I have mentioned several times before that we must be very careful reading stories from the Mainstream Media. In "This and That #10" I pointed out that the media will bury crucial details far into a story hoping, I guess, that not too many people will read that far and uncover the deceit that completely explodes their screaming anti-American headlines.
They have other methods of disseminating falsehoods as accurate statements.
One of their most frequently deployed appears in the following paragraph. Subtly mis-representing the words of the person they are quoting..
"The president continued to ratchet up the anti-immigrant rhetoric on Twitter.
“Democrats are the problem,” he tweeted Tuesday morning.
“They don’t care about crime and want illegal immigrants, no matter how
bad they may be, to pour into and infest our Country, like MS-13. They
can’t win on their terrible policies, so they view them as potential
voters!”".
Did you spot it? Of course you did. The authors used the completely inappropriate and loaded term "anti-immigrant" when any honest account would have said "anti illegal immigrant". The President was very clear. He is determined to stop "illegal immigrants".
Here is another sample of the use of mis-characterization.
"The U.S. Supreme Court delivered a blow to the rights of workers on Monday by allowing companies to require them to sign away their ability to bring class-action claims against management, agreements already in place for about 25 million employees."
My goodness. I didn't realize the Court could deliver such a "blow". Surely if this "right" existed the Court would affirm it. They are not in the business of rescinding "rights".
Could it be that the deployers of these terms are mistaken? In a word, yes.
" "The policy may be debatable but the law is clear: Congress has instructed that arbitration agreements like those before us must be enforced as written," Gorsuch wrote."
So, change the law, end the problem. That, of course, is difficult. It would require articulating a coherent case for a legislative fix to what the left sees as a serious problem.
Not a course they happily choose. Too difficult. Much easier to throw stones at conservatives.
"The justices, in a 5-4 ruling with the court's conservatives in the majority, endorsed the legality...". They confirmed the clarity and constitutionality of legislation. They also hinted that they might not favor the policy. As conservatives they understand that their job is not making policy. That is the job of the legislature.
Whenever I read lefty objections to Supreme Court decisions I am reminded of Barbara Boxer's (former Democrat US Senator, CA) comment when interviewed on the 30th anniversary of Roe v Wade. "When the Supreme Court speaks it is as if God has spoken".
Except, apparently, when it isn't.
Here is another sample of the use of mis-characterization.
"The U.S. Supreme Court delivered a blow to the rights of workers on Monday by allowing companies to require them to sign away their ability to bring class-action claims against management, agreements already in place for about 25 million employees."
My goodness. I didn't realize the Court could deliver such a "blow". Surely if this "right" existed the Court would affirm it. They are not in the business of rescinding "rights".
Could it be that the deployers of these terms are mistaken? In a word, yes.
" "The policy may be debatable but the law is clear: Congress has instructed that arbitration agreements like those before us must be enforced as written," Gorsuch wrote."
So, change the law, end the problem. That, of course, is difficult. It would require articulating a coherent case for a legislative fix to what the left sees as a serious problem.
Not a course they happily choose. Too difficult. Much easier to throw stones at conservatives.
"The justices, in a 5-4 ruling with the court's conservatives in the majority, endorsed the legality...". They confirmed the clarity and constitutionality of legislation. They also hinted that they might not favor the policy. As conservatives they understand that their job is not making policy. That is the job of the legislature.
Whenever I read lefty objections to Supreme Court decisions I am reminded of Barbara Boxer's (former Democrat US Senator, CA) comment when interviewed on the 30th anniversary of Roe v Wade. "When the Supreme Court speaks it is as if God has spoken".
Except, apparently, when it isn't.
