CNS' Reaction to Hillary's Historic Nomination: Benghazi! Topic: CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com reacted to the historic news of Hillary Clinton being the first female major-party presidential nominee in its usual fashion: with partisan sniping instead of the fair and balanced journalism a real news operation is supposed to engage in.
The news of Democratic National Convention delegates affirming the nomination was mostly ignored by CNS, which ran only an Associated Press article and devoted no original coverage to it.
The day after the convention, though, CNS issued its mostly politically driven -- and, thus, journalistically suspect -- reaction: a story by Rachel Hoover describing how "In their 'Additional Views' supplement to the House Select Committee on Benghazi report, Reps. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and Mike Pompeo (R-Kansas) conclude that 'the administration misled the public about the Benghazi attack,' which occurred on Sept. 11, 2012."
If you'll recall, the House Benghazi report came out a month ago. A month ago. In other words, there is no news value to Hoover's article -- it's a month-old story that CNS could have easily done at the time but apparently chose not to in order to play a political game.
Additionally, the fact that Jordan's and Pompeo's views are relegated to a supplement and not included in the report proper tells us that they were rejected by the Republican majority and should carry less weight. Indeed, the Jordan-Pompeo supplement appears to rely heavily on opinion, not fact, for its conclusions, such as its assertion that the Obama White House "misled the American people for political gain" immediately after the attack.
But Hoover also violates the dicate of her boss, Media Research Center chief Brent Bozell, who says that "The first rule of journalism is that if you don’t have two independent sources, you don’t have a news story." Hoover quotes only the Jordan-Pompeo supplement -- which is anything but "independent" -- and nobody else.
CNS hasn't figured out that stenography is not journalism, and uncritically repeating partisan attacks isn't either, and not even Bozell's own guidance is making a difference.
Barack Obama’s allegiance to Islam appears to trump everything else he supposedly values. The killer Mateen shot up a homosexual club on “Latin Night,” but even the horrific deaths of blacks, Latinos and homosexuals is not enough for Obama to call out Islamists.
In the last seven years, Obama has put our country on the brink of financial ruin. He’s divided the races like no other president in history. He has made the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) agenda his most important domestic issue – equating it to civil rights for blacks. This past week Obama announced he was designating the area around the Stonewall Inn in New York City as the country’s first national monument to LGBT rights.
Obama has done his best to undermine the greatest fighting force in the world by using it as his personal social experiment laboratory and lifting the “don’t ask don’t tell” policy. He also lifted the ban on women in combat, despite the fact that some 92.5 percent of women in the military do not want to be assigned to combat units.
While he’s been preoccupied with covering up for Islam and advancing the homosexual agenda, the black-on-black murder rate in Chicago (his hometown) shot through the roof. On Father’s Day weekend alone, there were 54 shootings and 12 murders! Yet we’ve heard nothing from Obama, Loretta Lynch, or Democrats in Congress about this bloodshed.
-- Jesse Lee Peterson, June 26 WorldNetDaily column
I’m not going to suggest that some months ago, Obama got on his infamous phone and told a minion to cultivate a cell of riled-up black activists, get them armed and insert them into the protest that would be ready to go on the next occasion that the police shooting of a black individual found its way into the national news cycle.
But for all practical purposes, it might as well have gone down in precisely that fashion.
The United States, Europe and the rest of the world is in violent upheaval. At home, fraudulently elected illegitimate President Barack Hussein Obama, along with with his black-Muslim friends like so-called Rev. Louis Farrakhan, leader of the Nation of Islam, and Black Lives Matter allies, have finally succeeded in igniting a race war.
To add insult to very serious injury, President Obama refuses to use his powers as the commander in chief to destroy ISIS and other Muslim terrorists in a decisive way. The reason is obvious, and it’s time for people to just start saying it: The “Muslim King” does not want to go hard against his Islamic brothers and frankly, in my view, sympathizes with their quest to have allah reign supreme to further a worldwide caliphate.
So, I pose this question: How can the Muslim King be legally removed from office before he does even more irreparable damage in the next six months of his presidency? What would our Founding Fathers have done under these dire circumstances? I do not think that We the People can just sit back and hope for the best, particularly in light of the heinous terrorist attacks of the last weeks, the latest in Nice, France, and the race war Obama and his friends have caused to explode in Dallas and around the nation. Our lives and the lives of our loved ones are in mortal danger!
The man who is the American president, Barack Hussein Obama, jumped in quickly to decry the innocent victims but he continues to refuse to specify who the terrorists are and as always, he never, never makes any link between the terrorists and their Islamist religious beliefs.
He never uses the terms Islamist or Muslims, even when there is irrefutable proof that people of those believe are behind attacks of this kind – not only in France, but worldwide.
I don’t believe for a minute that Barack Obama is a stupid man, but I do believe that he is blinded by his beliefs founded in Islam. He was brought up in and around that faith, and he remains a believer, regardless of what he says he is now.
It is incomprehensible that a man who professes to be a “Christian” can constantly and consistently do things, say things and take actions that directly and negatively affect Christians and Christianity, in this country and worldwide, and yet never do or say anything that might even be slightly negative against Islam.
Given the atrocities perpetrated by Islamists across the world, the gruesome attacks and killings that we see more and more, it makes no sense that the leader of a world nation, a presumably well-educated man, can see all this and yet not have the courage to state unequivocally who is responsible.
Is he blind? Stupid? Stubborn? A liar? A traitor? Or is he really a Muslim bound to support that belief regardless?
Clearly, he’s not acting as a Christian, as an American, as a patriot.
Nor is he acting as an American president should according to his oath of office.
It’s also clear that what he is doing, or rather not doing, is hurting our country and the free world and putting every one of us in mortal danger.
Whites thought electing a black president was going to make things better between the races, but Obama has turned that dream into a nightmare.
Shock is a temptation to hate, and hate is evil. Hate makes one subject to evil and paralyzes people in fear. This hate has rendered people helpless and ineffective in their efforts to stop Obama’s wicked agenda.
Despite the political season, the real battle is not political – it’s a battle of good versus evil. If Americans were to truly wake up to this reality, Barack Obama’s evil power over our nation would collapse in that instant.
I give both political and business speeches all over America, and all over the world. I know a great speech when I see and hear one. Obama’s speech last night at the DNC was masterful. It was one of the greatest political speeches I’ve ever heard.
There was one problem: It was 100 percent fiction, fraud and fantasy.
If it were given by any CEO in America at a shareholders meeting, or a press conference in front of the media, that CEO would face life in prison for fraud and misrepresentation.
Any screenwriter in Hollywood could have made it up out of thin air and won an Academy Award.
It could have been a speech written by Bernie Madoff.
It could have been written by Lucifer himself, to be delivered by the anti-Christ.
Obama himself is the psychopath, sociopath and ego-maniac who rules as a tyrant, by issuing executive orders, ignoring the U.S. Constitution and the rule of law, and making believe Congress doesn’t exist. Every word directed at Trump described Obama, Obama’s last eight years of rule and Obama’s voters. Lucifer himself would be proud.
What LGBT Stuff Is The MRC Freaking Out About This Month? Topic: Media Research Center
There's too much anti-LGBT ranting at the Media Research Center to catch it all individually. So once again, we'll summarize the lowlights of the gay stuff the MRC freaked out about over the past month.
First up, NewsBusters coward "Bruce Bookter" mocked transgender athlete Chris Mosier after he appeared in ESPN's Body Issue for saying that he's finally comfortable in his own skin: "It must have been truly awful for Mosier. You know, forced to occupy the same body that was apparently good enough to become one of the greatest athletes in the entire world. The horror."
"Bookter" took even more offense to Mosier saying that, as a member of Team USA as a duathlete, "I sort of feel like I'm representing the good parts of the country":
Take that North Carolina! Isn’t it amazing that the same people who champion individuality, and don’t want to be judged, can seamlessly “transition” out of that façade and turn into social engineering overseers? Also, completely horrifying is the idea that Mosier sees the role on Team USA, not as representing the country and all people in it, but instead sees the role as a social and cultural model for an America as it should be.
So the liberals and their friends in the Rainbow Jihad can now take their place among such wholesome, family friendly institutions as Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. Those who have used their Olympians, not merely as athletes, but as propaganda symbols for the way they think society should be.
So gays are waging "jihad" and are just like Nazis and commies? No wonder "Bookter" hides behind a fake name -- if we wrote such a thing, we'd be just as embarrassed to put our real name to it.
Tim Graham, meanwhile, is upset that a op-ed writer and "gay activist" Nico Lang correctly identified the anti-transgender American College of Pediatricians as a "right-wing advocacy group" for dismissing gender reassignment surgery as gender mutiliation -- and, while he's at it, the American Psychological Association for no longer considering being transgender as a mental illness:
So, according to Lang, science has progressed to the point where getting one’s penis or breasts removed is not “genital mutilation.” It’s a lifestyle choice? Who is stating a plain fact, and who is trying to empty words of their meaning?
The ACP is a “right-wing advocacy group,” but when the American Psychological Association (APA) bends to a left-wing lobbying campaign to proclaim political correctness about transgenders, that’s “science” progressing, not politics. Conservatism is a threat to “public health” – if you define “health care” as genital mutilation.
Lang is delighted that the APA has abandoned the term “gender identity disorder,” with simple “gender dysphoria” – and that term only applies to people who have a “temporary mental state” of upset about their er, fluidity. Being transgender is exactly the same as being left-handed.
Maggie McKneely has a finely honed freakout after learning that the Nickelodeon cartoon "The Loud House" will include a same-sex couple, declaring it to be part of an "agenda" to "indoctrinate children":
Variety excitedly wrote that the episode “makes no hoopla over the appearance of the married gay couple” and it’s “definitely not treated like a big deal.” Well, isn’t that the point? To make kids believe that it’s perfectly normal for their friends to have two dads? The Misters McBride, voiced by comedians Wayne Brady and Michael McDonald, are painted as being just like any set of heterosexual parents – overprotective, goofy, and loving. They’re even health conscious, telling their son to avoid nuts, gluten, and sugar. See, kids? These guys are just like your parents.
This isn’t the first time Nickelodeon has pushed an agenda on its young, impressionable audience. Since 2009, Nick has been running “The Big Green Help” multimedia campaign, which is aimed at encouraging kids to join the cult of lefty environmentalism.
Although there are other animated shows trying to indoctrinate children, none has the viewership size of The Loud House, or the major platform that is Nickelodeon.
And Karen Townsend has another TV-related freakout, this time because the show "Dead of Summer" has a transgender character whom Townsend claims was inserted "so that the show’s creator can promote his pet social cause – a friend is dealing with the issue. So, in true leftist form, we must ALL be made to deal with it." She whines aboutthe David Bowie Song "Modern Love' playing a role in the episode: "owie is prominent because, as every anguished teen from the 80’s knew, he was a source of courage for his free spirit way of living and pushing the boundaries of sexual liberation. Very appropriate for a show that is promoting LGBT lifestyles to teens in the 2010's."
Because, apparently, the only possible reason to ever put a gay person in a TV show is to "promote" an "agenda."
WND Takes DNC's Birther Bait Again Topic: WorldNetDaily
Art Moore begins his July 27 WorldNetDaily article by stating, "It appears the Obama family just can’t get birth certificates out of their heads." Actually, it's WND who has that problem.
For the second time this week, WND took the bait on a oblique reference to birthers by a member of the Obama family at the Democratic National Convention in order to rehash its discredited "eligibility" conspiracy theories. And Moore goes full-bore on it:
Dozens of lawsuits were filed over that issue before and after Obama’s election in 2008, and, after pressure from Donald Trump and others, the White House ultimately released a document he said was his Hawaiian birth certificate.
The only law-enforcement investigation of the issue, conducted by Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio, concluded the document is likely a forgery.
Ironically, it was Hillary Clinton who began the whole “birther” controversy by questioning Obama’s eligibility during the hotly contested 2008 Democratic race against Obama.
It’s not just Obama’s birth certificate that’s in doubt, but he also mysteriously has a Connecticut-based Social Security Number, despite the fact neither he nor his parents ever lived in the Constitution State.
As we've noted, that "only law-enforcement investigation of the issue" was a corrupt sham, with Arpaio's "cold case posse" populated with the like of biurther conspiracists like WND's own Jerome Corsi.
And, no, Hillary Clinton did not "begin the whole “birther” controversy by questioning Obama’s eligibility." As CNN and others have documented, the 2008 Clinton campaign did not pursue the issue, though diehard supporters filed the first lawsuits on the issue. The one organization that pursued the birther issue to ludicrous extents and beyond was the definitely-not-supported-by-Hillary WND -- which, of course, Kovacs fails to mention.
As for Obama's supposedly fraudulent Social Security number, the most logical explanation is that Obama’s return address was mistyped, the initial “9” typed as a “0” which would turn a Hawaiian zip code into one from Connecticut.
For an organization that (currently) insists the birther issue ended in "late 2011," WND sure likes to keep talking about it -- and taking the bait when Democrats bring it up.
CNS Buries News of Trump Inviting Russia To Hack Hillary's Emails Topic: CNSNews.com
You'd think a presidential candidate inviting a foreign power to hack the email accounts of Americans would be big news at CNSNews.com, which purports to care a lot about national security.
But that candidate is Republican Donald Trump, so it wasn't.
CNS' initial article on the press conference in which Trump said he wished for Russia to hack Hillary Clinton's email, by Melanie Hunter, failed to even mention that he said it. Hunter began her article instead with Trump's statement that "he never met Russian President Vladimir Putin but as president, he would rather be 'friendly' with Russia so both countries 'can go and knock out ISIS together' along with other allies."
Hunter was in stenography mode, as most CNS reporters are when writing about Trump, and therefore she couldn't be bothered to note that Trump previously claimed he has spoken "directly and indirectly" with Putin.
Patrick Goodenough featured Trump's press conference in an article the next day -- but didn't mention the hacking invitation. Instead, he touted how "One day after Republican Donald Trump warned that China and Russia 'have never been closer,' China's military announced on Thursday it will hold joint exercises with Russian forces in the South China Sea."
Goodenough wrote an accompanying article that showed him in full spin mode, claiing that "The Russian government may soon release texts of emails hacked from Hillary Clinton’s private server during her time as secretary of state, a respected geopolitical affairs publication reported last month, citing Western intelligence sources." It wasn't until the 13th paragraph of his article that he noted Trump's invitation to Russia to hack Hillary's email, then immediately noted Trump ally Newt Gingrich's baseless assertion that Trump was making a "joke."
It wasn't until a full day later that CNS gave the hacking invitation a bit more prominence, in an article by Susan Jones -- but she, like Goodenough, spun Trump's words in a way to bury the whole treasonous aspect of it:
"It's just a total deflection, this whole thing with Russia," Donald Trump told a news conference on Wednesday.
"In fact, I saw her (Hillary Clinton's) campaign manager -- I don't know his title, Mook. I saw him on television and they asked him about Russia and the (DNC) hacking. By the way, they hacked -- they probably have her 33,000 e-mails. I hope they do. They probably have her 33,000 e-mails that she lost and deleted because you'd see some beauties there."
Trump repeated several times that it may not be Russia who hacked the DNC: "Nobody even knows this, it's probably China, or it could be somebody sitting in his bed. But it shows how weak we are, it shows how disrespected we are."
After telling the news conference that Russia -- or somebody -- probably already has Hillary Clinton's deleted emails, a reporter later returned to the subject, asking Trump why he doesn't tell Russian President Vladimir Puting to stop interfering with the U.S. presidential campaign.
"I have nothing to do with Putin. I've never spoken to him. I don't know anything about him other than he will respect me. He doesn't respect our president.
"And if it is Russia -- which it's probably not, nobody knows who it is -- but if it is Russia, it's really bad for a different reason, because it shows how little respect they have for our country, when they would hack into a major party and get everything.
"But it would be interesting to see -- I will tell you this. Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 e-mails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press. Let's see if that happens. That'll be next."
A short time later, Trump repeated that nobody knows if the Russians were the ones who hacked into the DNC: "You know (what) the sad thing is? That with the technology and the genius we have in this country, not in government unfortunately, but with the genius we have in government, we don't even know who took the Democratic National Committee e-mails. We don't even know who it is."
Trump also said it's not about the hackers anyway: "It was about the things that were said in those emails. They were terrible things, talking about Jewish, talking about race, talking about atheist, trying to pin labels on people -- what was said was a disgrace, and it was Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and believe me, as sure as you're sitting there, Hillary Clinton knew about it. She knew everything."
Not only did Jones failed to mention the bipartisan criticism of Trump's remarks, she referred to something she called the "Democrat National Convention."That's not a mistake -- right-wingers have maliciously switched "Democratic" for "Democrat" for years.
Jones' commitment to partisan posturing over something as basic as getting names correct tells us what a hack she is -- and the lack of journalistic seriousness of her employer.
UPDATE: A July 29 article by Goodenough on Joe Biden referring to Russian premier Vladimir Putin as a "dictator" waits until the very end to note Trump's hacking invitation to Russia, but then added, "Trump later characterized the comments as sarcasm."
This means that CNS has yet to make Trump's hacking invitation the primary focus of any article. And this is a "news" operation?
Newsmax Highlights Negative News About Company It's Feuding With Topic: Newsmax
Newsmax is currently embroiled in a dispute with Dish Network for the past couple months over the terms under which Dish carries Newsmax TV, which has meant that Dish has pulled the channel off its system for now.
That seems like the proper light in which to view Newsmax highlighting a July 22 Bloomberg article -- under the headline "Dish Network Loses Record-Setting 281,000 Subscribers" -- noting that Dish Network "lost a record number of TV subscribers in the second quarter as programming blackouts and price increases drove customers to seek cheaper online alternatives."
Newsmax failed to add a note to the article that it's in a dispute with Dish, which would seem to be a relevant disclosure.
Dear CNS: Obama is Right, World Is Less Violent Than Ever Topic: CNSNews.com
On July 21, CNSNews.com published an unbylined article headlined "Obama: ‘The World Has Never Been Less Violent’." It's another bit of lazy stenography, cribbing from a speech in which Obama said that “we are living in the most peaceful” era in human history and that “the world has never been less violent.”
The powers that be at CNS are apparently going to trot that article out every time there's a terrorist attack or some other form of mass violence. CNS put it back on the front page earlier this week following terrorist attacks in Europe and adding "FLASHBACK" to the headline, though the "flashback" was to about one week ago.
But CNS won't tell its readers that Obama is pretty much correct. The World Economic Forum reports:
Last year may be remembered for barrel bombs, beheadings and the Bataclan massacre, but according to a Harvard psychologist, a remarkable long term downward trend in violence is continuing.
Wars are far less common and deadly than in the recent past, terrorism is rare, and the European refugee crisis is nothing new, said Steven Pinker, a bestselling science author.
“The news is a systematically misleading way to understand the world,” he told the Thomson Reuters Foundation in an interview.
In the past five years alone, conflicts have ended in Chad, Peru, Iran, India, Sri Lanka and Angola, and if peace talks currently underway in Colombia are a success, war will have vanished from the Western hemisphere, he said.
In his 2011 book “The Better Angels of Our Nature,” Pinker called the decline in violence “the most significant and least appreciated development in the history of our species”.
Compared to most of the postwar period, 2015 has been relatively peaceful, and dramatically so compared with earlier centuries. However, there has been a small uptick in violent deaths around the world over the past couple of years.
Pinker expanded on his view of the downward trend in world violence in an article at Slate:
The world is not falling apart. The kinds of violence to which most people are vulnerable—homicide, rape, battering, child abuse—have been in steady decline in most of the world. Autocracy is giving way to democracy. Wars between states—by far the most destructive of all conflicts—are all but obsolete. The increase in the number and deadliness of civil wars since 2010 is circumscribed, puny in comparison with the decline that preceded it, and unlikely to escalate.
Too much of our impression of the world comes from a misleading formula of journalistic narration. Reporters give lavish coverage to gun bursts, explosions, and viral videos, oblivious to how representative they are and apparently innocent of the fact that many were contrived as journalist bait. Then come sound bites from “experts” with vested interests in maximizing the impression of mayhem: generals, politicians, security officials, moral activists. The talking heads on cable news filibuster about the event, desperately hoping to avoid dead air. Newspaper columnists instruct their readers on what emotions to feel.
There is a better way to understand the world. Commentators can brush up their history—not by rummaging through Bartlett’s for a quote from Clausewitz, but by recounting the events of the recent past that put the events of the present in an intelligible context. And they could consult the analyses of quantitative datasets on violence that are now just a few clicks away.
CNS would never do that -- it's so much easier to push its right-wing agenda with misleading information.
In his July 26 WND column eulogizing right-wing author and activst Tim LaHaye, Farah writes this:
Here’s one of my favorite personal recollections.
In a former life, I made a living collaborating on books with others – including people like Rush Limbaugh, Hal Lindsey, Greg Laurie and many others.
Tim and I had discussed doing book projects together, but we never did.
One day in 1994, I believe, I called Tim with an idea for a project that had been in the back of my mind of more than 15 years. I had discussed it with other partners over the years, but it just kept getting put off in favor of other book projects.
The idea was a book called “Left Behind.”
As I was explaining it to him on the phone, he interjected, “Joseph, you’re not going to believe this, but I just signed a collaboration agreement and a publishing contract for that very title.”
The rest is history, as they say.
The book and its many sequels went on to sell tens of millions of copies and remain on the New York Times bestsellers list for over 300 weeks.
I had waited too long to make the call.
That's a weird little attempt to steal a little glory from LaHaye upon his death. Note that Farah is somewhat vague about what exactly he's stealing credit for -- he's definitely claiming having come up with the title "Left Behind," and he's sort of suggesting he may have thought of a similar plot.
Then again, Farah's fighting against the imminent failure of the business model behind WND, so someone else's financial success probably looks quite appealing.
MRC Bashes Pretty Much Anyone Who Praised Michelle Obama's DNC Speech Topic: Media Research Center
The idea that Michelle Obama's universally loved speech at the Democratic National Convention must not be praised apparently wasn't limited to CNSNews.com -- it was apparently a companywide edict at the Media Research Center.
Post after post at the MRC attacked people in the media for committing the offense of saying nice things about Obama's speech, apparently believe that it is "liberal bias" to admit that her speech went over well.
Curtis Houck complained that the TV networks "gush[ed] over her “artfully painted” address featuring “trademark...grace” in attacking Donald Trump." Houck despised Obama's reference to the fact that the White House was built by slaves, denigrating the comment by sneering parenthetically that the White House "was gutted and renovated by multiple times post-slavery." Nicholas Fondacaro similarly called out people on CNN for praising the speech.
Semi-resident MRC New York Times-basher Clay Waters (who still gets to do so there, but not as the full-time employee he used to be) predictably bashed the Times' coverage of her speech, huffing that "The reporters misleadingly sold Michelle Obama’s First Lady persona as studiously nonpolitical."
Samantha Cohen was in full rant mode, grumbling that on MSNBC's "Morning Joe," "panelist after panelist took turns gushing over Michelle Obama." Cohen attacked co-host Mika Brzezinski for her "chilling remarks" that Obama's speech was "real" and "personal," unlike the "whitewash" she heard at the Republican convention. Cohen howled:
Shallow Brzezinski must have been brainwashed by Michelle Obama last night, because one of the most moving speeches at the RNC in Cleveland was delivered by Patricia Smith, the mother of Sean Smith, who was killed in the 2012 Benghazi attacks. That speech wasn’t real? That speech wasn’t personal?
What may have been even more chilling than Brzezinski’s ignorance was co-host Joe Scarborough’s leap in likening Michelle Obama’s speech to Ronald Reagan.
Somebody should explain to Cohen the difference between "media research" and a mean-spirited personal attack. Or does the MRC not see a difference between the two anymore?
CNSNews.com reporter Susan Jones has a nastyhabit of injecting editorial comment into her supposedly fair and balanced "news" articles -- you know, the exact same thing her employer, the Media Research Center, loves to accuse the "liberal media" of doing. She's so biased, apparently, that she cannot admit the near-universal bipartisan consensus that Michelle Obama gave a very good speech on the first night of the Democratic National Convention.
Jones had to find a way -- presumably under orders from editors Terry Jeffrey and Michael W. Chapman -- to denigrate the speech in her article on it, which seems to explain her very odd opening paragraph:
Children who need protection. Bullies and "hateful language from public figures." A White House built by slaves. Black SUVS and big men with guns. Little faces pressed up against the window. And at the end of First lady Michelle Obama's speech, an admission that "right now, this is the greatest country on earth."
Huh? What does that even mean? Is Jones so desperate to avoid saying anything nice about Obama's speech that she emulated a word cloud to open her article on it?
Much of Jones' article did find her in stenography mode summarizing the speech, but she couldn't resist getting one more dig in, adding at the end: "On the campaign trail in 2008, Michelle Obama made waves when she said, 'For the first time in my adult life, I am really proud of my country because it feels like hope is finally making a comeback.'"
This negative spin contrasts with Jones' effort to put a happy face on Ted Cruz's speech at the Republican National Convention, insisting that Cruz's "powerful speech" was "well-received until the very end, when it became clear he would not endorse Donald Trump."
WND Takes Michelle Obama's Bait On Birther Reference Topic: WorldNetDaily
All the revisionism WorldNetDaily is trying to do in order to distance itself from the birther issue that defined the website for much of the Obama administration -- most recently, Joseph Farah was insisting the "eligibility" issue ended in "late 2011" even though that was the time when WND's Jerome was working behind the scenes to sleaze the incompetent and dishonest "cold case posse" into existence -- can't hide the fact that WND will go birther given the right provocation. WND did so last month when laughably tried to redefine the term "birther" as someone who debunks the "eligibility" issue as opposed to its long-established defintion as someone who perpetuates the issue in the face of all that debunking evidence (you know, what WND did for years and continues to do).
When Michelle Obama made a passing reference to birtherism in her Democratic National Convention speech, WND got suckered in again. "MICHELLE OBAMA RAISES BARACK'S BIRTH-CERTIFICATE ISSUE" screamed the headline of Bob Unruh's article on the speech, and Unruh runs with it:
Michelle Obama focused on praising Hillary Clinton Monday night at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia, insisting she was the only presidential candidate who could be trusted with the children of the nation, but she took a side trip down a path that raised old shadows.
She said one of her jobs in the White House was to teach her daughters “to ignore those who question their father’s citizenship or faith.”
She was referencing the challenges to her husband’s constitutional qualification for office as a “natural born citizen.”
Dozens of lawsuits were filed over that issue before and after Obama’s election in 2008, and the White House ultimately released a document he said was his Hawaiian birth certificate.
Get the book that blew the lid off Barack Obama’s past. “Where’s the Birth Certificate?” — now just 99 cents!
The only law-enforcement investigation of the issue, however, concluded the document likely is a forgery.
Of course Unruh won't tell his readers that the "only law-enforcement investigation of the issue" -- the Arpaio "cold case posse" is a corrupt sham, staffed by Corsi himself, that never had any intention to look at all evidence and was interested only in declaring the birth certificate a "forgery" despite never examining an actual copy of it.
WND destroyed what little credibility it had in spreading lies about President Obama, led by its full-birther, truth-free agenda, and being in a state of denial -- a state that continues to this day -- about how discredited it is. Until Unruh, Farah, Corsi and the rest of the corrupt WND crew come clean and tell the truth, WND will continue to lack credibility.
MRC Mocks Idea That Russia Hacked DNC Emails, Ignores Russia's Ties to Trump Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's Nicholas Fondacaro writes in a July 24 post:
With what seemed like the plot of the next James Bond film, or perhaps Austin Powers, CNN Political Commentator Sally Kohn accused Russian hackers of trying to sink Hillary Clinton’s campaign by leaking DNC documents. “One of the more unexplored parts of this story is that these leaks were done by Russian hackers,” Kohn noted on New Day Sunday, “And the fact that these leaks, if anything, help— seem intended maybe to help Donald Trump. So, I think first of all, we should point that out.”
Kohn relied on an argument made by Clinton’s pick for vice president, “And looking at the connections between Trump and Russia and Putin, you know, as Tim Kaine pointing out, Putin being the only person Donald Trump hasn't criticized.”
Fondacaro didn't concede that Kohn is correct about there being significant enough ties between Trump and Russia that there is at least a circumstantial case that the Russians hacked the DNC documents and scheduled them for release just before the Democratic convention for Trump's benefit. Among those ties:
The Washington Post reported that some cybersecurity experts agree that hackers working for or on behalf of the Russian government did conduct the DNC hack.
Trump has taken the position -- also favored by the Russians -- that a President Trump might not protect the (former Soviet) Baltic states that are members of NATO from Russian threats.
At WND, DNC's Grieving Moms Are 'Activists' But RNC Ones Aren't Topic: WorldNetDaily
One reason WorldNetDaily is in financial trouble is its aggressiveness in injecting right-wing political bias into its "news" articles. Take this July 24 WND article by Garth Kant, for instance.
Kant's point is to demean the mothers of children killed at the hands of police or other authorities. Each of his mini-profiles of all but one of the mothers contains a similar line; can you spot it?
"Brown’s mother, Lezley McSpadden, became a political activist."
"Fulton also became a political activist."
"Geneva Reed-Veal, Bland’s mother, became a political activist."
"Dontre’s mother, Maria Hamilton had become a political activist."
"Davis’ mother, Lucia McBath, calls herself an accidental activist."
"The dead girl’s mother, Cleopatra Pendleton-Cowley, has become a gun-control activist."
That's right -- as far as Kant is concerned, all of these women are "activists." For the one he doesn't apply the "activist" label to, Kant makes sure to note that she "wrote an endorsement for Hilary Clinton."
By contrast, he does not identify Patricia Smith, whose son died during the Benghazi attack, as an "activist,"' even her speaking at the Republican National Convention is clearly a form of activism.
Kant also talks about Idela Carey, whose "34-year-old daughter, Miriam Carey, was shot in the back and killed by federal officers near the Capitol after she made a wrong turn into a White House guard post, then tried to leave. " But in reality he's plugging the WND-published book he's writing about the incident, which WND has tried to exploit in an attempt to find any excuse to bash the Obama administration rather than any genuine interest in righting an injustice.
In their July 20 column, the MRC's Tim Graham and Brent Bozell were upset that the media would dare fact-check reliable right-wing ranter Patricia Smith, whose son died in the Benghazi attack:
PolitiFact put a picture of this angry mother on their home page with the headline "Checking Patricia Smith's claims about Clinton and Benghazi." The suggestion? Smith probably told some whoppers on the floor in Cleveland.
But the article that followed was, to borrow from [the Wall Street Journal's James] Taranto, "mere opinions on matters about which they do not know the facts." PolitiFact creator Bill Adair wrote, "We can't put Smith's claims on the Truth-O-Meter. But here, we'll lay out the case for and against the allegations against Clinton and let readers come to their own conclusion."
When the review of what the survivors of the four men lost in Benghazi said was finished, PolitiFact merely threw up its hands, claiming that none of these grieving relatives can really be trusted as reliable providers of fact.
To Politi-"Fact," Clinton's record of lying about her server doesn't tilt the scales of credibility. In another article on Monday night, the website suggested grieving relatives might have "fuzzy" memories. Adair even suggested that even if Clinton was incorrect, she might not have been lying: "If she did say something about the video, would it have been an intentional lie? It's very possible that this is one of the many conflicting pieces of intelligence that the administration was working with at the time."
Adair claimed no one can really claim Clinton lied: "There simply is not enough concrete information in the public domain for Rubio or anyone to claim as fact that Clinton did or did not lie to the Benghazi families."
Adair and his ilk aren't fact-checking in any way. They're masquerading in fact-checker costumes to engage in shameless speculation, blather and spin favoring democrats.
Yes, how dare the media demand Smith to be bound by facts? All that matters to Graham and Bozell is that she was spewing as much venom as possible at Hillary Clinton -- not whether any actual facts back up her hate.
MRC Still Flip-Flopping On How To Criticize Trump's Media Coverage Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center, it seems, still can't stop lapsing back to flip-flopping over Donald Trump's coverage in the media, which it did for much of the primary season before mostly getting in line after Trump won the Republican presidential nomination.
A July 13 post by Sam Dorman -- who has apparently parlayed his baiting of Nancy Pelosi into responding to a gotcha question while an MRC intern into a full-time gig there -- recounts how a NBC producer says that prior to running for president "Trump campaigned years beforehand on the network," even dinging usual right-wing fave Jay Leno for calling Trump "the next president of the United States" in 1999.
Five days later, a July 18 post by Sarah Stites went the opposite way, complaining that how in Hollywood "movers and shakers have taken to movies, shows and music to revile Donald Trump in whatever way possible," noting that "more than 20 TV shows have targeted him."
This means in the space of five days, the MRC has changed from criticizing the media for building up Trump to criticizing the media for bashing him. So much for consistency in messaging.