Earlier this week, the U.S. Embassy opened in Israel's capital city of Jerusalem. The significance of this is two-fold. First, The U.S. Embassy in Israel is now in the country's self identified capital as it is in every other nation. Second, in relatively short order for anything political, President Trump moved the embassy after every President since 1995 had given the move lip service.
You would have thought the President had rained down bombs on the West Bank or that Ivanka and Jared had launched some rockets into Gaza themselves to celebrate. To hear the mainstream media tell it, dozens of innocent civilians were gunned down at the Israeli-Gaza border for simply waving a sign and protesting the move. A small sample of the headlines:
- From the New York Times - "Israel Kills Dozens at Gaza Border as U.S. Embassy Opens in Jerusalem"
- From MSNBC - "Despite Trump’s ‘gut-driven’ confidence, deadly violence erupts in Gaza"
- From The New York Daily News - "Daddy's Little Ghoul" with a picture of Ivanka at the embassy
Then come the tweets from prominent Democrats and celebrities alike. All with the same general theme meant to evoke the worst possible image for Israel and the President. The narrative was that the people at the Gaza borders were "protestors" and "demonstrators" that Israeli forces fired upon just for being there.
It's like they don't even want to listen to the people who were there. Like Hamas. You know that State Department designated terrorist group? Here's what one of their senior officials had to say:
Turns out 50 of the 62 killed were members of Hamas. There were also a handful from another Islamic jihad group. Because jihad means holding up a sign in peaceful protest.
Wouldn't at least being curious about who the players in the skirmish were be called Journalism 101? Do they know Twitter exists and people are gonna find out? And for the record, I don't care that the IDF was better armed. If you are trying to kill me and I kill you first, I win.
Then the New York Times treated us to a nifty piece of propaganda on operation "Crossfire Hurricane. It was such an obvious puff piece aimed at creating a narrative for the FBI and the DOJ as more information is requested by Congress and IG Horowitz ties up looking into the Clinton e-mail probe, I only got 2/3 in.
After the last Inspector General report there is no way those leaks were not authorized. They were 100% intentional and the New York Times gave them all the fanfare it could. "Really guys, really. We had a reason to look into the Trump campaign. Promise." screamed from nearly every paragraph.
Then this morning's outrage was that President Trump had called illegal immigrants "animals". Here is just a sample of the headlines:
- From the "Trump Calls Some Unauthorized Immigrants ‘Animals’ in Rant"
- From Vox In-Depth "Trump on deported immigrants: “They’re not people. They’re animals.”
- From The Washington Post "In reference to ‘animals,’ Trump evokes an ugly history of dehumanization"
- From USA Today "OnPolitics Today: Trump calls undocumented people 'animals,' rhetoric with a dark past"
You get the general idea. And if it were true, it sounds awful. While I am all for strong immigration enforcement, I do not deny that the vast majority of those who cross illegally are looking for better opportunities or a safer community. However it wasn't true.
At a White House event where the President was talking to Californians who oppose the sanctuary state law, he was responding to a question form a sheriff specifically about the notorious Central American gang MS-13:
Talk about selective editing. And again for the record, given the heinous crimes this gang has committed such as stabbing a man 100 times and decapitating him and beating two teenage girls to death with bats and machetes, I am fine with calling them animals. They also threatened to kill law enforcement officers on Long Island because the police were getting too effective at curtailing their activities.
Of course, now the same media that was screeching all these half truths and selective details is actually publishing the fact that 50 members of Hamas were killed in Gaza. They are also reporting that Trump "claims" he was referring to MS-13. How good of them.
Of course it would be better if they did their full investigation first. However, that isn't the point. The point is and will continue to be the anti-Trump narrative. Even in getting the facts right on the second go round, the media outlets and their allies in liberal politics and Hollywood know, the first headlines leave the lasting impression. Not the corrections or retractions.