Musings

Standard

The media, especially CNN and Politico, have spent an inordinate amount of time trying to find something with which to discredit Dr. Ben Carson.  They have not found hard evidence of a scandal, but they are spinning their lack of information as a negative for Dr. Carson, using innuendo to suggest that he is lying or trying to hide something.  CNN defends its actions by saying they are just “vetting” Dr. Carson as they would any other candidate.  But is that really what they are doing?  Why are they not spending that much time “vetting” Trump, Rubio, Fiorina, or Kasich?  The reason is that, given current poling data, these candidates,except for Trump, are not likely to win the GOP nomination.

Here is my take on the situation:  CNN and Politico, and the other liberal media, are, in fact, trying to take down Dr. Carson.  Here is why that is true:  Recent polls have indicated that in a head-to-head contest with Hillary Clinton, Dr. Carson would win and Donald Trump would lose.  Trump is still slightly edging out Carson in the GOP contest but they are in a statistical dead heat.  If Trump wins the nomination, they are not so concerned, but if Carson wins, it is problematic for Hillary.  Carson could come out the winner of the GOP nomination.  Given that the media are in love with Hillary, this presents a problem.  They do not want their anointed one to lose.  Therefore they must do what they can to take down Dr. Carson with hopes that Trump will win the GOP nomination but not be able to put together a winning campaign against Hillary.

Musings

Standard

I have just been watching CNN New day and the interview Alisyn Camerota had with Dr. Ben Carson.  The background to this is that CNN attempted to investigate whether Carson’s story about being a violent youth was true.  The investigators could not find anyone who would or could corroborated Carson’s accounts of violent outbursts.  In this morning’s interview, Carson accused CNN and other liberal media of trying to create a distraction to bring down candidates they oppose politically and ideologically.  Alisyn Camerota defended CNN’s investigation and reports on grounds that CNN was merely attempting to “vet” Dr. Carson as they vet all other candidates.  The interview was a good 30 minutes long and was less of an interview than it was a debate over the bias and intent of CNN.  Dr. Carson was quite strong in his push back against CNN as was Ms. Camerota in her defense of CNN.  But, I believe Dr. Carson had the best showing in the debate.  He said, if CNN was so objective then why is it that anyone who watches CNN has no doubt as to which side of the political spectrum they fall.

Despite Camerota’s assurances that CNN is merely trying to objectively vet Dr. Carson as it vets others, today’s New Day show was clearly an attempt to bring down Dr. Carson.  Rather than simply report that they could not find anyone who would confirm Dr. Carson’s accounts of violence, they went on and on about their failure to confirm the stories to imply that Dr. Carson must be lying about his violent past.  Not only was the interview 30 minutes of Camerota arguing with Dr. Carson about CNN’s bias, but there was at least 30 more minutes of the New Day panel analyzing what Dr. Carson said, none of it positive.  All that was implied in the interview and analysis is that Carson must be lying or trying to hide something.  If CNN was so objective, then why was so much time spent trying to discredit Dr. Carson?

CNN’s bias was clearly evident in today’s show.  They are not just reporting but are attempting to change opinion.

Dr. Carson’s position is that CNN and other liberal media should simply report accurately what was said by candidates rather than trying to interpret what they said.  The public is intelligent enough to make their own interpretations.  They do not need the media trying to tell them how to think.

Musings

Standard

I am amazed at how quickly the liberal media will jump on something a conservative politician says and jump to conclusions without really understanding the words said.  An example of this is the recent interview in which GOP representative McCarthy made comments regarding the Benghazi committee with reference to Hillary Clinton’s decline in the polls.

The media were quick to conclude that McCarthy said that the committee was formed to take down Hillary.  However, when one examines the actual statement made by McCarthy, one will find that he did not say the committee was formed for the purpose of taking down Hillary.  What he said was that Hillary’s decline in the polls was a by-product of the the committee’s work.

Another example of the liberal media jumping to unwarranted conclusions is the situation with Dr. Ben Carson’s statement about not advocating putting a Muslim in the White House.  When Carson made that statement, the media immediately got their drawers in a knot and got into a frenzy about the constitution not allowing religion to be a qualifier for the Presidency.  Again, this was a knee-jerk misinterpretation of what Carson said.  Carson was making a personal statement based on what he knew of Islam.  He was not making an interpretation of the Constitution’s qualifiers for the Presidency.  Furthermore, there is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits an individual voter from applying whatever litmus test he or she wishes to determine how he or she votes.

The reporting on what Donald Trump said about illegal immigrants was also out of place.  Trump did say that the 11 million illegals must go.  He never said he was going to send squads of police or troops into communities to smash down doors and haul families away kicking and screaming.  He never said he was going to deport American citizens, i.e. the anchor babies/children.  What Trump did say was that the process would be humane, and that it is assumed that when the illegal families left, they would take their children with them, even if those children were born in the U.S.

Regarding babies born in the U.S. being U.S. citizens if their parents are illegal aliens, the media are quick to mention that the Constitution says that babies born in the U.S. are citizens.  What the media forgets or ignores is the qualifier regarding that citizenship.  The Constitution says that babies born in the U.S. whose parents are subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. are citizens.  “Subject to the jurisdiction” is the qualifier.  Illegal aliens are still citizens of their home country, so they are subject to the jurisdiction of their home country, not of the U.S.  This qualifier will likely be the basis for challenging the status of the so-called anchor babies.