Crime Links from other news sources. MSM

Winning. Washington Post calls for more police. In cities like DC.

Views: 14

Winning. Washington Post calls for more police. Especially in cities like DC. All the MSM was calling for the defunding of police. Most called for a citizen type social worker group replacing them.

Now the Washington Post has finally admitted that it doesn’t work. More police is the answer.

WaPo editorial board shifts view on ‘Defund the Police’ since George Floyd riots: DC ‘needs more officers’

Recent editorials from the Washington Post changed the publication’s “Defund the Police” perspective with calls for increased police presence in the D.C. area.

On Friday, the paper’s Editorial Board published a piece arguing “Why police officers need to be in D.C. schools.”

“Many cities yanked officers out of schools while reassessing policing after George Floyd’s 2020 murder. However well-intentioned, the experiment has left kids more vulnerable and classrooms less safe amid surging youth violence. That’s why a notable number have already reversed course — including, in this region, Alexandria and Montgomery County. Other jurisdictions, from Boston to Phoenix, are actively debating whether to follow,” The Post wrote. “D.C. should join them.”

However, the Washington Post was one of many media outlets that entertained the idea of defunding the police after the death of George Floyd in 2020.

“Weeks of sustained anger and grief after the police killing of George Floyd have reignited a public debate over police brutality in the United States. Alongside demands for police reform, another demand has surfaced: Defund the police. This provocative slogan at its most constructive represents a welcome call to reimagine public safety in the United States,” a June 2020 editorial stated…

“Rethinking which institutions truly serve public safety and imagining new ones should be part of that conversation. This work is arduous and demanding — as many community organizers who have been doing it for decades can testify. But no one ever said reimagining public safety would be easy,” The Post wrote.

Here they were back in 2020


What a big difference.


Faked news MSM

Winning. Twitter goes after misinformation from the extreme left. NPR,WP, AND OTHERS.

Views: 22

Winning. Twitter goes after misinformation from the extreme left. Can you hear the howling coming from the fanatics on the left? State affiliated, Misinformation, Fake News, just some of the labels being put on some of the old dinosaurs on the extreme left.

Fact checking the Pinocchio guy at the WP. Taking NY Times blue check away .Labeling NPR State Affiliated. Anthe future.d I’m sure we will see more in




The Courts

Reprint. Now this is a Judge who speaks the truth.

Views: 56

Original article can be found here.

Reprint. Now this is a Judge who speaks the truth. Now if you read the whole article, you’ll see that Judge Silberman is spot on. His disent should be discussed at every law school.

A federal appeals court judge has offered a blistering dissent in an obscure libel case that takes the measure of the mainstream media‘s bias.

The case centers on a 2018 report from Global Witness Publishing that accused Liberian government officials Christiana Tah and Randolph McClain of accepting bribes from Exxon. Tah and McClain sued Global Witness alleging defamation and their claims were dismissed in Friday’s ruling.

However, in the course of his partial dissent, D.C. Circuit Court Judge Laurence Silberman went on an unprecedented written tirade against the press, in which he argued that the Supreme Court should revisit the landmark 1964 New York Times v. Sullivan ruling that granted the media broad First Amendment protections from being sued by public officials.

“[N]ew considerations have arisen over the last 50 years that make the New York Times decision (which I believe I have faithfully applied in my dissent) a threat to American Democracy,” he write. “It must go.”

“The increased power of the press is so dangerous today because we are very close to one-party control of these institutions,” said Silberman, who was nominated to the federal bench by Ronald Reagan and has been a senior judge on the D.C. Circuit Court since 2000.

“Although the bias against the Republican Party—not just controversial individuals—is rather shocking today, this is not new; it is a long-term, secular trend going back at least to the ’70s,” Silberman wrote. “Two of the three most influential papers (at least historically), The New York Times and The Washington Post, are virtually Democratic Party broadsheets. And the news section of The Wall Street Journal leans in the same direction. The orientation of these three papers is followed by The Associated Press and most large papers across the country (such as the Los Angeles Times, Miami Herald, and Boston Globe). Nearly all television—network and cable—is a Democratic Party trumpet. Even the government-supported National Public Radio follows along.”

He accused Silicon Valley of filtering news “in ways favorable to the Democratic Party” and fueling censorship, citing the suppression of the New York Post’s bombshell reporting on Hunter Biden in the final weeks of the 2020 presidential election.

“It is well-accepted that viewpoint discrimination ‘raises the specter that the Government may effectively drive certain ideas or viewpoints from the marketplace,'” Silberman said. “But ideological homogeneity in the media—or in the channels of information distribution—risks repressing certain ideas from the public consciousness just as surely as if access were restricted by the government.”

Silberman also sounded the alarm about the “serious efforts to muzzle” outlets like Fox News that aren’t under “Democratic Party ideological control.”

“It should be borne in mind that the first step taken by any potential authoritarian or dictatorial regime is to gain control of communications, particularly the delivery of news. It is fair to conclude, therefore, that one-party control of the press and media is a threat to a viable democracy,” the judge continued. “It may even give rise to countervailing extremism.

“The First Amendment guarantees a free press to foster a vibrant trade in ideas. But a biased press can distort the marketplace. And when the media has proven its willingness—if not eagerness—to so distort, it is a profound mistake to stand by unjustified legal rules that serve only to enhance the press’ power.”



Opinion. Here’s why people wonder about Georgia and the 2020 Elections.

Views: 38

Opinion. Here’s why people wonder about Georgia and the 2020 Elections. In case you haven’t seen it, the WP wrote a retraction two months later about the big lie. This wasn’t the first time, and knowing the left it won’t be the last.

The Washington Post made a massive correction Monday to a January report about a phone call between then-President Donald Trump and a Georgia elections investigator, as the liberal paper admitted multiple quotes attributed to Trump based on an anonymous source were inaccurate.

Below is President Trumps response to the WP Lie.

And here’s the retraction.

Now the Georgia Secretary of State knew this was a lie and not what the President said. Why didn’t he correct the WP story?


Verified by MonsterInsights