Conservatives continue to face obstacles in their quest to make their points

If you want to get a reaction from a liberal, just say that the news is slanted in their favor. They'll deny the leftward tilt, even as newspaper after newspaper, and broadcast outlet after broadcast outlet, continues to skew its coverage in favor of the left and offers opinion pieces and editorials that bash President Trump and Republicans in government on a daily basis.

In Kentucky, the two leading daily newspapers have relentlessly gone after Gov. Matt Bevin since he's been in office. They also failed to adequately cover Greg Stumbo's abuse of power during his term as attorney general. Both papers endorsed both Andy Beshear for governor and Stumbo for attorney general, and after the election, one of the Courier-Journal's news reporters wrote an opinion column gloating over Bevin's loss.

Conservatives have Fox News (actually, that's on a decreasing basis these days outside the prime-time pundit lineup), Sinclair Broadcasting, and powerful radio talk shows by Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, and others. There are a few websites out there, notably Breitbart and RedState, but not as many as what's on the other side. And that's pretty much it. Liberals dominate the rest of the media. The New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC, the news wings of the major broadcast networks, a whole lot of online outlets (Politico, Slate, Salon, Mediaite, the Huffington Post, and the list goes on) and just about everywhere else. Even The Wall Street Journal is no longer reliably conservative, leaning more toward an establishment position on many issues. And many of what were formerly staunchly conservative/Republican venues have gone in the tank for the "never Trumpers" to the point they're more left than right these days.

The uphill climb extends to social media. Many users of Facebook and Twitter have complained of posts being removed, "shadow banning," the reach of conservative pages being throttled, increasingly tightening definitions of "hate speech" to include such things as espousing deeply-held religious views, and what have you. Management at those two companies deny they are censoring rightist views, but there's just too much evidence out there that proves otherwise.

And last week, Facebook pretty much confirmed all the suspicions when it announced that it would no longer allow mentions of the widely-known name of the whistleblower whose hatred for Trump initiated the impeachment inquiry.

The whistleblower's name has been frequently reported in some media outlets. Donald Trump Jr. retweeted a news story that identified him. But Facebook is not allowing the sharing of those stories, even from legitimate sources such as The Washington Examiner.

Even a mention of his name without any context whatsoever will be removed, which is something I found out when I posted his name only without any other information. No news story, no noting of him as the whistleblower. Just the name.

Anyone with a critical eye knows the impeachment is fraudulent. The whistleblower is a known Joe Biden fan who didn't like something he heard during Trump's infamous phone call, and decided that he needed to complain about it. He's just another of those who overstepped his authority in an attempt to overturn an action with which he disagrees by a superior whom he doesn't like. He's the latest example to prove that the Deep State really does exist and is seeking to undermine the president's policies. He should be called to account and explain to the public why he felt Trump's comment was wrong and needed to be reported, when there were several others who were on the call who had no issues with it.

The real issue remains Biden's admitted personal intervention to get the Ukrainian prosector fired in order to secure the release of American funding. If anyone needs to be impeached, Biden should be retroactively.

During Trump's rally in Lexington last week, Sen. Rand Paul stole the show with his demand that the press do its job and name the whistleblower and hold him to the same scrutiny as it does Trump's supporters and defenders. You can still hear the crickets chirping, though, as the mainstream press hasn't seen fit to do any investigating into what's now commonly-known information. And even if the NYT or WaPo decided to name him, Facebook wouldn't allow those stories to be shared.

Had this been an insider blowing the whistle on something President Obama did, you can be sure they would be rushing to identify him and impugn his motives. But with the roles reverse, they feel obligated to protect his identity.

So the uphill battle continues. Conservatives continue facing obstacles in getting their information and opinions out. It just serves to build the mistrust we have in the mainstream press. When we can't count on the media to present all sides of the issues, we look elsewhere.