Close window | View original article
The mainstream media has been biased against conservatism at least as far back as the Great Depression, and for a generation or two there wasn't much to be done about it: running a newspaper, radio network, or TV station was hideously expensive, and for whatever reason, conservative businessmen tended not to want to invest in media.
For many years, tiny National Review was pretty much the only voice of conservatism that anyone not deeply politically involved would have heard of, unless you also include the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal which everyone has heard of but few read. And for some while Rush Limbaugh was the only conservative voice you could actually hear over the airwaves.
Thanks to Al Gore's amazing invention of the Internet (and George W. Bush's kind contribution of his middle initial, repeated, as a prefix to all the addresses), this has changed. Every possible view, including conservatives of all stripes, can find a home somewhere in the bowels of the World Wide Web. Some, like the Drudge Report, Breitbart, Ann Coulter, and Michelle Malkin have even emerged to mainstream prominence. Finally, we have the only diversity that matters in a free country: diversity of opinion!
But a very disturbing trend is becoming more and more pronounced. You'd think our modern conservative pundits would have learned from the lies and bias of their leftist predecessors, and determine to use the greatest of care in being 100% accurate and fair in reporting.
This would be a serious handicap to the left, who has to lie and smear in order to get their way, but it shouldn't be necessary to right-leaning writers: leftists say and do things that are plenty stupid without embellishment.
From its inception, Scragged has always endeavored to tell the truth as we see it, documenting facts through copious use of hyperlinks. Though we wouldn't claim to rise to Rush Limbaugh's accuracy level of 99%, we do our best, and when an error is unearthed try to make an appropriate correction or at least issue a clarification in the comments.
As conservatives, who believe, as did Thomas Jefferson, that "There is not a truth existing which I fear... or would wish unknown to the whole world." that is the very least we can do.
Why, then, is PJ Media, erstwhile Pajamas Media, a founding member of the modern network of conservative online opinion outlets, stooping to tactics more appropriate to MSNBC?
To our ecstasy, The Donald has finally said openly what vast numbers of Americans have been thinking in private but not daring to say: that it's time and past time to cease all Muslim immigration to the United States forthwith.
Are all Muslims murderous barbarians? Of course not! But the events of San Bernardino conclusively prove that our security screenings are utterly incapable of keeping evil ones out, and the simple fact is that there is absolutely no right for foreigners to come into our land. The single, solitary reason for foreigners to be allowed to come here, is so that America might be improved by their presence. If they're better off too, well and good, but that's not the purpose.
Islam has overwhelmingly demonstrated itself to be utterly destructive wherever introduced. Why, then, would any rational American tolerate the cancerous poison of Islam to be introduced here in the form of active and violent Muslims? When you're being poisoned, the first thing to do is to stop drinking more - which is exactly what Mr. Trump is calling for.
That's not enough for PJ Media.
Donald Trump wants a "total and complete shutdown" of any Muslim anywhere in the world from entering the United States.
In this group, he includes Muslim soldiers who are American citizens fighting in Afghanistan. That's it. They can't come home...
How can anyone who calls himself an "American" make a statement like that? Incredible. Preventing a U.S. citizen from returning home because of his religion? That's easily the most outrageous -- and illegal -- proposal Trump has made to date.
Writer Rick Moran might have a smidgen of a point - if that's what Donald Trump had proposed. But it simply is not at all what he said. In fact, he clarified his statement in a followup interview that American citizens who happen to be Muslim can of course come home. Even CNN was able to understand the distinction:
Trump confirmed that his policy would not apply to current Muslims in the U.S. during a Fox News interview on Monday evening.
We can't help but notice, though, that we do have a severe problem with U.S. citizens who are Muslim committing acts of terrorism. The husband of last week's murderous rampage was not only a citizen, he was a natural-born one who would have been eligible for the Presidency - which lends a great deal of relevance to Dr. Ben Carson's contention that Muslims don't belong in the Oval Office even if they are technically qualified. Maj. Nidal Hasan of Ft. Hood infamy was not only a citizen but had sworn to defend the Constitution, for all the good that little lie did for his victims. And don't forget the Tsarnaevs and the Boston Marathon bombing.
Nevertheless, it is simply wrong to banish American citizens without, at the very least, due process of law and conviction of actual wrongdoing. This applies to Muslims as to Nazis, Communists, cannibals, and any other form of evildoer.
Of course, given that Muslims, like those others, are statistically demonstrated to be vastly more prone to atrocities than your average Joe, it's only common sense to keep a close eye on the ones already here. Fortunately, that's also part of what Mr. Trump is proposing, a policy that is exactly what the FBI has done for neo-Nazis, the KKK, skinheads, and other violent groups with a fair degree of success over the years.
It's unclear why Mr. Moran and PJ Media thought they could get away with this preposterous slander for even a moment. As a quick perusal of the comments demonstrates, they didn't: reader after reader shouted the truth and cited the article - from a conservative publication! - as one more reason why they don't trust any media and will be voting for Mr. Trump.
We have long read and enjoyed PJ publications, but this incident gives us serious pause. It is also a timely reminder that, no matter what the source, it must be read critically with a gimlet eye to truth and right.
And yes, that applies to our Gentle Readers perusing these pages. For we cannot be accurate 100% of the time. The difference is, when we aren't, we appreciate the truth being pointed out, for we're not afraid of it.