WND Smears Area That Didn't Go For Trump As 'Third World Colony' Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily has always been filled with bile for those who aren't as white, Christian and right-wing as them. This was encapsulated in a election-night tweet from the main WND account huffing, "If North Virginia wasn't a third world colony for America's failed attempt to be an empire (open borders too), Trump would run away with VA."
"North Virginia" is a reference to the Virginia suburbs of Washington, D.C. -- mainly Alexandria, Arlington, Fairfax County and Loudon County. And far from having "third world" conditions these areas are among the wealthiest in America. WND editor Joseph Farah very well knows this, because he lives in Fairfax County and enjoys some of that affluence.
Which makes this WND tweet about race. And it's wrong there too -- Northern Virginia is still majority white at 55%, with the minority population mostly consisting of 16% Hispanic, 11% black and 10% Asian.
So, WND appears to be saying that are too many brown and black people in Northern Virginia for Joseph Farah's comfort. It's also begrudging immigrants (the black and brown onesa chance, anyway) the opportunity to succeed in a region where's already so much success.
It's also worth noting that WND has its main offices in Washington, D.C. We're willing to bet that the people who clean that office aren't white -- they're likely Hispanic or another ethnic minority. What would they think about cleaning the office of an organization that scorns their very presence in the U.S.?
MRC's Bozell & Graham Cheer The Death of Facts Topic: Media Research Center
As we've documented, the MRC protected Trump from the torrent of falsehoods he spouted on a regular basis by attacking the fact-checkers who caught him as biased. Brent Bozell and Tim Graham's post-election column for the Media Research Center couldn't be more proud that facts no longer matter, [playing the false equivalence card by insisting without evbidence that Trump and Hillary Clinton lied equally:
Trump can be careless with facts, and resistant to media shaming. But for these fact-checkers to claim Clinton is far more honest is preposterous. PolitiFact awarded its "Pants on Fire" tag to Trump 57 times to Clinton's seven. Likewise, Washington Post Fact Checker Glenn Kessler reported that "Trump earned significant more four-Pinocchio ratings than Clinton — 59 to 7, and "The numbers don't lie."
Well, yes, they do. Just ask the parents of the brave men murdered in Benghazi if Clinton lies. Ask the FBI — even Director Comey, who exonerated her. Ask those who held hearings in the House and Senate and listened to her testimony. Ask those who have investigated the Clinton Foundation. They and so many others will speak to her endless lies. But not so the "fact checkers."
It is a given that the default position for the media elite is to rate liberal politicians "True" and conservatives of every faction "False." Take the vice presidential candidates on the PolitiFact "Truth-o-Meter" in this campaign. Tim Kaine was rated "True" or "Mostly True" 26 times, and Mike Pence drew those positive ratings only 8 times. Pence was "False" or "Mostly False" 18 times, and Kaine drew those marks only 11 times. Since Sept. 1, conservatives and Republicans have been scolded as "Pants on Fire" 28 times (fully 14 of those tags were for Trump). Liberals and Democrats? Only four (and only one for Clinton). That's a 7-to-1 tilt, and an obscene 14-to-1 tilt for the presidential candidates.
Bozell and Graham offer refuse to admit the possibility that Trump and Pence were called out for more falsehoods than their Democratic counterparts becaues they told more falsehoods. They don't prove otherwise.
In other words, they're simply throwing more shade at fact-checkers instead of criticizing their falsehood prone candidate. They conclude:
It's time to fact-check the fact checkers. In fact, it's already been done. According to a recent Rasmussen poll, just 29 percent of likely voters trust media fact-checking of the candidates, while 62 percent believed the media "skew the facts to help candidates they support."
Don't you just love the American people? They have awarded on big, fat "Pants on Fire" to the entire national news media for their fact-checking arrogance and plain old dishonesty. And that's a fact.
Bozell and Graham don't mention that Rasmussen has a pretty unambiguous conservative bias -- even Nate Silver thinks so -- or that Rasmussen Reports founder Scott Rasmussen is an occasional columnist at the MRC's NewsBusters blog -- a place Bozell would not allow him to write at were he not a conservative.
Those are facts, and Bozell and Graham are dishonest and arrogant to hide that from their readers. But then, have they ever not been?
WND, Newsmax Attack Early Voting Topic: WorldNetDaily
One of the ConWeb's final attacks before the election was against the idea of early voting.
A Nov. 5 WorldNetDaily article by PR guy Paul Bremmer quotes WND author Daniel Horowitz bashing early voting as "unfair and unconstitutional" and, perhaps more importantly, allegedly benefits Democrats:
Not only does early voting tilt the playing field, but it is unlawful, according to Horowitz. Article II of the Constitution gives Congress the power to set a day for electing the president, and it mandates that day “shall be the same throughout the United States.”
In 1845, Congress designated the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November as Election Day for the presidency. In subsequent years Congress enacted laws stating that elections to the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate should be held on the same day.
“While many delegates to various state conventions objected to any federal control of elections, it was very clear that the Constitution had indeed vested Congress with the power to create a single election day,” Horowitz asserted. “Ever since the Presidential Election Day Act set that date as ‘the Tuesday after the first Monday in November,’ it’s hard to see how a state holding multiple election days for in-person voting – without any excuse – is not a violation of this law, at least in spirit.”
The whole system benefits Democrats, according to Horowitz, because they almost always take the lead in early voting.
“It’s no coincidence that the electoral map substantially shifted in favor of Democrats beginning in 2008 when early voting first became a significant factor,” Horowitz noted. “As has been the case over the past decade, preliminary estimates of early voting turnout show a significant advantage for Democrats. Reporter Jon Ralston predicts that based on early voting, Hillary has a near-insurmountable lead in the critical state of Nevada.”
Early voting also invites corruption and fraud by making it easier for one person to vote multiple times. The Daily Signal reported recently on eight cases of voter fraud that have happened before Election Day.
“The trend for early voting is only getting worse,” Horowitz warned. “Democrats are seeking to expand the days, hours and locations of early voting at every turn. In the states where they are out of power, the courts have enacted their early voting agenda for them. With modern communication and transportation, it is easier than ever to register to vote and cast a ballot or request and send back an absentee ballot if one is unable to vote in person on Election Day.
“If a single election day was good enough for our first two centuries when it was harder to travel or communicate, it should certainly work for us today.”
In a Nov. 6 Newsmax column, John Gizzi turned to quoting conservative icon William F. Buckley to attack "easy voting," including early voting, because in Buckley's words, "not everyone should vote":
These "early voters" have taken advantage of laws in 38 states that permit voting at certain hours in the days preceding Election Day. Freed from facing the discouraging prospect of a time-consuming wait in line at the polls, the argument goes, people who might just pass on their right to vote will be more inclined to exercise that right.
But this raises the argument of whether the proposition that everyone should vote has merit.
One who argued that it did not was the late William F. Buckley, Jr., founder and editor of National Review and a towering figure in modern conservatism.
"I do not believe that everyone should vote," Buckley wrote in a syndicated column on February 18, 1964, "Everyone should have the right to vote whose record of accomplishments more or less suggest that he attaches an importance to the vote that goes beyond his immediate self-interests."
Means of making voting easier, he argued, "Are tilting us further along in the direction of a thoughtless democracy in which people are increasingly encouraged to vote for the sake of voting."
Almost foreseeing "early voting," Buckley warned that "the next step, of course, will be to deplore the undemocratic inconveniences involved in going all the way to the public booth to cast the vote. At that point, no doubt, AT&T will no doubt come to the rescue, and will contrive a system by which we can all vote over the telephone."
UPDATE: Another Newsmax article touts Dick Morris attacking early voting as "a scheme to commit voter fraud" because "You get a bus full of people or you go into a nursing home and you carry around a petition and people sign and they vote," and "you can eliminate the secret ballot and basically pay people to vote."
Garth Kant declares in a Nov. 6 WorldNetDaily article:
In the wake of the bombshell announcement Sunday by FBI Director James Comey that he still won’t recommend prosecuting Hillary Clinton in her email scandal after an initial review of the reported 650,000 emails on Anthony Weiner’s laptop, American voters are still left with perplexing uncertainties on the eve of the presidential election.
Kant then dedicated his article to wdhat an editor's note called "all significant developments" in "the fast-moving news cycle" before the election. But most of what he cites are unverified rumors or have been discredited entirely.
Kant touted the report by Fox News' Bret Baier that "an indictment is 'likely' in the Clinton Foundation influence peddling scandal," as well as Baier's claim that "a '99 percent' probability the private email server Clinton used for official business as secretary of state was hacked by at least five foreign intelligence agencies." In fact, Baier has retracted both claims. Kant also highlighted how "Fox’s sources said investigators are “actively and aggressively” looking into the Clinton Foundation." Baier walked that back too.
Curiously, Kant doesn't mention anywhere in his article that the claims are discredited -- he presents them as if they were true.
Kant also touted a claim that Huma Abedin "reportedly 'flipped' and began cooperating with investigators looking into possible crimes by the former secretary of state." As he also notes, it's an unverified claim from Erik Prince, the former head of Blackwater, the security firm notorious for its actions during the Iraq War.
He also cites how "WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange said the Russian government is not the source of the thousands of emails his website has published from Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta." The source: Russia Today, the media outlet of the Russian government. Not exactly trustworthy.
Kant also cites how "The chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee accused Hillary Clinton of treason on Thursday," which is an utterly meaningless claim. And then there's "A WikiLeaks email dug up on Friday by the Daily Caller revealed that Clinton Foundation bigwig Doug Band ripped Chelsea Clinton as, 'not smart.'" That's less than meaningless.
Consider this yet another desperate last-minute attempt to throw mud at Hillary, which is what WND is allabout right now.
CNS Plays Key Role In MRC's Echoing of Trump's 'Rigged Media' Ranting Topic: CNSNews.com
Part of the Media Research Center's synergy with the Donald Trump campaign in building and then echoing Trump's "rigged media" strategy took place at the MRC's "news" division CNSNews.com. There, as part of its stenography work for Trump, CNS writers gave special attention to uncritically repeating the Trump campaign's complaints (as well from as their surrogates) about the media. Note these headlines:
Russian Hackers? 45% Call News Media 'Primary Threat That Might Try to Change Election Results'
Those first five articles are by Melanie Hunter, who wrote nine Trump-stenography articles in October alone. The last two are from CNS managing editor Michael W. Chapman.
CNS was also quick to forward media criticism of anything that made Trump look bad, in addition to dutifully printing the latest rants from boss Brent Bozell. For example, an Oct. 14 article by Barbara Hollingsworth, for instances, touted how "Conservative leaders are calling out NBC for the network's apparent attempt to 'time' the release of an 11-year old videotape of a lewd conversation between Donald Trump and former Access Hollywood host Billy Bush in order to inflict maximum damage on Trump’s presidential campaign." Hollingsworth made no effort to contact actual media professionals outside the circle of MRC-friendly folks with an obvious interest in the election's outcome, to also comment on the media's handling of the damning Trump tape.
Hollingsworth also actively tried to deflect from allegations of Trump's closeness to Russia -- as well as the fact that Russian hackers are widely blamed for stealing the clinton campaign emails posted by WikiLeaks -- by ranting about the media in a Nov. 2 article asserting that "More people see the news media--as opposed to Russian hackers or political bosses--as the "primary threat that might try to change the election result," according to a recent Suffolk University/USA Today poll."
And CNS editor in chief Terry Jeffrey made sure to let us know in a Nov. 3 article that "Fifty-two percent of registered voters say that the media is biased in favor of Hillary Clinton in this presidential election, according to a poll released today by Gallup."
If Trump loses, look for CNS to reliably and uncritically parrot anyone and everyone who will blame the media for it. It's what they do.
In the midst of this careening race, two would-be engineers are wresting for control. One is a woman whose whole public life, with her husband, has been tangled in scandals, impeachment, evidence of self-serving personal enrichment and illegal, gang-type violence against rivals and disobedient lackeys, now tantalizingly close to achieving a historic goal, being the first woman president of the United States.
Now back to the outskirts of hell. America won’t enter the real thing until it elects Hillary Clinton as president. The personal corruption has only begun, enabled by lawlessness and a cadre of underlings devoted to the new queen, and completely unconcerned with any other part of their jobs. The Epsteins of the world, sanctioned by the United States government, will put the pedal to the metal to drive the weak and powerless into the ground and mow down the middle class on their way to doing it. With the power of a completely corrupt Clinton “Justice” Department, nothing will be beyond their reach.
If you vote for Hillary Clinton, you enable this. If you fail to vote for Donald Trump, you likewise enable the Clinton ascendancy back into the White House. This means you are exactly like Hillary: personally corrupt, unconcerned with your victims and willing to push everything aside to fulfill your own lusts. That’s how America moves from the sidelines and enters fully into hell.
This is it. When we awake on Nov. 9, we will know whether We the People were successful in snatching our government from the clutches of the multi-tentacled Clinton Crime Family and the global elite it represents. Ironically, the outcome may rest with a portion of the electorate who have decided, “on principle,” that Donald Trump must never become president because of his moral flaws. It is this small but important group of voters who represent Hillary Clinton’s best hope of victory – and perhaps with it the death of hope for effective, principled resistance to the elites.
Nov. 8 is the point of no return. If you still insist on Never Trump, you may give us Clinton Forever.
Make no mistake, I am not telling anyone how they should vote. In fact, I think there is an argument even for affirmatively voting for Clinton if you’re of the camp that believes America is under judgment and Trump represents nothing more than a delay in the inevitable punishment of our nation for the innocent blood of millions of unborn babies that we have shed. I’m only arguing against the false logic of the “lesser evil” debate as a basis for the Never Trump position. Frankly, if Clinton wins, I will take that as proof that God intends no delay in His judgment of America. He is sovereign and perfect in His rulings. But He is also long-suffering and merciful, and I am hoping for a reprieve for my country.
If you don’t vote for Trump, any other vote helps Hillary – and we don’t need a lying, corrupt, cheating, devious, reckless, lawless, two-faced, conniver in the presidency who does all she can to undermine this country and put us all at risk – to say nothing of the rest of the free world.
Remember, if you don’t vote for Donald Trump, you are putting Hillary Clinton in the Oval Office, even if you vote third party or don’t vote at all. And that means the end of our country as we knew it.
The problem that is lost on the “useful idiots” of the country is that the FBI lacks the authority to indict, and the reality is that the State Department and the DOJ are so corrupted and under the thumb of the Clinton Cartel, that they will not do their jobs. I am not a lawyer, but a cursory glance at the people in prison for lesser crimes proves a sinister underlining in all of this that will mire the Clintons in controversy for decades to come. Hillary isn’t free for lack of evidence that she did something illegal. She is free because she has so corrupted the system that the authorities won’t go after her.
Never before in our lifetimes has so much depended on a national election.
Not only is Hillary corrupt, but the entire Obama/Clinton regime is unprecedented in its corruption and pollution of our federal bureaucracies. They are far, far above the law at this point, and will only be more brazen and abusive if elected.
What faces us is a choice as clear as good and evil, day and night, black and white.
On the one hand, Hillary Clinton is, without question, the most corrupt person ever to seek the presidency. To make matters worse, she has nothing but contempt for America and the best interests of only herself in mind.
The scandals in which she has been engulfed throughout her career can no longer be numbered, cataloged, indexed. It would take volumes, gigabytes, a legion of prosecutors.
And, at the end of the day, for many of her supporters – paid off, self-interested, dishonest, corrupt themselves – it probably wouldn’t make a difference.
With just hours to go, I have no idea if the end referred to in my title is the election or the United States of America. If Mrs. Clinton wins the presidency despite her lies and well-documented corruption, it means that even after eight years of Obama’s malfeasance, the majority of voters are more concerned with electing someone, anyone, with a “D” after his or her name than with the future of the republic.
Because compared to America at any time in its history except for the Civil War years, the country I am living in is indeed a wreck – and getting worse each day, and in every way. After another four years of a Democrat in the White House the country called the United States will still be here, but America as envisioned since its founding – as the world’s beacon of individual liberty, Lincoln’s “Last Best Hope of Earth” – won’t.
MRC Notes Trump Backers Threatening Journalists, Doesn't Denounce It Topic: Media Research Center
We've documented how the Media Research Center set the stage for Donald Trump's attacks on the media, but won't talk about the threats of violence against journalists from Trump supporters. Now the MRC has finally acknowleged it -- albeit in a rather lame manner.
Appearing on Thursday’s NBC Late Night With Seth Meyers, aired early Friday morning, ABC anchor George Stephanopoulos worried about Donald Trump making the liberal media an “enemy” in the presidential campaign, confessing that “it's hard to walk down the street right now” and warning that reporters need “security.”
Host Seth Meyers observed: “...tensions are very high in this election on both sides....is it safe to say that you receive criticisms from both sides in your day to day?” Stephanopoulos complained: “It's hard to walk down the street right now....I have this one woman in my neighborhood....Every time I walk down the street she keys in on me, walks right up to my face and whispers, ‘Disgusting’....Then a few days later, does the same thing....walks right up into my face, ‘Bastard.’”
Meyers sympathized: “You know, there was a lot of talk about how the press covered Trump. But now, there's a lot of talk about how Trump is sort of framing the press as a villain.” Stephanopoulos agreed: “The enemy, absolutely.” Meyers fretted: “And so, for those of you in journalism right now, like, have you ever seen an attack like this?”
Stephanopoulos voiced concern for the safety of his colleagues: “No, I mean, he's singling people out from the crowd. And his – you know, I don't really go out into the rallies so much – but our reporters actually have to have security at his rallies because everybody gets so riled up and he riles them up as well.”
And that's pretty much it. Drennen not only can't be bothered to denounce such threats, he's actgually suggesting that it's "liberal media bias" for even mention that it's happening -- as if Stephanopoulos deserves to be harrassed by random people for doing his job.
Last week, Kupelian guest-hosted WND columnist Jesse Lee Peterson's radio show, and he totally went off the Hillary Derangement deep end, actually claiming that the Clintons are, in the words of the headline of the Nov. 7 WND article summarizing his rant, "too evil for voters to comprehend":
Could it be, Kupelian wondered aloud, that Bill and Hillary Clinton are so sociopathic that the average American can’t even comprehend their dark motivations, since they don’t harbor such impulses or feelings within themselves?
“I don’t think people get criminality,” said Kupelian, an award-winning journalist and best-selling author of several books on evil, including “The Marketing of Evil,” “How Evil Works” and, most recently, “The Snapping of the American Mind.”
Most voters, explained Kupelian, size up candidates according to their politics and worldview. “We are so used to thinking about liberal/conservative, big government/small government, you’re against gay rights/you’re for gay rights or gay marriage, and so forth. We get that – and then we vote accordingly.”
But truly sociopathic or criminal thinking is foreign and opaque to the average voter’s thinking, he said.
“Bill Clinton is a certified sexual predator,” Kupelian added. “He has a credible allegation of rape. Don’t talk to me about Donald Trump kissing somebody. We’re talking about forcible rape. Rape used to be a capital offense. People were put to death for forcible rape. And then we have Hillary Clinton that covers up and abuses the victims further.”
Saying the Clintons should be in prison “a dozen times over” for their crimes, Kupelian summarizes his theory: “The Clintons are so dark – they are in the grip of such dark forces and the kinds of thoughts and feelings that most people don’t even have at their darkest times, their most angry times – that we give them a pass because we can’t – we don’t see it inside ourselves, so we can’t project it out when we see it in them,” the author explained. “So… we believe the crap: ‘Oh, well, she’s always been for women and children.’ It’s unbelievable.”
This is the hateful pep talk Kupelian has to constantly tell himself in order to justify his support for the amoral Trump. It's what he has to tell himself in order to justify his current existence as managing editor of a failing media outlet that cares only about hatred of "the other" -- as its vicious, dishonest jihad against President Obama vividly illustrates -- and not the Christian values it claims to espouse ... and certainly not reporting the truth.
And rather than trying to save his failing media outlet by, you know, stopping the lies and hate, Kupelian is doubling down on things that made WND the journalistic laughing stock it is. At this rate, a sense of morality won't be the only thing he will be without.
NewsBusters' Blumer Angry That People Noticed The Anti-Semitic Undertones in Trump Ad Topic: NewsBusters
Angry Tom Blumer is angry that people are seeing anti-Semitic undertones in Donald Trump's final campaign ad. Blumer angrily writes at NewsBusters:
CNN's presentation would have viewers believe that the ad actually names the three people involved, and that it shows the three of them together in a single frame. It does neither.
Soros and Yellen appear in separate consecutive half-second clips at about the 22-second mark. Blankfein appears at the 1:14 mark, again very briefly. In all three cases, if you blink, chances are you'll miss them.
The anti-Semitism claim is rubbish.
The problem with [George] Soros isn't that he's Jewish; it's that he and his organizations lavishly fund groups which are working against the best interests of representative governments and everyday people throughout the world.
The problem with [Janet] Yellen and the Fed is that they have artificially propped up the U.S. economy with little in the way of genuine recovery to show for it, while encouraging the rest of the world to follow their failed policies.
The problem with Goldman Sachs is its close relationship with the power players in the Obama administration — a relationship so close that Obama's opponents have justifiably nicknamed him President Goldman Sachs. The administration's relationship with Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street firms likely explains why no executive has been criminally prosecuted or convicted — including execs at the the government's own Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — as a result of the subprime mortgage and general mortgage-lending meltdowns of 2007-2008.
None of this has a flippin' thing to do with Soros, Yellen and [Lloyd] Blankfein being Jewish. And of course, many others who are part of the global establishment pictured throughout Trump's ad are not Jewish.
It takes a special kind of paranoia to count heads like far-left columnists have done, to find just three, and to scream "anti-Semitism." It's incredibly irresponsible for Jake Tapper to give Al Franken an open mic to make the charge without anyone from the Trump campaign to call him out for how ridiculous his claim is.
You know who doesn't think the anti-Semitism claim is "rubbish"? The Anti-Defamation League. "Whether intentional or not, the images and rhetoric in this ad touch on subjects that anti-Semites have used for ages' This needs to stop," said ADL CEO Jonathan Greenblatt.
You know who else doesn't think the anti-Semitism claim is rubbish? Actual anti-Semites. Media Matters documented how white-nationalist Trump supporters love the ad, with one site pointing out how ity “highlights the evil Jews Janet Yellen, Lloyd Blankfein and George Soros as being behind the corrupt global establishment destroying America.”
In other words, it's not being noticed only in the "far-left fever swamps" as Blumer claims it is.
Blumer has apparently forgotten that the Trump campaign has been playing with these anti-Semitic undertones for a while; remember the image of a Star of David over a pile of money (lifted from a racist website) that Trump's cammpaign tweeted out?
Trump's supporters are so down with this stuff that they feel comfortable chanting "Jew-S-A!" at a reporter covering a Trump rally.
It takes a special kind of selective ignorance for Blumer to dismiss the claim out of hand because the claim was made only by "far-left columnists" (in fact, the ADL had tweeted out its criticism of the ad hours before Blumer's post was published).
Is Blumer really so ignorant as to pretend there is no history of the Trump campaign's history of toying with such imagery? Apparently so.
WND Petulantly Swaps Colors On Election Map, Because Dems Should Be Red Topic: WorldNetDaily
Bob Unruh is the mouthpiece for this bit of WorldNetDaily petulance in a Nov. 5 article:
Call it the electoral map color counter-coup.
There once was a day when Democrats were red and Republicans were blue.
WND thinks that was apt, and, beginning today, it will be reflected in the 2016 electoral map at the oldest independent online news source.
That, of course, is exactly the opposite of what the rest of the media do in lockstep – from television stations to networks to the printed pages and even the bloggers.
But WND is resisting the change to what the New York Times called the “international tradition” and will have the Republican states on election night 2016 represented in blue, and the left, liberal or progressives – the Democrats – in red.
WND founder and CEO Joseph Farah has written about the issue several times, including during the 2012 election.
The fact that media outlets are using blue to represent leftists, he said, “Illustrates how the Democrats have their way with the media – every time.”
WND’s Joseph Farah wrote, outlining the problem, “Folks like me, old enough to remember when red states meant Democrat and blue states meant Republican, probably still get confused from time to time about the terminology.”
He ascribed the abrupt reversal, as reported by the Washington Post, to “the late Tim Russert, a respected television interviewer, but one who worked formerly for Democratic Sen. Daniel Patrick, Moynihan of New York.”
“The former system made more sense and was deliberately changed by media partisans who didn’t like to suggest Democrats should be associated with the color red.”
So for 2016, as with 2008 and 2012, WND “will stand apart and refuse to use the ‘red-state-blue-state’ paradigm in news coverage because it will not be a part of the obvious manipulation behind it,” he confirmed.
“Words mean things. Symbols, too, have meaning. Why is it that I get confused about what someone means when they say, for instance, ‘California is a blue state and Texas is red.’ I get confused because it makes no sense! I don’t think I’m alone. I would propose to you that most people my age or older feel the same way. We all know California is red and Texas is blue. That makes sense.”
You'd think Farah would have gibber things to worry about -- like, say, the fact that his website has no credibility -- than the colors on an election map. And its not a "color counter-coup," it's a color choice driven by petulance.
MRC: Media 'Smears' GOP Senate Candidates (By Reporting On Them Accurately) Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's Nicholas Fondacaro complains in a Nov. 3 post:
With the Republican controlled Senate hanging in the balance this election cycle, NBC turned up the heat against GOP candidates in tight races on Wednesday’s NBC Nightly News. One of the largest influences the Senate would have for the new president is the confirmation of Supreme Court justices. “There are many races currently polling within the margin of error,” announced Anchor Lester Holt as his colleague Hallie Jackson tried to tip the scales in favor of Democrats.
Jackson noted that candidates on both sides are trying to tie their opponent to the top of their party’s ticket. She noted this as she touted Senator Roy Blount’s opponent, “That's the argument Senator Roy Blount is making in Missouri. In the fight of his political life against a Democrat whose gun assembly ad went viral.”
From there, Jackson flaunted controversies plaguing some Republican candidates. “In North Carolina, Senator Richard Burr had to apologize after seeming to joke Hillary Clinton should be shot,” she reported, “Senator Mark Kirk forced to say he's sorry for those racially charged remarks [against Tammy Duckworth].”
What Jackson failed to mention was any controversy or negative news plaguing any of the Democratic candidates. Even though she touted McGInty in Pennsylvania, Jackson failed to mention (like CBS did) how McGinty was a long time lobbyist in Washington, DC. And according to a recent WikiLeaks e-mail dump, McGinty may have violated state law by asking Clinton campaign chair John Podesta if she should run for Senate.
So it's a "smear" to accurately point out the truly terrible things Republican Senate candidates have done, like suggesting Clinton should be shot or making racially charged remarks about one's opponent? Fondacaro doesn't explain how a Democratic candidate being a Washington lobbyist or sending an email asking for career advice (seems a bit harsh for that to be a violation of state law, doncha think?) are "offenses" equal to what the Republicans did.
Fondacaro also complained that "NBC continued to blackout how a law firm in Boston, Massachusetts allegedly funneled $1.6 million to Democratic Senate candidates illegally. Included in the list of candidates money was funneled to was McGinty, Hassan, Duckworth, and Jason Kandor. Those are the same Democrats Jackson was glorifying during her report." But Fondacaro provides no evidence that the candidates were involved in soliciting those contributions, let alone that they knew the contribuions were potentially illegal (the issue behind the controversy over the donations, which were allegedly made through an illegal straw-donor scheme).
The MRC is apparently getting a wee bit oversensitive on the "liberal bias" thing.
NEW ARTICLE: Jerome Corsi Hits Rock Bottom Topic: WorldNetDaily
Not only did the WorldNetDaily writer's anti-Clinton book flop, he had to abandon his pet issue of birtherism to save Donald Trump's campaign and he aligned himself with the sleaziest political operative in the country, Roger Stone. Read more >>
Where's the MRC's 'Every Hour' Post Admitting Fox News' Anti-Hillary Story Is Wrong? Topic: Media Research Center
When Media Research Center chief Brent Bozell ranted about the alleged lack of coverage of a Fox News report claiming that an FBI indictment of Hillary Clinton was imminent, he said, "We will report developments on this continuing cover-up every hour from here on out."
Apparently, the fact that Fox News itself has effectively retracted the story is not a sufficiently important development for the MRC devote one of those "every hours" to report on.
We've documented how Bozell and the MRC have complained that the story wasn't receiving the media coverage it wanted the story to get -- and was continuing to demand that coverage even as the story fell apart. Fox News anchor Bret Baier, who first reported the story, now admits no indictment of clinton was forthcoming and walked back his claim that it was all but certain -- a "99 percent accuracy" -- that Clinton's private server had been hacked, admitting that "there are still no digital fingerprints of a breach."
And the MRC is still complaining the story isn't getting covered.
A Nov. 4 post by Scott Whitlock skipped around any mention of Fox News or the story being retracted, asserting the story from an unidentified outlet contained "the bombshell news that the FBI is conducting an active investigation into the Clinton Foundation." Then he grumped that other outlets accurately pointed out that the reports were "inaccurate" and "unsubstantiated."
A post the same day by Curtis Houck touted the Fox News "bombshell FBI report about the Clinton Foundation" while complaining about "the rush to gang up on Fox News and Special Report host Bret Baier over his FBI story."But he waits until theninth paragraph of his item to note in passing, by quoting Brian Stelter noting that Baier "walked it back."
Doesn't the fact that Baier walked back the story deserve to be a bit higher up than the ninth paragraph? Houck apparently doesn't think so. Shouldn't that, in fact, be the subject of its own post, complete with the MRC apologizing to the media outlets and reporters it trashed for failing to promote the story to its desired high level?
Despite Bozell's declaration that the MRC would publish updates on the story "every hour," Houck's post is the last MRC item to properly identify the story as a product of Fox News. That's more than two days ago.
Once again, we see that pushing its right-wing agenda is more important to the MRC than telling people the truth.
WND Tries Late, Discredited Hit Job on Huma Abedin Topic: WorldNetDaily
Chelsea Schilling tries her best dramatic voice in a Nov. 1 WorldNetDaily article:
For nearly 20 years, Hillary Clinton has had an extremely close working relationship with a young beauty who was raised in Saudi Arabia.
Hillary’s ties to Huma Abedin go so deep, it’s been said that the vice chairwoman of Hillary’s campaign is one of few people who knows where the proverbial Clinton “bodies are buried.”
In fact, Abedin, whom Hillary once called her “second daughter,” had direct access to classified national security information stored on Hillary’s unsecured email server. Abedin had served as Hillary’s deputy chief of staff at the State Department. And it’s been widely predicted that Abedin would serve as chief of staff if Hillary wins her race for the White House.
But who is this woman, and why is she privy to some of America’s deepest national security secrets?
The hacktivist group Anonymous released a stunning video laying out the scandalous details of Abedin’s background on Oct. 24. In just one week, the video has gone viral with 1.6 million views. The same video was previously posted on YouTube on Sept. 11 under another username.
The video details many of the stunning revelations WND has reported for years – including eye-opening details of Abedin’s ties to terrorists and funders of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
As with a lot of things written by Schilling, there's not a lot of truth here. Snopes explains by debunking her claimed source of the video:
Neither the video nor its content was new, however, nor were they created by the hacktivist group Anonymous. The video was originally posted on 11 September 2016 to a YouTube channel called "Leaked Uploads." It, in turn, closely follows the text of an article posted approximately 10 days before that in a subreddit populated by Donald Trump supporters. Both the text and video appear to have been created by the same individual, a user who goes by the handle "Invadepro."
Indeed, claiming the video was made by Anonymous simply doesn't pass the smell test at first whiff; the the loosely affiliated group is known for hacking websites, not making slick videos filled with faux research.
Snopes goes on to debunk the video's main claims that Schilling repeats uncritically as "the hair-raising details of Abedin’s past," invoking such purportedly stellar sources as Jerome Corsi and Walid Shoebat. At no point does Schilling indicate she made any attempt whatsoever to fact-check the contents of the video before writing her WND article about it.
Snopes also points out:
[B]efore she could serve as Hillary Clinton's deputy chief of staff at the State Department, Abedin underwent a security clearance requiring, among other things, vetting of her personal and professional history to establish her loyalty to the United States and "freedom from conflicting allegiances and potential for coercion." While we would not argue that the clearance process is infallible, nor that information could not subsequently come to light that might change the assessment, we think it likely that the investigators charged with the task have better research tools available to them than does the average Internet user.
There are lots of reasons nobody believes WND, and promoting a smear video filled with falsehoods and distortions without fact-checking it or even confirming its claimed source is just one of them.
For October's unemployment numbers, CNSNews.com resorted to its usual tricks of distortion. Its main story, by Susan Jones, once again plays up the labor force participation rate, even though it's not a meaningful measure of employment, and obscures the fact that most people who do not have a job are retired baby boomers and students who aren't looking for one. Michael W. Chapman contributes the usual sidebar touting the high black unemployment rate without mentioning the fact that black unemployment has historically been double that of whites.
Chapman repeated a twist this month he first introduced in September: an article claiming a "real unemployment rate." Unlike in September, when Chapman asserted that a misleading number provided by Gallup was the "real" one, Chapman this time declares the U-6 rate to be the "real" rate.
In fact, it's not an unemployment rate at all because it counts people who are employed -- as Chapman himself notes, the U-6 rate includes "marginally attached workers plus total employed part time for economic reasons."
While the U-6 rate may offer a more nuanced picture of the employment situation, it's not an "unemployment rate" as Chapman insists.