How about a little social justice therapy?
1 Like
I prefer a bit of âwrestlingâ myself! 
Gutfeld: "The British paper The Daily Telegraph issued a humiliating apology Saturday, admitting an article titled âThe Mystery of Melania,â was full of fake news about the first lady. They took it all back and paid her âsubstantial damages.â
Thereâs no point in recounting the storyâs lies. Theyâre the same stuff youâve heard many times before, part of a larger industry built on unknown sources and bitter bias.
And it shows you the kind of year the media is having â and itâs only been three weeks:
But you have BuzzFeedâs debacle; the Covington smear; layoffs at clickbait mills like BuzzFeed and the Huffington Post; CNN mocked for pretending they stumbled onto Roger Stoneâs arrest ⌠And now this brutal Telegraph humbling.
These events have one thing in common: accountability. Itâs new and itâs good for everyone. Especially you.
Because - you may not know how false the Melania coverage is - but you can bet she does.
And thatâs the point: you never know what fake news is, until itâs about you.
Ask anyone whoâs ever been the subject of a story. Unless theyâre vacuous actors pumping a socially conscious film, itâs never good.
Itâs why, love him or hate him, Trumpâs war with fake news makes the past two years worth it. His disruption has exposed the hidden levers in so many dark arts - from trade to immigration to copy-editing and fact-checking.
So if only one result from the Trump era is a media that thinks twice before destroying someone for fun and profit - then Iâd call that a win.
Wouldnât you?"
2 Likes
This came from todayâs BBC news:
Thanks but no thanks. I donât waste my time reading anything that âcomes from todayâs BBC newsâ.
Itâs your choice.
Besides. Since they donât cater to American politics (i.e. Fox News - Republican, CNN - Democrats, etc.)âŚThey have the least vested, in American politics.
And when the tribulation and Z-Hell (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) finally arrivesâŚthey will probably have, the most objective coverage - IMHO.
Please donât misunderstand me, HF, I really like you and enjoy your input. 
Itâs just that ⌠well, having spent the first 35 years of my life subjected to the left-wing commentary from the BBC, I am naturally suspicious of anything and everything it says.
1 Like
BBC did run the totally false story of the Covington boy and the Indian man. But then so did everyone else, without fact checking at all. Trump hatred and knee-jerk âjournalismâ at its finest.
So BBC is not infallible, who is? - but like the rest, their bias led them to sloppy work.
Overall I suspect itâs a pretty good source, just not the benchmark for great journalism.
You gentlemen do realize, there is a Wiki article - on the BBC news - with scholarly footnotes!
Of course, Iâll be open to readingâŚany objective stories, by âobjectiveâ groups like Fox News⌠discussing left-wing bias, by the BBC News.
Iâve read that. Itâs a nice article.
Bahaha⌠
you mean Faux News!!
If there is another large American TV news service that gets closer to the truth more often, I am currently unaware of it.
And thankfully, in the internet age we can prayerfully seek out many alternatives besides, in our quest to arrive at the truth of any news story.
Any newscast that does not depict Trump as a wonderful leader is âfalse news.â Is that your position?
Since you ask, no I do not think Donald Trump is wonderful. He has his faults, just as the great wartime leader Winston Churchill had his faults and every man who has ever been a leader. King David was a leader of men but carried an abundance of faults. Despite his shortcomings, Trump is working very hard to follow through on his election promises even in the absence of any meaningful support from Democrats and the liberal media who both apparently would prefer him to fail than to succeed.
Presumably, you compare President Trump with his predecessor Obama. Was Obama âwonderfulâ, however you intended that description should be defined in posing the question? I happen to think that history will rate Obamaâs performance as president as less than wonderful but I suspect you will hold a different position.
No offence taken, nor intended. 
1 Like
Thoughtful short essay on guns.
" When I read progressive arguments for gun control, Iâm struck by how often Iâll see a truly strange line of thought. âIf only,â they argue, âyou really knew what guns do, then youâd favor greater limits on gun rights.â For example, after a the Parkland shooting, a doctor vividly described the lethality of the AR-15 in the pages of The Atlantic . Her reason for writing? To tell the public what âassault weaponsâ were really like:
As a doctor, I feel I have a duty to inform the public of what I have learned as I have observed these wounds and cared for these patients. Itâs clear to me that AR-15 and other high-velocity weapons, especially when outfitted with a high-capacity magazine, have no place in a civilianâs gun cabinet.
Yesterday, Senator Kamala Harris added her own twist â force politicians to see autopsy photos of dead children:
Sen. Kamala D. Harris, the California Democrat and presidential aspirant, lamented on Monday the lack of congressional action on gun control, saying a solution would have been possible after the 2012 massacre of 20 children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., if only lawmakers had been placed in âa locked room, no press, no one, nobody elseâ and required to examine âthe autopsy photographs of those babies.â
âAnd then,â she said, âyou vote your conscience.â
When you read statements like these, it strikes me that there are some people who apparently genuinely believe gun owners are not only ignorant about the lethality of their own guns, they are indifferent to the suffering of their fellow citizens. This is a fundamental and important misunderstanding.
We know what our guns can do, and we zealously protect the rights of law-abiding citizens to own guns precisely because we want to prevent or stop tragedies like Parkland or Sandy Hook. A law-abiding gun owner wonât look at autopsy photos and think, âI have to give up my weapon.â Instead, heâs more likely to grieve that he wasnât there to try and stop the atrocity. Heâll lament that no armed citizen had the capability or (in the case of the deputy tasked with defending the Parkland kids) the courage to intervene.
Americaâs gun owners donât purchase guns for self-defense because we care so little about our families and neighbors. We purchase guns and train ourselves to use them because we care so much. When I served in Iraq, I saw horrifying sights. Modern weapons can do terrifying things to the human body. I do not understand why a person would think that my natural and logical response to seeing those sights would include a burning desire to leave myself defenseless against threats or to further limit the freedom of my family, friends, and neighbors to defend themselves against threats.
If we want to stop mass shootings â and we all do â we should know two things. First, we know that the popular gun-control proposals almost certainly wouldnât have stopped a single recent mass shooting. Second, we also know that armed citizens have stopped active shooters time and again. Given these realities, I wonder if Senator Harris gets things exactly backwards. Exposure to the effects of gun crime could well increase our national commitment to gun rights. The desire for self-defense is a reasonable and moral response to the evil men in our midst." - https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/what-kamala-harris-doesnt-understand-about-gun-owners/?fbclid=IwAR2U6T2qcBJ83yfIVqNZvUqabzjEYWUEvS3lhJNfJxR2SrbEFLPVMS5mrms
2 Likes
But somehow the left is not seeing it. It seems they would rather expose themselves and their loved ones to the lunacy 
I know, right? They have a pipe-dream of âno gunsâ and that dream overrides the actual realities involved. We just cannot ignore reality.
Leâts take a break from gunsâŚand from the cold, US and Canadian weather todayâŚand the hot weather in AustraliaâŚAs I present a video, on the South Pole research station!