.

Examples such as this abound including the Leftmedia. Another example is the media blaming conservative groups like the Tea Party for the Boston Marathon bombing in 2013.

On April 15, 2013, two pressure cooker bombs exploded during the Boston Marathon, killing 3 people and injuring 264. Before the scene was even cleared, many in the media had a suspect — the Tea Party. Chris Matthews and CNN’s Wolf Blitzer attached great significance to the fact that it was Patriots Day. Michael Moorealleged that the Tea Party was behind the bombing. CNN’s security analyst Peter Bergen “suggested more than once that a right wing extremist group could be behind the attacks.”

IslamofascismFast forward to 2019 and the same Leftmedia apologists are busy excusing the anti-Semitism of Ilhan Omar. As a result of this support, the House of Representatives changed their mind about a critical resolution against anti-Semitism and instead passed a meaningless one which spoke against several categories of so-called ‘hate speech.’

Her recent characterization of 9/11 as “some people did something” rightly garnered harsh criticism. It also brought sympathetic support from some of her Democratic colleagues as well as those in the Leftmedia who said that outrage over this comment was phony and insisted the real problem was bigotry against Muslims.

This is a small sampling of the evidence that the Left in America is allied with those whose objective is to further Islamic Jihad. It is also but a fraction of the evidence seen around the globe, perhaps most notably in Europe over many decades.

Moreover, this strange alliance between the Left and Islamofascism involves one final serious participant. It is the Left wing of the ‘Christian Church’ around the globe, which will be examined in part two.

I have sent to you all my servants the prophets, sending them persistently, saying, ‘Turn now every one of you from his evil way, and amend your deeds, and do not go after other gods to serve them, and then you shall dwell in the land that I gave to you and your fathers.’ But you did not incline your ear or listen to me. Jeremiah 35:15 [ESV]

D.T. Osborn

Sources: The Holy Bible, English Standard Version, Crossway Bibles, 2001

Featured and Top image courtesy of Chris Rojas’ Flickr page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 1 courtesy of Image Editor’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 2 courtesy of Jack’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 3 courtesy of Twitter Trends 2019’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 4 courtesy of Danny Hammontree’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License

All other sources linked or cited in the text

Originally published in TIL Journal