It will surprise no one that the major “news” outlets that endlessly and breathlessly covered the “Women’s March”—full of genitalia-bedecked whackos who had taken the rare day away from their cats to march around with obscenity-laden signs and scream the “F” word at passersby—had pretty much nothing to say about Friday’s March for Life (unless it was inflammatory or outright lies). Let us peruse the recent headlines.
Here’s a fun one at Cosmopolitan gushing over those oh so adorable pu**y hats and letting us know that Time magazine is putting the vagitators on the cover of their next issue. Squeal! All those fragile women who were so offended by Trump’s use of the word pu**y a million years ago couldn’t wait to run around town wearing said offensive things on their heads. Some of them even dressed up as giant vaginas to prove they could be even more vulgar than men in a locker room.
A look at the word salad in this article comes up with glowing descriptors like “cover star,” “resistance,” “iconic,” “significance,” “power,” “huge turnout,” “pro-women,” “stand up for women,” “optimistic,” “silver lining,” and “call to action.” Sounds awesome.
I checked to see what Cosmo was writing about the March for Life. Whaddya’ know! They took the opportunity to accuse Mike Pence of making it more difficult for poverty-stricken women to obtain “abortion care” and, for extra fun, threw in a scandalous claim that he started an AIDS epidemic in the state of Indiana. Of course they did. A similar perusal of the Pence article reveals descriptors like “opponents,” “anti-abortion,” “curtail,” “prevent,” “global gag rule,” “incredibly difficult,” “abortion care,” “anti-choice,” “restrictive,” “gutted,” and “HIV-outbreak.” Sounds awful—and contagious.
Let’s look at a comparison of The New York Times’ coverage of the two marches. First a Google search for “NY Times Women’s March” yielded these results.
A quick read of any of those articles would make you believe that the “Women’s Marchers” had liberated American women from hell on earth! The glowing praise is enough to choke on. Those aren’t the only articles, either, but my screengrab margins aren’t big enough to capture all of the slobbering at once. You can Google it yourself for the full result. Here’s the same search with the term “March for Life” inserted instead of the pu**y rioters.
The clearly glaring difference here is that the vaginators get the respect of the Times because the Times calls them what they prefer, which is the “Women’s March.” In all the above headlines, instead of giving the March for Life similar respect and naming the event properly, the Times opts to call them “Anti-Abortion Marchers” instead. This is deliberate and insidious. It’s also extremely transparent. Even they have to know how old this is getting. The Times was so quick to provide photos from around the nation for the Angry Cat Lady March, but they pretended as if the March for Life was only in Washington, D.C. It wasn’t. People march in every major city in this nation every year for the pro-life cause, but you won’t see The New York Times sending its cameras to New York and Chicago and Los Angeles to cover it. Here’s a congratulatory headline and accompanying photo from the Times for the vagina strollers. It’s almost like being the uncomfortable person stuck next to the couple on the bus that won’t stop making out. Get a room.
CNN is a real scream. You can’t make this stuff up. Nine times out of ten they hate patriotic stuff, but make it anti-U.S. and fit it under the label of “diversity!” somehow and hot damn! That’s a cover shot!
If you don’t know why this is offensive, then you’re not a good American (and by good American, I mean someone who understands how to respect our flag. If you don’t know that, I question your loyalty to your country and your IQ). Flags are not for wearing, especially like this. This is so wrong. Make it stop.
A quick Google comparison of CNN’s coverage of the two marches:
Whom does CNN think they’re kidding? These headlines are saccharine garbage. I’ve gone into sugar shock just reading them. I’ll give them some credit though. While their headlines for the March for Life aren’t nearly as diabetes inducing, at least they didn’t call it the “Anti-Abortion March” like most. However, note they say “thousands” gathered for the pro-life rally when it was clearly a lot more than that. Numbers are not in yet, but for comparison, previous years saw numbers as high as 600,000 and with this year’s pro-life gains there isn’t any reason to think the momentum won’t be reflected in numbers. There were clearly hundreds of thousands of people at the March for Life and if you count the other marches in the other cities, that number will be in the millions. I have no doubt there were as many marching for life as there were marching for the right to make vaginas out of themselves in public.
ABC News was at the top of the biased list on this one (and I really thought it would be CNN!), coming up with one of the most vomit-inducing headlines I’ve seen yet. “10 Empowering Quotes From the Women’s March” did not include Madonna wishing she could blow up the White House or Ashley Judd rapping about her blood-stained period sheets. It’s a mystery why they left those two out. Also conspicuously absent were any quotes from convicted kidnapper, rapist and torturer Donna Hylton, who was on the list of speakers. A Google search only finds two articles on ABC that mention the March for Life. Compare that to this Google result for the leftist Women’s March.
CBS and NBC had the same results. We’ve all heard that Americans’ trust in media is at an all-time low and you would think our media outlets would want to fix that and improve their ratings and circulation. But when they continue to behave like Pravda behind the Iron Curtain, there is little hope of that improving. One has to wonder what it is they really want because failing ratings and becoming “steaming piles of garbage” don’t seem to motivate them to objectivity. Is it fair to even call organizations that have perfected manipulation and gaslighting “news” anymore?