Fake News in the American Media. Part 1
Next Post

Press {{ keys }} + D to make this page bookmarked.

Photo: Krista Kennell

Fake News in the American Media. Part 1


WASHINGTON – January 11, 2019

The liberal American media is falling into hysterics after Donald Trump's speech regarding the construction of the wall on the US-Mexico border.

Remember what they did when Ronald Reagan implemented a strategy of victory in the Cold War, opposing the media and "experts" on foreign policy on both sides.

The New York Times and the Washington post unequivocally denounced his "dangerous" policies. There were propaganda films such as The Day After Tomorrow, frightening Americans about a Soviet strike on the United States. College students demanded that campus hospitals have stocks of cyanide pills on the grounds that Reagan was going to strip everyone.

Only after Reagan's policies were crowned with success did the same hysteria say, "Ho-Ho, no big deal, We always knew that the Soviet Union was a paper tiger.”

Frantically rewriting history, they argued that Reagan simply continued the policies of his predecessors. The truth about their eight-year-old primal scream is kindly gathered in Ann Coulter’s high-profile bestseller Treason: Liberal Betrayal From the Cold War to the War on Terrorism.

Democrats, the media, and much of the Republican party are just as fanatically opposed to Trump's ideas of illegal immigration as Reagan's ideas of winning the Cold War.

Now the media makes the most common mistake, not checking any facts. Let's look at the situation on the example of the last Trump speech.

The most common thesis against Trump’s speech was that the wall is expensive--it has become the major focus in any arguments about the President’s words.

Many liberal outlets, disguised as "fact checking," were powerless when they called the figure of $5.7 billion instead of a deeper analysis of the situation. During his speech, Trump said that Senator Chuck Schumer said he supports the President’s initiative to build the wall.

Politico wrote in a rebuttal that it wasn't true, that Schumer never voted for anything close to the scale of the Trump's wall. However, in the same text, they write: "Schumer and nearly two dozen other Democrats voted for the 2006 Secure Fence Act, which authorized the construction of roughly 700 miles of fence along the southwest border."

Politico and the Washington Post both wrote that immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than Americans by birth. As an example, the media presented studies of the libertarian Cato Institute that stated that immigrants who entered the country legally had about one-fifth the probability of imprisonment compared to Americans by birth. According to the report, which was based on data from the 2016 American Community Survey, the number of undocumented immigrants is half the probability of being imprisoned. "Do undocumented illegal immigrants commit crimes? Of course -- but at lower rates than their natives."

The Washington Post did the same when it checked the statement: "266,000 aliens arrested in the past two years." It is clear what their data are based on.

In response, the newspaper writes that "the total covers all types of offenses, including illegal entry or reentry. ICE does not break down arrests by type of crime. The president didn't break down arrests by the type of crime either, so the 'fact checkers' were checking something that wasn’t said."

Moreover, it should be noted that according to any world statistics, migrants commit many times more crimes not only on the basis of racial hatred, but also in terms of  robberies; this also includes illegal border crossings and administrative fines. They do it more often than anyone in comparison.

Politico, the Washington Post, and the New York Times wrote, "Every week 300 of our citizens are killed by heroin alone, 90 percent of which floods across our southern border." "Most heroin smuggled into the United States does come through the southwest border," the Times added. However, they all declared it problematic. All this was said against the background of the view that the wall should not be built, and we only need to strengthen border security a little. In his speech Trump said that "we are not talking about a particular area, but about security in general."

The Post writes: "While 90 percent of the heroin sold in the United States comes from Mexico, virtually all of it comes through legal points of entry." Politico's take was, "Although most heroin enters the U.S. through the border with Mexico, most of that is intercepted at legal ports of entry." Again, the President didn’t say anything contradicting these statements, yet all decreed what he said to be differing degrees of false.

NBC News has been confused several times in terms of the wall’s dimensions: It’s a construction 45, 50, 60 and 65 feet high, "depending on the speech." None of that was said. Such a simple error once again proves that the media is just a pawn in the elite’s game.

Moreover, until now many do not understand that the majority of the media is extremely lazy. They just quote what someone told them. That means if journalists allowed follow-up questions and you could ask, "How do you know that?" the answer would be, "I heard it from a guy at Vox."

The media turns to highly biased sources and copies one another oand information from blogs. That is, they basically don't know how to make quality material; they cannot challenge the relatively better texts.

Let's make things simple and ask the question that the media won’t: What does it mean to secure the border if not to build the wall? Let even one liberal or conservative or any other media outlet try to explain the position of the Democrats who so zealously oppose Trump.

In response, you could submit 5 out of the thousands of reasons that justify building a wall:

The US needs a wall due to the dominance of migrants. Let's recall the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 known as the Simpson-Mazzoli Act. This act has allowed nearly 3 million immigrants to become US citizens. This is one of the most famous cases where the law prohibits any American employer from hiring illegal immigrants, and allowed only those people who came to the US before 1982. It required them to prove that they were not guilty of any illegal acts and also had some knowledge of the English language and American history. To support or denounce the law on amnesty for illegal immigrants is especially relevant now.  In fact, 30 to 40 million more illegals have poured into our country since then. This also includes the decision of former President Barack Obama to grant amnesty to more than 5 million migrants.

The US needs a wall because the country needs a healthy population without drugs. As previously mentioned, most of the dangerous substances such as heroin, cocaine, fentanyl are imported from abroad, including China, which comes in through Mexico.

Notwithstanding the vast number of illegal alien valedictorians, there are also criminals, drunk drivers, drug cartel members, and desperately poor people consuming government services and driving down the wages of our working class.

The US needs a wall because of the threat of reducing the white population tens and hundreds of times over. Even today, we see many marches for the rights of black or Latin Americans; we see how gradually, regardless of ourselves, the white population fades into the past. China, Mexico, and the whole of Latin America are going to the United States to strengthen their positions and expel the whites.

"If we don't get it done now, we never will. Trump is our last chance."

This is an objective assessment. Now we need to wait for the media to tell us why the wall is unnecessary, besides talking points like “it’s expensive,” and to define “border protection” for us.

Media fact-checking is a joke; it’s a scam to mask blatant bias behind a curtain of objectivity. Then again, why should the fact-checking arm be any different than the rest of the media in the Trump era?

Author: USA Really