Ghazala Khan Gets Media Respect. Patricia Smith Doesn't.

From The American Thinker Blog:

In her patronizing monotone, Hillary essentially said the Benghazi families were not only liars but stupid as well, badly in need of a copy of English for Dummies. Now, Ghazala Khan, Khizr’s wife and whose son gave his life for his country in Iraq, is a Gold Star mom deserving of our respect. Her silence at the convention should be interpreted as nothing more than grief, and Donald Trump would have been wise not to rise to the media bait. But Patricia Smith, Charles Woods and other relatives of the Benghazi dead belong to Gold Star families as well. Where is their respect and media condemnation of Hillary Clinton’s callousness and serial lying about them and the terrorist attack that killed their sons?
.......................

Jim Geraghty, writing in National Review, notes the glaring disparity in the treatments of Ghazala Khan and Patricia Smith:

Hey, remember when the first night of the Republican convention featured Patricia Smith, mother of Sean Smith, one of the Americans slain in Benghazi? Remember how her speech was called a “cynical exploitation of grief”? Or the “unabashed exploitation of private people’s grief” or “the weaponization of grief”? Remember how she “ruined the evening”? How it was, “a spectacle so offensive, it was hard to even comprehend”? How some liberal commentators said, “Mrs. Smith was really most interested in drinking blood rather than healing”? How her speech represented an “early dip into the gutter”? Remember how a GQ writer publicly expressed a desire to beat her to death?

Patricia Smith was said to be a “grieving unhinged mother” that was exploited for political gain. Ghazala Khan was treated as the second coming of Cindy Sheehan, the Code Pink poster mom who the media slavishly covered as she encamped outside the Bush family ranch in Crawford, Texas.

The treatment of people is soley based on what side of the aisle you support.

One Big Happy Riot

From The City Journal via H/T at Instapundit:

“The task before them is formidable: to sell Americans on the notion that eight years of Democratic rule have left the country better off, while at the same time convincing swing voters in Ohio and Florida that a host of ills—from patriarchy and institutional racism to corporate greed and police brutality—plague us still, and require ever greater levels of government intervention to solve.”

It's a dilemma recognized by the Drive-By Media, so they are trying the best to sell a sow's ear as a silk purse.

Dallas shooter linked to leftist revolution groups, nation of Islam?

From The American Thinker Blog:

Facts are still being gathered, but a few developments have surfaced that suggest that Dallas terrorist Micah Johnson had ties to and sympathies for the Nation of Islam, the Black Panthers, and the radical African American Defense League.

I called it. For several hours after the shooter was ID'd, the Drive-By media named the suspect, an army veteran, but did not show his picture. The media did include his quote of wanting "kill white people." I assumed it was because he was black and any pictures would only reinforce the stereotype of a thug.

The week in Pictures -- Brexit of Champions Edition

From the guys at Powerline Blog:

And one that should be added

The Week in Pictures - The 2nd Amendment Edition

From the guys at Powerline Blog:

NYTimes Editorial -- Congress Should Secretly Suspend Second Amendment Rights

From The Daily Caller:

A New York Times editorial advocates for a new law allowing a secret court to take away citizens’ right to own a gun at the discretion of the federal government.

Citing the Orlando terror attack that left 50 dead including the shooter and 53 wounded at a gay nightclub, the piece advocates for a “no-buy” list similar to “no-fly” lists. Under the law, suspected terrorists would not be able to buy a gun. In an attempt to ensure the integrity of the lists and preserve due process, the author proposes people only be added to this no-buy list after a secret court rules they are ineligible, similar to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court hearings where the federal government obtains permission to wiretap. Under this proposal, an American who has never been convicted of a crime could be denied their right to buy a gun simply because a secret court decided it should be that way.

I would agree under one condition, that a secret court could do the same thing toward news organizations regarding the 1st Amendment!

Philadelphia Inquirer -- Waiting Period Could Have Prevented Sandy Hook

From Breitbart's Big Journalism:

On June 13, the Philadelphia Inquirer weighed in on the feeding frenzy against AR-15s with a column that claimed a waiting period could have prevented Adam Lanza from opening fire on Sandy Hook innocents.

The immediate flaw with this argument: Lanza stole his guns. In so doing, he circumvented any and all gun controls. So a waiting period would not have made a bit of difference.

On the other hand, the Inquirer column contends that a waiting period might have prevented Omar Mateen from allegedly killing around 50 innocents in Orlando. The problem with this suggestion is that Mateen did submit to a waiting period for the handgun he used in the attack. In fact, Mateen complied with all gun control laws to acquire his guns and even possessed a Florida Security Officer license and a Statewide Firearms License on top of everything else.

The Inquirer somehow missed this.

It was not missed, but ignored!

They won't let the facts get in the way of the narrative.

Seriously. Adam Lanza blew past all gun control by stealing his guns, and he killed 26 people. Omar Mateen submitted to every gun control on the books — including a waiting period for his handgun — and he allegedly killed about 50. Can the Inquirer explain the advantage of a waiting period?

Ask every one of you gun control advocating friends one question, "What law would have prevented Mateen from getting his guuns?

The Ben Rhodes Blow-up

From The Weekly Standard via H/T at Instapundit:

The Press isn't mad that Ben Rhodes lied to them, They're mad that someone wrote a story about it:

“And now, the echo chamber is mad—but not at Ben Rhodes for what he said. They’re mad at Samuels for getting the story they didn’t—or didn’t even see was there, and they’re mad at him for what he reported. The Washington Post has published three different pieces on Samuels, none favorable, including one by the editor of the book section. The Post is mad of course because the Samuels piece publicly shamed the paper—after all, its main brief is to cover the local industry—the workings of the government of the United States. And yet as the article makes plain, Post reporters and especially columnists got spun and conned about the Iran deal. But much worse than that is that the Post got scooped on the story explaining how gullible they are. Scooped by the New York Times, in their own backyard on the biggest foreign policy story of the past four years! That’s embarrassing.”

They're made because they were exposed as fools and nit-wits, not that they were played for fools.

Why A Liberal Journalist Brought The House Down On Obama Fabulist Ben Rhodes

From The Federalist via H/T at Instapundit:

The most punishing thing Rhodes said in his long-form confession to manipulating and subverting the press is that the journalists he encounters today “literally know nothing.” We need to look at the full quote to appreciate the importance of this to [David Samuels, age 49, described modestly by the New York Times as "an elite narrative journalist."] Here is Rhodes:

All these newspapers used to have foreign bureaus. Now they don’t. They call us to explain to them what’s happening in Moscow and Cairo. Most of the outlets are reporting on world events from Washington. The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old, and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns. That’s a sea change. They literally know nothing. (emphasis added)

Now let us look at another quote, this one from Samuels himself in an interview given in 2012.

I believe the catastrophe has already happened. The magazine world I entered almost 20 years ago was a rich, commercially-viable world. For a reasonably broad audience of people it was a fun way to spend two hours in the afternoon. That world is gone. The Washington Post hires 26-year-old bloggers to fill the pages that were filled by reporters who had bureaus in Nairobi that were paid for by their newspapers. That entire substructure has now been blown up. (emphasis added)

Rhodes’ insight is, in other words, almost verbatim the complaint Samuels was raising four years ago. Samuels described this shift, rightly, as a “catastrophe.” When he heard Rhodes say the same thing, it was an opportunity to force America to look at the harm done American journalism’s collapse.

In writing his piece on Rhodes, naturally Samuels knew the revelations would punish the administration. But that doesn’t seem to be his principal concern; he was loyal, first, to his profession.

Yes, the Media were made to look like arrogant fools that they are.

"Unstoppable" California Gas Leak Now Being Called Worst Catastrophe Since BP Spill

From Zero Hedge via H/T at Instapundit:

Since initially reporting on California's Alison Canyon gas leak, more details have emerged on the scale (and potential for no solution) of the problem as the infamous Erin Brockovich writes, "the enormity of the Aliso Canyon gas leak cannot be overstated. Gas is escaping through a ruptured pipe more than 8,000 feet underground, and it shows no signs of stopping," as according to the California Air Resources Board, methane - a greenhouse gas 72 times more impactful in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide - has been escaping from the Aliso Canyon site with force equivalent “to a volcanic eruption” for about two months now.

So where is the wall to wall coverage?

Might it have to do with the fact that Jerry Brown's sister, former gubernatorial candidate Kathleen Brown is on the Board of Directors for SoCal Gas?

The real story of the military’s Santa Tracker isn’t what you’ve heard—it’s even better.

From The Atlantic via H/T at Instapundit:

Perhaps you’ve heard the legend of Harry Shoup. The gruff Air Force colonel stood watch on December night 60 years ago, in a secure bunker at Continental Air Defense Command (CONAD), guarding against a nuclear strike. On his desk sat the Red Phone, connecting him directly to the four-star general at Strategic Air Command. Suddenly, the phone rang.

Colonel Shoup answered. “Is this Santa Claus?” asked a child’s voice. Rather than break a child’s heart, Colonel Shoup played along. Sears, it turned out, had published a newspaper ad, with a jolly Saint Nick urging, “Call me on my private phone, and I will talk to you personally.” Because of a typo, the ad accidentally listed the number for the Red Phone. As calls kept pouring in, Colonel Shoup assigned his staff to play Santa. They began to provide children with updates on the location of Santa’s sleigh. And the NORAD Santa Tracker was born.

Read the whole thing. And think about it, if this were to have happen today, would the Drive-By Media have helped?

Media Malpractice On Mass Shootings After Calif. Attack

From Investor's Business Daily via H/T at Lucienne:

Media Bias: The mainstream press likes to say it is the guardian of truth, protecting the masses from bogus information on the Web. But in the wake of the San Bernardino shooting, it was the one peddling it.

In the past few days, just about every major media outlet made the same claim: that there have been 355 mass shootings in the U.S. this year.
....................

That the mainstream press could get from four to 355 is a testament its complete surrender to the Democratic Party agenda, and its eagerness to inflame, rather than inform, the public about gun violence.

The Media malpractice essentially went to overdrive after they got scooped by Matt Drudge and the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Up until that point, they had a monopoly on news and it's distribution. When the rest of the world realized that there were other news options, the Drive-By Media drop any and all pretense of neutrality and because mouth pieces for the Democratic party.

Hillary Clinton’s million little lies

From the NY Post via H/T at Patterico:

To hear Hillary Clinton tell it, she was named for Sir Edmund Hillary, the conqueror of Mount Everest — even though she was already 6 years old when he made his famous ascent.

On a visit to war-torn Bosnia in 1996, she claimed she and her entourage landed under sniper fire and had to run “with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base” — although videos of her arrival show her waltzing serenely across the tarmac, waving to the crowd.

She blamed the 2012 attack on American diplomatic and intelligence-gathering installations in Benghazi on “a disgusting video” when she knew almost from the first moment that it was a jihadist assault that took the lives of four Americans, including the ambassador to Libya.

No wonder the late William Safire, writing in The New York Times in 1996, at the height of the Whitewater investigation, called her a “congenital liar.” Said Safire: “She is in the longtime habit of lying; and she has never been called to account for lying herself or in suborning lying in her aides and friends.”

And the Drive-By Media, who are basically democratic operative with bylines, have been covering up her lies for decades.

Has she ever been asked to apologize for claiming :there is a vast right wing conspiracy" against her husband, when the Monica Lewinsky rumors starting leaking out. They was no conspiracy, it was just Bill.

Just imagine, if her name was Nixon, or Bush, who the Drive-By Media give them a pass?

Latest ‘liberal media conspiracy theory’ doesn’t quite match definition of theory

From Twichy via H/T at The Other McCain:

.@TheFix drugged contrails and pantomime Moon landings are "conspiracy theories." This is just confirmation on how media sausage is made.

— David Burge (@iowahawkblog) November 25, 2015

Earlier today, Politico’s Glenn Thrush dismissed a series of emails between then-Hillary Clinton aide Philippe Reines and Politico White House correspondent Mike Allen as “tradecraft” and nothing more. For those who missed the story, Gawker had uncovered emails between Reines and Allen negotiating an interview with Chelsea Clinton, with Allen appearing to guarantee Reines that he would produce “totally positive coverage” of his subject in exchange for her availability.

and of course the Twitter universe responded in kind.

@TheFix Conspiracy Theory doesn't mean what you think it means dude.

— EducatédHillbilly™ (@RobProvince) November 25, 2015

@iowahawkblog @TheFix It's not a conspiracy theory. It's the fucking truth.

— patrick (@cyberpunk2049) November 25, 2015

@TheFix Seriously, how is this a conspiracy theory? We have the email and Allen's only response is "I don't recall."

— John Sexton (@verumserum) November 25, 2015

I don't see the "theory" homie. It's a smoking gun email. Just like I exposed the Ahmed clock hoax, others are exposing media fraud. @TheFix

— Mike Cernovich (@Cernovich) November 25, 2015

@TheFix I think you mean "confirming evidence" rather than "conspiracy theory."

— Jay W. Richards (@FreemarketJay) November 25, 2015

Report -- Emails Show Politico's Mike Allen Offered Chelsea Clinton "No Risk" Interview

From Breitbart's Big Journalism:

A smoking gun is always a nice thing to have, but it’s not like we need one to prove once and for all that Politico is dedicated to electing Hillary Clinton president. Nevertheless, through a Freedom of Information request, Gawker claims to have found a smoking gun – a series of emails from Politico honcho Mike Allen promising Chelsea Clinton a “no risk … no surprises … something she would like” interview where all the questions would be agreed upon in advance.

This is from a January 10, 2013 email from Allen to Phillipe Reines, an aide to Hillary Clinton.

1.) Is anyone really surprised? Politico has obviously been in the Clinton camp, based on their coverage.

2.) The email chain, released through a FOIA request has provided a smoking gun on obvious media bias. Conservatives have been claiming bias for years. There is now hard evidence. Proof.

3.) This is another reason why Hillary set up her own server. She wanted to be able to control what information would be release via FOIA requests.

4.) FOIA has been a boon in unmasking corruption by BOTH the Administration AND the Media.

Quote of the Day

From SteynOnline via H/T at Ace of Spades HQ:

Whenever some guy called Mohammed - sometimes Mohammed is his first name, sometimes it's a surname, sometimes it's both names - and the first thing that anybody does anywhere around the Western world is rush to assure us that this has nothing to do with either Islam or terrorism. So there's nothing, no reason to worry, folks - because if someone suddenly decides to come at you and he's shouting 'Allahu Akbar!', that's just Arabic for 'there's nothing to see here'... The headline in the newspaper, on ABC News' website, it struck me. It said: 'Suspect in UC Merced stabbng ID'd as 18 year old from Santa Clara.' So this is the way it's presented now. It's like 'You know, those crazy teenagers from Santa Clara... these juvenile delinquents they've got down there in the leather jackets, these Santa Clara teens, beware of them. They're crazy guys. The Santa Clara community, you don't want to go near any of them.' And we all know the reality of what is going on here...

-- Mark Steyn

The Clerisy Media protecting a religion, Islam. The only religion they approve.

UC Merced stabber planned to behead people while praising Allah

From The American Thinker Blog:

Faisal Mohammed stabbed four people on the campus of University of California at Merced last week. As in other cases of Islamic terror attacks against Americans, the rush to absolve the jihadist of any connection to Islam was swift. Never has law enforcement so consistently and so quickly determined motive, or lack thereof, as when terror strikes Americans. And so it was the case with Faisal’s attack.

Fox News reports new details that confirm that this kid was a jihadist, not a crazy teenager with a grudge:

A handwritten manifesto carried by a California college student whose stabbing spree Wednesday left four wounded bore names of his targets, a vow “to cut someone’s head off” and as many as five reminders to “praise Allah,” law enforcement authorities told FoxNews.com, while insisting that neither terrorism nor religion appear to be motives in the attack.

In the two-page document found in Faisal Mohammad’s pocket by the county coroner, the 18-year-old freshman wrote a numeric list outlining his plans of who he wanted to kill, and how, including beheading and shooting his victims, Merced County Sheriff Vern Warnke told FoxNews.com

Other than the Drive-By Media and the local sheriff, is anyone really surprised an 18 year old muslim, who randomly attacks a bunch of students, is anything other THAN a jihadist?

Sorry, Media, You Won’t Destroy Ben Carson

From National Review:

At the end of the day, what are we left with? An admirable though imperfect man who rose from abject poverty to the pinnacle of one of the most challenging professions in the nation — all while never forgetting his roots, maintaining grace and humility even as he earned riches and honors. In fact, his life story — and his character — would make him one of the most inspiring Americans ever to occupy the Oval Office. But he’s a direct threat not just to leftist narratives regarding race and class but also to the leftist stranglehold on the black vote. And for that reason alone he must be destroyed.

A “high-tech lynching” is again underway, but if recent history is any guide, the Left’s attempt to strike down Carson will only make him stronger. The media can launch its attacks, but it cannot change the fundamental facts: Ben Carson is a good and decent man, an American hero.

And how about the Media treatment of Obama.

The Audacity of Myth: How the Media Ignored Obama’s Lies About His Own Biography and Memoir.

The warning was right there in the preface to his 1995 memoir, where Barack Obama admitted the chapters to come were taking liberties with the truth: "Although much of this book is based on contemporaneous journals or the oral histories of my family, the dialogue is necessarily an approximation of what was actually said or relayed to me." Even the people weren't entirely real: "For the sake of compression, some of the characters that appear are composites of people, I've known, and some events appear out of precise chronology."

The Media’s Potemkin Village Starts to Topple

From PJ Media via H/T at Instapundit:

Wednesday night’s CNBC Republican debate turned out to be a tussle between the three left-leaning ‘moderators’ and the candidates on the main stage, most of whom can safely be described as center-right. And finally — thanks largely to the huge ratings bonanza that is Donald Trump — the American people got a chance to see the true, ugly, partisan, smug, self-righteous face of what we used to call journalism, but now is simply political advocacy employing computers and television cameras under the shield of the First Amendment
.......................

What the candidates did the other night to the MSM should not be underestimated. At last, it was not just a lone Newt Gingrich bashing the ideological inanity of his interlocutors, but a number of them, including Cruz and Rubio. By presenting a relatively united front against the clear animosity emanating from the three CNBC hosts, the candidates were able to keep the focus off the stupid questions (‘are you a comic book version of a campaign?’) and onto the biases of the moderators themselves.

The accusation of bias has been brushed off by the Media, since the are the ones who are biased. As Dan Rather famously once said, "A fish doesn't know it's in water." Well now everyone is looking at the goldfish bowl and seeing it for themselves.

BOOM -- Ted Cruz Eviscerates Left Media in Debate

From Breitbart's Big Government:

Just watch the video. No comment required.