Connect with us


Conservative media outlet praises Trump’s attack on the Constitution



Conservative media outlet praises Trumps attack on the Constitution

Last week during an open-press event at the White House, CNN Reporter Kaitlan Collins asked a series of questions pertinent to the news stories of the day, but since the questions dealt with his former personal attorney, Michael Cohen, and Vladimir Putin, Trump wasn’t interested in answering. Eventually, after she persisted in asking questions that former Trump Pravda (FOX News) CEO and current White House communications chief Bill Shine called “inappropriate,” Collins was banned from the premises.

This is just the latest example of Trump’s hatred of the First Amendment whenever a media outlet — he calls them the enemy of the American people — dares to report something “negative” about him, which is how he defines “Fake News.”

While CNN obviously defended Collins, the president of Trump Pravda along with some of his employees expressed their support of CNN and the reporter, including Bret Baier, who tweeted that “FOX News stands firmly with CNN on this issue and the issue of access.”

However, there were members of the so-called conservative media who not only condoned Trump’s actions but praised them, as we witnessed from CRTV’s White House correspondent Jon Miller in a Facebook video where he stated, “Unlike everyone else out there, my response is how come it has taken this long for the White House to get CNN in line?”


I guess I missed the part in the Bill of Rights where it says that it’s the President’s job to get the press “in line” when I learned about the Constitution.

While conservative values such as a strict adherence to the Constitution have been on the ropes for years, the rise of Donald Trump has exposed so-called conservatives within the GOP as compromising cowards, willing, as former conservative talk show host Charlie Sykes recently opined, to concede their core values to become slaves to political power. In the age of Trump, even the definition of conservative has changed.

But the rise of Trump has also exposed so-called conservatives in the media. As I wrote in a piece back in March, voices like Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and others have willingly abandoned conservatism for a seat on the Trump Train, believing that they can trade their principles for popularity without consequences.

In reality, such compromises always have consequences. One day a Democrat who doesn’t have a “R” after his name will replace the life-long Democrat currently occupying the White House. When that president begins banning these pro-Trump voices because they aren’t reporting favorably on a Democrat administration, the consequences will be real and spectacular.

Because in the end, if one loses their First Amendment rights, we all lose our First Amendment rights.

Originally posted on The Strident Conservative.


David Leach is the owner of The Strident Conservative. His daily radio commentary is distributed by the Salem Radio Network and is heard on stations across America.

Follow the Strident Conservative on Twitter and Facebook. Subscribe to receive podcasts of radio commentaries: iTunes | Stitcher | Tune In | RSS

1 Comment

1 Comment

  1. Mark Leis

    July 31, 2018 at 3:37 pm

    David – There is no requirement in the Constitution to open up White House events to the public or to the Press. When Reporters are “Invited” to a White House Event, particularly involving foreign dignitaries, the WH should be allowed to set the rules and timing for the Event. Reporters should have the decency to respect the Office of The President, the fact that the Business of the People is being conducted, and that they were Invited. Imposing restrictions on WHEN questions be asked is not restricting the Freedom of the Press. When a scheduled Event occurs the Press is expected to Report on the Event, not become or change the focus of the Event with inappropriate questions designed to embarrass the President.

    The Bill of Rights also gives the President and his staff Freedom of Speech.
    The disciplinary action, of sorts, was directed at an individual who behaved extremely rudely in violation of what it means to have a Free Press.

    Sad that you picked the wrong side on this particular incident and went even further to hurl insults at fellow conservatives with a different view point.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Culture and Religion

CNN does 67 updates for Sri Lanka story with ZERO mentions blaming Islamic terrorists



CNN does 67 updates for Sri Lanka story with ZERO mentions blaming Islamic terrorists

The narrative has already been set by American mainstream media on how they’re supposed to handle the Sri Lanka terrorist attacks on Easter Sunday. There are certain things that can be said and others that must be avoided at all costs. With reporting that has spanned nearly 24 hours and included 67 updates to the story, guess how many times CNN blamed Islamic terrorists for the attack.

If you guessed anything higher than zero, you gave CNN way too much credit.

I scanned the entire series of live updates they’ve been doing since the news broke. It’s all within one long story, making it easy to search for individual words, so I did. The results were depressing but expected. Even at this late hour, they still have not acknowledged the possibility that the act was committed by Islamic terrorists.

The closest they came to blaming radical Islamic terrorists in their primary coverage story was a mention in a quote by Diplomatic editor Nic Robertson in which he notes the obvious – that it has the “hallmarks” of Islamic terrorism – but then quickly notes that there are no known radical Islamic terrorist groups in the area.

“It is a very confused picture in terms of who may or may not be responsible. The Sri Lankan civil war ended 10 years ago, a 25 year long civil war, and the Tamil separatists there were a secular group. It would be very, very unlike them and their tactics ever to attack churches and particularly on such a holy day.”

“It has the hallmarks — or is intended to have the hallmarks — of Islamic extremists. But, again, these kinds of groups are unknown in Sri Lanka.”

This last notion is absolutely untrue, of course, as we now know the Chief of Police in Sri Lanka issued a warning about the Nations Thawahid Jaman (NTJ), an Islamist group led by Mohomad Saharan.

The CNN report mentioned the word “Muslim” four times: twice to note the percentage of the population of Sri Lanka that is Muslim, once to warn against reprisals against Muslims, and another to note there have been attacks against Muslims by Buddhist groups. Not once was it even speculated the attacks were carried out by Muslims.

The leftist narrative must be maintained and CNN will not break their allegiances. This was just some people that did something. It may look like an apple, but CNN will scream “banana, banana, banana” for as long as they can.

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Since leftist media won’t say it: Radical Islamic terrorists murdered hundreds of Christians



Since leftist media wont say it Radical Islamic terrorists murdered hundreds of Christians

Update: CNN still hasn’t acknowledge the possibility it was Islamic terrorism after 67 updates over the last 24 hours.

Original Story:

The dramatic shift in how mainstream media characterizes terrorist attacks over the years reached what I hope is the pinnacle of their obfuscation today. The terrorist attacks in Sri Lanka against Christian churches and areas where Christians were likely to gather were committed on Easter Sunday by Muslims in a city known for radicalization. This was a clear and unambiguous attack by radical Islamic terrorists specifically targeting Christians.

But you’ll have a hard time coming to that conclusion if all you’re reading or watching is leftist mainstream media.

The reporting today has been in stark contrast to the immediate labeling and narrative-building surrounding the terrorist attacks in New Zealand mosques last month. There was zero doubt based on media reporting that the attacks were targeting Muslims. But today, it’s hard to even find the word “Christian” in any of the posts or news reports. On top of that, there’s a stark difference when reading the Tweets of condolences from leftists who refuse to acknowledge this as an attack against Christianity despite the immediate and crystal clear labeling of the New Zealand mosque incidents as attacks targeting Muslims.

Some of this was noted by Brittany Pettibone:

OAN’s Jack Posobiec added that a new phrase has been coined by the media regarding the Notre-Dame fire:

Was this the same response they were giving following the Christchurch attacks? No. As Imam Mohamad Tawhidi noted, the differences were very clear.

Why do the media and leftist politicians do this? Why are they quick to label attacks against any other religious group exactly as they appear, but they’re so unwilling to call out any attacks against Christians as attacks against Christians?

This is the time we’re in, folks. The left has a narrative they want jammed into our heads and that narrative has no room for acknowledging violence and persecution is committed against Christians. The only stories that fit their narratives are stories that can blame Christians for wrongdoing. In those cases, the perpetrators’ status as Christians is broadcast loud and clear. But if Christians are victims, the left will go to extreme lengths to negate that fact from the record.

Of all the major news outlets, I was only able to find one that didn’t shy away from the truth. The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board stands alone in declaring the intended victims of this attack as who they are and why they were targeted.

WSJ Editorial Board

The intentional suppression of what happened, who committed it, and who was targeted is beyond insulting. The terrorist attacks in Sri Lanka are being framed by the media as some people did something.

Continue Reading


Is blocking social media to prevent ‘fake news’ the right approach following events like Sri Lanka?



Is blocking social media to prevent fake news the right approach following events like Sri Lanka

Following the terrorist attacks on Easter Sunday in Sri Lanka, the government blocked access to social media sites from within the nation. This was done to stop the spread of “fake news’ both to the people of Sri Lanka as well as to outsiders from within the country.

The government has decided to temporarily block social media sites including Facebook and Instagram.Presidential Secretariat said in a statement that the decision to block social media was taken as false news reports were spreading through social media.The statement added that security forces were conducting comprehensive investigations into the incidents of explosions and that the blockage would be effective until investigations were concluded.

Is this really the right approach? The socialist nation is known for holding a tight rein over information in and out. At times like these, is stifling one of the best forms of communication to keep the people and world apprised of the developing situation one that helps or hurts?

The answer should be obvious, but unfortunately trends in technological policing have leaned away from the proper answer. Communication and sharing of information are integral to keeping situations properly handled. When the flow of information is suppressed, the negative effects greatly outweigh any perceived benefits of fighting “fake news.”

One of the reasons false reports get wings following media or social media blackouts is because the worst elements are able to go unchecked. At some point the governments of the world, even the socialist ones, should give the people more credit than to think any information that is false will instantly be believed indefinitely. We’ve learned plenty over the years about the ways of the internet and the spread of fake news. We don’t need to be protected.

The reality is this: when socialist governments (or any governments for that matter) block the media in any way, it isn’t for the protection of the people. It’s for control of the narrative. Sri Lanka is no exception.

Continue Reading



Copyright © 2019 NOQ Report