Connect with us

Politics

This is How TIME Magazine is Defending Their Use of a Debunked Photograph to Show Child Separation at the Border

This is their explanation. Wow.

Published

on

You think that TIME magazine might have cut their losses and just admitted they’d fallen for yet another misunderstood photograph of an improperly presented photograph of a child at the Southern border.

I mean, it’s not like they were the only ones who fell for the photograph of 2-year-old Yanela, who was crying as her mother was searched by ICE agents.

Yanela has quickly become the face for the so-called “crisis at the border” which, as we have had to remind the left over and over for weeks now, was happening under Obama and has been standard border detainment policy for years.

Trending: Paramedics Staying at Hotel Hear Mother's Screams, Jump Fence to Rescue Unresponsive Boy in Pool

Before the TIME cover hit, the rest of the media had been exploiting the photograph of the tired and thirsty child at the moment she was briefly put down by her mother so agents could perform a proper search.

take our poll - story continues below

Do you think Cubans are fighting for healthcare or freedom from Communism? (1)

  • Do you think Cubans are fighting for healthcare or freedom from Communism?

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

But no, TIME has doubled-down on their choice to use the crying toddler, superimposed under the supposedly callous stare of Trump, to push their open-border agenda.

This is their explanation, via The Daily Wire:

The June 12 photograph of the 2-year-old Honduran girl became the most visible symbol of the ongoing immigration debate in America for a reason: Under the policy enforced by the administration, prior to its reversal this week, those who crossed the border illegally were criminally prosecuted, which in turn resulted in the separation of children and parents. Our cover and our reporting capture the stakes of this moment.

No….the cover does not represent the “stakes” of this moment. The true story behind the cover, in fact, represents exactly why we need stronger border enforcement to begin with.

First of all, it was never Trump’s policy to begin with to separate children from their parents, it’s a decades-old policy that was originally put in place, understandably, to keep children out of facilities where the sort of adults who cross the border illegally were being kept. Seems reasonable, right?

Second of all, Yanela’s mother, Sandra, had already been deported once, and, as it turns out, was actually falsely claiming political asylum in the US. Her husband, who revealed this to the Daily Mail, has a good job in Honduras, where he remains with the couple’s three other children, who Sandra abandoned.

I certainly cannot speak to the state of Sandra’s heart, soul, or competence as a mother, but on the surface, her story seems to reflect the very uncomfortable reality that perhaps at least some of the parents who cross the border illegally with their small children aren’t making the best decisions as parents, as our Southern border is a notoriously dangerous place between harsh terrain and the presence of hardened criminals. Not to mention, when detained by ICE, they’re likely to be separated from their children.

TIME is sticking to their guns because they’re committed to using small children to exploit the leftist narrative that it is somehow a right to emigrate to the United States. Period.

They don’t care that the picture has been debunked because they know that it’s evocative enough to still be effective to convey their desired message, and that’s all that matters to them in the end.

 

 

 

Opinion

New Pork Rules Could Outlaw Bacon in California

This would be an unforgivable overreach by the state government.

Published

on

There are plenty of times in which Americans engage in a bit of exaggeration at the expense of our federal government.  It’s a defense mechanism, really, in which we are trained to extrapolate the worst possible outcome of any interaction with our elected officials, to guard against abuse at the hands of the tyrannical among us. Very rarely do these sorts of predictions come true.  Truly, this is just part of the American DNA, and it has deep roots in the caffeinated waters of Boston Harbor back in 1773. And if you thought that a new tax on tea was a flimsy enough excuse to rail against the oppressors, what happens when a state government outlaws bacon? At the beginning of next year, California will begin enforcing an animal welfare proposition approved overwhelmingly by voters in 2018 that requires more space for breeding pigs, egg-laying chickens and veal calves. National veal and egg producers are optimistic they can meet the new standards, but only 4% of hog operations now comply with the new rules. Unless the courts intervene or the state temporarily allows non-compliant meat to be sold in the state, California will lose almost all of its pork supply, much of which comes from Iowa, and pork producers will face higher costs to regain a key market. The threat is no hogwash, either. California’s restaurants and groceries use about 255 million pounds of pork a month, but its farms produce only 45 million pounds, according to Rabobank, a global food and agriculture financial services company. The National Pork Producers Council has asked the U.S. Department of Agriculture for federal aid to help pay for retrofitting hog facilities around the nation to fill the gap. Hog farmers said they haven’t complied because of the cost and because California hasn’t yet issued…

Continue Reading

Politics

Pro-Trump PACs Rake in The Dough, Setting Former POTUS Up with Massive War Chest

The sheer value of Trump’s coffers is nigh unprecedented.

Published

on

Despite his arbitrary removal from both Twitter and Facebook, former President Donald Trump continues to exude a great deal of sway over the American political ecosystem…and he’s only going to get more influential from here. Trump and his surrogates are still months away from officially announcing anything as far as 2024 goes, but, with the 2022 midterms just around the corner, the MAGA machine is already beginning to get tuned up. And let’s just say that there is plenty of fuel in the tank, too. Former President Donald Trump’s political committees brought in $82 million during the first half of 2021 and have $102 million in the bank, according to federal filings made public Saturday evening. The figures, shared first with POLITICO, underscore the profound reach of Trump’s fundraising power. While the former president is out of office and has been deplatformed on social media sites, he maintains a massive online donor network that he could lean on should he wage a 2024 comeback bid. The numbers are extraordinary, historically speaking. The scenario is virtually unprecedented: Never in history has a former president banked nine figures’ worth of donations to power a political operation. Over the first six months of the year, Trump’s political groups whipped up supporters with baseless claims of election fraud to pull in cash on a scale similar to the GOP’s official political arms, the Republican National Committee and the party’s House and Senate campaign committees. The numbers are undoubtedly troubling for liberals listening in from the left side of the aisle, as worries continue to grow about whether or not the Democrats have any shot at holding onto a majority in the House in 15 months’ time.

Continue Reading

Latest Articles

Best of the Week