You haven't yet saved any bookmarks. To bookmark a post, just click .

American conservatives are crowing from the rooftops of Trump Towers. Their biggest foe, the mainstream media – the Prince of Darkness who masquerades as an angel of light, has been stripped of his horns and pitchfork. Lucifer has fallen from heaven into the shithole of Dante’s Inferno, and is being tormented by the angelic host of conservative radio commentators and Republican roosters cock-a-doodling at the cyclopean cock-up committed by TIME magazine.

The fakestream media have broken Jeffrey Archer’s eleventh commandment: "Thou shall not get caught." TIME was caught with its pants down and its picture of a crying three-year-old Honduran girl exposed as fake news. The girl was real, the crying was real, the picture was real, but the context was faked, framed and photo-shopped.

TIME shamelessly featured its child pawn like child porn on the cover page of its July 2, 2018 issue. It shows the girl facing Donald Trump, who is looking down on the child with bemusement. TIME would like its readers to interpret the look on Trump’s face as callousness. A canny three-word caption completes the toxic cocktail of half-truth and digital demagoguery: Welcome to America.


The image is further inflated by a TIME human-interest story zooming in on Pulitzer Prize-winning photographer, John Moore, who sheds copious crocodile tears as he spins his tale of sanctimonious poppycock. Moore recounts photographing the child on the US-Mexican border as mother and child were trying to enter the US illegally and were apprehended by law enforcement.

"When the officer told the mother to put her child down for the body search, I could see this look in the little girl’s eyes," Moore tells TIME. "As soon as her feet touched the ground she began to scream." The Border Patrol is taking mother and child away in a van and Moore’s bleeding-heart explodes as if he is Mother Theresa. "All I wanted to do was pick her up. But I couldn’t," he recollects.

Am I sounding like a cynical son-of-a-bitch? To this day, I cannot forget what I saw when I was six – a child being separated from his parents. A man with a sack walked through the slums in Mahim, Mumbai. He stopped outside a hovel, picked up a child, threw him into the sack and walked away.

I froze, traumatized with terror, unable to cry or scream or call for help as I watched from the window of our first floor apartment. In India, children snatched from their parents are sold to gangs who cripple them and force them into beggary.

Since when does the Left care so much about keeping the family together?

To this day, I cannot forget what I saw later in life – a British working class grandmother who sat weeping through a service at the Old Royal Naval College Chapel, Greenwich, where I served as Chaplain. She accosted me at the door after the service and blubbered like a child about to break down.

She was holding pictures of three beautiful children. Her partner told me her story. Social Services (SS) had forcibly removed her grandchildren from her care. She was looking after her grandkids in lieu of her alcoholic daughter, but the SS wouldn’t let her even see the kids any longer. The SS were giving one child to a gay couple for adoption, despite grandma’s objections. We did our best to help her reconnect with her grandchildren, but the State had kidnapped them.

So when American’s leftwing media erupted into hyper-hysteria over Trump separating immigrant children from their parents and cruelly caging them in Nazi concentration camps and Japanese internment camps, my hermeneutic of suspicion went into overdrive.

"Since when does the Left care so much about keeping the family together?" I asked myself. After all, one of the primary goals of the Left is the destruction of the family. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels "usually wrote about the destruction, dissolution, and abolition of the family," observes historian Richard Weikart.

Marx fulminated against "the bourgeois claptrap about the family" and "the hallowed correlation of parent and child," both of which he found "disgusting". Charles Fourier, a utopian socialist proposed that children be separated from their parents and raised communally. Robert Owen, one of the most influential advocates of utopian socialism declared war on the family. In his commune, children after the age of three were removed from their parents for proper education.

Under Mao, children pulled from their parents. All parents were to eat in large mess halls while their children went into day nurseries. Bolshevik feminist Alexandra Kollontai was adamant that the "worker-mother must learn not to differentiate between yours and mine," but "must remember that there are only our children" who would be wards of the state.


If you think this is history, think again. Prof Melissa Harris-Perry, who holds the Maya Angelou Presidential Chair at Wake Forest University, believes that children should be separated from their parents. Harris-Perry laments the lack of "a very collective notion" of our children. She wants us "to break through our kind of private idea that kids belong to their parents, or kids belong to their families and recognize that kids belong to whole communities".

Since when does the Left care so much about keeping the family together? I asked myself again. There can be no more permanent separation of a child from his or her mother than killing the child in its mother’s womb. And what about the Left’s dogma of single-parenthood separating children from father or mother and depriving the child of its most fundamental human right to two parents?

Don’t be deluded into believing that the Left cares about children. They are using children as a battering ram against Trump – a socially acceptable form of child abuse, I thought, as the 'separation of immigrant children’ debate raged. But surely, they wouldn’t stoop to the gutter and use images of little children for their political agenda? Wouldn’t that be a socially acceptable form of child pornography?

My worst suspicions were confirmed when it was revealed that the images of immigrant children in metal cages were actually four years old and taken during the Obama administration. Gotcha! Obama speechwriter Jon Favreau was among the many to condemn the photos – until he realised they dated back to His Master’s Reign.

Then came the bombshell – the crying girl in the border picture on the cover of TIME was actually never separated from her mother! It was fake news. TIME took its own time to issue a correction, but chief editor Edward Felsenthal stood defiantly by the picture, saying that while agents may not have taken the child, the photograph captured the mood of the story.

I remembered how the mainstream media had abused the image of three-year-old Alan Kurdi – the Syrian boy tragically drowned while going from Turkey to Kos. The MSM couldn’t even give the little boy the dignity of getting his name right, and called him Aylan Kurdi. The family were trying to get to Canada and join their relatives in Vancouver. The media, activists and politicians fanned the flames of the picture and cried themselves hoarse demanding open borders.

Brendan O’Neill, writing in The Spectator, responded and termed the use of the child’s image "moral pornography". "It’s more like a snuff photo for progressives, dead-child porn, designed not to start a serious debate about migration in the 21st century but to elicit a self-satisfied feeling of sadness among Western observers," wrote O’Neill. "When it comes to producing moral porn for the right-on, it seems the normal rules of journalism – and civilization – can be suspended," he scathingly added.

They will exploit suffering, dying and dead children in a contemptible game of moral and emotional blackmail.

One of the most morally despicable stories of the media’s use of child porn is the case of Kevin Carter’s picture of a dying girl in the Sudan in March 1993. The girl, no more than five years old, had collapsed while crawling toward a UN feeding center. As Carter crouched to take her picture, a vulture landed nearby, awaiting her death.

Carter waited for 20 minutes, hoping the bird would spread its wings so he could capture a better shot. It did not, and after he took a few images, he shooed the bird away and watched the girl continue to struggle. TIME, the New York Times, the Washington Post and other newspapers emblazoned their pages with the picture.


Only later did people raise questions about the girl’s fate and about the "appropriateness, decency, vulgarity, and the tasteful function of photojournalism", writes Barbie Zelizer in her book About to Die: How News Images Move the Public. Why did Carter not help the girl or make certain the vulture was gone before he moved on? "Which is the true vulture?" asked one reader in a blistering indictment of the media.

Carter’s callousness cost him his life. Hounded by phone calls in the middle of the night criticizing him for not rescuing the girl, he killed himself in 1994.

The mainstream media doesn’t give a damn about children. The Left doesn’t give a damn about the family. Their agenda is open borders and uncontrolled immigration. They will exploit suffering, dying, and dead children in a contemptible game of moral and emotional blackmail. Their ultimate goal is totalitarian control. For once a country is swamped by immigrants and Balkanized into warring ghettos –all warring with each other– people will turn to the supreme nanny-state for security and salvation.


Jules Gomes

by Jules Gomes

The Rev’d Dr Jules Gomes, BA, BD, MTh, PhD (Cantab) is a journalist and academic.

Isle of Man