How The Left Lied About Israel

How The Left Lied About Israel

There is no more ethics in journalism...
302
views

Following President Trump's move of the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, protests erupted in Gaza along the border with Israel. Violent clashes between the Israeli forces and the Palestinian protesters soon followed with Israeli forces fatally wounding around 58 according to CNN.

Coverage from left-leaning news outlets such as CNN and NBC took the side of the protesters calling their demonstration "peaceful" and maintaining that the protesters were unarmed. Ironically, in the video footage on CNN, you can clearly see Palestinian men hurling Molotov cocktails at the border wall. I don't know about you but throwing homemade incendiary grenades is not particularly peaceful. And again in the same news story, CNN links a tweet in which you can hear Palestinians opening fire on Israeli drones dropping tear gas.

It has been maintained by these organizations that these were wrongful killings as the protesters were peaceful even though their own footage says otherwise, but that is not the crux of the problem. Let's give them the benefit of the doubt for a second and say they were just misguided.

But wait, leaders of the terrorist organization Hamas were seen on local news stations claiming that 50 if not more of the "protesters" killed were Hamas operatives. According to the New York Post, " Salah Bardawil said 50 of the 62 protesters killed by Israeli Defense Forces were members of the Iranian-backed group, which controls Gaza".

Hamas even admitted to using women and children as cover for their plans to break through the border separating Israel from Gaza. It is now also known that at least three more who were killed were members of the Palestinian Authority, another terrorist organization operating in the region. These killings do not seem so indiscriminate when almost all of those killed in the protests were members of terrorist organizations.

Of course, this never made the front pages as the only story the left cared to push were that innocent lives were lost and did not stop NPR from trying to push a false narrative against Israel. Steve Inskeep of NPR reported, "I'm Steve Inskeep reporting from Gaza. We're in this territory at the western border of Israel where Israeli troops killed many people yesterday as they were trying to leave. Gaza health officials put the death toll at at least 60." Inskeep even goes on to talk with protesters about their homemade kites brandished with swastikas.

Inskeep says to the man, "The Israelis know that people are flying kites with swastikas. They know this, and they use it to discredit you, to say this shows you're bad people. What do you think about that?". The man literally responds with, "his is actually what we want them to know, that we want to burn them".

Well Steve, how does it feel to be openly backing terrorists in a campaign against a legitimate, sovereign nation?

Cover Image Credit: Los Angeles Times

Popular Right Now

5 Perks Of Having A Long-Distance Best Friend

The best kind of long-distance relationship.
234127
views

Sometimes, people get annoyed when girls refer to multiple people as their "best friend," but they don't understand. We have different types of best friends. There's the going out together best friend, the see each other everyday best friend and the constant, low maintenance best friend.

While I'm lucky enough to have two out of the three at the same school as me, my "low maintenance" best friend goes to college six hours from Baton Rouge.

This type of friend is special because no matter how long you go without talking or seeing each other, you're always insanely close. Even though I miss her daily, having a long-distance best friend has its perks. Here are just a few of them...

1. Getting to see each other is a special event.

Sometimes when you see someone all the time, you take that person and their friendship for granted. When you don't get to see one of your favorite people very often, the times when you're together are truly appreciated.

2. You always have someone to give unbiased advice.

This person knows you best, but they probably don't know the people you're telling them about, so they can give you better advice than anyone else.

3. You always have someone to text and FaceTime.

While there may be hundreds of miles between you, they're also just a phone call away. You know they'll always be there for you even when they can't physically be there.

4. You can plan fun trips to visit each other.

When you can visit each other, you get to meet the people you've heard so much about and experience all the places they love. You get to have your own college experience and, sometimes, theirs, too.

5. You know they will always be a part of your life.

If you can survive going to school in different states, you've both proven that your friendship will last forever. You both care enough to make time for the other in the midst of exams, social events, and homework.

The long-distance best friend is a forever friend. While I wish I could see mine more, I wouldn't trade her for anything.

Cover Image Credit: Just For Laughs-Chicago

Related Content

Connect with a generation
of new voices.

We are students, thinkers, influencers, and communities sharing our ideas with the world. Join our platform to create and discover content that actually matters to you.

Learn more Start Creating

The Crimes And Misdemeanors Of A Sitting President

Whether you agree with Nancy Pelosi, regarding impeachment or not, the question each American should ask is: Can this nation survive any more division?

168
views

Whether you agree with Nancy Pelosi, regarding impeachment or not, the question each American should ask is; can this nation survive any more division? Is Nancy correct in her comment, "He's just not worth it?" Impeachment should not be used as a political tool to remove an unwanted government official out of office. Its purpose is to bring charges against a government official and once the official is impeached then the legislative body can impose judgment which could ultimately remove the official from office.

Moreover, in the past, this country has impeached two sitting presidents and neither ended with his removal. According to www.merriam-webster.com, the definition of impeaching is "(a) to charge with a crime or misdemeanor, specifically: to charge a public official before a competent tribunal with misconduct in office. (b) to remove from office especially for misconduct, and (c) to bring an accusation against."

So how many cases of impeachment has the United States experienced with sitting presidents? According to www.History.com, eight U.S. presidents have faced impeachment, but with very different results. John Tyler was the first president to face impeachment proceedings in 1843. Representative John Botts of Virginia filed claimed Tyler conduct of the U.S. Treasury although the House of Representatives voted Botts' claim down.

Andrew Johnson was the second sitting president to have impeachment proceedings filed against him. In 1868 President Johnson dismissed Secretary of War Edwin Stanton and according to Congress, the president violated the Tenure of Office Act. Even though Johnson was impeached the Senate would not confirm his removal from office and he finished his term.

With the exception of Grover Cleveland, the twentieth century gave way for many calls for impeachment beginning with Herbert Hoover, Harry Truman, Ronald Reagan, and ending with George H.W. Bush. None of these presidents were subjected to the process as the claims never had the votes to call for a hearing on the committees.

There were three articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon, however, he resigned in 1974 before any of the proceedings could take place. In 1998 Bill Clinton was impeached over allegations of perjury and obstruction of justice relating to the Monica Lewinsky case. In Clinton's case, the Senate acquitted, and he finished his term in office just like Andrew Johnson.

President Trump is under scrutiny for some of the very reason's other presidents have had impeachment proceedings. He has proven to most American's that he is a danger to our democracy. Trump has snubbed his nose at the foreign emolument clause, creating an open way for foreign powers to pressure our president to stray from his constitutional obligation to the United States. The firing of the FBI Director James Comey and fulling admitting on national television to Lester Holt that he did because of "this Russia thing." This is "obstruction of justice," and other presidents have been charged with this article of impeachment. However, Nixon resigned, and Clinton was acquitted.

So why is he not worth it? First the truth, he won the election. Unless there is proven evidence that he colluded with the Russians to rig the 2016 presidential election reversing this fact will drive this new faction of voters back to the polls to elect another under-qualified candidate. In addition, the Republican Party will use the impeachment as a platform in the upcoming election. Citing the Democrats stole the White House from them.

Second, is the nation ready for even one year of Mike Pence as president? His record as Governor of Indiana is the only evidence needed. He banned Syrian refugees, he reinstated mandatory minimum sentences and authored a bill to defund Planned Parenthood. He doesn't take to Twitter, has the political knowledge, and is waiting his turn to strike like an incurable virus.

Third and even more disturbing is the Republican Party and their efforts to gloss over his crimes and misdemeanors and cite the economy, and jobs. Many won't vote against Trump because of his base; cannot afford to have to explain their decisions to his base voters in 2020. Most fear they will have to go through a primary. Even though if they removed Trump and put Pence in his place they could have during their two-year reign and most American's civil liberties would be a thing of the past.

The voters gave their voice in 2018 and Congress is working, unlike the previous Congress. They have a lot of work to do and spinning their wheels debating the crimes and misdemeanors of the sitting president is counter-productive. History will repeat itself and he will be acquitted.

Related Content

Facebook Comments