Connect with us

Media Bias

An MSNBC reporter found himself in hot water for his accidental defense of the Second Amendment

Published

on

MSNBC is unapologetic for their left-wing views.

Their anchors and reporters regularly parrot far-left talking points and attack conservatives.

But one MSNBC reporter accidentally defended the Second Amendment and could end up in big trouble for it.

In the left-wing media, there is no sin worse than defending the right of citizens to keep and bear arms.

And on MSNBC, with rabid leftist hosts like Rachel Maddow, it is something you will never see.

But in a rare moment of candor, MSNBC reporter Kerry Sanders appeared to unwittingly make the case for the Second Amendment while reporting on the violent crisis in Venezuela.

While citizens of Venezuela are standing up to dictator Nicolas Maduro, the military backing Maduro is fighting back, often with extreme violence against the citizenry.

And Sanders reports on this, stating, “In Venezuela, gun ownership is not something that’s open to everybody.” Adding, “if the military have the guns, they have the power.”

The Washington Free Beacon reports:

MSNBC reporter Kerry Sanders unwittingly made the American case for the Second Amendment during a report Tuesday on the political upheaval in Venezuela.

Anchor Andrea Mitchell introduced Sanders for his report by commenting on the surprising ability of Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro to stay in power, despite the pressure on him to step down.

“Not only hanging on but he appears to still control the military,” Sanders said. “You have to understand, in Venezuela gun ownership is not something that’s open to everybody. So if the military have the guns, they have the power and as long as Nicolás Maduro controls the military, he controls the country.”

Maduro’s socialist regime has presided over economic devastation in Venezuela, where citizens are beset by rising prices and food and medical shortages. The country banned private gun ownership in 2012 under Maduro’s authoritarian predecessor, Hugo Chavez.

This is the exact argument the most fervent defenders of the Second Amendment make.

Because ultimately, the right to keep and bear arms has less to do with personal defense, or hunting, than it does with providing a check on a hostile government.

And as we’re seeing in Venezuela, when citizens are unable to own guns they stand little chance in fighting back against a violent dictator like Maduro oppressing the people under absolute despotism.

Sanders clearly didn’t realize exactly what the argument he was making entails, as it was just a very short portion of his report.

Do you think the right to keep and bear arms deters would-be tyrants?

Let us know your thoughts in the comment section below.

Continue Reading
11 Comments

11 Comments

  1. old biker

    May 4, 2019 at 11:13 pm

    Hell yes it matters always has always will.
    MAGA vote for TRUMP!!

  2. david

    May 5, 2019 at 12:47 am

    This guy is bacon;;liberal fascism does not allow common sense to prevail.

  3. JDN

    May 5, 2019 at 1:19 am

    Can’t argue with the Reporter on this one. Also THE USA needs some M-60s on the Southern Border right now. That would sure slow the stream of Invaders down. Every 6th round needs to be a tracer.

  4. Ray

    May 5, 2019 at 12:28 pm

    All I can say is, if we the people did not have that right, we would be stuck with former president Obama instead of our great president Donald Trump.

  5. John M

    May 5, 2019 at 4:01 pm

    I’m not willing to relinquish my right of unrestricted access to firearms for some demented social experiment.
    What if THEY are wrong?
    Leave our Constitution alone and go play with some other country’s destiny.

  6. Rodney Orr

    May 5, 2019 at 4:27 pm

    Even a Ma Duce with the same set up would work too!!!!!!

  7. Scott Campbell

    May 5, 2019 at 4:52 pm

    So, a liberal finally admits gun ownership is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY to freedom. I suspect he will be fired for telling the truth.

  8. Don x

    May 5, 2019 at 7:11 pm

    The truth has a way of coming out even if by the mouth of a leftist liberal.

  9. RexAlan

    May 5, 2019 at 10:41 pm

    What liberal or liberal policy makes sense? Name either!

  10. James

    May 8, 2019 at 11:21 pm

    The private ownership of firearms absolutely matters and it matters greatly! The left Wing Marxist Control Freak Democrap Party would like to institute a centrally controlled Communist police state government in America. However, with 350 million guns in the hands of American citizens, they know better than to even attempt such a coup!

  11. bkjol

    May 13, 2019 at 3:24 pm

    I agree with everyone here, private ownership o firearms absolutely matters and is core right guaranteed by the 2nd amendment and will not be relinquished.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

CNN

CNN’s Jake Tapper flat-out refused to correct AOC when she was caught in this outrageous lie

Published

on

Members of Congress used to be known for only lying to their constituents back home.

And the media was once known as “the arbiter of truth” and an institution of trust and respect.

But that has all changed and now CNN’s Jake Tapper flat-out refused to correct AOC when she was caught in this outrageous lie.

CNN’s Jake Tapper has gone from being considered by some as a respected, impartial journalist to just another left-wing hack who can lie and promote the Left’s with the best of them.

Tapper recently admitted that he allowed Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) to blatantly lie about President Trump during a recent interview.

AOC said during the interview, “The beds and the capacity that we need in this country. And we’re hearing it every step of the way from this administration. First, we were hearing that it’s a hoax, then we were hearing that everything was fine.”

This all stemmed from earlier false press reports claiming the President called coronavirus a hoax. The claims were quickly disproven and even corrected by most news outlets.

But clearly not by CNN.

Tapper later even admitted he knew it was a lie from AOC, but chose not to say anything.

“I thought about it, because the president did not call the virus a hoax.” Tapper said.

Tapper went further in trying to deflect from the Congresswoman’s lie by simply accusing the president of being a liar.

“I guess that’s the problem with a politician who lies so often. While I agree that Democrats are mischaracterizing what he said, what he did say was also false so it’s tough to justify taking the time for a fact check when it’s not taking a stand defining the truth,” Jake added.

So, in other words, because Tapper doesn’t like the president and personally believes Donald Trump lies often, he decided not to correct a blatant lie on his show.

This disregard for the truth is so widespread by the media now, Tapper’s decision didn’t receive much coverage.

There was a time not so long ago when ploys like this would have cost a reporter his job.

But we have moved far past that time in history.

The Trump era may go down in history as the time that journalism died its last death.

Share your thoughts about this story with Pants on Fire News in the comments below.

Continue Reading

Donald Trump

The New York Times is using the current crisis to attack Christians for this outrageous reason

Published

on

Most Americans are coming together to battle both the Chinese coronavirus and the economic fallout from forced business closings.

But the media has decided this crisis is a great time to attack the very country that first protected their freedom of the press.

And now The New York Times is using the current crisis to attack Christians for this outrageous reason.

The liberal mainstream media has been out of control for decades.

They have gone from reporting the news and providing vital information to being nothing more than a public relations company for the far Left.

Now the liberal mainstream media’s blatant disregard for truth, accuracy, and basic decency has reached new lows in the last four or five years.

It’s no wonder journalists have become among the least trusted segments of American society, joining lawyers, politicians, and infomercial spokesmen.

From CBS using fake video footage to promote an anti-Trump story on the coronavirus, to the Washington Post gleefully predicting Trump supporters would suffer the highest number of deaths from the virus, the media has reached new lows.

Now The New York Times has taken it even lower with a shocking claim that Christians are to blame for the Chinese coronavirus.

Last week, The Times published an op-ed placing the blame on the so-called “religious right” for President Trump’s supposedly delayed response to the Chinese coronavirus pandemic.

In the editorial, self-described “journalist” and author Katherine Stewart attempted to argue that the President’s “anti-science” evangelical voter base is influencing him too heavily, causing him to ignore scientists on issues like vaccines and, of course, climate change.

The op-ed was originally released with the title “The Road to Coronavirus Hell Was Paved by Evangelicals” but after massive backlash the liberal rag toned down the title to “The Religious Right’s Hostility to Science Is Crippling Our Coronavirus Response.”

Of course, both titles are vile and show the author’s (and the newspaper’s) violent bias against Christians.

Not to mention the author completely ignoring the fact that it is the Left’s anti-science views on life that have caused the slaughter of millions of children over the past few decades.

And it is the liberal anti-science views on gender that have led to the destruction of women’s sports and left thousands of scared, confused children facing mutilating surgeries.

What is most interesting about Stewart’s anti-Christian hit piece is that she focuses most of her vitriol on Christians who oppose the “Green New Deal” and other socialist attempts to take control by promoting fears of climate change.

Once again, the author ignores the fact that the same people claiming the earth will end in ten years have made those claims before.

In fact, some of these “scientists” have been predicting the end of the world since the 1970s.

And, the author conveniently leaves out the fact that as Donald Trump was first warning of the Chinese coronavirus in January, many “scientists” were claiming it couldn’t even be spread by human contact.

And when Trump placed a ban on travel from China to try and stop the spread, it was “scientists” who called him a racist and claimed a travel ban wasn’t needed.

Share your thoughts about this story with Pants on Fire News in the comments below.

Continue Reading

Donald Trump

The New York Times admitted one coronavirus error that had Trump grinning from ear to ear

Published

on

During the coronavirus outbreak the Fake News Media is not trying to inform the American people.

Instead, so-called “reporters” are seizing on the pandemic to launch another front in their war to destroy Donald Trump.

But now The New York Times admitted one coronavirus error that had Trump grinning from ear to ear.

During a March White House press briefing the President expressed his hope that the anti-malarial drug hydroxychloroquine would prove to be a game-changer as it showed promise in limited use in treating coronavirus patients.

While the evidence was anecdotal and more tests were clearly required, the President was offering the American people a ray of hope as the outbreak spread.

The New York Times – instead of reporting facts – attacked the President for falsely touting “unproven drugs.”

“At a long-winded White House briefing on Friday, President Trump enthusiastically and repeatedly promoted the promise of two long-used malaria drugs that are still unproven against the coronavirus, but being tested in clinical trials,” The Times wrote on March 20.

By April 1, The Times was singing a different tune reporting that “The malaria drug hydroxychloroquine helped to speed the recovery of a small number of patients who were mildly ill from the coronavirus, doctors in China reported this week.”

The Times also noted that the drug helped those with mild cases avoid a severe infection that could result in an ICU stay or having to go on a ventilator.

“Cough, fever and pneumonia went away faster, and the disease seemed less likely to turn severe in people who received hydroxychloroquine than in a comparison group not given the drug. The authors of the report said that the medication was promising, but that more research was needed to clarify how it might work in treating coronavirus disease and to determine the best way to use it,” The Times added.

While the study was limited there are extensive tests going on in New York with drugs and many Americans are hoping that there is more good news to be found.

Pants on Fire News will keep you up-to-date on any new developments in this ongoing story

Continue Reading

Sign Up For FREE Alerts

Loading...

Trending