We've noted how Accuracy in Media likes to help former White House adviser Sebastian Gorka overcompensate by insisting on calling him "Dr. Sebastian Gorka," despite the fact that he's not a medical doctor (giving only medical doctors the "Dr." honorific is standard journalistic style) and his academic credentials (his doctorate is from a Hungarian school) have been question.
Now Newsmax is helping Gorka overcompensate as well.
During an appearance by Gorka on the Aug. 31 edition of Newsmax TV's "The Joe Pags Show," host Joe Paglliarulo repeatedly privileges Gorka with the "Dr." moniker. This is mostly repeated on the Sept. 4 edition of Newsmax TV's "America Talks Live," in which host Miranda Khan similarly gives Gorka the "Dr." moniker, though on-screen text more correctly identifies him as "Sebastian Gorka, PhD."
Newsmax also referred to "Dr." Gorka in articles on April 4 and Aug. 31 -- interestingly, both are about the right-wing Jewish group Zionist Organization of America running to Gorka's defense.
Newsmax also continues to privilege anti-abortion activist Alveda King with the "Dr." honorific, but this case is even more egregious because King's doctorate is honorary, not earned.
Art Moore writes in a Sept. 7 WorldNetDaily article:
The discovery that more than 6,000 people used out-of-state driver’s licenses to vote in New Hampshire last November bolsters Donald Trump’s claim he lost the state because thousands of Massachusetts residents came in to vote.
Trump claimed in February that out-of-state voters tipped the New Hampshire election, both against him and incumbent Republican Sen. Kelly Ayotte. The Boston Globe at the time dismissed his allegation as “groundless.”
But the vast majority of the 6,000 voters have neither obtained an in-state license nor registered a motor vehicle since the November vote, according to an inquiry by Republican Speaker of the New Hampshire House Shawn Jasper, the Washington Times reported.
Hillary Clinton defeated Trump in New Hampshire by 2,736 votes while Democratic Sen. Maggie Hassan defeated Ayotte by 1,017 votes.
The records from the Department of State, which oversees elections, and the Department of Safety show 6,540 people voted using out-of-state licenses. But as of Aug. 30, only 1014, about 15 percent, had been issued New Hampshire driver’s licenses.
Of the remaining 5,526, only 3.3 percent had registered a motor vehicle in New Hampshire.
But as actualnewsoutlets have pointed out after Kris Kobach, head of the White House's voter fraud commision, repeated the claim, there's no there there. There are these things called college students -- Dartmouth, for instance, is located in New Hampshire -- that have out-of-state driver's licenses and no need to get one in the state, or who don't have driver's licenses at all. New Hampshire does not require voters to have in-state driver's licenses.
Further, as the Washington Times article (which Moore curious fails to link to) points out, the numbers being presented are raw and have not been analyzed to see if college students make up most of them.
In other words, this is fake news, something WND is sadly proficient at.
CNS Attempts A Slightly Less Lame Right-Wing Attack on SPLC Topic: CNSNews.com
An anonymously written Aug. 25 CNSNews.com "news" article highlights how "Roman Catholic Archbishop Charles Chaput of Philadelphia criticized the Southern Poverty Law Center for falsely labeling the Alliance Defending Freedom as a 'hate group,'" specifically defending anti-gay group Alliance Defending Freedom.
In addition to the usual boilerplate defense of ADF, the anonynous CNS writer surprisingly goes beyond previous ConWebattacks on the SPLC -- though it presents ADF's description of itself as fact instead of opinion -- and actually cites the SPLC document that makes the group's case against ADF:
The Alliance Defending Freedom is a non-profit legal organization dedicated to “advocating for religious liberty, the sanctity of life, and marriage and family.”
The Southern Poverty Law Center has labelled the ADF an “anti-LBGT [sic] hate group.”
On its website, the SPLC has posted a timeline of things the ADF has said and done over the years that the SPLC believes has earned it the label “hate group.”
The timeline starts in 2000 with this item: “The ADF helps fund and strategize the filing of a key amicus (friend of the court) briefs on behalf of the Boy Scouts of America in Dale v. Boy Scouts of America, in which a gay assistant Scoutmaster sued the BSA for expelling him because of its ban on gay members and leaders.”
The SPLC’s timeline goes on to state that in 2014: “ADF sends a letter to school districts around the country stating that no school is legally beholden to implement trans-inclusive policies and allow trans students to access bathrooms and locker rooms of the gender with which they identify. The letter denies the gender identity of such students and claims that such inclusive policies are allowing opposite sex students to access the facilities, which is ‘dangerous.’ ‘It is simply unfathomable that a school district would cave to activist demands that students have access to restroom and locker room facilities dedicated to the opposite sex.’”
Of course, CNS is cherry-picking the more benign examples from SPLC's timeline. No mention of, say, the assertion by former ADF leader Alan Sears that the campaign for gay rights is "a war of propaganda, just as Hitler did so masterfully in Nazi Germany," its pushing of the discredited link between homosexuality and pedophilia, or Sears' saying of gays that "there is no room for compromise with those who would call evil 'good.'"
The anonymous CNS writer went on to cite "a blog posted on the ADF website" that "hit back at the SPLC," but did not mention that the blog post does not refute any of the evidence the SPLC cites against it.
Now, WND is proudly proclaiming that fake news is a part of its "path to greatness." From a Sept. 6 article:
Sept. 6, 2016: After then-Democratic Party presidential nominee Hillary Clinton suffered the worst coughing fit of her 2016 campaign just two months before the election, a mysterious man seen by her side for many months on the campaign trail suddenly appeared on her plane.
As WND reported, Clinton suffered two coughing fits on Labor Day 2016 – one during a speech in Cleveland, Ohio, and a second one during a press conference on her plane.
In the past, the same man had been spotted helping Clinton up stairs and holding what appeared to be a Diazepam pen. Some observers referred to the man as Hillary’s “mysterious handler.”
WND did ask the Hillary Clinton campaign about the identity and role of the man in the photos but never received a response.
At an earlier campaign appearance, the same man was reportedly seen carrying a long object that some claimed resembled a Diazepam pen.
As we documented when WND first published this a year ago, it's a pack of lies; WND perpetuated the story by deliberately ignoring all the established facts that proved it wrong. Later updates further confused things, but the bottom line is that WND published a lie, knew it was a lie when it was published, and tried -- and is continuing to try -- to con its readers into believing that lie.
This fake-news story is what WND considers a "milestone" on its "path to greatness." That's why it doesn't understand why it's on the path to oblivion.
MRC's Graham Loves Fox News Poll Question Equating Media, White Supremacists Topic: Media Research Center
You could almost hear the Media Research Center's Tim Graham grinning as he wrote in a Sept. 3 post:
Allahpundit at Hot Air pointed out Fox News did a poll asking a question liberal journalists would surely find revolting: Who's the bigger threat to America? White supremacists, or the news media? Overall, white supremacists won, 47 to 40 percent, but as usual, there's a dramatic partisan split. Democrats went with white supremacists, 76 to 12 percent, while Republicans picked the news media, 69 percent to 18. Independents were almost evenly split, 43 percent racists to 39 percent media (people could also pick that the threat was equal).
This from a guy who helps run an organization that is incredibly quick to whine about any slight to the reputation of conservatives -- i.e., calling them "far right" and pointing out that they're hostile to facts.
Then again, Graham thinks the mere act of a journalist asking questions is inherently liberal and he basically cheered a GOP candidate's physical assault of a reporter -- and employs a researcher who is incapable of telling the difference between journalists and "the left" -- so equating the media to white supremacists is only a tiny mental leap for him.
Farah Brings Back WND's Favorite Zombie Lie Topic: WorldNetDaily
Aside from the birther stuff, the biggest bit of fake news WorldNetDaily has perpetuation over the past decade is that Barack Obama's 2008 reference to a "civilian national security force" was something sinister, an allusion to creation of a police state. Despite us having debunked it at the time -- Obama was actually referring to a beefed-up diplomatic corps -- WND claimed it again and again and again.
Since the predicted police state never surfaced during Obama's presidency, WND ould have exhibited a sense of shame and admitted they were wrong and were simply pushing a bogus talking point in order to smear Obama. But then, WND never corrects anything unless there's a threat of a lawsuit, so the only obvious choice for WND was to double down.
Which brings us to WND editor Joseph Farah's Sept. 4 column. He began this way:
Then it caught fire. That fire has never been quenched.
In a long campaign speech, he dropped this little bomb: “We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”
Over the years, I’ve wondered what became of that idea – a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded as the U.S. military.
Farah is lying. We caught him in this lie nine years and two months ago. He knows Obama was never talking about establishing a police state, but he pretended otherwise as part of WND's failed scorched-earth campaign against Obama. It was a lie then, and it's a lie now.
And like any shameless, inveterate liar, Farah won't admit he was wrong, and he expands on his zombie lie, inventing a new, bogus interpretation of what "civilian national security force" means:
Lately, I’ve been getting inquiries from readers about whether we’re now seeing the realization of Obama’s concept in the streets of America – from Berkeley to Charlottesville.
Could the antifa thugs, anti-Semite leftists and Black Lives Matter racists represent what Obama had in mind? There’s little question these groups are being paid, though not necessarily with our tax dollars. Don’t be surprised, however, if we find out years from now that government transfers of wealth have actually found their way into some of these group’s coffers. But we know some of George Soros’ billions have.
We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded as the U.S. military, Obama said.
Could it be this monstrosity of violent chaos and disruption is what he had in mind?
True, Obama is out of power. But let’s keep in mind his new job is national community organizer in chief. He’s the counter-president. He’s the leader of the opposition to the new president. And we know about his closeness to Soros – and their shared goals.
And it started early – like the day of the inauguration.
A month later, tens of thousands of agitators trained by an Obama-tied activist group to protest Trump’s policies hit Republican lawmakers supporting those policies when they returned home for the congressional recess and held town hall meetings and other functions. Remember that?
Organizing for Action, a group founded by Obama and featured prominently on his new post-presidency website, began distributing a training manuals to anti-Trump activists that advised them to bully GOP lawmakers into backing off support for repealing Obamacare, curbing immigration from high-risk Islamic nations and building a border wall, reporter supreme Paul Sperry reported.
Keep in mind, Obama’s OFA boasts more than 250 offices nationwide and more than 32,000 organizers, with another 25,000 actively under training. And that’s just Obama’s command center. I suggest the shock troops, the “Marines,” the special forces, the infantry are antifa, BLM and the leftist anti-Semites.
It’s right out of the pages of Obama’s hero (and Hillary’s) Saul Alinsky, “the father of community organizing” and the author of “Rules for Radicals,” originally dedicated to Lucifer – the ultimate radical. Michelle Obama quoted from the book when she helped launch OFA.
“Understand that I’m going to be constrained in what I do with all of you until I am again a private citizen, but that’s not so far off,” Barack Obama said last year. “You’re going to see me early next year,and we’re going to be in a position where we can start cooking up all kinds of great stuff.” (Emphasis added.) “I promise you that next year Michelle and I are going to be right there with you, and the clouds are going to start parting, and we’re going to be busy. I’ve got all kinds of thoughts and ideas about it, but this isn’t the best time to share them. Point is, I’m still fired up and ready to go, and I hope that all of you are, as well.”
So, we haven’t heard the last of Obama. We may still find out if this new “civilian national security force” is what he had in mind all the time.
NEW ARTICLE: The Life and Death of A Right-Wing Talking Point Topic: CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com loved to suggest global warming doesn't exist by highlighting the amount of time between "major" hurricanes hitting the U.S. -- until Hurricane Harvey put an end to that narrative. Read more >>
WND Still Thinks 'Alt-Left' Exists, Farah Still Wants Credit For Naming It Topic: WorldNetDaily
Last time we checked, WorldNetDaily editor Joseph Farah was demanding credit for inventing the term "alt-left," despite the fact that the "alt-left" is not a thing. So WND suddenly had a momentous task: Prove "alt-left" is a thing.
Thus, we have an anonymously written Aug. 27 article trying to do just that:
Progressives haven’t stopped with tearing down Confederate statues: The Founding Fathers, Christopher Columbus and even Abraham Lincoln are all under attack by masked extremists.
Trump supporters, people waving the American flag and even completely random white people have been stabbed or attacked by ironically named “anti-fascist” groups, or “antifa,” who accuse everyone who is not a communist of being a Nazi.
Just weeks after Republican lawmakers narrowly escaped a massacre at the hands of an unhinged Democrat, the leftists are doubling down on violence.
President Trump pointed out it was the left-wing extremists who initiated the violence in Charlottesville by attacking a legally sanctioned demonstration. And he called the “Antifa” the “alt-left,” forever branding this growing group of radicals.
But what is the alt-left? The mainstream media is claiming there is no such thing. Yet close observers of American college campuses are not surprised by what is happening nationwide.
The “alt-left” has not only been a force in American higher education; it practically runs the campuses. Violent, extremist and viciously anti-white gangs have shut down classes, chased dissenters off campus and engaged in property destruction and wholesale riots that have reduced entire colleges to places that more closely resemble open-air asylums than institutions of higher learning.
The "news" article, though, is actually just an ad for books and videos for sale in WND's online store.
Meanwhile, Farah was still demanding credit for inventing the term. He ratcheted up the self-aggrandizement in his Aug. 27 column:
As the fake news media kept pounding on the “alt-right” label, I decided to coin the term “alt-left.” I’ve coined many terms throughout my career, but I’ve actually been credited with this one. But, unlike the alt-right disinformation artists beginning with Hillary Clinton, I actually defined it, supported it with a factual foundation and explained the phenomenon.
Two days later, Farah took things to absurd lengths, as he is wont to do:
Take a look at your computer keyboard. Look to the bottom rung of keys and over to the left.
What do you see?
If you have a Microsoft keyboard, you probably see to the extreme left bottom an abbreviation for the word “control.” “Control” on any true ideological spectrum is on the left – be it communist, socialist, fascist. They are all left-wing ideas, and they all demand strict government control. That’s the common denominator, even though socialists have disputes with communists and communists have disputes with fascists. The common denominator is they are all of the left.
If you look past through that Microsoft flag next to the control key you will see the world “alt.” Both keys are neatly positioned on the left side of the keyboard and, ironically, on the bottom rung.
(If you have, as I do, an Apple keyboard, the “alt” key is appropriately called “command.”
So, one keyboard juxtaposes control and “alt,” and the other juxtaposes control and command.
What does that suggest? Maybe I misnamed the “alt-left.” Maybe a more accurate and comprehensible moniker would be “ctrl-left.” Because, ultimately, that is what the left is all about – control.
Just a thought. Any significance?
Not really. And Farah makes sure not to mention that most Microsoft and Microsoft-compatible keyboards (for instance, this one) have "alt" and "control" keys on the right side of the keyboard as well. But that would have blown up his wacky little analogy, so he had to censor that information.
MRC Tries to Put Words In Trump's Mouth Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's Nicholas Fondacaro complained in an Aug. 27 item:
With the remains of Hurricane Harvey still threatening the communities and lives of the people living along the coast of Texas, the liberal media still couldn’t put their obsession with President Trump aside. In a segment of CNN’s Reliable Sources on Sunday, host Brian Stelter wanted to talk about Trump’s description of political journalists as “sick people” from earlier in the week. But his panel twisted Trump’s words to connect them to those reporters covering the hurricane and those in war zones.
Wait a minute. Trump never specifically said he was singling out "political journalists" in his Phoenix speech, nor did he specifically exclude non-political journalists; he repeatedly refers to "the media" throughout the speech. Trump's reference to "sick people" was arguably framed as an attack on journalists who criticize his tweets, but even that did not specifically single out "political journalists."
Which means Fondacaro is putting words in Trump's mouth, insisting that his criticism of "the media" is limited to only national political journalists when he has never specifically made that distinction.
He went on to complain about the "conflation between the national political reporters and local news people" when, again, Trump has never specifically excluded "local news people" from his repeated attacks on "the media," concluding that the "Reliable Sources" panelists "politicized a natural disaster, which had taken lives, for political gain." How so? By defending the honor of journalists from a critic who's using a broad-brush smear?
Fondacaro went on to complain that one "Reliable Sources" panelist pointed out that Sean Hannity wasn't on the ground in Houston, "while ignoring the fact that Sean Hannity was just a political commentator and not a journalist." But Hannity has, in fact, called himself an "advocacy journalist" earlier this year, and he said he was a "journalist" in 2008 when he was relentlessly attacking Barack Obama.
Last fall just before the election, WorldNetDaily and the Media Research Center both tried to create a fake-news scandal about Andrew McCabe, an FBI official who was taking part in the agency's investigation of Hillary Clinton's emails whose objectivity was purportedly compromised because a PAC run by Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe donated money to a campaign by McCabe's wife for a Virginia state legislative seat. But as Washington Post fact-checker Glenn Kessler explained, the donations by McAuliffe's PAC to Jill McCabe's campaign were made well before her husband was named to an FBI team proving Clinton's emails -- three months after McCabe lost her election, in fact -- and there was no way "McAuliffe would know that the husband of someone he was supporting in a Virginia legislative race was going to be promoted months later."
Well, discredited WND freelancer Paul Sperry didn't get the message that there's no scandal here, so he spends an Aug. 28 article trying to stoke the witch hunt against McCabe:
Politically compromised deputy FBI director Andrew McCabe continues to run an investigation into the Trump campaign’s alleged “collusion” with Russia, bureau sources familiar with the probe say – even though it overlaps with the special counsel’s investigation, and even though McCabe, whose wife is a Democratic activist, is under investigation for political conflicts of interest.
As the subject of no fewer than three separate investigations of his own, McCabe is operating under a growing ethical cloud, critics inside the bureau complain.
Yet, he is “still running that investigation,” an FBI source said. “He didn’t recuse himself from the Hillary Clinton case, and he won’t recuse himself from the Russian matter.”
Though Special Counsel Robert Mueller took over the Russia investigation from the FBI in May, McCabe continues to oversee a parallel investigation through the bureau’s national security division, sources say. And he maintains a lead role in the case, despite being replaced Aug. 2 as acting FBI director by Trump appointee Christopher Wray.
The allegations Sperry makes against McCabe are either anonymously made, unsubstantiated, or both. And nowhere does Sperry mention that McCabe didn't join the Hillary investigation until three months after his wife's political campaign ended.
The fact that Sperry had to descend to his fellow discredited conspiracy-mongerers at WND to get his nasty, politically motivated story published tells you all you need to know about its shady, empty nature.
CNS Unemployment Coverage Distortion Watch, Now With Slightly Less Distortion Topic: CNSNews.com
Apparently, even the big Trump flip on unemployment reporting at CNSNews.com -- in which CNS switched from being relentlessly negative under President Obama to relentlessly positive under President Trump despite the jobless numbers trending roughly the same way -- has its limits.
For her main article on August's unemployment numbers, Susan Jones did what she usually did under Obama and has rarely done under Trump -- lead with unpleasant statistics about the relatively low labor force participation rate:
Heading into the Labor Day weekend, the latest jobs report is a disappointment.
Tthe number of Americans over age 16 who are not in the labor force – for whatever reason – remained stubbornly high in August, at 94,785,000. That is partly attributed to the rising number of retirements among Baby Boomers.
Of course, Jones rarely mentioned the Baby Boomer factor in playing guilt-by-assocation in blaming low labor force participation on Obama.
CNS editor in chief Terry Jeffrey contributed his usual article on manufacturing jobs, but he remained on message in dishonestly blaming a decline in them on Obama and crediting Trump's election for an increase:
When Obama was inaugurated in January 2009, there were 12,561,000 people employed in manufacturing in the United States. But in the next month, February 2009, manufacturing employment dropped to 12,380,000. Manufacturing employment would eventually dropped to 11,4530,000 [sic] in February and March of 2010.
Last November, at the time Donald Trump was elected president, there were 12,325,000 employed in manufacturing. That rose to 12,343,000 in December—and since then has climbed to the 12,480,000 it reached in August, an increase of 155,000 since last year’s election and 137,000 so far for this calendar year.
Jeffrey doesn't mention that the country was in the middle of a recession when Obama took office, nor does he explain why Obama doesn't get credit for the increase of nearly 2 million manufacturing jobs between the 2010 low and the election (or afterward, since it's unlikely that any action Trump has taken can be directly attributed to the increase).
Jeffrey also contributed his usual article on the number of government jobs. Managing editor Michael W. Chapman added for only the second time under Trump his regular Obama-era feature on black unemployment vs. white unemployment; Chapman finally concedes that high black unemployment is a longtime trend, though he'll only admit that it's been since 2007 (as we've noted, it's been that way since statistics were first compiled in 1972).
WND Columnist: Thank Imperialists For Keeping You From Living Like Cavemen Topic: WorldNetDaily
Is that all these white imperialist demons brought to far-away lands – a legacy of pain? I hardly think so. They also brought innovation and progress. Sure, there were dark moments in the history of all these explorers and conquerors, but maybe it’s high-time we treat the past as the past and ponder how far most of the entire human race has come. Not the white race or black or brown or yellow race – the human race.
I say most of us because I am reminded of the tribe that was just recently discovered in the Amazon rainforest.
However improbable, photos emerged, just this past November, of a tribe living in complete isolation in the depths of the Amazon jungle. They know nothing of the rest of the world. They live virtually as the cavemen did.
Is this the existence you leftist protesters and “indigenous” peoples want? No running water, no indoor plumbing, no electricity, no modern conveniences of any kind? Living hand to mouth? Really?
This may seem controversial and may sound abrasively racist, but without the “imperialist” explorers of old, I dare say that most of the “indigenous” people on various continents would still be living as the Amazonian tribe is currently.
We all wish that ignorant white explorers hadn’t treated others the way they did, but history is what it is. Try as they might to erase it, what happened, happened, and there’s no going back and no changing it.
But I’ll also bet that given the choice between being a modern-day black American, European or Aboriginal Australian, any and all would choose their current faux-oppressive state to merely existing as part of the lost Amazonian tribe.
MRC Curiously Leaves Megyn Kelly Alone Despite Working for 'Liberal Media' Topic: Media Research Center
We've noted that when then-Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly asked pointed questions of Donald Trump at a 2015 presidential debate -- which caused Trump to complain about Fox News' bias -- the Media Research Center refused to take a side in the matter, presumably because it neither wanted to offend the network on which its employees appear most often or admit that Trump was right about Fox News' bias (though it eagerly signed on to Trump's "fake news" rants). The MRC effectively let Kelly twist in the wind.
When Kelly bolted Fox News for NBC after the 2016 election, you think the MRC -- freed from having to defend her as a Fox employee -- would take the opportunity to bash her work for the purportedly "liberal" NBC. But it mostly hasn't, even with Kelly providing ample ammunition in the form of low ratings and a controversial interview with Alex Jones, the kind of fringe figure the MRC loves to excoriate the "liberal media" for "mainstreaming" for simply doing stories about.
The lone piece the MRC did on the entire eight-episode summer run of Kelly's NBC was indeed about the Jones segment. A June 18 post by Melissa Mullins, posted before the interview, noted that Kelly "completely reconfigured her Sunday night show by bringing on the families of Sandy Hook and editing her interview to seem tougher on Jones." Mullins wrote at the end of her tepid post, "But I guess we will have to wait and see, when Kelly’s interview airs tonight. Or in most cases, wait to hear."
The only follow-up the MRC did on the interview was not about the interview itself, but bashing former NBC anchor Tom Brokaw, who appeared at the end of Kelly's show, for issuing a "liberal lecture" calling conspiracy theorists like Jones a "common threat" against the country. The MRC's Curtis Houck ranted that "Brokaw’s two-minute-plus commentary wasn’t used to make a broader argument against far-left rhetoric that nearly did the same to Republican congressmen," referring to the shooting of Rep. Steve Scalise.
It seems Kelly has done enough for the conservative movement and the MRC -- remember, the MRC cheered how Kelly insisted against all evidence that Fox News wasn't biased and perpetuated the notion of a "left-leaning bias in news" -- that it will apparently give her a pass on her NBC work.
WND Is The (Paid?) PR Shop for A Primary Opponent to Paul Ryan Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily is in business with Paul Nehlen, having published his anti-"globalist" book "Wage the Battle" in July, which also apparently serves as a manifesto of sorts for his quixotic 2018 Republican primary challenge against House Speaker Paul Ryan. (How quixotic? Nehlen ran against Ryan in 2016 and lost by 68 percentage points.) WND is also selling a Nehlen-produced anti-Muslim film called "Hijrah," which purports to expose "the dark underworld of the Muslim refugee crisis."
But WND is also in business with Nehlen in another way: It's effectively the PR shop for Nehlen's longshot campaign, in an apparent attempt to make it somewhat less quixotic.
The June 16 WND article announcing Nehlen's candidacy was written by Paul Bremmer -- who works on the marketing side, not the "news" side, not that there's much difference between the two at WND in practical terms -- touted Nehlen's "spirited" campaign against Ryan in 2016 but didn't mention he lost by 68 points, or that WND published his book, which is prominently promoted in the article.
This was followed by a series of articles featuring Nehlen bashing Ryan:
An anonymously written June 25 article let Nehlen complain that Ryan is "actively thwarting" President Trump and is "giving a blank check to the left's priorities."
On July 14, Liam Clancy -- an WND "news" intern -- forgoes any pretense of journalistic balance in writing of Nehlen: "Everyday Americans are sick of the corruption in Washington, and one man plans to 'drain the swamp' himself, by starting in his own congressional district."
A July 26 article by Clancy touted Nehlen's tweeting that "'Ryan never misses an opportunity to undermine [President Trump]' and that Ryan has spent more time defending Mueller rather than defending 'this nation from illegal aliens,' defending President Trump, and defunding 'Obama’s spending priorities,'" adding, "Stop and think about how much good work we could do if Paul Ryan was an America First guy."
An anonymously written July 29 article gives Nehlen a platform to rant about "we have a Congress full of spineless jellyfish, unwilling to fulfill their oath of office to protect and defend this country from enemies foreign and domestic." the anonymous writer also gushes over "Hijrah" as "the most explosive documentary of the year. It reveals an Islamic invasion like no other before it."
An Aug. 1 article by Bremmer is a fluffy profile of Nehlen, pumping up his credentials as a "businessman and inventor" and hyping Nehlen's alleged hope to "bring a message of hope and encouragement to business leaders and working-class people – not just in Wisconsin’s first district, but all across America."
An anonymously written Aug. 26 article promoted how Nehlen "contends the speaker [Ryan] is betraying the GOP grassroots by failing to forcefully condemn 'Antifa.'" (The anonymous writer also asserts without evidence that Antifa "instigated the violence in Charlottesville.")
Even before Nehlen officially announced his campaign, WND was giving Nehlen a platform to bash Ryan:
In none of these articles, however, does WND indicated they ever attempted to contact Ryan for a response on Nehlen's attacks. That tell us that this is public relations -- not news. Which makes WND's work an in-kind contribution to Nehlen's campaign.
The Federal Election Commission has laws regulating the use and disclosure of in-kind contributions. Both Nehlen and WND would be wise to follow them. Unless, of course, Nehlen is actually paying WND for all of this fawning, uncritical press, in which case that would have to be disclosed as well.
MRC Likens Jorge Ramos To A White Supremacist Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center has long despised Univision news anchor Jorge Ramos, mainly for daring to be critical of President Trump. This is taken to a new level in an Aug. 24 post by Ken Oliver (bolding his):
As President Trump recently stated, many media outlets are currently having a field day giving platforms to hate groups, on both ends of the country’s political spectrum.
At Univision, activist anchor Jorge Ramos decided to replay on his weekly Al Punto show his 2016 interview with white nationalist leader Jared Taylor.
In the segment, one of the central exchanges between Ramos and Taylor reveals how both men actually share a similar, race-based view of American politics that is inherently divisive (not to mention un-American).
JARED TAYLOR, WHITE NATIONALIST:You want more power for Latinos.
JORGE RAMOS, HOST, AL PUNTO, UNIVISION: Exactly.
TAYLOR: That comes at the expense of my people’s power.
RAMOS: We are 17% of the population.
RAMOS: Andwe only have three senators. Therefore, we do not have the political representation we deserve.
TAYLOR: And you want more and more.
RAMOS: Of course, because we only have three senators.
RAMOS: Right now,14 more senators.
As MRC Latino pointed out when the segment originally aired as part of Ramos’ pre-election horror film, titled Hate Rising, both Ramos and Taylor exhibit a race-based logic that is inimical to the core, color-blind ethos of the American political project.
It is, at both extremes, an identity politics gone mad, that only serves to divide Americans, rather than heal and unite them as President Trump has urged. In other words, in Jared Taylor’s America, as a white man he evidently cannot be adequately politically represented by a non-white, nor in Jorge Ramos’ America can Ramos be adequately politically represented by a non-Hispanic.
It is a race-based logic that the vast majority of Americans roundly reject.
The fact that Oliver invokes Trump twice in an item that has nothing whatsoever to do with Trump tells us the level of bias he's going to serve up. Oliver also fundamentally misunderstands the concept of identity politics -- and, thus, the difference between Taylor and Ramos.
Taylor wants all power to be kept in the hands of whites and no other races to have a voice -- he is a white supremacist after all (which Oliver strangely softens as being a "white nationalist"). Ramos is arguing for Hispanic political representation proportional to their portion of the U.S. population, which is not the same thing. Oliver doesn't explain how it's racially divisive to include more Hispanics or any other minority in politics.
That's important because history has shown that minority legislators represent the concerns of minority constituencies better than non-minority legislators, which suggests that those concerns are not adequately addressed by non-minority legislators. And rightly or wrongly, voters use a candidate's race as a proxy for ideology.
No, Mr. Oliver, Ramos is not a Hispanic supremacist, and wanting proportional political representation doesn't make him one. Ramos wants Hispanics to have a meaningful voice; Taylor wants Hispanics to have no political voice at all. Taylor wants supremacy for his race; Ramos just wants a proportional voice. In other words, Ramos and Taylor couldn't be more different in their "race-based view of American politics."
Portraying Ramos as no different from a white supremacist is nothing but a lazy, hateful slur.