Slate implies racism drives Conservatism

From my FB Page

Here is an article from ‪#‎Slate‬. As you know, Slate does not have the slightest idea of what makes Conservatives tick. But in reading this article, I find they THINK they do!!! The whole article leans towards calling ‪#‎Racism‬ the primary motivation for all things ‪#Conservative‬.

Several times during the article they cite “white backlash” whatever that is. They throw in George Wallace, then say something inferring that Reagan was a ‪#‎racist‬.

Here’s an excerpt : Republican voters have been mobilized and organized by the politics of white backlash, and the degree to which conservative organs like National Review have been active participants in the process. The classic example is William F. Buckley’s infamous 1957 editorial, “Why the South Must Prevail,” where the National Review founder and premier conservative intellectual made the case against the civil rights movement. “The central question that emerges,” writes Buckley, “is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not predominate numerically. The sobering answer is Yes—the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race.”

WTF does 1957 have to do with the 2016 election would be my first question. You see how they are playing it??? They rattle on with a bunch of rhetoric that the bottom line for Conservatives is Race!!! That is exactly what they are implying with every carefully placed word!!! It really does not bother me, because the readers (and writers) over at #Slate are very weak of mind. I know this. Yet at the same time that’s the point. They are pouring this garbage down the throats of weak minded individuals who will believe it, and form opinions based on this nonsense!!!

One thing I’ll tell you, they are SCARED of ‪#‎TedCruz‬!!! They are like little girls squealing as the neighborhood bully takes their dolls. The simple minded buffoons at slate want ‪#‎Trump‬ to be the candidate, because they all know that once Ted Cruz wins the Presidency “The jig is up!!!”

PS.   Be sure to watch the video of Trump at the end of the page, it’s full of classic “I’m not gonna say that” from Trump, showing his idiocy

You can read the rest at http://www.slate.com/…/gop_elites_prefer_donald_trump_to_te…

Yes, They Are Coming for Your Guns | FrontPage Mag

It’s not paranoia if they’re really gunning for you.

Progressives love to ridicule Americans who are concerned that their Second Amendment rights are being threatened by a gun control-obsessed Obama administration. “No one is coming for your precious guns,” the hoplophobes taunt. “We just want commonsense gun laws.” Except that the pursuit of “commonsense gun laws,” which already exist, is just a smokescreen – President Obama and his crew really are coming for your precious guns.

Obama has made it no secret that he intends to push hard for stricter gun control in his final stretch in office. He emphasized that determination by appearing to be overcome with emotion when discussing the Sandy Hook shooting in a speech on gun control on January 4. That tearful moment – staged or not – spoke powerfully to his fan base, because leftists are all about feelings rather than facts; they feel for the children lost to gun violence, and if you object to “commonsense gun laws” then you are obviously a heartless right-winger who doesn’t care if children die. Never mind that the measures they want to implement not only would not have prevented most mass shootings, but – like the impotency of “gun-free zones” – they are more likely to prevent law-abiding gun owners from defending themselves and their loved ones from mass shooters.

Just prior to that speech, Obama issued executive actions expanding background checks on people buying firearms online or at gun shows. “This is a dangerous level of executive overreach, and the country will not stand for it,” Speaker Paul Ryan responded. “The president is at minimum subverting the legislative branch, and potentially overturning its will.”

Also at the beginning of the year, the Obama administration finalized a rule allowing health care providers to report the names of mentally ill patients to an FBI firearms background check system. Now watch the definition of “mentally ill” begin to expand to include any belief or behavior that the left would like to stamp out – fervent adherence to the Constitution, homeschooling, and climate change “denial,” for example – enabling the government to categorize those gun owners as mentally ill and disarm them.

That’s not all. The Washington Examiner announced that Obama plans to build a new gun control force of 430 agents, more than eight times the size of the team of commandos he is sending to the Middle East to take on ISIS.

And yet in a televised townhall meeting a few days later, Obama treated concerns about gun control overreach as paranoia. CNN moderator Anderson Cooper asked the President about worries that his administration wants to seize all firearms as a precursor to imposing martial law. He blamed that notion on the National Rifle Association (NRA) and others who worry that “somebody’s going to come grab your guns.”

Obama dismissed that concern as crazy talk. “Yes, that is a conspiracy,” he said, then added unconvincingly: “I’m only going to be here for another year. When would I have started on this enterprise?”

Actually, the legal groundwork for that enterprise has long been underway, and it is picking up momentum, especially in California, which is always on the cutting edge of progressive lunacy. Already this month, three separate gun control bills attempting to categorize just about every firearm as an “assault weapon” have been introduced in California, which already has the strictest gun laws in the country and nothing to show for it except increasingly fed-up, law-abiding gun owners.

Senate Bill 880, authored by Democrat Senators Isadore Hall III and Steve Glazer, would change the definition of “assault weapon” to include any semi-automatic, centerfire rifle, or even semi-automatic handgun that does not have a “fixed magazine” but has any one of a list of “evil features.” The bill defines “fixed magazine” as one that “cannot be removed without disassembly of the firearm action.” This would include potentially millions of firearms, including handguns, that would then need to be registered as “assault weapons” with the Department of Justice.

“Senate Bill 880 is another bill representative of the gun control frenzy we’re seeing from big-city Democrats these days,” says Brandon Combs, president of the Firearms Policy Coalition. “Legislators like Hall and Glazer absolutely want to take your guns one bill at a time.”

That goes for California’s fifteen-year-old Unsafe Handgun Act, which includes a roster of handguns that meet the state’s increasingly stringent safety requirements; that roster is getting gradually smaller. The Calguns Foundation estimates that “at the current rate the number of approved handguns will dwindle to practically zero within the next six years… leaving a state of some 38 million unable to purchase new semi-automatic handguns.”

As Eugene Volokh puts it at The Washington Post, calls for bans on the sale or home possession of semiautomatic weapons in general are increasing. “These aren’t calls for restricting supposedly narrow categories of guns that are allegedly used predominantly by criminals,” he writes. “These are calls for banning the sorts of guns that tens of millions of law-abiding Americans have in their homes.”

California Attorney General and anti-gun extremist Kamala Harris recently announced that over the last two years her Department had “doubled the average number of guns seized annually.” She is now backing a separate bill that would require all rifles sold in the state to have permanently fixed magazines. “The devastation wrought by gun violence on innocent victims, children and families in this country, is an international embarrassment,” Harris said in a statement.

International embarrassment? Here is something the internationalist left doesn’t understand: what the rest of the world thinks about American guns is irrelevant. The rest of the world is not America. No other country has or even understands our Constitutionally-guaranteed Second Amendment right. So no other country’s opinion matters.

The leftist media too like the idea of drastic anti-gun measures. Last December The New York Times posted a front-page op-ed for the first time since 1920. “End the Gun Epidemic in America” proposed reducing the number of firearms “drastically — eliminating some large categories of weapons and ammunition.” As for the Second Amendment: “No right is unlimited and immune from reasonable regulation”:

Certain kinds of weapons, like the slightly modified combat rifles used in California, and certain kinds of ammunition, must be outlawed for civilian ownership. It is possible to define those guns in a clear and effective way and, yes, it would require Americans who own those kinds of weapons to give them up for the good of their fellow citizens.

The NRA is trying to counter the left’s anti-gun hysteria. For example, the organization has recently partnered with my friend Amelia Hamilton, a conservative blogger and author of the Growing Patriots series of children’s books, to produce a series of amusing fairy tales reimagined to show what might happen if some of the hapless characters like Hansel and Gretel were trained in the safe use of firearms. “Little Red Riding Hood (Has a Gun),” for example, depicts an armed Red and her armed grandmother successfully defending themselves against the Big Bad Wolf. The Huffington Post huffed and puffed that by doing so, the NRA is trying to put guns into the hands of children.

HuffPost also complains that in the Little Red Riding Hood tale, “the NRA doesn’t explore what would happen if the Big Bad Wolf showed up at the door wielding a firearm himself.” Well, what if he did? All the more reason for Little Red and her grandmother to have their own firepower to defend themselves – that’s why a handgun is called “the great equalizer.” But the left likes to believe that good guys with guns are inept, untrained, and a danger to themselves and others, so having a gun for self-defense only invites more potential for harm.

In the aforementioned townhall meeting, for example, a rape victim confronted Obama about his gun control measures and said she would never allow herself or her family to be victimized again. Here is the President’s condescending response:

There are always questions as to whether or not having a firearm in the home protects you from that kind of violence… What is true is that you have to be pretty well-trained in order to fire a weapon against someone who is assaulting you and catches you by surprise. What is also true is always that possibility that firearm in the home leads to a tragic accident.

Translation: unless you’re a Navy SEAL, you can’t be trusted with a handgun to protect yourself. You’ll just end up hurting yourself or a loved one.

In any case, our Constitutional right to own firearms ultimately isn’t about self-defense, or even hunting; it’s about Americans defending ourselves against a tyrannical government. The fact that gun and ammunition sales as well as NRA memberships have soared since Obama took office is a clear indication of just how concerned Americans are that we are potentially facing just such a threat from the Obama administration and a possible future Clinton administration.

Candidate Hillary Clinton is, if anything, prepared as President to go even further to remove guns from American society. She has spoken favorably of the possibility of initiating something here like the Australian mandatory gun buyback program. And yet she has ridiculed the NRA for believing that the gun rights organization is the only thing keeping “the black helicopters from landing in the front yard and people’s guns being seized.”

Hillary, who travels with a phalanx of armed guards, can mock all she likes, but if she, Obama, and the radical left continue pushing this issue, they will discover that, like Brooke Shields and her Calvin Klein jeans, Americans won’t let anything come between them and their guns. If it comes to a showdown over gun confiscation, American gun owners will have a firm answer for the government: Molon labe.

Mark Tapson is the editor of TruthRevolt.org and a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center.

Tags: Guns, Left, Obama

Share

Chicago Democrat Sworn into Office from Jail

Typical Democrat! “A Felon that steals from Taxpayers” will soon become the actual Webster’s definition of “Democrat” if Democrats hold their present course!!! Exhibit A is found in this FrontPage Mag article by Daniel Greenfield

Wouldn’t it just be more convenient to move the city government into prison or to just treat government buildings as prisons? It would save commuting time and make trials much simpler.

Just ask Bob Battle.

Locks and bars didn’t stop East Chicago Councilman Robert Battle’s inauguration.

The newly sworn-in Battle can retain his public title and annual salary of $42,356 a year despite being held in Porter County Jail on federal drug and homicide charges.

He is pleading not guilty to a five-count indictment alleging he possessed cocaine and marijuana and killed a street gang member as part of a drug-dealing conspiracy.

Democrats are oddly unhappy, even though they seem to be big fans of Obama’s “free the drug dealers” plan. Not to mention restoring voting rights to felons.

“I can’t remember a situation like this,” Sheriff John Buncich, chair of the Lake County Democratic Central Committee, told the Tribune in November, when Battle was reelected just a few weeks after being charged with murder and drug dealing. “It’s wrong for the taxpayers, wrong for our party.”

How, exactly, a man charged with murder and drug dealing just days before an election could win reelection says a lot about life in this poor northwestern corner of Indiana.

The answer: he’s a Democrat.

Battle ran unopposed, winning with just 308 votes in a city of about 30,000 people.

Battle didn’t even vote for himself because he was in jail and didn’t request an absentee ballot, Buncich told NWI.com.

“I just think it’s just a matter of people not knowing [about the charges] and voting for the party they are familiar with,” Eisenstein told the Tribune.

That’s what happens when you have a one-party system.

As early as April, the agents with the Drug Enforcement Agency and the Lake County High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area task force were tapping his phone and investigating him for drug trafficking, according to an Oct. 14 indictment obtained by the Tribune.

On Sept. 23, officials caught Battle with 73 grams of marijuana and $100,700 in cash in his car, according to the indictment. Police also linked him to nine ounces of cocaine and three stolen guns found elsewhere, according to the documents.

Roughly three weeks later, Battle allegedly shot Camarillo in an alley behind Battle’s apartment. Battle said that he killed Camarillo in self-defense after Camarillo pulled a knife on him, according to court documents. But the Lake County Coroner’s Office ruled that Caramillo was shot once in the back, and police failed to find a knife at the scene, the Tribune reported.

Forget Trump, this is a guy who actually got reelected after shooting somebody in the back. Now those are real political skills. But the Democrats, despite their protests now, let it happen.

In 2014, reputed Imperial Gangster Eddie “Macho” Torres tesitified that East Chicago Councilman Robert “Coop” Battle had been involved in the drug trade in the past. Add that to the multiple arrests for possession of marijuana and you get a picture of a candidate most political parties would want to dump. Not so with the Lake County Democratic Party. Battle could have been easily removed from the ballot in several ways, but no one ever challenged him.

Election Board records show that Robert Battle filed a pre-primary report in 2011 showing that Battle neither received nor spent money in the campaign. While that alone should be enough for a challenge, he never filed a single report after that. Candidates are required to file 3 reports in an election year and an annual report in non-election years. Despite that, Battle appeared on the 2015 ballot unchallenged.

What’s the difference between a criminal and a Democrat? No, seriously. What’s the difference?

Source : FRONTPAGE MAG

States Step Up Efforts to Nullify Federal Gun Control Edicts| The New American

Sunday, 24 January 2016

States Step Up Efforts to Nullify Federal Gun Control Edicts

Written by 

If now ye suffer grievously through cowardice all your own,

Cherish no wrath against the gods for this,

For you yourselves increased the usurper’s power by giving him your guard in his hands,

And now, therefore, as his servants you must do as he commands.

— Solon, the Lawgiver of Athens, circa 560 B.C.

 

Since the day he was inaugurated, Barack Obama has pursued twin policies of civilian disarmament and converting local police into a federally funded standing army free from the fetters of local accountability.

He is so sincerely dedicated to achieving these goals that he has usurped the lawmaking powers of Congress and has issued edicts that he promises to enforce with thousands of federal agents who, while the people are being left defenseless, count on an ever-increasing arsenal of military-grade weapons and billions of rounds of ammunition.

Our Founding Fathers were aware of the potential for presidents to accumulate powers not granted them in the Constitution, and they relied on the states to serve as barricades to protect the people from federal officials who would betray them and their oaths of office.

The principal and most effective weapon of state resistance to federal overreaching is nullification. This antidote can stop the poison of all unconstitutional federal acts and executive orders at the state borders and prevent them from being imposed on the people.

Every state in this union retains this right of refusal owing to their role as creators of the federal government because they, the states, created the federal government and reserve the right to resist the exercise by Congress of any powers not specifically granted to it by the states in the Constitution.

States are, it is true, bound by the terms of their agreement (the Constitution) that created the federal government, but they have no obligation to sustain acts of the central government that go beyond the boundaries of that agreement.

This principle is easy to understand by answering the following question: Would anyone enter into an agreement with others to create an entity that would have unlimited authority over them?

Fortunately, when it comes to the right to keep and bear arms, not only did the states give no power to the federal government to interfere in it, but they explicitly prohibited it from infringing whatsoever on this critical liberty.

The Second Amendment states, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Now, in the era of an executive without consideration for any constitutional restraints on his power, states must come to the defense of the rights of the people, and many states are doing just that.

As of the date of publication of this article, at least 15 states are in the process of passing bills that would stop the enforcement of federal gun control measures — congressional, executive, and judicial — at the state borders, protecting this fundamental freedom from the application of unconstitutional acts.

James Madison would applaud these state governments’ “refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union” when those officers are attempting to enforce unconstitutional orders.

Thanks to the educational efforts of organizations such as the Tenth Amendment Center and The John Birch Society, many more state lawmakers are becoming aware of their obligation to deny any aid to the statists in Washington, D.C. and the armies of agents that are sent, in the words of Thomas Jefferson, “to harass our people and eat out their substance.”

Americans determined to defend their right to mount armed resistance to the imposition of tyranny on a once self-governing people must seek out those candidates who will not cower in the face of federal threats if the states are to be successful in nullifying the current administration’s attempts to control the owning, buying, selling, trading, and transferring of all weapons and ammunition.

While there are many state representatives fighting to defend this freedom, the situation in Virginia is disheartening, particularly considering the Old Dominion is the home of James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, the authors of the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, the clearest explanations of the principles protecting the sovereignty of states and the liberties of their people from usurpations by the federal authority.

Consider this report from the Tenth Amendment Center published on January 18:

New documents show that Virginia police are not only admitting to regularly helping the feds enforce federal gun control measures, they’re also worried about losing the funding that comes with it.

House Bill 83, filed in the Virginia state House, would prohibit state agencies and officers from enforcing new federal gun control laws. The bill has been referred to the Appropriations Committee over financial concerns.

According to state documents, although the bill is not expected to have a “direct fiscal” impact on the Department of State Police, the department is claiming that there is a “potential of reduction or elimination of federal grants that they currently have related the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).”

Among those federal grants are for mental health Web service between the state Supreme Court and the police department.

“The first thing that comes to mind is that Virginia state police is outright admitting to being actively involved in helping the feds enforce federal gun measures,” said Michael Boldin of the Tenth Amendment Center. “There’s nothing in the constitution that requires Virginia to help the feds violate your rights — and this needs to stop.”

Fortunately, on that same day South Carolina’s state legislature saw the introduction of a bill that would:

Prohibit the use or allocation of public funds, personnel, or property to implement, regulate, or enforce a federal law, executive order, regulation, or rule regulating the ownership, use, or possession of firearms, ammunition, or firearm accessories.

That is the kind of language needed if nullification is to perform its proper function, that of forcing the federal beast back inside its constitutional cage and maintaining the manifold rights of the people.

If nullification is to be successfully deployed and defended, other states lawmakers must follow the example of the state lawmakers in these 15 states and remember that the Constitution is a creature of the states and that the federal government was given very few and very limited powers over objects of national importance.

The Founders believed and enshrined in our Constitution the timeless principle of liberty that if an act of Congress exceeds the scope of the enumerated powers given to the federal government in the Constitution, then that act was not made in pursuance of the Constitution and is therefore “merely [an act] of usurpation”; it is not only not the supreme law of the land, but it is not law at all.

As Alexander Hamilton explained The Federalist, No. 28:

It may safely be received as an axiom in our political system, that the State governments will, in all possible contingencies, afford complete security against invasions of the public liberty by the national authority. Projects of usurpation cannot be masked under pretenses so likely to escape the penetration of select bodies of men, as of the people at large. The legislatures will have better means of information. They can discover the danger at a distance; and possessing all the organs of civil power, and the confidence of the people, they can at once adopt a regular plan of opposition, in which they can combine all the resources of the community. They can readily communicate with each other in the different States, and unite their common forces for the protection of their common liberty.

If states permit the federal government to rob the people of their ability to resist tyranny, then all other liberties will be at the mercy of that same federal force, for a disarmed populace is a slave populace.

Source : The New American

#DumpDonald

laurie012516-1In my opinion Trump has held it together as long as he could, and is now unraveling into a mess of white noise. Don’t get me wrong, I agree with a lot of what the guy says, but he generally gets on television and brings up a subject 5 minutes after Ted Cruz introduces legislation on the same subject! Then the media historically has given Trump the credit for it.

People, you can agree with Trump on things he says without voting for the guy! You have to remember this is the same guy who called himself “Obama’s biggest cheerleader” and was a registered Democrat in 2009. He flip flops on his views so often it’ll make you dizzy…………..UNTIL he starts running for President.

He’s good friends with Bill and Hillary Clinton and had them at his wedding. He has given more money to the Clinton Foundation than even George Stephanopoulos has! Can you picture Donald Trump in the White House when the threat of a nuclear war broke out with Russia??? I can imagine it!!! Vladimir Putin makes some comment about America ………….

Trump comes back calling him a variety of names using derogatory adjectives and thus we are in WW3!!! Trump is NOT Presidential, never was, never will be. He does not have the temperament. As the election winds down, and Trump’s numbers fall more and more in favor of Cruz, Donald Trump will lash out like a child more and more often.

If you still support Trump you need to do more research!!! Trump is for Trump!!! Ted Cruz is for AMERICA!!! I firmly believe a vote for Trump is a vote for “Hillary by proxy” Putting all of that aside Trump has said he’ll be “making deals” with the establishment, the same establishment that we are all sick and tired of!!!

Not only that, the establishment has come out in favor of Trump too. America, this election is important because we have to change America’s course or our country will fail!!! So why would you vote Trump/establishment when you KNOW they plan on changing nothing???

Ted Cruz on the other hand, is despised by the establishment because he presses the work of the people, NOT the work of the politicians. Ted Cruz is highly intelligent, has the Constitution memorized, and can win a debate with all comers! Ted Cruz has a proven record of voting the way his constituents want him too, and not giving in to any party. Vote Ted Cruz, and #DumpDonald

11234046_930681340328878_8314496133532781122_n

 

Did Trump Vote for Obama??? | Glenn Beck

Let’s hypothesize for a moment that Donald Trump did actually vote for Obama in the 2008 election. If so, should it matter? If a presidential candidate’s long-standing track record, opinions and stated beliefs hold any value, it should. Glenn has emphatically stated his belief that Trump voted for Obama in the 2008 election, laying out a series of facts that would make it hard to believe otherwise. Take a look at some of those facts below. Does it matter? Should you care? If you’re unsure, ask yourself this question: Would you have ever voted for Obama under any circumstances? Take the poll below.
trump_infog_v2_3

Alliance for Fair Coverage of Life Issues

The media are no longer the watchdogs for the American public, but the lapdogs of a liberal agenda committed to the destruction of life. The Alliance for Fair Coverage of Life Issues calls out journalists for their ongoing blackout of pro-life news and demands reporters live up to the standards of journalistic integrity by covering life issues.

The March for Life Media Censorship

The three broadcast networks – ABC, CBS and NBC – have promoted Planned Parenthood, downplayed scandalous abortion videos and given little attention to the march and other pro-life events.

Last year, 200,000 people filled Washington, D.C. for the annual March for Life commemorating the 57 million babies snuffed out since 1973’s Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision. Only CBS mentioned the march, allotting just 15 seconds. That was only one second for every 13,000 people who put work, school and other obligations aside to travel from as far away as the West Coast. That was only one second for every 3.8 million babies aborted in the last four decades.

In 2014, the networks devoted 46 seconds to the hundreds of thousands marching in Washington, D.C. Yet, ABC, NBC and CBS spent six times that on the National Zoo’s new panda cub and four-and-a-half times that on the Climate March.

Since 2013, the networks have devoted just 78 seconds to the March for Life – slightly more than they might have spent broadcasting a couple of burger ads.

This year, ABC, CBS and NBC have no excuse to silence these pro-life voices. This year, the Center for Medical Progress released horrific videos exposing Planned Parenthood’s harvesting of aborted baby parts. This year, CMP’s David Daleiden proved a game-changer not only in the pro-life movement but also in Congress.

This year, it’s time for the networks to stop censoring the news and to tell the truth about the March for Life.

To hold the media accountable on life issues, Alliance for Fair Coverage of Life Issues encourages citizens to contact the network representatives listed below to demand coverage of the march and pro-life issues. Tell @ABC, @CBSNews and @NBCNews to #CovertheMarch on Twitter.

Mr. Steve Burke

CALL NOW:
(877) 784-9793

President, NBC Universal
30 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, NY 10112

Mr. David Rhodes

CALL NOW:
(877) 734-8032

President, CBS News
524 W. 57th Street
New York, NY 10019

Mr. Ben Sherwood

CALL NOW:
(877) 660-5301

President, Disney-ABC Television Group
47 West 66th Street
New York, NY 10023

Outlined below are some important talking points:

  1. Last year, despite hundreds of thousands of marchers, ABC and NBC failed to even mention the March for Life. CBS allotted just 15 seconds. This is NOT journalism. This is bias.
  2. Since 2013, ABC, CBS and NBC have spent just 78 seconds covering the March for Life.
  3. This year, after the Planned Parenthood videos and Congress’ push to defund Planned Parenthood, there is no excuse to ignore the march other than a pure liberal bias.
  4. Ask the media to cover the March for Life fairly and accurately. This includes:
      • Details of the March and its purpose
      • Accurate number of attendees based on the official headcount
      • Speakers and their topics
      • 2016 March for Life theme: “Pro-Life and Pro-Woman Go Hand-in-Hand”
      • Focus on the pro-life rally and attendees, not the outnumbered minority of pro-choice protesters. This rally is not about them, it’s about the unborn

Alliance for Fair Coverage of Life Issues Guidelines

To regain the trust of the American public, Alliance for Fair Coverage of Life Issues urges journalists to adhere to the following guidelines while reporting on life issues:

1. Report on life issues of public interest.

The media have an obligation to report on life, from the unborn to the elderly. That includes videos questioning a taxpayer-funded organization and events like a congressional vote to defund Planned Parenthood.

2. Report on the pro-life movement.

Report on the March for Life and on the movement’s nationwide protests and other pro-life events. Don’t censor voices according to an agenda.

3. Include pro-life voices.

As journalists, remember to include experts who defend life, from conception until natural death, regardless of personal ideology.

4. Refuse conflict-of-interest awards.

Reject awards or benefits, as a journalist, from special interest organizations that expect something in return. And they often expect something in return.

5. Don’t Dismiss. Investigate.

Take seriously the claims against abortion organizations like Planned Parenthood. Don’t assume the talking points of one side. Look into health complaints at facilities and report on patients that have been harmed by abortion.

Alliance Partners:


Alliance for Fair Coverage of Life Issues encourages citizens to petition news outlets to show scenes like these to the American public, instead of engaging in censorship:

March for Life 2015:

March for Life 2014:

March for Life 2013:

The mission of the Media Research Center is to create a media culture in America where truth and liberty flourish. The MRC is a research and education organization operating under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, and contributions to the MRC are tax-deductible. Copyright © 2016, Media Research Center. All Rights Reserved.

©Copyright 2016, Media Research Center  |  All Rights Reserved  |  About MRC  |  Contact Us

Source : Alliance for Fair Coverage of Life Issues

and the Media Research Center