20711754_mThe liberal media is always trying to sow division and strife here in our great nation. Over the past few years you’ve noticed it getting worse and worse. It’s like we can’t go one day without them slinging mud at everyone they disagree with.

They do these kinds of things when it comes to the topic of guns, the invented problem of modern racism, and constant insults thrown at the Republicans for their refusal to give up on their faith and their beliefs

The truth is the advent of the Internet has made it so it’s easier and easier for them to sow the seeds of discord far and wide. It really is a good thing there’s a way to hold them accountable for the awful things they write.

We all remember when Ronald Reagan passed away. The mainstream media actually paid him respect and dedicated most of their daily broadcasts to eulogizing the former President. If that happened today it’s unlikely Ronald Reagan would have been spared their egregious attacks (he was a polarizing figure after all).

But considering his wife outlived him by a number of years in relative silence you wouldn’t think they’d go after her, would you? But they did, and it’s disgusting.

Ijreview writes in detail about how several publications tried to besmirch the legacy of one of the most wonderful women to ever have been First lady.

When former First Lady Nancy Reagan passed away, a number of major news outlets published obituaries in her memory. But as the public began to read them, they began to notice that a few things seemed just a little off.

Several people noted the strange mention of the Iran-Contra scandal that led off the New York Times obituary, and the memorial “tribute” penned by Lois Romano at the Washington Post raised eyebrows for several comments, as well.

They highlighted her controversial demands:

“As first lady from 1981 to 1989, Mrs. Reagan had a knack for inviting controversy — from her spending habits to her request that the White House abide by an astrologer when planning the president’s schedule.”

They pointed out her differences with the right-leaning administration:

“She also bucked the administration’s right-leaning ideologues in pushing for improved relations with the Soviet Union, conspiring with the secretary of state to do it.”

And then they focused on her battle with former President George W. Bush:

“Not six years out of the White House, Mrs. Reagan was tested in ways she could not have imagined. She spent a decade as primary caregiver for her husband as he succumbed to Alzheimer’s disease, with him eventually not recognizing the woman he called ‘Mommy.’ His illness prompted Mrs. Reagan to openly challenge the George W. Bush administration and other conservatives who sought to limit research on embryonic stem cells, work that scientists think could present a cure for Alzheimer’s.”

And hit her one more time on the “ostentatious” lifestyle:

“But the glamour soon was seen as ostentation during a steep recession. After complaining that the White House residential quarters were in disrepair, and noting that she could find no set of matching china there, Mrs. Reagan turned to affluent friends to raise funds for $800,000 in renovations and $200,000 of new china.

Although no public money was spent, these two expenditures became symbols of excess.”

This is the day and age we live in.

Issues of substance are often ignored and instead the liberal media likes to nitpick at superfluous and unimportant details about personal life.

If they really carried about corruption and abuses of power then they’d be pressing just as hard for an indictment of Hillary as they are for passing off this slanderous obituary as worthy of a women of Reagan’s stature.

What’s your take on the Washington Post and NYT’s versions of the Reagan’s obituaries?

Tell us in the comments below.