CNS' Jeffrey Falsely Suggests Nothing Has Been Done To Reform Visas After 9/11 Topic: CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com edoitor in chief Terry Jeffrey spent his June 7 column recounting how one of the 9/11 hijackers entered the U.S. on a tourist visa. He concluded:
"It is perhaps obvious to state that terrorists cannot plan and carry out attacks in the United States if they are unable to enter the country," concluded the 9/11 Commission staff report on terrorist travel, published three years after the attacks.
But, even then, the problem had not been fixed.
"Indeed," said the commission staff in 2004, "even after 19 hijackers demonstrated the relative ease of obtaining a U.S. visa and gaining admission into the United States, border security still is not considered a cornerstone of national security policy."
Now, 16 years after 9/11, President Donald Trump appears committed to fixing this problem and securing our border — including where it runs through our international airports.
Jeffrey is being disingenuous in his false suggestion that absolutely nothing has been done to address visa issues, hiding the work that has been done. He's also conveniently mum on the fact that Republicans ahve controlled Congress during most of the post-9/11 era.
An actual news outlet, CBS, explains the actual situation:
Congress passed legislation in 2004 requiring the implementation of a biometric entry/exit system. Still, 12 years later, actually implementing that system has remained elusive—though experts say technological advances mean it’s on the horizon -- at least for people arriving by air.
There’s widespread consensus that such a program needs to be put in place, but it’s been much more difficult to do in practice than it is to support in theory. One House aide noted that it’s not a partisan issue: various proposals for implementing the system have received broad bipartisan support.
“If it was easy, it would have been done already,” the aide CBS News.
To begin with, it wasn’t until the last few years that technology was up to the task: a 2009 pilot program at airports ended up being scrapped, experts say, because the process was too clunky to use nation-wide and would have required too many additional security staffers, among other reasons. There are also questions about how such a system could be implemented while still keeping the flow of international passengers moving at high-volume airports in the U.S.
It's simply dishonest for Jeffrey to claim nothing as been done on the issue and that his beloved President Trump is riding in to save the day because he's "committed to fixing this problem and securing our border" -- as if nobody else has been over the past 15 years.
LGBT Derangement Syndrome, Supersize WorldNetDaily Edition Topic: WorldNetDaily
So, it may come as a surprise to you when I say every year I forget that the WNBA even exists until the NBA runs commercials with its star players during the playoffs reminding me to tune in. Let’s be honest: I’ll tune in when they do – never.
Having said that, here are five reasons why the WNBA will never be popular:
4) Men don’t want to watch women who act like men. This may sound chauvinist, but it’s true. Looks matter. Women who look and act manly are not appealing to watch. The feminist and LGBT movement may frown at this, but the rest of us know it’s true. The WNBA produces a product that appeals mainly to a left-wing audience, and, frankly, I’m not sure what it can do to change that.
Rights of conscience got a small boost last week when a federal appeals court upheld a state law designed for their protection. To hear opponents tell it, one would think that the law was some kind of attack on the LGBT population. But, in fact, it simply provides breathing room for people of faith who have been besieged by militant sexuality activists determined to ruin anyone who doesn’t cater to their sexual ethics.
All cultures recognize that flags symbolize the powers that rule over a given territory. Raising its flag is the first action taken by any conquering power. How then should we interpret the raising of the rainbow flag across so many nations of the world, not just in June but whenever the “gay” movement is formally acknowledged?
For example, upon the U.S. Supreme Court’s issuance of the Obergefell “gay marriage” ruling, then-President Barack Obama used colored lights to bathe the White House in a rainbow flag. Importantly, no other special-interest group receives such honor by the ruling authorities.
Spiritually minded people should recognize this as a phenomenon with deep significance.
Just what does the rainbow itself symbolize, and why do the “gays” cloak themselves in it?
The rainbow is the biblical symbol of the presence and authority of God from the story of Noah’s flood, foundational to all the Abrahamic faiths, reaffirmed to Jews and Christians in Ezekiel 1:28, and to Christians in Revelation 4:3 in the New Testament. Could there be any more audacious statement of defiance of God than to hijack His symbol to represent the worldwide legitimization of sexual deviance He explicitly condemns? Could this be the meaning of the prophecy of the Antichrist in Revelation 6:2: “I looked, and there before me was a white horse! Its rider held a bow, and he was given a crown, and he rode out as a conqueror bent on conquest”?
Does this verse definitively associate the “gay” movement with the Antichrist of the last days? No. Neither does the spiritual comparison of Jerusalem with “Sodom and Egypt” under the Antichrist in Revelation 11:8. Nor do modern “gay rights” laws that require Christian businesses such as bakers, printers and florists to endorse homosexuality – so reminiscent of restrictions on “buying and selling” imposed on those refusing to take the “Mark of the Beast” (Revelation 13:17). Still, it should give every Christian pause that the Bible’s many warnings about homosexuality from Genesis to Revelation are tied so closely to the last days and to extreme rebellion triggering God’s wrath, especially when these passages are viewed collectively.
Take, for instance, the magnificent rainbow. Its celebration overtones convey simple joy, innocence and purity of heart.
But the sweet rainbow image has been violated, raped by the deluded and fraudulent, and it now serves too often as a garish signpost for slavery to grave homosexual sin.
It’s clear God did not intend for the rainbow to represent rebellion, iniquity and division. So how did this precious symbol become the banner, with few objections, for human depravity, lust, defiance and heresy?
Is Satan clever or what? He has countless people in this country doing his bidding, failing to understand they are preppers for the pit of hell.
Their Savior – if they would recognize Him – is the real author of the rainbow for His original life-affirming, godly purposes.
Its current misuse needs to end. Rainbows should accompany what God would smile on. God is not smiling on homosexual conduct, gender defiance or the corruption of children, and He never will.
An appropriate rainbow for the “LGBTQ” sin identity front would look very different, featuring colors like brown, puce, mauve, gray and black – lots and lots of black.
Depressing, uninspiring, empty, leading nowhere. Satan’s banner.
The redefining and/or the repurposing of language is used to obfuscate the decay of propriety inherent in a particular behavior. It is to anesthetize the public’s objections and sensitivity to perversion and debauchery – to the end that said behavior is viewed not only as acceptable, but also normal and natural.
An example of this would be the word “gay.” How did a word that the Oxford Dictionary and Webster’s Dictionary defined as: “happily excited, merry, keenly alive and exuberant, having or inducing high spirits; bright, lively, brilliant in color; given to social pleasure, licentious;” come to incorporate homosexual, of relating to or used by homosexuals?
Some sources say homosexuals adopted the word “gay” because the word “homosexual” was too clinical sounding and/or sounded too much like a disorder.
I submit that homosexuals didn’t adopt the word “gay”; they forcibly conscripted it through intimidation and demagoguery. I further submit that the reason for same was precisely to anesthetize the public into accepting sexual perversion as normal. The last thing homosexuals wanted was any public thought given to how unnatural it was for men to sodomize one another and for women to lust after sexual perversion with other women.
I further add that after reading the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) website information pertaining to the debilitating effects of homosexual behavior for both men and women, it is irrefutable that none but the most perversion-obsessed would ever refer to such behavior as “gay.” They might rightly refer to said behavior as “DWB,” i.e., “death wish behavior” or even “UB,” i.e., “unhealthy behavior,” but they would never co-opt a word that means “keenly alive and exuberant.”
Keep filters on school computers to reject “LGBTQ” material. These deceptive, often pornographic sites teach kids to accept sodomy as natural and good and as a valid dating practice. Children may adopt immoral ideas that lead them in the wrong direction. YouTube recently “unrestricted” many “LGBTQ” videos after an activist campaign, so these corrupting materials may be available on your child’s school computer. Parental action can hold schools accountable.
Contact the White House and object to the advocacy of gender rebellion via the federal “pronoun police” at Betsy DeVos’ Department of Education. What in the world is wrong with this woman? She is a Republican who somewhere along the line became an advocate of the high-risk and harmful behaviors of homosexuality and gender confusion.She may be an advocate of school choice, but with these views, DeVos can do a lot of damage to children. Tell President Trump you want her GONE along with her pro-homosexual, pro-transgender civil rights division head, Candice Jackson. These people are very bad news for children.
MRC Sneers At WNBA Team Partnering with Planned Parenthood Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center is less and less interested in media research and much more interested in simply denigrating anyone who deviates from its right-wing dogma.
Take the example of the WNBA's Seattle Storm planning to hold a rally to support Planned Parenthood. At CNSNews.com, Gage Cohen's response was to sneer: "The WNBA’s average viewership per game is about 224,000, which is more than 100,000 less than the total number of abortions performed by Planned Parenthood in 2015-16."
Cohen also noted his failed attempt to troll the WNBA team:
CNSNews.com reached out to press representatives at the Seattle Storm and Chicago Sky via email for comment, asking them if their respective team members would be “permitted to not attend the July 18 game, without consequence, if they have a moral objection to raising money for Planned Parenthood?”
No replies had been received at the time of publishing.
The MRC's Jay Maxson, meanwhile, jacked up the nastiness level in a July 3 post:
Planned Parenthood has formed its first alliance with a professional sports team -- the Seattle Storm of the WNBA -- and left-stream writer Dave Zirin is ecstatic about it. Though he couldn't be angrier at the people who don't support this scandalous organization, which is under clouds and clouds of suspicion for numerous wrongdoings.
Zirin writes for the blog, "Edge of Sports," which would more accurately be named "Center of Radical Left-Wing Lunacy." He wrote "The move by the Storm is a recognition that Planned Parenthood is not only popular in liberal enclaves like Seattle. Despite years of demonization, it is viewed positively by a majority of the country and is far more popular than the illegitimate sexual predator who inhabits the Oval Office." (Fact check: Bubba Clinton was a predator in and out of the Oval Office).
If Zirin were better informed, he would look before he leaped into the topic of sexual predation. Bryan Finkel, who performed 20 percent of all the abortions in Arizona, is serving 35 years in prison for a conviction on 24 counts of sexual abuse of his patients. That's just one. Check out this list for more abortionists in the slammer for sexual abuse. Bad move, Dave Zirin, by bringing up the topic. What's more is the fact that Planned Parenthood has been hauled into courts in 10 states for refusing to report the rapes of under-age girls -- because it just wanted their money for doing abortions.
Maxson might havehad a point had any of those rogue abortion doctors actually worked for Planned Parenthood, which he offers no evidence of. He's also citing highly biased anti-abortion websites to back up his claims, which makes them at least somewhat dubious.
After noting that the columnist he's gratutiously bashing quoted a Planned Parenthood official saying that "Congress is working to block millions from accessing birth control and cancer screenings at Planned Parenthood," Maxson huffed: "Access to birth control? Ever heard of Walgreen's? CVS?" And Maxson was off and running on another screed:
Discerning people are demanding Congress defund this ethically challenged outfit which is fleecing the taxpayers of millions of dollars through billing the government for products people never ordered (and double billing Joe Taxpayer when those unwanted products are returned). PP is also lying about services it does not provide, like mammograms and cancer screenings. It merely tells women to call someone else for those services.
We have no idea what Maxson is ranting about.
Maxson also groused that the columnist accurately pointed out that anti-abortion "crisis pregnancy centers" such as Vitae (which has a partnership with the Kansas City Royals) feed "false and dangerous information about women's health." Maxson growled in response: "Here's another road, women's health, that Zirin really doesn't want to go down. If he were smart."
Making vague threats based on right-wing dogma is hardly the way to persuade someone to your way of thinking, Jay.
Fake News: WND Falsely Blames 'Migrants' For Music Festival Rapes Topic: WorldNetDaily
Liam Clancy Writes in a July 3 WorldNetDaily article:
Sweden’s largest summer music festival is calling it quits, thanks to a wave of sexual violence against women committed by the nation’s growing migrant population.
The four-day event known as the Bråvalla festival has hosted artists such as Kanye West, Robbie Williams and Iron Maiden. But next year’s event already has been canceled after a second straight year of reported sexual assaults.
The Bråvalla festival, held in the small southern Swedish city of Norrkoping, announced the decision after a rape was reported on Friday during a performance by pop singer Håkan Hellström.
Swedish police told local media they also recorded 11 cases of sexual assault at the event, which wrapped up July 1.
But despite his assertion that Sweden's "growing migrant population" is to blame for the rapes at the festival, Clancy provides no evidence that a "migrant" committed any rape there.
Indeed, the idea that migrants are engaging in mass rape of festival-goers apparently originated with a police claim following reports of assaults at last year's festival -- a claim police later retracted.
Without actual evidence to back up his claim, Clancy resorts to anti-Muslim fearmongering -- because apparently "migrant" is synonymous with "Muslim" -- calling on anti-Muslim activists like Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller to hawk their hate and ominously warning that "Sweden is now home to 2,000 Islamist extremists" and that "jihadists are expected to continue to flood Sweden as they return home."
Where did all this hate come from when Clancy can't even prove his main claim? A note at the end of the article explains it all: "WND News Editor Leo Hohmann contributed to this report." He, of course, would be WND's chiefIslamophobe.
After last year's "migrant" fiasco, a writer for the UK's Guardian stated: "It’s wrong to lay the blame, as we do for so many of the world’s problems, on a faceless foreign mass." Clancy, Hohmann and WND clearly believe otherwise.
Here's one of the more unlikely things we've seen in a while: A Media Research Center writing approvingly of '80s rock band Twisted Sister.
CNSNews.com managing editor Michael W. Chapman tells us all aout it in a June 12 blog post -- and, needless to say given CNS' fanboyish pro-Trump stenography, there's as Trump involved:
Believe it or not, Twisted Sisters' lead singer Dee Snider sang the teen hit "We're Not Gonna' Take It!" at a fundraiser for the Eric Trump Foundation, which benefits St. Jude's Children's Hospital, and Donald Trump, Eric Trump and his wife Lara, Donald Trump Jr., Ivanaka Trump, and Ivana Trump (the president's first wife) joined in onstage to belt out the rock classic.
The fundraiser took place in August 2015. Donald Trump announced he would run for president in June 2015. The video has recently resurfaced and it is a cultural oddity to behold.
"We're Not Gonna Take It!" is a rock song about teenage rebellion against an older generation. Given Trump's campaign about "draining the swamp" and weeding out the old, obsolete, and ineffectual forces in Washington, D.C., the song could easily be viewed as a message about Trump's vision and that of his followers, the so-called "deplorables." They aren't going to take it, anymore.
Chapman then reprinted the complete lyrics of the song.
Also needless to say, Chapman didn't mention that Snider succeeded in getting Donald Trump to stop playing the song at his campaign rallies. Nor did he mention that the Donald J. Trump Foundation apparently funneled money from the Eric Trump Foundation into the Trump Organization and other Trump-related charities, in part by charging exhorbitant amounts for the Eric Trump Foundation to use Trump-owned golf courses for charity events. That's something New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman has decided he's not going to take anymore.
WND Scraping Bottom of Barrel To Keep Seth Rich Conspiracies Alive Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily has been flailing for some time to keep its malicious and cynical Seth Rich conspiracy theories alive. Not only has its GoFundMe campaign been a failure -- as of this writing, just over $4,000 has been raised in more than a month of soliciting -- it's running out of stories to pump it up.
On June 22, Alicia Powe was content to serve as stenographer for similarly malicious conspiracy-monger Jack Burkman -- a Republican lobbyist whose politically motivated conspiracy promotion Powe laughably called "independent" and "nonpartisan" -- who was ranting that "Several online accounts belonging to murdered DNC staffer Seth Rich have been deleted in recent weeks."
By June 28, Powe was down to promoting a fringe candidate for Debbie Wasserman-Schultz's congressional seat, Tim Canova, who was asserting that "Any American who cares about the rule of law should be demanding the truth about the mysterious murder of DNC staffer Seth Rich." Powe lamented that "After weighing in on social media about the Seth Rich murder mystery, Canova quickly became the target of widespread criticism."
Surprisingly, Powe did report on Canova's even more conspiratorial rants, like how he believes Wasserman Schultz apparently sent a power surge to his house that fried his computer surge protector.
Powe also used a June 25 article to promote a class-action lawsuit against the Democratic National Committee for, in Powe's words, "rigging the 2016 presidential election" (shouldn't Powe be talking to Russia about that?) -- a lawsuit so badly constructed, according to one observer, that its issues "would be apparent to any second semester law student." Powe did PR work for the plaintiffs, uncritically repeating their assertion that "they’re being harassed with threatening messages and “freaky” encounters and they fear for their safety – particularly in the wake of the mysterious and unsolved murder of DNC staffer Seth Rich – but a federal court has denied their request for protection." Powe also regurgitated their purported concer nover Rich's death because, according to a statement by one fo the lawyers, "Mr. Rich might have been a potential witness in this case."
That's what might be charitiably called scraping the bottom of the barrel. Then again, complete lack of credibility hasn't stopped WND before.
MRC Pushes Fake News That GOP Health Care Bill Doesn't Cut Medicaid Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center is so loyal to President Trump -- remember the big flip from last summer and the Mercer money that may have driven it -- that it will go the fake-news route to defend him and the Republicans who support him.
The MRC's big talking point on the GOP Senate's health care bill is that, despite what everyone is saying, it doesn't cut Medicaid. Nicholas Fondacaro laid out the talking point in a June 25 post: "The Senate bill doesn’t cut Medicaid, it only slows down the rate of spending growth by the federal government. In fact, the bill pegs spending growth to inflation so it’s almost guaranteed to go up every year."
Of course, slowing down the rate of spending growth is still a cut if Medicaid is rising faster than inflation, which it is. Fondacaro, doesn't mention that, though.
The MRC has been religiously repeating the talking point ever since:
Fondacaro complained on June 26 about a media report containing "fake news about the bill drastically slashing Medicaid."
Alex Xenos grumbled: "In reality, the plan cuts the rate of growth in Medicaid spending. Only Democrats would consider that an actual cut."
Fondacaro again whined that "ABC and NBC both continued to push the fake news story of there being massive cuts to Medicaid in the bill during their evening broadcasts. That’s despite the fact that the CBO report itself disproves their lie.
Scott Whitlock dutifully insisted that "In reality, the bill simply slows the rate of growth."
Kevin Baker had a lengthy regurgitation of the talking point that somehow included much more wiggle room: "The line of attack by the liberal media that supposed "cuts" to Medicaid in the Republican health care bill will destroy health care is ludicrous. In reality, there are no "cuts" to anything. The proposal would actually increase Medicaid spending, but at a slower rate over time than under ObamaCare. Furthermore, there is nothing in the legislation preventing our esteemed elected officials from revising such spending as time goes on, so the idea that Medicaid itself will undergo any sort of profound change is unlikely at best."
Fondacaro once more: "the Big Three Networks (ABC, CBS, and NBC) continued to spread the fake news that Senate Republicans were cutting Medicaid despite the Congressional Budget Office’s report the proved otherwise."
Baker returned to complain about "the narrative that the fictional Medicaid "cuts" in the GOP health care bill would devastate the poor."
Like a lot of arguments the MRC makes, the claim that the GOP bill doesn't cut Medicaid because funding doesn't decrease is biased, narrowly tailored and ludicrous.
The Washington Post's Philip Bump explained how dishonest this argument is when it was voiced by White House aide Kellyanne Conway, pointing out that both House and Senate GOP health care bills would cut federal funding to states to fund Medicaid expansion, which would effectively be a cut because cash-strapped states are unlikely to fil the gap on their own:
Conway argues that the Republican measures give “governors more flexibility” in allocating Medicaid funding, thanks to another change in the bills, which would switch how the government pays for Medicaid by moving to a per capita compensation system. But the reduction in federal funding as above would also mean states would face significantly higher cost, even while, as Conway argues, it’s already the case that “states are having a very difficult time meeting the bills.”
Conway’s argument is that decreasing federal spending and slowing the amount spent per patient over the long term is not a “cut” to the program, since the program still exists and since there will still be funding. That’s the political goal, to allow Republicans [like Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) who made the case on CBS’ “Face the Nation” on Sunday] to argue that vulnerable Medicaid patients won’t be at risk because funding will continue and because the Obamacare expansion mostly added people who were healthier. But reducing funding to states means that states will have to either pay more or decide how and where to focus Medicaid enrollment to reduce costs.
In other words, because federal funding for Medicaid is decreasing from current levels, Medicaid will have to be cut in some manner from its current state.
It appears the MRC is putting out fake news -- which if loves to bash the "liberal media" for allegedly engaging in.
How do we know that WorldNetDaily is having a transgender freakout? It drags out the slanderous photo it stole from the Associated Press of a man wearing a dress and heels (which is, in fact, not a photo of a transgender person but, rather, from a 2012 "hairy legs on heels" race in Madrid).
That photo graces a June 30 WND article by Bob Unruh detailing an attempt by right-wing legal group Liberty Counsel to get soldiers out of "transgender awareness" training. Why does Liberty Counsel want to keep soldiers securely hateful of people who are not like them? Unruh explains:
Liberty Counsel contends transgender “training” mostly “requires personnel to accept false statements about the nature of sex, gender, biology and morality.”
“This directive includes requiring officers to approve medically unnecessary surgeries and harmful, unproven hormone replacement, all at taxpayer expense; addressing gender-confused officers and soldiers ‘identifying’ as the opposite sex by false gender pronouns and false gender titles; and requiring female soldiers (and vice versa) to sleep, shower and perform private bodily functions in the presence of the opposite biological sex.”
Needless to say, Unruh made no effort to contact the military to find out exactly what the "transgender awareness" actually entails. That would be too much like journalism.
This was followed the next day with an article by WND intern Joe Wilson -- also illustrated with the same misleading, malicious stolen photo -- complaining that transgenderism has been "de-pathologized" and worrying about "the impact on impressionable children who see such people celebrated in the media and given special privileges." Wilson does not identify the "special privileges" transgenders purportedly receive.
Instead, Wilson quotes anti-LGBT "experts" like his boss, WND managing editor David Kupelian:
Many transsexuals suffered from sexual abuse as children, often from a parent or a close family member. This could be a cause of their “gender dysphoria,” as Kupelian points out.
“Little children, being so exquisitely impressionable, are powerfully shaped by the environment in which they grow up. Early sexual abuse … can be devastating,” he said.
But instead of treating the underlying cause of the “dysphoria,” the modern world seems more interested in hushing it up and calling it normal, Kupelian contends.
“The most vulnerable members of society are the young, so exposing children to dangerous and confusing cultural delusions, like the idea that transgenderism is perfectly normal, is particularly reckless and dangerous,” he said.
Should decision-makers encourage children in behavior that will lead to attempted suicide for 40 percent of them? Is it really child abuse to tell them that biology doesn’t make mistakes? Can the nation justify running all of these risks so that changeable children can act out a gender identity that most of them would lose naturally as they grow older?
The answer is no for many experts who contend that encouraging transgenderism in children should be described as it was for decades: child abuse.
WND apparently never got around to teaching Wilson the part of journalism where you tell both sides of the story. Of course, if Wilson was actually interested in fair and balanced journalism, he wouldn't be interning at WND.
MRC Still Standing Athwart History, Yelling 'Bias!' Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center is still angry that the media is calling historic things "historic."
Tim Graham devoted a lengthy June 8 post to complaining how "One obvious way the TV networks proclaim what is History In The Making is by putting it on live television – canceling their daytime line-ups and eating advertising revenue for 'public service,'" unsuprisingly asserting that "they have a liberal bias in deciding just which scandals get the daytime or prime-time live coverage." Of course, Graham says that about everything.
Graham actually complains that the Watergate hearings were broadcast live, because it "was a big moment for the empowerment of PBS."He went on to whine about broadcasting of the Iran-Contra hearings: "PBS cleared its decks to stick it to the Republicans, with the hope of electing a Democratic president in 1988."
As befits an organization that's never forgiven Anita Hill for talking about Clarence Thomas' alleged sexual harassment, Graham complains the testimony about her "unproven sexual harassment charges" were broadcast, whining: "No one singled out the Democrats as the dirty tricksters -- instead, Hill's unproven leak was praised as part of a trend of leakers doing a 'public service.'" Gotta love how testimony before Congress is somehow a "leak."
Graham is particularly incensed that the media didn't conform to the right-wing political agenda by airing live hearings during the Obama years. He was particularly upset that no Benghazi hearings were covered on live network TV, even though multipleinvestigations found nothing particularly scandalous and even Republican members of Congress admitted that the so-called scandal was designed to hurt Hillary Clinton's election chances.
Another post the same day on the same subject came from Scott Whitlock, who complained:
In case you didn’t realize just how excited liberal journalists were about James Comey’s testimony in front of Congress on Thursday, CBS This Morning reporters described it as “historic” or “history” six times. Of course, they even looked back at Watergate for a comparison.
Whitlock later listed the sponsors of the "biased" CBS segments. He doesn't explain where the supposed "bias" is in calling a historic event "historic" -- and he refused to concede that a fired FBI director testifying before Congress about the president who fired him was, in fact, historic.
NEW ARTICLE: Leo Hohmann's Muslim Freakouts Topic: WorldNetDaily
Muslim politicians, a church sold to a mosque, Muslims in general -- the WorldNetDaily reporter fearmongers about them all. Read more >>
CNS Tries Again -- And Fails Again -- To Troll Pelosi Topic: CNSNews.com
Apparently, it's one of the duties of an intern at CNSNews.com to ask a politically motivated gotcha question to Nancy Pelosi. In 2015, for example, CNS intern Sam Dorman deliberately tried to provoke Pelosi by asking her, “Is an unborn baby with a human heart and a human liver a human being?”
Well, CNS is at it again, set off by Pelosi's statement the President Trump dishonors God by pulling the United States out of the Paris climate accords.
Intern Teresa Smith hurled her gotcha question -- again, abortion-centric -- at Pelosi, as detailed in a June 22 article:
At Pelosi's press briefing on Thursday, CNSNews.com asked Pelosi if her understanding of what dishonors God extends to aborting a baby with a beating heart as well as pulling out of the Paris Accord;
CNSNews.com:"Three weeks ago you said we need to be 'responsible stewards' of 'God's creation.'"
CNSNews.com:"And that it dishonors God to pull out of the Paris Accord."
CNSnews.com:"The Heartbeat Protection Act would prohibit aborting a baby with a heartbeat. Does it dishonor God to abort a baby with a beating heart?"
Pelosi did not answer the question directly but said:“I don’t—obviously you want to get into that discussion. What I say is: I completely respect a woman’s right to choose. I am a mother of five children, nine grandchildren. But my five grandchildren--my five children were born within exactly six years of each other. When my baby came home from the hospital, when we brought her home our oldest child was turning--I thought she might be here, she’s not allowed in the room, I guess--turning six that week.
Apparently deciding that Pelosi had been insufficiently trolled on the issue, CNS sent another out the following week to ask another version of the same question. This time Annabel Scott did the dirty work, similarly complaining that Pelosi didn't fall for her trolling:
At the Capitol on Thursday, CNSNews.com asked Rep. Pelosi, “On the health care bill, yesterday you said that ignoring the needs of God's creation is to ‘dishonor the God who made us.’ Do you believe that defunding Planned Parenthood dishonors God?”
Pelosi did not answer the question and instead said, “I think defunding Planned Parenthood disrespects every woman in this country, disrespects her judgment to make her own decision about the size and timing of her family, with herself, her doctor, her God, her family.”
“And so, I think we have to respect the dignity and worth of every person and their ability to make decisions to answer for their behavior,” said the House Minority Leader.
Pro tip to CNS: Pelosi knows you're trolling her. She's not falling for it. She also knows that you don't care about journalism and are just trying to score cheap political points in thte hope of getting linked on Drudge.
WND Race-Baits About Nightclub Shooting Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily has largely backed off its race-baiting tendencies of late (funny what Google threatening to cut off ad revenue will do to moderate one's editorial agenda), but that doesn't WND won't race-bait if the opportunity presents itself.
And it did so in a weekend shooting at a Little Rock nightclub. The anonymously written July 1 WND article on the incident makes sure to note that "Video posted to Facebook shows a mostly black crowd, with the group Finese2tymes performing on stage" at the club prior to the shooting, and that "Posters promoting the concert by Memphis rapper Finese2Tymes featured a man pointing a gun at a camera." The article added that "Little Rock police have responded to a dozen drive-by shootings over the previous nine days."
The anonymous WND writer, however, undermined his/her own race-baiting at the end of the article by conceding the problem appears to actually be a poorly run operation:
Power Ultra Lounge’s license has been suspended 11 times for failing to pay taxes, and it has been cited seven times for 14 various violations including unknowingly furnishing alcohol to minors and allowing alcohol to leave the premises since 2012, ABC Director of Enforcement Boyce Hamlet said.
A hearing before the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board is scheduled for July 10. The charges are expected to be disorderly conduct, allowing possession of weapons on the premises and “failure to be a good neighbor.”
Lest there be any confusion about WND's race-baiting intent, there's WND's accompanying poll asking readers to "sound off on Little Rock nightclub shooting." The top answer by a landslide is "Somebody's got to say it -- there's a serious problem in the black community."
Yep, race-baiting is still very much a thing at WND.
MRC's Graham Redefines Partisan Media-Bashing As 'Journalism' Topic: Media Research Center
Terrible media critic Tim Graham has now decided that his partisan anti-media rants aren't about being partisan at all.
In a June 28 Media Research Center post, Graham rails at CNN's Brian Stelter for making the accurate point that partisan right-wing attacks on CNN are "anti-journalism." When Stelter decried right-wing outlets like Breitbart who liken CNN to ISIS, Graham dismissed that inciteful rhetoric as "just trolling." Graham can't know that, of course -- he's just downplaying the idea that the MRC's multimillion-dollar anti-media budget could possibly have any negative consequences. Graham then rants:
But Stelter and his crew are incredibly tolerant of leftists comparing President Trump to Stalin, Hitler, Hugo Chavez, Kim Jong Un, and terrorists. That’s another day at the office for the liberal media. The mellow liberals compare Trump to Richard Nixon.
Breitbart's James Delingpole offered a point Stelter won't consider, their laughable pretense that the liberal, partisan media isn't liberal or partisan. Delingpole recalled being on a panel discussion: "What amazed me that, while I was perfectly frank with the audience that Breitbart was a conservative media organization which catered for a largely conservative readership, both the guy from CNN and the guy from [the] New York Timeswere adamant that they were objective seekers-after-truth." The truth about their bias they just never admit.
Stelter insists that unless you honor and respect the intentions of liberal journalists – never questioning that their motives might be partisan – then you are “anti-journalism.” If you actually document that the media elites “cover up good news and invent bad news,” then you’re “anti-journalism.” If you document that journalists and Democratic operatives are operating hand in glove – like, for example, CNN analysts offering questions to Hillary Clinton in advance, or journalists sending e-mails offering Clinton officials the chance to edit their stories before publication – that’s somehow “anti-journalism.”
Graham concluded: "What we’re doing at NewsBusters isn’t 'anti-journalism.' It’s journalism on journalism."
So Graham and NewsBusters are all about "journalism" now? How precious. If they're so offended by a president being likened to Hitler, where were they when their fellow right-wingers at WorldNetDaily were likening Obama to Hitler and the Antichrist? Hiding, apparently. And it was soooo journalistic for the MRC to fail to denounce Obama birtherism until the charge was levied against Brent Bozell's preferred 2016 presidential candidate, Ted Cruz.
Graham's dogged insistence that CNN is a tool of the "liberal, partisan media" betrays the fact that he has never worked a day in an actual journalistic organization and, thus, doesn't know what journalism is. CNN tries to fairly cover a story -- something that can't be said about the MRC's own "news" division, CNSNews.com, which is content to be paid Trumpstenographers and PR agents for the fossil-fuel industry. (Graham would never concede that our work exposing CNS' slavish right-wing bias is "journalism about journalism.")
If Graham and the MRC actually cared about journalism, CNS wouldn't be slavishly devoted to pushing right-wing talking points and bashing anyone who disagrees with them.It would be a laboratory for showing the "mainstream media" how to do its job. Then again, CNS may be leading by example after all -- the MRC would much rather prefer the entire media to be devoted to pushing right-wing talking points. That's the very definition of "anti-journalism."
As much as he would have you believe otherwise, Graham doesn't give a damn about journalism -- he wants to replace it with right-wing stenography. Calling partisan hackery "journalism" doesn't make it any less hackish.
Alicia Powe writes in a June 26 WorldNetDaily article:
Days after James Hodgkinson unveiled his homicidal intentions against conservatives with a gun attack on Republican members of Congress who were practicing for a congressional baseball game, conservative journalists rallied in front of the White House to demand an end to attacks on and assaults against Trump supporters.
They are making the demands not just of those who are violent, or potentially violent, but of the mainstream media, the Democratic Party and the party’s liberal supporters.
Jack Posobiec, journalist and author of “Citizens for Trump,” told WND he organized the rally “because it is time to stand for peace.”
“It’s time for Trump supporters, people on the right wing, people on the left wing, people in the center, people who are independents, moderates, Republicans – we should all be able to stand up for peace,” he said. “There is too much violent rhetoric, and it is time, finally, for us to say, ‘Enough with the violence, enough with the violent rhetoric – we need peace and we need it now.'”
Powe's description of Posobiec as a "journalist" is laughable. She either doesn't know, or is hiding, Posobiec's true nature: that of a lying alt-right plagiarist.
Posobiec has promoted the completely discredited Pizzagate conspiracy theory and planted a "Rape Melania" sign at an anti-Trump rally in an attempt to discredit protesters. He has been caught plagiarizing the work of others.
This is who Powe and WND are portraying as a legitimate member of the media.
But Posobiec is not the only alt-right agitator Powe is calling a "journalist." Later in her article, she touted Mike Cernovich as an "independent journalist." As we've noted, Cernovich is an alt-right troll who makes racially charged statements and also promoted Pizzagate.
Powe also touted someone named Ali Akbar, described only as a "political consultant and president of National Bloggers Inc." Turns out Akbar is apparently a convicted felon and a terrible businessman, and it's not clear that "National Bloggers Inc." is even a going concern. Powe uncritically repeated Akbar's assertion that "the KKK was the terrorist wing of the Democratic Party," ignoring that well, it wasn't.
MRC Pretends Anti-Muslim Group Isn't Anti-Muslim Topic: Media Research Center
In the wake of last month's sparse protests organized by right-wing anti-Muslim group ACT! For America, Tim Graham wrote a post headlined "WashPost, NBC Smear Anti-Sharia Protesters as 'Anti-Muslim' 'Hate Group'." But in all his complaining that the group was designated as a hate group by "the radical-left Southern Poverty Law Center" and that stories about female genital mutiliation in America "underlines what the ACT members" are protesting, at no point does Graham explain how ACT! For America is not anti-Muslim.
Indeed, he proves the opposite -- that ACT! For America is indeed anti-Muslim and not merely "anti-Sharia" -- nby including in an excerpt from an NBC article a 2007 statement by ACT! For America leader Brigitte Gabriel that a "practicing Muslim ... cannot be a loyal citizen of the United States." Graham lets that statement go by without comment, going on to insist that the group is simply engaging in "conservative protest."
At the very end of the article, Graham includes a statement that explains why he's running to the group's defense: "Disclosure: ACT for America founder Brigitte Gabriel has been a featured speaker on our MRC Cruise."
In a June 20 NewsBusters post, Stephanie Schmitt took another stab at defending ACT! for America, declaring that the group isn't anti-Muslim because, well, they said they weren't, and that's apparently good enough for her:
ACT is fighting against those specific parts of Sharia Law that go directly against the democratic vision of human rights (honor killing, female genital mutilation, etc.) They are NOT looking to dismantle the Islamic faith. This is explicitly stated. And yet, the media's main representation of the march has all focused on its "hateful" cause and combating hate speech.
Schmitt didn't mention Gabriel's explicity anti-Muslim statement, nor did she disclose the group's relationship with the MRC. Instead, she rants that Teen Vogue magazine, which had called ACT! for America's agenda "hateful speech," was encouraging the "snubbing of free speech" and the the magazine is just trying to "push liberal talking points."
Schmitt didn't acknowledge that her job is to push conservative talking points -- one of which, apparently, is that ACT! for America is a mainstream group that doesn't hate Muslims.