Connect with us

Fake News Media

PolitiFact Tries to Protect Dem Candidates, Exposed For Bogus ‘Fact-Checking’

Published

on

PolitiFact, which is absolutely a non-partisan “fact-checking” organization (and don’t you dare suggest otherwise, you looney conspiracy theorist) was forced to retract a bogus ruling that sought protect Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) from a Republican attack ad.

“You know, that’s one thing the United States has that nobody else has, is the freedom to fly around and be affordable where a normal person can afford it,” a constituent told McCaskill at a 2017 town hall.

The constituent was referring to his own own private plane, which McCaskill confirmed to Free Beacon at the time.

Trending: As Black Lives Matter Terrorists Burn Down America, Ben Shapiro Endorses Gun Control

“Will you remind them when they come after me about my husband’s plane that normal people can afford it?” McCaskill responded to her constituent.

take our poll - story continues below

Did Kyle Rittenhouse act in self defense?

  • VOTE NOW: Did Kyle Rittenhouse act in self defense when he shot three BLM rioters? 

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Big League Politics updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

But when the Senate Leadership Fund ran an ad attacking McCaskill for being out of touch with her constituents for thinking that “normal people” can afford private planes, it struck a chord with the arbiters of truth over at PolitiFact.

“Did Claire McCaskill say normal people can afford a private plane? No,” the organization said definitively, attaching a link to its story.

Shortly thereafter, they unpublished the story, claiming that they received “new evidence” that may not support their “False” rating of the original story.

To be clear, that “new evidence” was readily available before they published the original story – they either chose to ignore it, or did not properly research the evidence before publishing their story. After all the hoopla, PolitiFact issued a new “fact-check.”

This time they labeled the ad “half-true,” claiming that it “exaggerated” McCaskill’s statements.

This is the second time that PolitiFact has run cover for a Democrat candidate this week. Earlier in the week, they labeled an objectively true claim made by Rep. Martha McSally (R-Ariz.) as “mostly false.”

McSally is running against Rep. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) for U.S. Senate.

“While we were in harm’s way in uniform, [Sinema] was protesting us in a pink tutu and denigrating our service,” McSally, a former U.S. Air Force fighter pilot, said at a rally.

While acknowledging the truth in McSally’s statement, PolitiFact still called her a liar. Here is thier explanation:

McSally in a campaign ad said, “While we were in harm’s way in uniform, Kyrsten Sinema was protesting us in a pink tutu and denigrating our service.”

McSally retired from the Air Force in 2010 after 26 years of military service. After 9/11, Sinema led protests against the war in Iraq. At a 2003 rally called “No War! A Celebration of Life and Creativity,” Sinema wore a pink tutu. Media reports of the rallies in 2002 and 2003 quote Sinema as opposing the war and the Bush administration’s policy, but we found no evidence of her disparaging troops.

McSally’s statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate it Mostly False.

Attending the anti-war rally was not, in itself, “disparaging” enough for McSally to even receive a “half-true” rating from PolitiFact. The fact-checking jokers based their entire case against McSally not on the fact that the claim of Sinema’s anti-war protesting was inherently true, but rather on definition of the word “disparaging.”

At what point can we all agree that “fact-checking” sites like PolitiFact are simply leftist public relations entities?

Fake News Media

Reuters Calls Louisville Riots Where Cops Were Shot by Black Lives Matter Terrorists ‘Mostly Peaceful’

Published

on

After cops were shot in Louisville during widespread Black Lives Matter rioting on Wednesday night, Reuters had the audacity to claim that the demonstrations were “mostly peaceful.”

In the Reuters article linked in the tweet, the shooting of the police officers was buried in the article. Instead, editors focused on the race of the cops who returned fire to Breonna Taylor’s boyfriend after he shot at them while they were carrying out a lawful warrant at his home.

take our poll - story continues below

Did Kyle Rittenhouse act in self defense?

  • VOTE NOW: Did Kyle Rittenhouse act in self defense when he shot three BLM rioters? 

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Big League Politics updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

“Two white policemen who fired into the apartment of Breonna Taylor, a Black medical worker, will not be prosecuted for her death because their use of force was justified, and a third was charged with endangering her neighbors, Kentucky’s attorney general said on Wednesday,” they wrote.

Reuters buried the lead, opting to demonize the “heavily armed police” who sent the “crowd scurrying for cover,” even though it was the Black Lives Matter/ANTIFA terrorists who shot the law enforcement officers.

Big League Politics reported on the decision by Kentucky officials to charge one of the three officers involved in the shooting death of Taylor:

On September 23, 2020, Jefferson County Judge Annie O’Connell announced that fired detective Brett Hankinson will be indicted on three counts of wanton endangerment for his actions on the night of Breonna Taylor’s death.

Hankison had previously admitted to shooting blindly. Some of those shots were fired into neighboring apartments not into Breonna Taylor’s where her boyfriend had opened fire onto police.

Myles Cosgrove and Jonathan Mattingly, the other two officers involved in a serving a search warrant on the night that Taylor was killed, did not receive any charges.

The city of Louisville was placed under a state of emergency on September 22, when city officials shutdown a significant portion of the city perimeter to traffic. The majority of administrative building and other businesses were boarded up prior to the decision. Louisville has been rocked by riots related to Taylor’s death in March. These riots have been occurring for over 100 days and have resulted in a number of deaths and heated confrontations with law enforcement.

Starting on the night of September 23, there will be a 72-hour curfew in Louisville. The curfew will not apply to people partaking in essential travel, which includes work-related purposes or medical attention. Kentucky National Guard members will be deployed to the city for the purpose of maintaining public order…

Conservatives and nationalists should make it a point to promote healthy debate, while establishing a baseline of public security, to ensure that the country does not spiral further out of control in such times of instability.

 

Continue Reading
It's time to name Antifa a terror org! Sign your petition now!


Trending