My monologue from this week's show:
A week ago, the White House Correspondents Association held their annual dinner in Washington, but the President didn’t attend nor did my daughter, the WH Press Secretary after she was ambushed by a bitter, angry, and vicious headliner who was actually billed as a comedian. In fact instead of getting skewered by a so-called comedian standing 5 feet from her, she went with the President to Wisconsin where instead of being insulted about her appearance and character, she was treated to rock star status by an overflow crowd that numbered well above 10,000. Back in Washington, the media types sat solemnly to whine about how unfair THEY have been treated and how the 1st amendment was “at risk.” Here’s a heartfelt message to them:
You media folks hate it when the President calls you Fake News or even calls out some of you as “enemies of the people.” You all but break your arms patting yourselves on the back for your commitment to truth, journalism, and the 1st amendment. Not all of you in the media are enemies of the people, and the President has never said all of you were. But to be blunt—some of you are! When you allow your personal biases and animosity toward the President to shape your coverage of his events, his policies, his remarks, and his personal life in a vastly different way than the manner in which you report on other public figures, then you are no longer champions of truth or the 1st amendment, but just partisan hacks out to unfairly smear a President you don’t like and never though could get elected.
We desperately need a strong press and a strict adherence to finding the truth wherever it may lead. Our great republic can’t survive if the press puts it thumb on the scale for a candidate or political party. The noble responsibility of the press is to fairly and accurately report facts and let the public determine how it will respond to those facts. When I watch, listen to or read someone’s reporting and I know exactly the point of view the journalist, it’s not journalism anymore. It’s just the same kind of advocacy I expect from the Republican or Democrat parties.
When you guys in the media whine about how bad YOU’VE been treated, forgive millions of us for laughing out loud. You’ve put your hurt feelings out front and cried like 6 year olds because someone, usually the President, called you out. We do, by the way, know the difference between news and commentary and respect that commentary can and should be highly opinionated, but even then should be fair and based on accurate facts. We just see much of that. Over 90% of the coverage about President Trump is negative. He is far from perfect and sometimes can be his own worst enemy with off-color or off the cuff comments or his obvious exaggeration and hyperbole. But misreporting, the overuse of anonymous “high level” sources who don’t have the guts to speak on the record if they even exist, destroy your credibility and frankly shred the Constitution’s protection of a free press. It isn’t free if it isn’t fair, and you might be blind to your own biases, but millions of us aren’t. If you to get respect, you have to show some. And the level of disrespect you show toward the President, his staff, and his votes only result in being held in contempt by those of us who see the world differently than you.
I’m glad the President and the press secretary skipped your little party of self-congratulations, whining and elitist pomposity. They were in a crowd of what you call deplorables and being shown appreciation of standing up for them and frankly, standing up against you. You can fix this by becoming journalists again, instead of ball-point pen pimps, computer contract killers, and camera-ready cardboard cutouts with all too predictable breathless anxiety about those you disagree with. We want to respect you. We actually need you. But if you refuse to act like professionals and insult us with your pious putdowns, don’t expect us to do anything other than hold you in contempt for the perpetual put-downs. You broke this. And only you can fix it.
This Facebook observation about the Democrats’ demand that AG Barr resign burns so deep I bet Facebook is already working on banning whoever thought of it.
The Washington Post and the Atlantic admitted they erred by including Louis Farrakhan among “far-right” voices banned by Facebook, a designation immediately questioned by numerous conservative media sites, as noted by the Daily Caller at the link. And yet, it’s conservative sites like the Daily Caller that are allegedly unreliable and liberal mainstream sites like WaPo and the Atlantic that we’re supposed to believe.
If you swallow that, I have a Russian collusion conspiracy theory I’d like to sell you.
The limousine liberal powers-that-be at Google seem determined to force the government to declare the search engine a public utility and regulate it to keep it from censoring free speech. Latest case in point: Google banned a conservative PAC for life (warning that if they tried to open accounts under any other name, those would be banned, too) for the “crime” of running a 10-second ad opposing letting babies die.
Think I’m soft-pedaling it and that the ad must’ve really been incendiary, slanderous or misleading? Watch it yourself and be agog at Google.
Of course, Google isn’t the only tech giant that believes in free speech only up to a point (usually, the point where you criticize the left.) Facebook just announced permanent suspensions of several right-wing “extremists” for allegedly promoting hate and violence.
While I have no sympathy for white nationalist and neo-Nazi groups, who, as President Trump said, should be condemned totally – and I agree that some of the people banned engage in irresponsible rhetoric – silencing speech should always be a last resort. The Founders gave us the First Amendment to protect unpopular political speech (popular, uncontroversial speech needs no protection), a fact that too many young Americans are no longer learning. They believed that the proper response to bad ideas was good ideas, and the remedy for poor speech was more speech, not censorship.
Free and open debate exposes bad speech. Censorship merely drives it underground. It also empowers the censors, who get to decide what constitutes speech deserving of silencing (and it always eventually works around to including speech that criticizes the censors.)
Also worth noting with appropriately raised eyebrows and head-scratches: the so-called “right-wing” extremists banned by Facebook include the Rev. Louis Farrakhan of the Nation of Islam. I agree that his racist and anti-Semitic speech is incredibly offensive, but since when is Farrakhan considered a conservative?
Blogger Allahpundit at HotAir.com has an interesting theory for why Farrakhan is suddenly being retroactively classified as a “right-winger”: it serves as cover against accusations from the right that they only deplatform right-wingers, while keeping the left from getting angry that they sacrificed one left-wing extremist to keep up a veneer of impartiality.
Good economic news
The stock market responds to today’s incredibly good economic news, and Scott Adams responds to all the Democrats trying to tell us that the world is coming to an end.
This morning, the Labor Department announced that in April, non-farm payrolls increased by a seasonally-adjusted 263,000, which is 73,000 more jobs than economists expected. In addition, unemployment fell to 3.6%, the lowest rate since December of 1969, half a century ago. And average hourly wages for private-sector workers grew 3.2% from last April, matching March’s pay increase.
But by all means, let’s put Joe Biden in the White House to bring back those Obama economic policies. Americans are getting tired of all the winning. Let’s MASA: Make America Stagnant Again!
Wednesday, ADP and Moody’s Analytics released the April jobs report, showing that private payrolls grew by 275,000 jobs last month. That far outstripped economists' predictions of 177,000 new jobs.
President Trump said we would win so much, we’d get tired of winning. I’m not tired of winning yet, but I am tired of all the whining.
And I bet the economists are tired of being wrong. Maybe they should stop watching CNN and MSNBC, too, and then they wouldn’t be so surprised every month that the economy isn’t sucking wind anymore.
Fighting for Life
North Carolina’s Senate has voted to override Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper’s veto of a bill requiring doctors to give medical aid to babies born alive during abortions. Now, it’s up to the House to stand up for human decency and a right that shouldn’t even have to be under discussion.
In vetoing the bill, Cooper issued a statement reading, “Laws already protect newborn babies and this bill is an unnecessary interference between doctors and their patients…This needless legislation would criminalize doctors and other healthcare providers for a practice that simply does not exist.”
But with abortion advocates astoundingly arguing that giving medical care to a baby that’s already been born somehow violates the mother’s reproductive rights, it appears that it is actually necessary to codify what should be obvious to anyone with a brain and a heart. As for the claim that the practice “simply does not exist,” North Carolina bill supporter Rep. Sarah Stevens points out that we don’t know what’s going on, and that a big part of the bill is that if it happens, doctors and nurses would be required to report it.
If it never happens, then why are Democrats like Cooper so opposed to requiring it to be reported only if it does happen? Maybe because, as with virtually every other aspect of abortion, their biggest fear is that the public will find out what really happens behind the closed doors of abortion clinics.
Shocking Quote of the Day: After most Democrats walked out in protest, the Alabama State House overwhelmingly passed a bill that would criminalize most abortions. It would almost certainly be struck down by the courts, and was passed primarily as a vehicle to challenge Roe v. Wade. In fairness, tensions were high, and I could see how a far-outnumbered remaining Democrat might get worked up in opposition to it.
Still, what Alabama Democratic State Rep. John Rogers said in arguing against the bill was both revealing and chilling:
“Some kids are unwanted, so you kill them now or you kill them later. You bring them in the world unwanted, unloved, you send them to the electric chair. So, you kill them now or you kill them later.”
If I could cite an example of someone who was wanted and loved at birth but grew up to murder someone, would that be a justification for killing every baby who is wanted and loved?
How about a better alternative? You could give these children life and let them be adopted by someone who will want and love them. Then maybe they wouldn’t grow up to have shockingly cynical attitudes about the value of human life, like assuming that unloved kids will grow up to be executed anyway so we might as well just execute them now before they do anything to deserve it.
I remember when Democrats disagreed with the extreme war hawk slogan, “Kill ‘em all and let God sort ‘em out.” Now they apparently think it should apply to innocent babies, and the only part they disagree with is the mention of God.