It's getting crazy out there in the media. There's a full throated assault on Dr. Ben Carson by the left that is based, for the most part, on intentional distortion of things that Carson has said. Here's an example:
Carson told CNN "that the Holocaust would have been 'greatly diminished' had Jewish people in Europe been armed with guns." This is the original report. Carson was making the point that if Jews across Europe had owned guns, they could have used those guns to defend themselves. Carson didn't say the Holocaust would be prevented, but rather that the numbers of Jews killed would have been much less because the Germans would have had to contend with armed resistance.
The immediate response came from the Anti-Defamation League (which often operates as an arm of the Democrat party.) “The small number of personal firearms available to Germany’s Jews in 1938 could in no way have stopped the totalitarian power of the Nazi German state,” said ADL national director Jonathan Greenblatt. Note that the ADL director responds to something different than what Carson said. He's commenting on whether the guns that Jews in Germany actually had during the year before the war could have stopped the Holocaust. Carson, however, was talking about Jews in Europe (not just Germany) being armed, something that was not the case. Indeed, the ADL comment is actually agreeing with Carson; the actual level of arms held by Jews made no difference. By 1938, it was against the law for any Jew to own a firearm. The ADL, however, expressed outrage at Carson's comment. One has to wonder why that it.
Then you get to outlets like MSNBC. They had a panel that debated Carson's comment. Everyone on the panel agreed that Carson was completely wrong in what he said. Then they pointed out that Germans were not barred from owning guns. (Carson, of course, never addressed that.) The MSNBC panel of pundits next said that guns in the hands of civilians could not have prevented the Nazis from killing people. (Again, Carson didn't say that.) The MSNBC morons went on and on like this, but they never actually addressed what Carson said.
Many media outlets picked up the same story without ever honestly reporting what Carson actually said. It's not a case of differing emphasis in the reports. That would be understandable. It's not a case of the media even contesting what Carson actually said. Nope. The media decided that to really attack Carson, they would just change what he actually said to something else, something false, something that would be easier to attack.
It's disgusting to see this in action. I don't support Carson for president. I think, however, that he deserves to be considered on his actual views not on a pack of lies that the media gins up to use against him.
Carson told CNN "that the Holocaust would have been 'greatly diminished' had Jewish people in Europe been armed with guns." This is the original report. Carson was making the point that if Jews across Europe had owned guns, they could have used those guns to defend themselves. Carson didn't say the Holocaust would be prevented, but rather that the numbers of Jews killed would have been much less because the Germans would have had to contend with armed resistance.
The immediate response came from the Anti-Defamation League (which often operates as an arm of the Democrat party.) “The small number of personal firearms available to Germany’s Jews in 1938 could in no way have stopped the totalitarian power of the Nazi German state,” said ADL national director Jonathan Greenblatt. Note that the ADL director responds to something different than what Carson said. He's commenting on whether the guns that Jews in Germany actually had during the year before the war could have stopped the Holocaust. Carson, however, was talking about Jews in Europe (not just Germany) being armed, something that was not the case. Indeed, the ADL comment is actually agreeing with Carson; the actual level of arms held by Jews made no difference. By 1938, it was against the law for any Jew to own a firearm. The ADL, however, expressed outrage at Carson's comment. One has to wonder why that it.
Then you get to outlets like MSNBC. They had a panel that debated Carson's comment. Everyone on the panel agreed that Carson was completely wrong in what he said. Then they pointed out that Germans were not barred from owning guns. (Carson, of course, never addressed that.) The MSNBC panel of pundits next said that guns in the hands of civilians could not have prevented the Nazis from killing people. (Again, Carson didn't say that.) The MSNBC morons went on and on like this, but they never actually addressed what Carson said.
Many media outlets picked up the same story without ever honestly reporting what Carson actually said. It's not a case of differing emphasis in the reports. That would be understandable. It's not a case of the media even contesting what Carson actually said. Nope. The media decided that to really attack Carson, they would just change what he actually said to something else, something false, something that would be easier to attack.
It's disgusting to see this in action. I don't support Carson for president. I think, however, that he deserves to be considered on his actual views not on a pack of lies that the media gins up to use against him.
No comments:
Post a Comment