MRC's Sports Blogger Freaks Out Over ESPN Mag's Body Issue Topic: Media Research Center
The mysterious Media Research Center sports blogger Jay Maxson can always find something to hate, especially when it involves involves ESPN. In a July 8 post, he unleashes fury for some reason on ESPN the Magazine's Body Issue:
ESPN's latest controversy has nothing to do with politics or sports performance. The sports network is now resorting to nudity for magazine sales and internet clicks to lead the world in entertainment. ESPN magazine's "The Body Issue" presents 23 male and female athletes not only out of uniform but completely out of clothing. If your business is flagging, as ESPN's is, just resort to the lowest common denominator.
Putting the anti-Trump and LGBT agendas aside for the time being, ESPN's website is promoting the athletes-turned-exhibitionists in shocking athletic poses. Each is portrayed taking athletic stances or actions corresponding to their respective sport. Rear ends are completely exposed in several photos. Men and women hide their fronts, and women cover their breasts with their hands or arms. Very little is left to the imagination.
It seems this crass outfit is intent on shocking people and distracting sports' fans attention away actual sports. Now when families attend a sporting event, their children may remark about the athlete that actually has his clothes on.
I encourage all parents with children in the home to adjust their computer filters by adding ESPN.com and espn.com/espnw/ to their blocked lists to protect them from this.
ESPN postures itself as culturally enlightening, but the truth is this morally bankrupt media organization is contaminating our culture and taking it downward.
Maxson does concede one inconvenient fact later in his post: that this is not the first Body Issue, but the ninth. Maxson doesn't concede, though, that the Body Issue is such a nonissue that even the outlet that published this manufactured outrage had little problem with the Body Issue until now.
We found exactly two NewsBusters posts in its archives referencing the Body Issue: a 2012 post (on the fourth Body Issue) by Ryan Robertson huffing that it might be "time for ESPN Magazine to don the 'plain brown wrapper' and move to the very top back of the magazine rack where curious youngsters can’t catch a glimpse," and a 2016 post by "Bruce Bookter" ranting the issue featured a transgender athlete.
Interestingly, we could find no record at NewsBusters of Maxson ranting about Sports Illustrated's swimsuit issue, which features a similar "resort to the lowest common denominator" by featuring pictures of nearly or completely naked people. He doesn't explain why sexy models get a pass from him while sexy athletes get the full brunt of his hypocritical scorn.
Alicia Powe has established herself as WorldNetDaily's chief Seth Rich conspiracy theorist, to the point of acting as a public-relations agent for her fellow conspiracy-mongerers. Powe writes in a July 9 article:
Americans will be holding silent vigils across the nation July 10, marking the one-year anniversary of the murder of Seth Rich, the Democratic National Committee voter-expansion data director whom some suspect handed over thousands of DNC emails to WikiLeaks during the 2016 election.
All Americans should be concerned about the investigation of Rich’s murder, a woman who has been at the forefront of organizing the vigil in Washington, D.C., told WND, because “Seth Rich is Russia.”
“The ‘Russia-Trump [election] rigging’ story was a complete lie and fabricated – probably to deflect in part from the murder of Seth Rich,” she said, insisting Rich was the DNC email leaker, not Russia.
“The whole Russian narrative was created to deflect,” she said. “Any time any of the Democratic Party’s crimes are uncovered, within 15 minutes a story pops up in the media to deflect from it.”
In light of the onslaught of leftist attacks on conservatives, the organizer of the D.C. vigil, “Kelly,” requested that her real name be withheld from this report. Kelly’s Twitter handle is @AmericanLuvSong.
Why did Powe grant this coward "Kelly" anonymity? It is because she blatantly lied by insisting that "there is no political agenda" in her vigil?
We know it's a lie because the Facebook page announcing the vigils makes the political intent all too clear, asserting that Rich "was murdered for his knowledge and involvement in the DNC and the Guccifer 2.0 WikiLeaks. He is a true Patriot who gave his life for his Integrity and love for his country."
"Kelly" may also be an anonymous coward because, as her Twitter page shows, she is a tadobsessed with another conspiracy theory, that of "white genocide." One post declares: "White population, through poisoning of food/water/other environmental toxins, is becoming sterile & population is waning."
She also loves to call Muslim refugees "rapefugees," telling us she's not fond of the brown people (and possibly an inciting factor in her "white genocide" obsession). She has also called President Obama "the most racist, arrogant, self-serving fascist, who ever served."
We can see why she's hiding behind a fake name and begged WND to similarly hide her, but that doesn't make her any less of an anonymous coward.
Anyway, "Kelly" soon proved herself to be even more of a liar when the location of the vigil in Washington, D.C., was revealed: at Democratic National Committee headquarters. Needless to say Powe, along with WND's Chelsea Schilling were on the scene.
Powe first asserted there were "dozens" of protesters there, revised downward a few paragraphs later to "at least 30 people." None of the pictures accomapnying the article appear to show 30 people protesting.
"Kelly" didn't appear to be there -- she's not mentioned anywhere in the article -- but Powe and Schilling found many other fellow conspiracy theorists to tell their story. For instance, they quote Neil Wolfe, whom they let describe himself as "an amateur journalist and investigator from TheLightReports.com." That website appears to be a little on the dead side, though with links to articles and videos promoting the discredited Pizzagate conspiracy and the idea that the Sandy Hook massacre was staged.
They even highlight the appearance at the rally of internet troll Jack Posobiec, whom they describe only as a "writer" and not a lying alt-right plagiarist.
It's not until the very end of their article -- starting with the 55th paragraph -- that Powe and Schilling get around to blandly noting that the Rich family issued a statement on the anniversary of Seth's death. The entire statement was reproduced, but Powe and Schilling made sure not to highlight that the Rich family denounced people like themselves and their employer:
Finally, we are compelled to address those who are claiming to help by undertaking private “investigations,” staging re-enactments, or traveling to Seth’s old neighborhood to perform citizen interviews. Our request is that anyone with information about Seth’s murder share such information with MPD, which is the law enforcement agency authorized by law to perform this investigation. And while we recognize the futility of this request, we make it anyway: please cease using Seth as a political football in predetermined partisan narratives.
The continual push of false and inaccurate information about Seth’s death, along with the harassment of Seth’s friends, family and co-workers, hurts those who were closest to Seth, and does nothing to bring justice to his killers. Those who still live in Seth’s neighborhood are owed the peace of mind that comes with finding those responsible for this heinous crime, and we deserve that no less.
Curiously, neither Powe nor WND have responded to the Rich family's criticism of their conspiracy-mongering, though WND editor Joseph Farah lied as he whined about Newsweek calling out his website's conspiracy theories on Rich.
MRC Writer Incurious About Why Right-Wingers Won't Fund Fact-Checking Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's Aly Nielsen devotes a July 6 post to complaining that Poynter's International Fact-Checking Network "just received a massive financial boost from two liberal groups: George Soros’ Open Society Foundations (OSF) and The Omidyar Network." After rehashing all the usual right-wing talking points against George Soros and Pierre Omidyar, Nielsen huffs that most of IFCN's funding "does come from known liberal sources," adding: "Can Poynter be trusted to oversee an unbiased fact-checking network when its own leadership -- and IFCN’s funders -- lean left?"
This raises a question Nielsen refuses to ask: Where are the conservative-funded fact-checking operations?
The answer to that, of course, is that the Republican president of the United States is a serial liar, and conservatives don't want to have to hold him accountable. That's why Nielsen's employer has been attacking fact-checkers as biased liberal shills since Trump's political ascent. Nielsen's post is simply another dishonest piece of that anti-media puzzle.
Nielsen could prove us wrong by calling for a conservative-funded fact-checking operation while Trump remains in office. But we're pretty sure she won't. After all, raising uncomfortable and inconvenient truths about her own side is not what the MRC is paying her to do.
Newsmax's Ruddy Spins Hard to Deflect Trump Scandals Topic: Newsmax
Newsmax editor Christopher Ruddy is a friend of Donald Trump's, and he's been riding Trump's coattails to build up his own prominence -- heck, he's even written a pro-Trump op-ed for the New York Times.
His own website, however, is where Ruddy spins the hardest for his friend. In his June 23 column, for instance, Ruddy tosses out a list of distracting pro-Trump bullet points such as "To repeat, no one has provided any evidence the Trump campaign worked with the Russians to defeat Hillary Clinton" and "Trump won the election fairly and squarely" and "Trump fired FBI Director James Comey, which was his prerogative." Ruddy ironically added that "The president is right to be worried about an investigation that was created with no evidence of a crime" -- apparently forgetting making accusations against President Clinton without evidence of a crime is how he built Newsmax 20 years ago.
Of course, that first bullet point became inoperative when is was revealed that Donald Trump Jr. met with a Russian operative who promised evidence to defeat Hillary Clinton. Thus, we have Ruddy's July 10 column, in which he insists the operative the campaign met with was just an "eccentric Russian lawyer" and that "There is nothing illegal or improper in a campaign talking to a foreign national about their election opponent." Ruddy then added: "I know Donald Trump. He would never collude with the Russians."
And Ruddy was off and spinning again, blaming Paul Ryan for serving up a "damaged bill of goods" in the form of the first House health care reform bill and that "Trump has been trying to fix Ryan's mess." The sycophancy then starts to turn a little embarassing:
There are dozens and dozens of examples where the President set the vision, picked smart and savvy people, and saw the mission accomplished.
In August, Newsmax Magazine will have a blockbuster cover story about the President’s efforts to radically clean up the Department of Veterans Affairs, keeping a campaign promise to do so.
In business Trump set a strong vision for his companies and his brand. He picked strong people to implement the vision. He constantly checked on results. If things didn’t work out, he made adjustments and sometimes fired people.
Using the same approach as president, Trump has done an amazing job in a short time.
The administration has fallen short in three areas: communications, personnel staffing and allowing Congress, particularly Speaker Ryan, to set the legislative agenda. All three areas are interconnected and will undermine the President’s future plans if not corrected.
But the President has shown an adroitness in addressing problems and overcoming obstacles.
It's also important to remember almost all new administrations have issues. Remember the first two years of the Clinton administration?
So much you hear about the President is media spin and myth, such as claims the president doesn't listen or he can't take criticism.
In my experience, he does and he can, then he acts and big things happen.
Written like a man who knows which side his bread is buttered on these days.
Military Chaplain Goes on Anti-Transgender Rant Topic: WorldNetDaily
Military chaplain Sonny Hernandez's WorldNetDaily column has an extensive disclaimer at the end of it: "The opinions expressed here are solely his and do not necessarily represent the views of any government, military, or religious organization. Sonny Hernandez wrote this article as a civilian on his own time on an issue of public interest." His June 26 column makes it clear why.
It's an extension of WND's hateful war on transgenders in the military, in which he tells the tale of "Christian soldier" seeking a "religious accomodation" to not have to take "transgender training." Hernandez rants:
On June 30, 2016, Defense Secretary Ash Carter announced that transgender individuals will be allowed to openly serve in the U.S. Armed Forces. As a result, the Department of Defense has directed commanders to conduct face-to-face “transgender awareness” training for all military members and civilians who supervise military personnel.
So far, the DOD has provided medical protocol and constructed a commander’s training handbook to ensure homosexual service members that they may begin to change their gender markers in the Defense Eligibility Enrollment System, or DEERS.
If homosexual service members are afforded the opportunity to openly serve and identify as the opposite sex, are Christian service members allowed to openly serve and identify as individuals who do not want to be subjected to transgender training that is antithetical to their faith?
Hernandez apparently doesn't understand that homosexuality and transsexual identification are two completely separate things.
As much as Hernandez rails against the military's "transgender training," he never once explains what it actually entails. Presumably, it involves teaching soldiers that transgenders are humans and should be treated with respect and not hatred. Is that what Hernandez opposes?
Instead, Hernandez rants that the training is somehow "sexually immoral" -- again, he doesn't explain how.
That sort of blind hatred of people different from him would seem to make Hernandez a terrible military chaplain.
Right-wing movie critic Christian Toto writes in a June 24 NewsBusters post:
The media's liberal bias keep getting worse in the Age of Trump.
The Motor City Madman has had a change of heart.
Ted Nugent said he wants the country’s political rhetoric to soften in the wake of the June 14 shooting of Rep. Steve Scalise by a Bernie Sanders fan. And he’ll do his part by shelving his own ugly comments regarding the modern Left.
“At the tender age of 69, my wife has convinced me I just can’t use those harsh terms,” he said on the 77 WABC radio program Thursday. “I cannot and will not and I encourage even my friends, slash, enemies on the left, in the Democrat and liberal world, that we have got to be civil to each other.”
The media lapped it up. Outlet after outlet trumpeted the news, from smaller newspapers to the biggest media organs in the country. Type “Ted Nugent rhetoric” into Google News. You’ll see the blanket coverage his comments generated.
And, along the way, reporters recited some of Nugent’s previous, unexpurgated rants. They also mentioned Nugent’s politics. He’s unapologetically conservative.
Nugent’s conversion makes for good copy, no doubt. It also highlights the blaring hypocrisy at work in today’s media.
Toto spends the rest of his post complaining that the Hollywood press didn't cover controversial tweets by George Takei.
Well, as long as we're going to talk about hypocrisy, let's talk about Toto's own. He concedes Nugent's comments about "the modern Left" were "ugly" -- actually, they were borderline death threats against President Obama and Hillary Clinton -- but he doesn't reproduce them the way he served up screenshots of the Takei comments that offended him. Why?
Most of Nugent's offensive comments were made in 2008 and 2012. Where was Toto at the time? Was he quick to condemn them, did he condemn them later, or did he stay silent? A search of Toto's personal website, Hollywood in Toto, turns up just one post carrying a Ted Nugent tag -- and that this very same one he ported to NewsBusters.
And how about his Media Research Center publisher? Well, there are NewsBusters posts that promoteNugentinterviews. The MRC's first reaction to the 2012 comments in which Nugent disgracefully called Obama a "subhuman mongrel" and invited him to "suck on my machine gun" was to play the equivocation game, whining that the media "ignored foul-mouthed comedian Bill Maher's $1 million donation to an Obama super PAC" and merely calling Nugent's hate-filled tirade "controversial." Another MRC post took equivocation even further by complaining that the media "failed to mention that Obama has his own history of using violent metaphors."
That was followed by the MRC uncritically posting a CBS interview with Nugent denying that he's extreme, except to grumble that "CBS made sure to emphasize that Nugent is not a moderate." A 2013 post cheered Nugent calling Michael Moore and Piers Morgan "subhuman punks."
It's not until Toto's post that the MRC has offered a judgment of Nugent's hate that went beyond the bland "controversial."
Farah Falsely Claims WND Never Suggested Clintons Had Seth Rich Killed Topic: WorldNetDaily
Joseph Farah whines in his July 11 WorldNetDaily column:
It’s been 24 hours since I demanded a correction from fake-news Newsweek.
No acknowledgment. Needless to say, no correction.
My demand was solely based on this sentence in a story published Monday written by Alexander Nazaryan: “On social media sites like Reddit and news outlets like World Net Daily (sic), it is all but an article of faith that (Seth) Rich, who worked for the Democratic National Committee, was the source who gave DNC emails to WikiLeaks, for which he was slain, presumably by Clinton operatives.”
Since I am the founder, chief executive officer and editor in chief of WND, I think I would be well-positioned to know whether anyone at the news organization has ever said or written anything remotely resembling this unattributed and unsourced assertion. I can promise you that no one at WND has ever made such a suggestion – publicly or privately.
Yes, you would think that Farah would know what's on his own website. But as before when he has made such sweeping declarations, it's clear he does not.
for instance, here's an anonymously written May 16 WND article making the very suggestion that Farah says doesn't exist, under the headline "Chilling similarities between Seth Rich murder and 'Clinton Body Count' victims":
The unsolved case of Democratic National Committee data analyst Seth Rich’s death shares some eerie similarities with many mysterious deaths of individuals linked to former President Bill Clinton and twice failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.
Just as in the Rich case, several of the people who died mysterious deaths were shot spontaneously and in public places, sometimes from behind, sometimes by unknown assailants and often just before they were set to release incriminating evidence concerning the Clintons’ activities. In most cases, there were no signs of theft at the crime scenes. And while some of the deaths were ruled suicides, other cases remain a mystery.
On July 22, just 12 days after Rich’s death and days before the Democratic Party Convention in Philadelphia, WikiLeaks released 20,000 emails from DNC officials.
And here's an anonymously written August 2016 WND article headlined "'Clinton death list': 33 spine-tingling cases":
How many people do you personally know who have died mysteriously?
How about in plane crashes or car wrecks?
People beaten to death or murdered in a hail of bullets?
And what about violent freak accidents – like separate mountain biking and skiing collisions in Aspen, Colorado? Or barbells crushing a person’s throat?
Apparently, if you’re Bill or Hillary Clinton, the answer to that question is at least 33 – and possibly many more.
WND reported DNC staffer Seth Rich was murdered near his affluent neighborhood in Washington, D.C. Rich was shot in the back at 4:15 a.m. while he walked home from his girlfriend’s apartment. Rich previously worked on the failed U.S. Senate campaign of Nebraska businessman Scott Kleeb, whose clean-energy business had come under investigation after losing $300,000 in 2010 and another $300,000 in 2011 despite having been subsidized by the Clinton Global Initiative.
A commentary by Rachel Alexanderat Townhall suggested possible corruption between the CGI and Kleeb “led to Sanders’ cronies pressuring Rich to leak what was going on.”
In one interview, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange appeared to suggest that Rich, 27, was the source of the WikiLeaks-exposed DNC emails.
Three people with tangential connections to Bill and Hillary Clinton have died in unusual circumstances over the last few weeks, sparking a renewed interested in the so-called “body count” of people who allegedly got in the way of the “Clinton machine.”
And even WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange appeared to suggest Tuesday that recently murdered DNC staffer Seth Rich, a 27-year-old Democratic National Committee staffer who was shot near his townhouse in Washington, D.C. last month, was the source of the WikiLeaks-exposed DNC emails.
Seth Rich, a DNC staffer, reportedly was shot in the back on July 10 in Washington while he apparently was walking home from his girlfriend’s apartment. Reported [Townhall's Rachel] Alexander: “Some are speculating that Hillary Clinton is behind the murder, because Rich could have been the DNC staffer responsible for leaking the 20,000 damaging DNC emails to WikiLeaks. The allegation is that powerful Sanders allies convinced Rich to leak the data.” Her column notes that Rich previously worked on the failed U.S. Senate campaign of Nebraska businessman Scott Kleeb, whose clean-energy business had come under investigation after losing $300,000 in 2010 and another $300,000 in 2011 despite having been subsidized by the Clinton Global Initiative. Possible corruption between the CGI and Kleeb “led to Sanders’ cronies pressuring Rich to leak what was going on.” Continued Alexander: “The myth-debunking site Snopes labeled the suspicion over Rich’s death as false. This is strange, since how does Snopes know that it is false? The police haven’t even completed their investigation yet, which Snopes admits. Many murders go unsolved, including several of the strange deaths of people associated with the Clintons.”
These are just three easily found examples. Indeed, as we've pointed out, the entire reason WND has gone all-in on the Seth Rich conspiracy theory is to besmirch the Clintons and suggest once again that they are murderers. If not, there's no reason to dredge up the discredited "Clinton Body Count" and put Rich on it, is there?
Nevertheless, Farah goes on to whine:
Notice Nazaryan’s approach: “It’s all but an article of faith,” he claims, at WND that we believe Hillary did in Seth Rich and that he provided the DNC emails to WikiLeaks. Does he know anyone at WND? Did he talk to anyone? Is there any published evidence of this fantasy? Does he cite any? Of course not. In fact, he has no track record as an actual news person. He’s always been a commentator, a pundit, an editorialist. He has no idea what he’s talking about.
If it's not an "article of faith" at WND that the Clintons had Rich killed, why did WND religiously put Rich on its "Clinton Body Count" lists?
Farah has forgotten that other people are well-positioned to know what is published on WND as well, being that it's a public, easily searchable website.
NEW ARTICLE: A Bevy of Bogus MRC Media 'Studies' Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center rushes to defend President Trump from the negative media coverage he has earned by presenting narrowly tailored, biased talking points presented as "media research." Read more >>
WND Author Who Likened Obama to Antichrist Frets Over Alleged Demonization of Trump Topic: WorldNetDaily
From an anonymously written July 8 WorldNetDaily article:
President Trump has been under a savage attack by the media since the day he announced he was running for president. A left-wing political activist openly calls for jihad against him. Celebrities make death threats against the commander-in-chief, including one who posted a gory photo depicting her holding his severed head. A public play depicts Trump’s murder, gleefully sponsored by major corporations.
One talk-show host, former law-enforcement officer and pastor-author believes it’s more than simple political opposition. Carl Gallups, author of “When The Lion Roars,” contends the opposition to Trump is nothing short of demonic.
“It’s spiritual and it’s demonic and it’s a new day,” Gallups recently opined on “The Jim Bakker Show.” “It’s a shame. And there’s so much hypocrisy involved.”
Gallups said he is a believer in free speech and freedom of the arts, but the former officer warned there are “lines” people can step over, especially when they are directly inciting people to violence, particularly against the president of the United States. Gallups suggested even liberals know that what they are doing is wrong, illustrating his point with a simple thought experiment.
“I’m not trying to be trite about this, but I always look at the opposite first,” he said. “What if that was a tea-party member that held up the head in mockery of a president, any president, the president before Trump?”
Gallups sees prophetic significance in the ferocity of the opposition to Trump and in how many progressives seem to have lost their minds.
“The Bible speaks in the last days of being given over to a depraved mind, of truth being thrown to the ground, eventually there will come the man of lawlessness, who the world will gather around and say … this man is like God,” the pastor said. “There will be a generation like us that sees that, I don’t know if it’s us, but this is what I’m saying, it’s complex. This is what’s happening before our eyes … truth has been turned upside down.”
Gallups suggested the country itself is under demonic attack.
Gallups conveniently forgets his own slab of demonization he hurled at President Obama: portraying him as the Antichrist.
As we've documented, Gallups -- then hiding behind the name PPSIMMONS -- made a video in 2009 (promoted by WND, natch) claiming he found the words "Baraq Ubamah" in the Hebrew version of the Bible and decided that meant Obama was the Antichrist, or something. Gallups tried to walk it back several years later, insisting that "I have never proclaimed that Obama's the antichrist" and that he was just repeating someone else's interpretation.
And asa far as savage attacks and celebrity death threats against presidents go, where was Gallups when right-wing darling Ted Nugent called Obama a "subhuman mongrel" and that he's a "piece of shit" who should "suck on my machine gun"? Or when Nugent said of the Obama administration in 2012, "We need to ride into that battlefield and chop their heads off in November," adding that if Obama won re-election, "I will either be dead or in jail by this time next year"?
Nowhere that we could find. Apparently demonization is perfectly fine with Gallups when the president is a Democrat.
CNS Sticks to Trump-Dictated Editorial Agenda on Nominations Topic: CNSNews.com
The Trump White House's message of the day for July 11 -- at least until the the whole Donald Trump Jr. collusion thing blew up -- was alleged obstruction of Trump nominees by Senate Democrats. And CNSNews.com, like the Trump stenographers they are, dutifully parroted that message.
Democrats in the Senate have launched an "unprecedented obstruction" campaign of President Donald Trump's nominees, the White House said Monday.
Marc Short, director of Legislative Affairs, likened the Democrats' behavior to children on the playground who take their toys and go home out of spite.
There are a total of 133 nominees waiting for consideration by various committees, Short noted.
"To date, the Senate has confirmed a total of 50 Trump administration nominees. To put that in perspective, the Senate had confirmed 202 officials at this same point in the Obama administration. We think that that is a fair analogy, because Republicans now control the Senate. Democrats controlled the Senate at that point, and the comparison is 50 to 202," Short said.
"By the August recess in 2009, the Senate had confirmed 292 Obama administration nominees by voice vote alone. To date, the Trump administration nominees have received five voice vote confirmations," he said.
Short accused Democrats of "putting their agenda ahead of the will of the American people."
President Donald Trump's first tweets on Tuesday dealt with Democrat obstructionism, the need for Republicans to repeal and replace Obamacare, and his effort to bring the Olympics to Los Angeles.
"The Senate Democrats have only confirmed 48 of 197 Presidential Nominees. They can't win so all they do is slow things down & obstruct!" he wrote at 7 a.m.
On that same subject, President Donald Trump retweeted an item from "Fox & Friends" on Tuesday morning. The retweet quoted Mark Short, the White House director of legislative affairs, as blaming Sen. Chuck Schumer for "running an unprecedented campaign of obstruction aginst the President's nominees for high-ranking posistions in government."
Neither Jones nor Arter mentioned the fact that, as the Associated Press notes, the Senate is controlled by Republicans, which means they control the floor schedule of when nominees are consider. They are also silent on the fact that that one significant factor in the lack of Senate approval of Trump's nominees is that Trump has submitted so few of them. As Politico pointed out, of the 564 executive branch jobs that require preisdential nominations, Trump hasn't nominated anyone for 384 of them.
By contrast to Jones' and Arter's slavish fealty to the White House line, a July 12 CNS article by Zenny Phuong shockingly (for CNS) tells both sides of the story, conceding that Senate Republicans obstructed President Obama's nominees. Phuong didn't, however, didn't ask the conservatives she quoted in her article -- Judicial Crisis Network's Carrie Severino and the Heritage Foundation's Ed Feulner -- about their respective flip-flops on obstruction of presidential nominees.
WND Calls In Limbaugh To Try And Spin Away Trump Jr. Collusion Scandal Topic: WorldNetDaily
How bad is the scandal over Donald Trump Jr.'s emails and contacts with what he was told was a Russian government lawyer over possible Russian government research attacking Hillary Clinton? The only story on the scandal on WorldNetDaily's Tuesday night front-page promotional carousel is an article by Bob Unruh trying to spin it away and prominently featuring right-wing radio host Rush Limbaugh insisting there's nothing there:
For months now, the floodgates have been gushing with claims that Donald Trump’s campaign colluded with Russia to win the election.
“Collusion,” “collaboration” and “conspiracy” have been key words in headlines.
However, even analysts from the left, including Barack Obama’s green-jobs “czar” Van Jones, have called the allegations “a big nothing-burger.”
Now the headlines are aflame with word that Donald Trump Jr. met with a “Russian lawyer” last year.
The New York Times reported Trump Jr. was told in an email “before the meeting that the information [lawyer Natalia] Veselnitskaya had was part of a Russian government effort to help his father’s candidacy,” NBC reported.
Then, Trump Jr. released emails Tuesday confirming the meeting.
“The email exchange shows an acquaintance with ties to Russia, music publicist Rob Goldstone, telling the son of then-candidate Trump last year that the attorney had ‘information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father,'” NBC reported.
Trump Jr. said he went to the meeting, listened and nothing came of it: “Obviously I’m the first person on a campaign to ever take a meeting to hear info about an opponent … went nowhere but had to listen,” he said on social media.
Then, in what may be the weirdest bit of trolling we've ever seen, the story is accompanied by a reader poll asking, "What are your thoughts on Trump Jr. in 2024?" The top answer as of this writing: "Great pick! Let's get to work ..."
MRC's Sports Blogger Is In LGBT Freakout Mode Topic: Media Research Center
Mysterious Media Research Center sports blogger Jay Maxson has found someone he hates with as much passion as Colin Kaepernick and Barack Obama, and it's the gays and anything that might be remotely considered gay, like basic human decency and compassion for one's fellow man.
Consider Maxson's July 5 rant against a columnist who questioned "toxic masculinity" in baseball, which obviously means that we must succumb to "LGBT fascists":
This is not my father's issue of The Sporting News anymore. A minor league baseball writer fronting as a major league LGBT activist for the publication claims Major League Baseball has a problem with "toxic masculinity" and that by allowing "Christian Night" at the ballpark, teams are negatively offsetting "pride nights." If Jessica Quiroli, alias #heels on the field, had her way, baseball would also succumb to the ongoing feminization of the American male.
Quiroli opened her piece by zeroing in on Toronto outfielder Kevin Pillar, who got into hot water when he hurled a less-than-masculine insult at a rival pitcher earlier this season. "But he didn’t just lash out; he resorted to using a homophobic word to express his anger," she writes. "In that moment, he didn’t just expose his own faults, but the distance MLB still has to go in order to guide players on a deeper level."
Of course that deeper level means ball players should be robotically programmed with a healthy fear of the LGBT fascists and do their bidding.
Maxson went on to justify homophobia in baseball because two players were suspended for their anti-gay slurs: "Neither player was at the time fearful of homosexuals, but you can bet they have a big-league phobia about the clout of LGBT activists now."
The Washington Post sports section is suddenly showing a lot of interest in unusual events. If you're saying there must be an agenda behind it, you're absolutely right! The Post's story on a homosexual rodeo follows the typical major metro daily script on liberal issues and people: portray them as sympathetic figures doing normal things. Normalize the illegal or the unusual. Help the LGBT agenda occupy yet another part of the culture until it is awash in the rainbow flag.
Roman Stubbs normally covers University of Maryland sports, but recently made a stunning departure from his normal beat by detouring to Harrisburg, Pa., for some agenda reporting. That was the site of the sparsely attended Keystone State Gay Rodeo. It's run by the International Gay Rodeo Association, which has more defunct chapters than active, but it's newsworthy to the Post and worth brownie points with LGBT activists.
Stubbs' story focuses on Louis Varnado and Andy Pittman, rodeo competitors ... andhusbands: "The married couple from Upper Marlboro shared a kiss and whispered good luck to each other before lining up with the other riders."
Competing against each other in the pole (and gender) bending competition, Pittman "beat his husband's time" and then "gave his husband a thumb's up."
Maxson obviously (and egotistically) believes the rest of America should be as squicked out by people of the same sex showing affection for each other as he is, as his concluding rant amply demonstrates:
Homosexual rodeos would not be complete without a little romance either. Stubbs tells how Mark Smith married Floyd Zwiers in a ceremony in the middle of a rodeo arena. A photo embedded in the story displays the two showing off their wedding rings.
"And while it is not every rodeo that (International Gay Rodeo Association president Bruce) Gros officiates a wedding, those are the kind of celebrations that tie the organization together," Stubbs says, probably grabbing for a tissue by now.
Some of these rodeo hands said they feel snubbed by mainstream rodeo, but the Professional Bull Riders organization has contacted Gros about a relationship in the future. “What we’re looking forward to is the day that there are out cowboys and cowgirls competing in the professional level, but that has not yet happened,” he said.
Maybe that's because many Americans, in a majority of states, were disgusted and disenfranchised when activist Supreme Court justices mandated same-sex marriage as the law of the land. They voted for marriage as the union of one man and one woman because it's been the bedrock of civilization, and the High Court threw out their votes. They won't be amused by the way this story ends either.
Varnado won some money at the Keystone rodeo, prompting this line from Stubbs: "Pittman gently wrapped his arm around his husband’s neck and said: “I’m proud of you, baby doll.”
Perhaps if he circulated outside the right-wing MRC retinue, he might figure out that it's a bad idea to dictate someone else's human rights by popular vote.
Does hatred and contempt make one a good blogger for a multimillion-dollar organization? The MRC has apparently decided it does.
WND's Solution To Bad CBO Score On GOP Health Care Bill: Attack The CBO Topic: WorldNetDaily
Art Moore whines in a July 3 WorldNetDaily article:
The Congressional Budget Office’s scoring of the Senate Republicans’ initial health-care proposal fueled Democrat complaints that the GOP is heartlessly stripping millions of their insurance plans.
Now, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell says he will send a revised bill to the CBO next week for scoring, apparently hoping to trim the CBO’s estimate that more than 22 million Americans would lose their health insurance in the next 10 years if the legislation passed in its current form. House Republicans passed their own version three weeks ago without waiting for a CBO score. It replaced an earlier version the CBO had said would result in 24 million being without insurance.
But critics of the CBO — described as a bipartisan federal agency within the legislative branch that provides budget and economic information and assessment to Congress — wonder why a Republican Congress would allow a group with a history of inaccurate forecasts that typically fail to account for the impact of market forces. And some have called for the agency to be disbanded or replaced.
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has proposed outsourcing the projections of budget legislation to three to five professional firms that understand the interaction between legislation and the marketplace.
He wants them to compete against each other, and the worst performer, including the CBO, would lose its contract.
Gingrich argues the CBO does not score legislation dynamically. It ignores growth that results from tax cuts and the reduced growth that results from tax increases in its projections.
Failing to model reality, he contends, the CBO “creates an inherent legislative bias toward more taxes and budget gimmicks.”
Moore and Gingrich don't explain how speculative and unquantifiable "growth that results from tax cuts" should be scored to reflect that "reality."
As a loyal conservative, Moore makes it clear his animus toward the CBO is totally partisan: "The reaction in Congress to the CBO scoring of the current Senate health-care bill reflects the cynicism many Republicans have toward the agency’s work."
MRC, CNS Can't Stop Falsely Suggesting Federal Funding to Planned Parenthood Pays for Abortions Topic: CNSNews.com
One of CNSNews.com's longtimeacts of deliberate dishonesty when reporting on Planned Parenthood is stating how much federal funding it receives immediately next to how many abortions its clinics perform, while omitting the pertinent fact that no federal funding pays for abortions because it's prohibited by law.
So it's not a surprise that CNS has continued to peddle this dishonesty, clearly endorsed from the very top.
CNS managing editor Michael W. Chapman wrote in a June 27 post that "According to its 2015-16 Annual Report, Planned Parenthood performed 328,348 abortions in the year that ended on Sept. 30, 2015, and received $554.6 million in "government health services reimbursements and grants"--money that came from U.S. taxpayers--in the year that ended on June 30, 2016. Chapman didn't mention that none of that "money that came from U.S. taxpayers" paid for abortions.
Chapman repeated and expanded his claim in a July 5 article:
In its 2015-16 annual report, Planned Parenthood declared that it performed 328,348 abortions in the year that ended on Sept. 30, 2015, and received $554.6 million in "government health services reimbursements and grants"--money that came from U.S. taxpayers--in the year that on June 30, 2016.
In addition, in 2014-15, Planned Parenthood performed 323,999 abortions in the year that ended on Sept. 30, 2014 and received $553.7 million in government health services grants and reimbursements in the year that ended on June 30, 2015.
The dishonesty is spreading to the greater MRC as well. Katie Yoder wrote on May 3 that "According to Planned Parenthood’s most recently published annual report, the organization performed 323,999 abortions and received $553.7 million in 'government health services grants and reimbursements' for the year 2014 – 2015," failing to mention that those government grants do not pay for abortion.
Yoder updated her dishonestly placed statistics for a July 3 MRC item: "According to Planned Parenthood's most recently published annual report, the organization performed 328,348 abortions and received $554.6 million in “government health services grants and reimbursements” for the year 2015 – 2016." Again, a refusal to honestly report those numbers.
That lack of honesty undercuts CNS' and the MRC's moral authority in attacking Planned Parenthood. Then again, rampant dishonesty seems to be a majorpart of the MRC's campaign against the organization.
UPDATE: A July 5 CNS article by Annabel Scott repeated this dishonest claim as well.
WND Columnist Opposes Clarence Darrow Statue At Scopes 'Monkey Trial' Site Topic: WorldNetDaily
Larry Tomczak's July 4 WorldNetDaily column is about how he was a speaker at a rally protesting the installation of a statue of famed attorney Clarence Darrow next to that of William Jennings Bryan outside the Tennessee courthouse where the Scopes "monkey trial" was held in the 1920s:
The circus-like atmosphere of the trial ended with Mr. Scopes found guilty and fined about $1,400 (today’s money). Bryan died in his sleep five days afterward. The verdict was later overturned on a technicality and later a biased and dishonest play and film, “Inherit the Wind,” caused millions to ridicule religious opposition to evolution.
The fundamental issue is the same today: Regarding the origin of our universe and mankind, will we honor a secular/evolutionary worldview or a spiritual/creationist worldview? And can instructors present both views, or must those adhering to the trustworthiness of Scripture be forced to remain silent in the face of one-sided propaganda?
July 1, on these grounds, we participated in a patriotic rally. It wasn’t primarily about freedom of speech or religion. Rather it focused on the ongoing attempt by secularists in America to blur or remove symbols reminding us of our Judeo/Christian heritage.
I was the main speaker alongside of Dale Walker, president of the Tennessee Pastors Network, Sen. Mae Beavers, Tennessee gubernatorial candidate, and numerous Christian leaders. Our presence gave expression to our passion to preserve America’s heritage and proclaim that our Founding Fathers were not atheists and evolutionists.
Intellectual elites see biblical teaching on creation as an offense to intelligence. They declare it unscientific and dismiss the biblical account of man’s origin. Atheist Richard Dawkins said, “If you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane.”
Jesus declared, “Have you not read that He who made [CREATED] them at the beginning made them male and female” (Matthew19:4) – so does Dawkins’ description apply to Him? Are Psalm 19 and Romans 1:19-33, which affirm God as Creator, simply fairy tales?
Because of the stigma and national embarrassment of the Scopes trial (along with the defeat of unbiblical Prohibition), multitudes of Christians were disheartened. From the 1920s to ’70s many retreated from engagement in the public square. Failing to recognize what Augustine called our dual responsibilities in the “City of God and the City of Man,” many said, “Just preach the gospel,” “Stay out of politics,” “Let things collapse so Jesus will come back!”
Jesus directs us to preach the Gospel, but it’s the Gospel of His kingdom advancing His reign over every sphere of life. We have the Great Commission but also the Cultural Commission whereby, as “salt” and “light,” we “expose unfruitful works of darkness” (Ephesians 5:11).
We’re called to be Christian advocates for righteousness. The Abolition Movement that eradicated slavery and the Civil Rights Movement that combated injustice through nonviolence are just two examples of Christian activism that changed America.
Christians are not to be silent bystanders in the face of this tsunami of secular humanism. We’re called to be peaceful, prayerful and passionate ambassadors for our Judeo-Christian heritage.
Our society has experienced unbelievable devastation, having drifted from our biblical foundation of God as Creator and Scripture as our authoritative guide. I call your attention to the Bullseye Challenge that exposes this tragic development, while helping us in just 30 days educate our families and churches in an unshakable biblical worldview!
We must be equipped and engaged in this ongoing battle dealing with Origins 101. One man, Charles Darwin, propagated a theory that adversely impacted the world. Will you join with Christians like those who gathered in Dayton, Tennessee, to promote truth and persuade others, like our Founding Fathers did, to honor our Creator as our Declaration of Independence affirms?
Does Tomczak think that those who want only creationism taught think evolutionists should stay silent in the face of "one-sided propaganda"? And how, exactly, does does creationism fit with the Declaration of Independence? Tomczak doesn't elaborate.
(Image: Sculptor Zenos Frudakis with prototype of Darrow statue, via Americans United)