WND's Farah Reacts to Clinton Speech on Alt-Right With Projection-Filled Rant Topic: WorldNetDaily
The only "news" article WorldNetDaily did on Hillary Clinton's calling out Donald Trump's connections to white nationalists, white supremacists and the alt-right was one that simply reproduced her speech. That seems like an admission that WND couldn't use the "news" part of its website to respond to it, even with its very loose journalistic standards.
That means WND had to find a commentator whose factual standards are, shall we say, less than journalistic to go wild in the commentary section.
And Farah delivers in the lengthy screed that serves as his Aug. 25 column. Here's how he started it:
In delivering one of her patented conspiratorial screeds in Reno, Nevada, Thursday, Hillary Clinton started by saying she had intended to talk about her desire to help small businesses and entrepreneurs, cut red tape and taxes.
“Because I believe that in America, if you can dream it, you should be able to build it,” she said.
Those were her first lies – unless you count her first words: “Thank you, Reno! It’s great to be back in Nevada.”
Hillary Clinton never met a tax she didn’t want to raise, a government regulation she thought was too lenient, or a small business she couldn’t care less about.
Remember what her former boss Barack Obama said: “You didn’t build that.” To them, only government builds things.
More to the point, Hillary was never going to talk about cutting taxes and red tape and helping small businesses. Let me take you back to 1993, when Hillary was secretly crafting the government takeover of the U.S. health-care system. When it was pointed out to her the devastating consequences some of her plans would have for small businesses, she famously screeched: “I can’t be responsible for every under-capitalized entrepreneur in America.”
Those 10 words say more about her utter contempt for the free market than any 10 words she has ever spoken. Spoken spontaneously, without scripting, they revealed the true Hillary.
But, as Hillary said, that’s not what she went to Reno to talk about. What she did say was carefully scripted, well-planned and even coordinated with her friends in the press, who had been laying the groundwork for the attack speech in which she did what she always does with her adversaries according to the rulebook of her smear-artist mentor, Saul Alinsky.
As you might have guessed, Farah's column is pure projection, accusing Clinton of engaging in behavior he and WND have been reveling in for years. If there's anyone who know his way around conspiratorial screeds, it's Farah.
True to dishonest form, Farah not only gets the Clinton quote wrong -- she apparently actually said, "I can't go out and save every undercapitalized entrepreneur in America," though we have yet to find the original -- he pulls the Obama "You didn't build that" quote out of context.
Farah deftly avoids discussing the specifics that Clinton offered in support of her claims. He does take exception to Clinton's references to birtherism, though:
The pattern continued through the amazing speech: “And let’s not forget Trump first gained political prominence leading the charge for the so-called ‘birthers,'” she said. Oh really? It wasn’t a Democrat apparatchik of Hillary’s who played the so-called “birther” card against Obama in 2008 Democrat primary? Of course it was. She just didn’t want to get her hands dirty by making a constitutional case on eligibility. Trump courageously did. And, as a result, Obama was forced to release what he claimed to be his “birth certificate” after refusing to do so for nearly his entire first term in office.
But Hillary’s lies got more vicious.
“He promoted the racist lie that President Obama isn’t really an American citizen – part of a sustained effort to delegitimize America’s first black president,” she claimed.
Trump never said that. I don’t know anyone who claimed he was not an American citizen. The question raised was legitimate: Was Obama – and is Obama – constitutionally eligible for the presidency as a “natural-born citizen”? A whole different criteria. And, again, Trump didn’t start the controversy – Hillary did, in her desperate bid for power.
Nope, Joe, Hillary did not start birtherism. And it would have died with renegade Clinton supporters if right-wing Obama-haters like WND and Trump (whom WND fed birther stuff behind the scenes) hadn't picked up the baton and so enthusiastically embraced it as a way to personally destroy Obama.
It seems Farah is still wavering on how proud he should be about being a birther. He still won't admit the whole birther movement has been discredited -- note his wording about Obama releasing "what he claimed to be his 'birth certificate'" -- but last month he insisted the "eligibility issue" ended in "late 2011," when WND was plotting to sleaze Joe Arpaio's incompetent "cold case posse" into existence.
As far as Farah claiming "I don’t know anyone who claimed he was not an American citizen," he might want to check with his own website and his favorite incompetent attorney, Larry Klayman. He declared just two years ago in a lawsuit to deport Obama, in an article published by WND, that Obama "falsified documents, such as his birth certificate and Social Security number, to qualify for the privileges of American citizenship such that his citizenship, which is based on false pretenses, must be nullified."
Farah then dubiously professed innocence about the alt-right movement Trump has embraced:
For weeks I had been getting calls from those in what we euphemistically call “the mainstream media,” including the Washington Post. They wanted to talk to me about the “Alt-Right.” I had never heard the term. But that didn’t stop them.
I asked them to define it for me, but none of them could. Apparently, according to Hillary’s speech, it had been defined by the Wall Street Journal as “a loosely organized movement, mostly online, that rejects mainstream conservatism, promotes nationalism and views immigration and multiculturalism as threats to white identity.”
When one reporter got to the racist angle, all I could say was: “Well, that is detestable. I consider any form of racism an abomination.”
What I am suggesting here is that Hillary’s friends in the media – and they are legion – were attempting to help her create a new bogeyman.
But nationalism is not racism. Being for borders is not racism.
But WND has been doing a lot of alt-right activism without the name. It's long railed against multiculturalism and threats to white identity like "black mob violence" to the point that WND can credibly be accused of helping to inspire a couple of mass shooters: Anders Breivik in Norway (who cited WND six times in his manifesto) and Dylann Roof in Charleston (who shared some WND writers' lament for the end of apartheid).
Farah bellowed in his closing rant:
This is a sick, sick woman, full of hate herself, someone who is ethically challenged more than anyone who has ever run for the presidency, a woman who was “co-president” in the 1990s when her husband used the Internal Revenue Service to target his and her political enemies – myself prominently among them.
She does not deserve another chance. She is unfit. She is disqualified. Many who breached national security as she did as secretary of state are serving prison time. She and her husband have never been held accountable for their crimes – many of which were committed when they served in the highest offices in the land.
Don’t give her another chance, because she will surely do it again.
Again, projection. Farah is at least as unfit and disqualified to be a journalist as he claims Clinton is to be president, and he has rarely been held accountable for his journalistic crimes (except that one time). You'd think the fact that Farah had to beg for money from readers to keep WND afloat -- evidence that readers are, in fact, passing judgment on his brand of so-called journalism and finding it wanting -- would have been a sufficiently humbling experience to him that he would change his (and WND's) ways and start acting in a responsible manner that relies less on conspiratorial rants and more on fairly and accurately reporting facts.
Even Other Conservatives Think Bozell's Column on Malia Obama Is Dumb Topic: Media Research Center
In their Aug. 19 column, Tim Graham and Brent Bozell complained that "the press refused to touch" the story of "blurry pictures of 18-year-old Malia Obama puffing some sort of cigarette at the Lollapalooza music festival in Chicago," as well as "dancing suggestively to a rap song."
Graham and Bozell revealed that they're still butthurt 15 years -- 15 years! -- after the Bush twins were busted for underage drinking:
In the middle of 2001, the media pointed at and mocked Jenna and Barbara Bush, daughters of former President George W. Bush, when they were cited for underage margarita drinking in Austin, Texas, at age 19. The New York tabloids loved it. The story was headlined ''Double Trouble'' by the New York Daily News and ''Jenna and Tonic'' by the New York Post. The networks jumped all over it, underlining that this was the public's business because the twins had entered the police blotter, and because their father is a recovered alcoholic.
CNN's Wolf Blitzer also sounded the alarm: "Police in Austin, Texas today cited President Bush's twin daughters for violating state alcoholic beverage laws. Questions about the incident remain off limits at the White House. As CNN's Anne McDermott reminds us, all first families struggle to retain a little privacy." Apparently CNN believed the Bush family should be an exception.
As they continually have for, yes, the past 15 years, Graham and Bozell ignore the obvious: 19 -- techinally an adult -- is different than 18, Jenna Bush was on her second alcohol-related violation in five weeks, and they rather blatantly drank underage in a bar with their Secret Service detail in tow.
In promoting the column, Bozell tweeted: "The media leave Malia Obama alone. But not the Bush children, the Santorums, the Palins."
The stupidity of this was too much even for Bozell's fellow conservatives, like Betsy Rothstein of the Daily Caller, who, after citing numerous media references to Malia's escapades, called Bozell's tweet "the dumbest commentary of 2016" and responded: "Hey Bozell, Google is your friend."
WND Writer Frets Muslim Terrorists Are Being Called Mentally Ill Topic: WorldNetDaily
We've noted the massive hissy fit WorldNetDaily exhibited when Donald Trump's mental health was called into question. Turns out WND offers the same objection -- albeit for different reasons -- when the mental health of those who commit terrorist acts is similarly questioned.
Is “mental illness” the new cover for jihadist attacks on the West?
It certainly seems that way, says a noted expert on jihad.
The latest “mentally unstable” young man to launch a seemingly random attack on unarmed civilians was Zakaria Bulhan, a 19-year-old Somali Muslim who had been resettled in Norway at the age of 5. Bulhan singled out an American woman in London and stabbed her to death Wednesday on a busy square filled with tourists, then injured five others in a stabbing spree before being apprehended.
“Authorities have ascribed jihad terror to mental illness on numerous occasions,” said Robert Spencer, including the Orlando, San Bernardino and Chattanooga attacks in the United States. Sometimes it sticks, but usually, days, weeks or even months later, when few people are still paying attention, the police will retract their earlier statements and admit it was a terrorist attack.
Hohmann also quotes his boss, WND managing editor David Kupelian, asking "Where does ‘radical Islam’ end and ‘mental illness’ begin? And what if they are the same thing?"
By contrast, Hohmann quoted WND author Carl Gallups effectively running to the defense of alleged Charleston massacre perpetrator Dylann Roof -- who can't be pigeonholed as a Muslim terrorist -- by declaring he actually was suffering from mental illness because, in Hohmann's words, "Roof was at the time of his arrest carrying Suboxone, a powerful narcotic commonly used to treat opiate dependence and has been linked with sudden outbursts of violence." Of course, it couldn't possibly be that Roof may have been taking his pro-apartheid cues and concerns about black-on-white crime from WND writers who spouted that sort of thing.
While Hohmann fills his article with the rantings of anti-Muslim activists, one voice is curiously missing from his discussion of the issue: that of any actual mental-health professional. You'd think that would be relevant to the conversation, but Hohmann doesn't.
Hohmann followed up with an Aug. 19 article grousing that "a knife-wielding Muslim yelling 'Allahu Akbar!'" who stabbed a Jewish rabbi in France was described as suffering from "psychatric issues." Hohmann offered his own armchair analysis: "The defining element of insanity, for legal purposes, has long been that the perpetrator is not aware that his actions were wrong. That would account for almost all Islamic terrorists, who believe their violent outbursts are part of the Quran’s instructions for them to wage jihad against non-Muslims and therefore they are morally justified."
Hohmann once again quotes Muslim-hater Spencer but no mental-health professional.
AIM Lets Anti-Gay Activist Attack 'Media Myths' About Gay 'Agenda' Topic: Accuracy in Media
Accuracy in Media -- never particularly friendly to gays -- has published a report claiming to "expose and refute some of the longstanding statistical lies and propagandistic myths of the LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender) activist movement."
One huge sign the report wouldn't live up to the standards in AIM's name: it was written by Peter LaBarbera, head of the virulently anti-gay group Americans For Truth About Homosexuality. The Southern Poverty Law Center has detailed how LaBarbera and his group traffics in distortions and falsehoods about gays.
True to form, LaBarbera paints gays as filthy and disease-ridden, lovingly detailing how they are more likely to catch diseases like HIV and syphilis. He denies all evidence that homosexuality may have a genetic basis and thinks bans on conversion therapy are "highly dangerous" (as opposed to the therapy itself).
LaBarbera touts a study claiming that children of homosexual parents have more emotional problems than in other types of families, but that study has been criticized as using highly flawed data and was published in a for-profit journal that takes payments from authors to get published, meaning that its peer-review process was questionable.
LaBarbera also extensively quotes discredited anti-gay and anti-transgender psychiatrist Paul McHugh -- a favorite of CNSNews.com managing editor Michael W. Chapman -- and his list of "helpful sites" all at least as gay-hating as his own, except for the Centers for Disease Control, which "is strongly pro-homosexual" but serves LaBarbera's purpose by issuing reports with "ample evidence on the relationship between homosexual/bisexual behavior and disease."
So anti-gay hate is "accuracy in media"? Apparently it is at AIM.
The unpopular truth is that most blacks are not interested in achievement as such nor moral propriety. Most are motivated to make white people pay for some perceived injustice, past and/or present. Whites were not singularly responsible for the slave trade; Muslims played the greater role and continue to at this very time in history. Slavery was immoral but it wasn’t illegal, and America had the good sense and decency to abolish it. Jim Crow was a white Democrat construct of rabid segregation, but that hasn’t stopped blacks from supporting Democrats en masse for the over 50 years – but again, I digress.
Another unpopular truth is that most blacks are more interested in being crayon colors than they are in modernity. They complain and blame whites when the ramifications of their bad behavior and irresponsible decisions result in crisis. The media and fallacious studies refuse to acknowledge the truth of what I have just stated. They’d rather make excuses for said commonality and anti-societal behavior.
It is time to stop making excuses, and it is time to stop allowing blacks to define propriety. And it is long past time to stop blaming whites for some mythical privilege they alone enjoy. White people owe blacks nothing.
Many blacks go through life with a chip on their shoulder ready to blame any slight, real or perceived, as representative of racism. They go through life believing the white man is holding them back and white police are out to gun them down.
Which brings me to another unpopular truth. Not all blacks subscribe to bad behavior, but barely enough blacks to be measured publicly admonish the boorish behavior of the black masses.
Again: Imagine if Massie was white and saying such things.
MRC Tries (And Mostly Fails) To Defend Breitbart Topic: Media Research Center
Because it's apparently in the contract it apparently signed with the Republican Party, the Media Reserarch Center must defend everyone and everything associated with the GOP. That now includes Breitbart News after its chief, Steve Bannon, was named CEO of Donald Trump's campaign.
In an Aug. 18 post, Brad Wilmouth fretted that CNN's David Gergen "managed to work in a Hitler reference as he picked up on Breitbart founder Andrew Breitbart supposedly comparing Bannon to film maker Leni Riefenstahl, who was a leading propagandist for the Nazi dictator."
But Breitbart's likening of Bannon to Riefenstahl is not a "supposed" reference, as Wilmouth claims in suggesting that it was made up; it appears in an October 2015 Bloomberg profile of Bannon, noting that Breitbart said it "with sincere admiration."
An Aug. 21 post by Wilmouth complains that Breitbart's anti-Semitic tendencies were cited:
In spite of Breitbart News having a pro-Israel history which champions the defense of the Jewish state from the dangers of radical Islam, [conservative Washington Post blogger Jennifer] Rubin presumably picked up on a recent attack not only from the Hillary Clinton campaign but also from the far-left Ha'aretz publication which, despite being stationed in Israel, has a history of criticizing the Jewish state and its treatment of Palestinian Arabs.
Ha'aretz dubiously cited as evidence an article by Jewish conservative activist David Horowitz which bitingly accused fellow Jewish conservative William Kristol of being a "renegade" who was endangering fellow Jews by refusing to support Trump, and thus aiding Clinton -- viewed by Horowitz as promoting policies dangerous for Israel. Therefore, Horowitz, rather than making an anti-Semitic attack, was actually making an accusation of abandoning Jewish interests.
But Wilmouth downplayed the main evidence of anti-Semitism on Breitbart's part: the words "RENEGADE JEW" in the headline of Horowitz's post. Further, as the Washington Post's Callum Borchers points out:
To summarize: Kristol’s opposition to the Republican standard-bearer is tantamount to a betrayal of his fellow Jews; therefore, he is a “renegade Jew.”
But Horowitz’s rationale, if you want to call it that, doesn’t arrive until the final paragraph of an 1,800-word story. The rest of the piece has nothing to do with Israel or religion. Unless you make it all the way to the end — and perhaps, even if you do — you’ll leave with the impression of an anti-Semitic attack.
And Matthew Balan, in an Aug. 22 post, complained that CNN's Alisyn Camerota "badger[ed] Trump's running mate, Mike Pence, about Bannon and "underlined past Breitbart headlines" that most sentient beings would consider inflammatory, whining that "The CNN anchor twice used the 'incendiary' term about the Breitbart headlines/'messaging' as she pressed her guest on the issue." Balan doesn't dispute the accuracy of the term as applied to Breitbart, though.
Newsmax Pushes Slobbering Profile of Melania Trump Topic: Newsmax
The new issue of Newsmax magazine, just in time for the election, has a slobbering tribute to Donald Trump's wife, penned by discredited right-winger Ed Klein. Heck, they've even declared her "First Lady" even before a single ballot has been cast!
WND is trying this revisionism again in an unbylined Aug. 22 article headlined "Kerry goes 'birther,' thanks Kenya for Obama":
During an appearance in Nairobi, Secretary of State John Kerry said he thanked the Kenyan president for giving America “a president of the United States” – a comment alluding to the contested issue of where President Obama was born.
On Monday, Kerry told Kenya’s foreign minister he had a conversation with Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta concerning the Olympic Games in Rio and President Obama’s birthplace:
I had the pleasure of beginning that meeting [with Kenyatta], as I want to begin this press conference this afternoon, by congratulating Kenya on something no nation’s athletes have ever before accomplished, and that is to win both the men’s and the women’s marathon races at the Olympic Games. Absolutely extraordinary. When I mentioned that to President Kenyatta, he promptly said to me, “Well, we also had a hand in helping you win a silver because the person who won came from Kenya.” (Laughter.)
“And I said, “Actually, Mr. President, you did better than a silver and a gold. You gave us a president of the United States.” (Laughter.) So you can see we had a very friendly and positive beginning to the conversation.
Kerry’s comment refers to a widespread push during Obama’s first term for the president to release his long-form birth certificate amid questions of his natural-born citizenship and constitutional eligibility to serve.
Um, no, it doesn't. Kerry said nothing -- nothing -- about the birther issues manufactured by the likes of WND. He was noting Obama's Kenyan heritage.
WND went on to pretend the eligibiilty issue is ongoing:
While the president claims he was born in Honolulu, there have been numerous questions, especially since a law-enforcement investigation by Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Arizona, found “probable cause” that the birth certificate released by Obama was forged. Also, Obama mysteriously has a Connecticut-based Social Security Number, when neither he nor his parents ever lived there.
WND then repeated the falsehood that "it was Hillary Clinton herself who started the birther movement in 2008, according to numerous news agencies." But to back this up, WND links to only one, the Hillary-hating Breitbart, whose leader is now in charge of Donald Trump's presidential campaign.
The evidence Breitbart cites is a 2008 campaign memo by strategist Mark Penn suggesting making Obama's lack of American "roots" an issue. But not only is there no evidence the memo questioned Obama's citizenship or elligibility to be president -- two pillars of the birther movement led by WND -- and not only did her campaign never act on the part of the Penn memo suggesting she play up Obama's "otherness," staffers who did bring it up were admonished. Further, In fact, numerousfact-checkers have found no link between Hillary Clinton and birther attacks on Obama.
If WND was really interested in restoring its credibility with America, it would apologize for the lies it told in its birther crusade and ask for forgiveness. But it won't, which means further financial instability and and an even longer period in which nobody believes WND.
CNS Columnist Brings Back 'Demographic Winter' Topic: CNSNews.com
Several years back, we wrote about the ConWeb's focus over what they called "demographic winter" -- veiled racism that effectively boiled down to the concern that white Christians weren't having enough babies and brown Muslims were having too many. It was rarely put in those terms, of course; it's usually framed as "Western countries" having their "traditional values" squeezed out by "immigrants."
Well, CNSNews.com has brought it back with an Aug. 19 column by John Stonestreet. He engages in the usual eupemistic language as his headline shows: "America’s Looming Demographic Winter: Can We Avoid a Fertility Free Fall?" He does change things up, however, by throwing Japan and China into the discussion, but he makes it clear he's worried mostly about Christians' apparent failure to procreate:
Which brings me to what Christians should think about this: As my colleague Warren Cole Smith points out, the solution is obvious: Start making babies again. It’s easy. It’s fun. It’s good for America. And it brings great joy!
But you might be surprised at how resistant many Christians are, including young people, to this counsel. Twice this summer, I’ve made students cry just by suggesting that marriage and babies are biblically a package deal. Though Christians disagree about the morality of artificial birth control, we should agree that the contraceptive mindset, which treats children as optional only if we want them, runs contrary to God’s intention for marriage.
The demographic winter is coming. In fact, the first snows have already fallen. Will we make what is already “disaster” even worse?
Stonestreet's implied but unspoken subetxt: Non-Christians in the U.S. should perhaps be breeding less.
MRC Mocks Burkinis, Forgets Some Christians Like Modest Swimwear Too Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's Curtis Houck sneers in an Aug. 20 post:
The New York Times on Friday offered a one-two punch when it came to defending French Muslims and particularly women wearing “burkinis” that allow them to comply with Islamic laws of women staying completely covered and lambasting those raising concerns about women’s rights as “farcical” and downright “bigotry” preventing French women from “widen[ing] their sense of identity.”
Naturally, the paper’s editorial board was the most direct in Friday’s print edition with the title “France’s Burkini Bigotry” that bemoaned how “France’s perennial problem with Muslim women’s attire has taken its most farcical turn yet with a new controversy over the ‘burkini,’ body-covering swimwear whose name is an amalgam of burqa and bikini.”
Using the strawman argument that somehow “burkinis” are seen by some government officials as “a new weapon of war,” the paper also smeared Christians appeared suddenly concerned that “[t]his hysteria threatens to further stigmatize and marginalize France’s Muslims at a time when the country is listing to the Islamophobic right in the wake of a series of horrific terrorist attacks.”
It then argued that the designer of the suit didn’t particularly intend of this to happen but rather have something for “women who did not want to expose their bodies — for whatever reason — the freedom to enjoy water sports and the beach” (and not, you know, anger their overbearing husbands and imams).
So the only reason a woman would wear modest swimwear is "anger their overbearing husbands and imams"? Would Houck tell the same thing to Christians who prefer similarly modest swimwear?
That does exist, by the way -- there are numerous purveyors of modest swimwear that cater to Christians. For instance, a company called Dressing For His Glory offers not just maximum-coverage swimwear but school uniforms and athletic wear geared to Christian women (and, maybe, their overbearing husbands and ministers?). The designer explains:
Soon after being saved, I received requests from our Christian School to create culottes and other garments. I was thankful that my experience in the garment industry had prepared me to create clothing that would glorify the Lord. I saw that there was a need for clothing that was both modest and tastefully styled. With the encouragement of my husband and church family, this site was created to offer these clothes to a wider audience. It is my purpose to make it possible for Christian women to be a good testimony to our Lord Jesus Christ by dressing modestly yet fashionably. I hope that my garments will be a blessing to you and allow you to bring glory to God.
Another company, Lillies of the Field, makes a similar pitch for its modest swimwear and apparel (again, for ladies only): "This cottage industry began with the intent to help ladies dress in a way that honors the Lord and brings glory to His name."
Heck, even the Wall Street Journal has written about modest swimwear, noting that "devout Christian women" and Orthodox Jewish women favor them.
NEW ARTICLE: WND Goes Birther on Hillary's Health Topic: WorldNetDaily
Hillary Clinton's purported health issues are the new Obama birth certificate at WorldNetDaily -- and as with its birther rants, WND won't admit they've been discredited. Read more >>
Tim Graham's Hypocritical Bashing of NPR for Getting Rid of Comments Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's Tim Graham uses an Aug. 20 post to work up some faux indignation at National Public Radio decided to eliminate comments on its website because only a tiny fraction of its audience makes use of the comments and loses money. (Funny, we thought the MRC was all about fiscal responsibility.) After hurling the requisite "liberal media" potshots and declaring that "This could be seen as lessening the chance a conservative can actually protest their leftist content" -- this from a guy who likes to get into Twitter fights with NPR media critic David Folkenflik -- Graham concludes by saying:
From the conservative perspective, it seems quite obvious that the conservative point of view does not get a respectful hearing or anything approaching equal time on this taxpayer-subsidized network. So the scrubbing of comments merely add another insult, and leave a deeper impression that NPR is an insular network for like-minded liberals.
Of course, by making this criticism, Graham is suggesting that his own employer is an avatar of providing "equal time" that NPR won't by providing full and free access to its forums. He's wrong.
We can speak from experience. We've been banned from posting at both NewsBusters and CNSNews.com -- not because we violated any posted comment policy (there isn't one that we could find) or engaged in abusive language (the right-wing haters get a free pass on that) but because we expressed an opinion forum moderators disagreed with.
Additionally, Graham, MRC chief Brent Bozell and the main MRC feed have blocked us from the benign act of following them on Twitter. Why? We have no idea.Besides, it's not like we're prohibited from reading their tweets -- between alternative methods of following them and retweets from MRC-related accounts we are following, we can keep up with what they say just fine.
By aggressively blocking anyone who disagres with them, Graham, Bozell and the MRC are really the ones who are lessening the chance anyone can actually protest their fallacious right-wing content, and it reinforces the impression that the MRC is an insular network for like-minded right-wingers.
Sound familiar, Tim? It should. If you and the MRC can't take criticism and actively block and censor opinions you don't like, you have no moral standing to criticize NPR for doing something only slightly analogous to that.
WND Trying to Scare, Shame People Into Voting for Trump Topic: WorldNetDaily
It seems a little early in the general-election cycle for this, but WorldNetDaily is heavily going to scare-and-Shame mode to generate votes from Donald Trump.
On Aug. 8, WND touted a video made by WND author Dan Bongino attacking any Republican thinking of voting for Hillary Clinton out of their general disgust for Trump:
“Understand this … by supporting Hillary you are actively contributing to the destruction of the greatest country on Earth,” he thundered. “This is not a theoretical exercise. You are destroying your kids’ economy. You are destroying your kids’ health care system. You are destroying your kids’ education system. You are destroying any semblance of reality in our court system. You’re destroying any sense of getting the government out of your life through this massive overgrowth of government bureaucracy. And you’re entrenching seven years of Barack Obama.
“You. In real time, you’re doing that.”
Wayne Allyn Root followed with an Aug. 16 column ranting at never-Trumpers: "Go ahead, elect Hillary and ruin America. It’s what any selfish fool would do," adding that "True conservatives put God and country above their personal wishes. Hillary’s election ends both. Forever." Root concluded:
It’s time to pick a side. For my children’s sake, for your own children’s sake, for America’s sake, I beg of you … reconsider.
The next president will pick not only Justice Scalia’s replacement on the Supreme Court, but three to four other justices ready to retire. The next president will decide whether America is capitalist or socialist for the next half century.
If you love America and want her to survive, there is only one option:
Donald J. Trump.
Justice Scalia is begging you from his grave.
Root didn't mention that he had just written a book touting Trump's candidacy.
WND managing editor David Kupelian -- who has sold his soul to back Trump -- tries to rouse the evangelical vote in favor of an amoral, thrice-married Republican in his Aug. 21 column, and he lowers the bar considerably: "Whatever the Republican candidates’ shortcomings, taking the trouble to vote for a president who isn’t a known sex predator, Marxist or career criminal seems pretty sensible for a 'born-again Christian,' doesn’t it?"
Kupelian concluded with a huge hissy-fit, declaring that anyone who doesn't vote for Trump is complicit in "our nation's suicide":
The responsibility for our nation’s suicide will not fall alone on all today’s university-indoctrinated youthful socialists, or the newly enfranchised immigrants and felons who overwhelmingly vote Democrat, or the various “minority groups” to which Hillary Clinton shamelessly panders in pursuit of their support.
No, the blame will fall squarely on all the righteous “Never-Trumpers,” on the “my-guy-didn’t-win-in-the primary-so-I’m-staying-home” Republican voters, on the “Yes-I-signed-the-pledge-but-I’m-breaking-it-cause-Trump-was-mean-to-my-wife/father/brother” GOP primary candidates, on the “I-serve-another-kingdom-not-of-this-world” and “I-care-only-about-the-gospel” Christians, on the “I-don’t-like-Trump-or-Hillary-so-I’m-voting-for-the-weird-pro-marijuana-Libertarian-guy” folks.
In other words, the blame will fall on good people whose pride, ego, resentment, emotions and self-righteousness tricked them into betraying their country, even their own children – all while believing they were standing strong on principle.
Says a guy who renounced his own principles to back Trump.
Remember, it's still more than two months before the election. How insane will WND's pro-Trump rhetoric get as it gets closer to November?
MRC Dances On The Grave of 'The Nightly Show' Topic: Media Research Center
Comedy Central canceled "The Nightly Show," and the Media Research Center couldn't be happier.
The MRC never liked the Larry Wilmore-hosted show, of course, since it was not a regurgitator of right-wing talking points. But the show's cancellation has sent it into a fit of grave-dancing.
Curtis Houck's Aug. 15 post announcing the cancellation was cheerfully headlined "Bye, Bye! Comedy Central Cancels Larry Wilmore’s ‘The Nightly Show’." Houck declared Wilmore to be a "far-left comedian" and groused the show's purpose was "mocking and smearing conservatives to the delight of television critics and other liberal journalists from coast-to-coast." He added, "NewsBusters readers should be more than familiar with the most heinous statements on the show as our newsroom has subjected ourselves to the show so you, the readers, don’t have to!"
After the show's final edition, Houck took exception to show producer Jon Stewart's advice to Wilmore that he shouldn't “confuse cancellation with failure," and he whined that "Stewart spun for his friend that he did because his show (despite its horrid ratings, unfunny attacks on conservatives, etc.) did and shows like his in the future will succeed because he went first in making everything about race and insulting conservatives."
Houck went on to confuse cancellation with failure by referencing "the failure of The Nightly Show."
Clay Waters made his disdain for "The Nightly Show" clear in the headline of his Aug. 20 post -- "Liberal NY Times TV Critic Dances Around Why Larry Wilmore's Leftist, Humorless Comedy Show Failed" -- and he also confused cancellation with failure by calling Wilmore a "failed TV host" and asserted that "the show’s angry, humorless leftism did the show in."
The next day, Waters returned the next day unironically complaining that "the far-left culture magazine Salon" did an article on the show "with a headline ripe for ridicule" -- doubly unironically since the headline for this item includes the words "Smug, Leftist Salon." Waters huffed that "Perhaps the fact that fans of the show consider “funny” to be an extraneous detail, even for a late-night talk show on a comedy channel, explains why the show failed."
The word "smug" appears four times in Waters' item, including in the headline, though none of those usages were applied to himself.
WND's Clinton Foundation Fail Topic: WorldNetDaily
In reporting on Hillary Clinton's release of her tax returns, an anonymously written Aug. 12 WorldNetDaily article goes straight for the conspiracy angle:
It’s also still unclear which fees were pocketed by the Clintons as income and which were designated as funds going to charity through the Clinton Foundation.
The 2015 tax return showed the Clintons deducted $1,042,000 in charitable contributions last year — with $1 million going to the Clinton Foundation.
The just released documentary “Clinton Cash,” based on a book by Peter Schweizer, explains how the Clintons make big money by selling access to themselves and use “speaking fees” to get around bribery laws.
The Clintons have been eluding deserved criminal charges in connection to the Clinton Foundation for years, according to the author of the explosive new book “Partners in Crime: The Clintons’ Scheme to Monetize the White House for Personal Profit.”
“I wrote ‘Partners in Crime’ because it became clear to me that the Clinton Foundation is a criminal operation,” Jerome Corsi, a WND senior staff writer and New York Times best-selling author, said in an interview. “It’s set up like a charity, so it defrauds people all over the world to think that they’re contributing to a good cause.”
Just one little problem: That has nothing to do with Hillary's tax returns. As Media Matters points out, those charitable contributions went not to the Clinton Foundation that WND and other conservatives have been targeting throughout the election but, rather, to the Clinton Family Foundation, a completely separate entity that's a clearinghouse for the Clinton family's personal philanthropy.