The MRC's 'Soros-Funded Journalism' Fail Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center has longbeenobsessed with George Soros as some kind of liberal string-puller through his funding of allegedly liberal groups (despite the fact that the MRC has a string-pulling moneybags benefactor in the form of the Mercers). We see this again in Aly Nielsen's Dec. 13 post, in which she writes:
Soros-funded journalism is coming to seven states in 2018, thanks to ProPublica. The liberal journalism nonprofit announced on Dec. 9 it had chosen journalists in Louisiana, West Virginia, Oregon, New Mexico, Indiana, Illinois and Florida to receive year-long stipends to pursue ProPublica-approved investigations.
Nielsen's article is accompanied by a chart of dubious origin -- no source is given, but it's apparently taken from the MRC's apparently dormant "Buying Bias" website, which claims to track "the funding sources behind non-profit journalism" and where a version of Nielsen's post first appeared in October -- purporting to show donors to ProPublica over an unspecified period of time, but unfortunately for Nielsen's "Soros-funded journalism" angle, it shows that Soros' Open Society Foundation donated only $737,411, while five other foundations donated more than $1 million, and the biggest donor, the Sandler Foundation, utterly dwarfed OSF's conrtibutions with a whopping #44 million donation.
Yet, even though Soros' foundation donated less than 1/33 of the money of ProPublica's biggest donor, Nielsen's headline claim is "Soros-funded journalism."
The MRC has done this before. For example, a 2013 post about ProPublica calls it a "Soros-funded news operation," and Nielsen herself did it again last January, using a similar chart that curiously omitted the Sandler Foundation's donations -- presumably to not undermine her Soros-bashing argument.
Nielsen also huffed that "ProPublica has a history of liberal alliances and reporting," but she cited random, cherry-picked examples and offered no comprehensive research on ProPublica's coverage.
Divine Donald Watch, WorldNetDaily Edition Topic: WorldNetDaily
Mueller’s problem is that he is fighting against the Lord God of Hosts, also known as Yahweh, the God over the armies of Israel. I believe He’s the one who placed Trump into the Oval Office.
If I am correct, then there are two important questions to consider:
If God is omniscient and actually knows the end of a matter before its beginning, then wouldn’t you think He would have foreseen Robert Mueller being appointed special counsel before it happened on May 17, 2017?
If that is so, wouldn’t you also think God would have something in mind to handle Mueller and his investigation?
Do you realize it has been 50 years since all of Jerusalem came under Israel’s control in the Six-Day War of 1967?
In all the time since then, how many American presidents have done the obvious by recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital? Not one until President Trump did it on Dec. 6, 2017.
Now, does anyone really believe God placed Trump in the White House to carry out His plans for Jerusalem and then would allow him to be embarrassed at Mueller’s hands?
There is not a gnat’s chance in the universe of that ever happening.
So, if I were Special Counsel Robert Mueller, I’d constantly look over my shoulder, wondering how God will vindicate President Donald Trump in this so-called Russian collusion case.
How can I offer such a ridiculous warning to Mr. Mueller?
Nehemiah’s life was an example of leadership and organization. He gave up a comfortable and affluent position in Persia to return to the fractured homeland of his ancestors, and he united the people to reconstruct Jerusalem’s wall. In the face of opposition, he used wise protection measures for the security of the people.
Donald Trump is likewise comfortable and affluent, and has a zeal and desire to protect the American people by way of building a border wall of protection to keep America safe.
If God ordained walls to be built for the protection of Jerusalem, how could this same strategy be wrong for America? Do we not have the right to protect our homeland from not only jihad, but also from any foreign enemy that would do us harm? How many times must nations, including our own, be attacked by enemies – Islamic or otherwise – before someone will stand up against terrorism and protect America?
I believe that building the wall of protection is singly the most important act that can be accomplished for the protection of our great nation. Every human being that comes to the United States of America should be thoroughly background checked.
I believe our borders absolutely must be guarded for the protection of the citizens of the United States of America. And when I look into the faces of my innocent grandchildren, I believe that any dereliction of the duty to protect them and the American people should be a legally actionable offense.
President Trump, in this case, is a modern-day, biblically based Nehemiah.
CNS Doesn't Disclose Its Link To Group Run By Bozell's Son Topic: CNSNews.com
Craig Bannister dutifully types in a Dec. 19 CNSNews.com blog post:
On Tuesday, in anticipation of final passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, ForAmerica President David Bozell issued a statement touting the tax reform plan’s benefits.
“The American people should be pleased to see the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act cross the finish line. Congratulations to the Trump Administration and Congress on their accomplishment,” Bozell said.
Bozell declared the bill “a home run for the middle class,” as well as for small businesses:
ForAmerica is an award-winning, national grassroots organization whose mission is to use social media to reinvigorate the public with the principles of American exceptionalism: freedom, prosperity and virtue, be it in its educational efforts, the support of legislation or the support of public policy.
Despite writing for what purports to be a "news" operation, Bannister breaks a basic rule of journalism by failing to disclose a major conflict of interest. As we've noted, David Bozell is the son of Brent Bozell, CNS publisher and head of the Media Research Center, which owns CNS. Brent Bozell also founded ForAmerica, and the group shares a building with the MRC.
Further, a look at the ForAmerica website reveals it's filled mostly with posts copied from various MRC divisions, including CNS and NewsBusters.
So, yeah, it's pretty integrated with the MRC. Bannister should've told his readers that -- but journalistic ethics isn't a big deal these days for the Trump stenographers at CNS.
Fake News: WND Still Misquoting Obama As A Current Supporter of Erdogan Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily has endeavored on occasion to portray former President Obama as a current supporter of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan by quoting out-of-context statements by Obama that were actually made before Erdogan turned authoritarian and instituted a brutal crackdown following an attempted coup in 2016.
That misinformation -- fake news, one might call it -- is still going on. In a Dec. 12 WND article on allegedly anti-Semitic statements Erdogan made, Art Moore wrote: "President Obama praised Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan as 'a man of action' and one of the five world leaders with whom he had the strongest bond." The "man of action" quote comes from a statement attributed to Obama by former national security adviser in 2011; the New York Times noted the quote in a 2016 article pointing out how the relationship between Obama and Erdogan deterioriated after Erdogan "began tilting in the direction of authoritarianism" and that "Obama has periodically warned Erdogan to curb his authoritarian tendencies."
The "strongest bond" statement is a relatively accurate interpretation of what Obama said, but Moore didn't mention that Obama said that in 2012 -- which, again, was before Erdogan turned authoritarian.
Then, in a Dec. 27 WND article, Bob Unruh uncritically quotes Joel Richardson -- who once wrote a WND column headlined "What Obama and the Antichrist have in common" -- getting the timeline right but still blaming Obama anyway: "As recently as 2012, President Obama named Turkey’s current President Erdogan as one of his top three closest friends among world leaders. A quick five years later, Erdogan has emerged as one of the most dangerous dictators of our day.”
Actually, Obama never said Erdogan was among his "closest friends"; that's a beyond-the-facts extrapolation of the "strongest bond" statement, and it also ignores the fact that the Obama-Erdogan relationship deteriorated during those five years.
This fake-news link between Obama and Erdogan that WND is trying to spread ignores the fact that just a year ago, then-WND reporter Jerome Corsi was cozying up to Erdogan by pushing the unproven narrative (via anonymous "trusted sources close to the Turkish government") that the coup attempt was inspired by Fetullah Gulen, a Turkish spiritual leader who currently lives in the U.S. and whom WND has tried to link to the Clintons for some reason.
It seems WND's stance on Erdogan depends on whatever political agenda it's pursuing on a given day.
MRC Writers Attack Mueller Probe As Biased, Ignore Ken Starr's Partisanship Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center just hates it when conservative media bias is called out. And they're really put out that the right-wing media's attacks on Robert Mueller's investigation into Trump-Russia links are being exposed for what they are.
In a Dec. 15 post, the MRC's Curtis Houck responded to CNN's Wolf Blitzer and "rabble rouser" Jim Acosta calling out those right-wing attacks by insisting that they're just asking questions and aren't trying to discredit the FBI at all:
What’s interesting was that the pair seemed to give zero thought to the possibility that this matter should be thoroughly examined in both the interest of transparency and the benefit of the investigation.
One prevailing thought in the media has been if the President has nothing to hide, then he should be more cooperative with the Special Counsel. Using that logic, the same should be expected of the FBI when it comes to snuffing out claims of political bias. Most reasonable people should and do believe that the FBI (and CIA) are among the country's most cherished institutions. Simple questions don't harm that credibility.
The other tidbit is how the media have defended the Mueller probe to the ends of the earth, but did the opposite with the Ken Starr investigation into the Clintons. My colleague Rich Noyes published a fascinating story that showcased the press’s viciousness roughly two decades ago when the subject of a special counsel investigation was a Democratic President.
In stark contrast to their supportive coverage of Mueller, the media’s treatment of Starr in the 1990s was savage. Almost as soon as he was named — and long before the Lewinsky story broke — Clinton-friendly journalists tried to discredit him as an unfair partisan.
The media’s Starr-as-partisan mantra was merely the first step. At the same time Bill Clinton was running for re-election in 1996, Starr was putting his ex-business partners, James and Susan McDougal, on trial for fraud uncovered during the Whitewater investigation. Again, Clinton’s friends in the press raced to innoculate the President from the damaging scandal.
It is, of course, impossible to imagine one of today’s journalists scolding Robert Mueller for distracting President Trump from important national business, or suggesting his investigation has become a partisan mission to destroy a President whom the Washington Establishment has never liked.
The double standard is obvious to anyone who will look.
That double standard is even more obvious at the MRC. Starr actually was the partisan the MRC insists Mueller is. As Joe Conason -- who covered the many bogus Clinton "scandals" in the 1990s -- explains, Starr "had served as solicitor general under President George H.W. Bush, who considered him for a Supreme Court nomination; he had raised funds for Republican candidates; he had served as a stalwart of the Federalist Society, the high-powered organization of right-wing Republican lawyers; and he had nearly run for the U.S. Senate in the 1994 Virginia Republican primary." He also provided legal advice to a conservative women's group in support of the Paula Jones lawsuit against Clinton. Starr was placed as independent counsel by Republican-appointed judges apparently upset that the original counsel, Robert Fiske, was going to clear Clinton in the Whitewater alleged scandal, Conason adds.
Needless to say, neither Houck nor Noyes mentioned that fears about Starr's partisan affiliations -- none of which, by the way, can be found with Mueller -- were well-founded. Neither did the MRC's Tim Graham and Brent Bozell, who whined in their Dec. 13 column that "among the 15 Mueller lawyers, nine are Democratic donors — several of whom contributed to Clinton's 2016 campaign" and complained that "Back then, anti-Kenneth Starr commentary wasn't 'shocking.' It was mandatory."
Just as it is currently mandatory for MRC writers to issue anti-Mueller commentary.
WND Brings Back Fabulist Author To Rant About 'Luciferianism" Among 'Elites' Topic: WorldNetDaily
Paul Nehlen is not the only WorldNetDaily-published author to have gone off the deep end this week. But while Nehlen is spouting white nationalist and anti-Semitic rhetoric -- about which WND has yet to publicly address despite its heavy promotion of him earlier this year -- this author's extreme rhetoric is more in line with WND's conspiracy-obsessed agenda.
WND didn't say anything about Malloch's self-fabulism at the time, but apparently all is forgiven, because a Dec. 25 article approvingly quotes Malloch peddling conspiracy theories on (where else?) Alex Jones' show, asserting that "global elites" are being influenced by "Luciferianism." Then, it was a full-on descent into the zombie-lie territory WND is very well known for:
Malloch said the leaked emails of John Podesta, as revealed by Wikileaks, contain powerful evidence there is something sick and wrong in America’s political class.
The emails contain bizarre references to the occult and possible allusions to child abuse using coded language.
“They prove he is involved, very deeply involved, as a committed Luciferian,” Malloch intoned. “Among other things is the invitation by Marina Abramovic to what is called a ‘spirit cooking’ ritual, which I think is the most revealing.
“This is a ritual in which participants use the vilest human body fluids in order to summon spiritual energies for assistance and favor. To any sane person, this sounds completely ludicrous. But to a Luciferian, this is the practice of enlightenment. This is something that initiates them. It’s something that they understand.
“The whole idea is to be possessed by Lucifer himself. And these practices of a Luciferian religion, of an anti-Christianity, I would argue are the absolute inversion of Christianity.”
Malloch further contended cannibalism and pedophilia are “common practices amongst Luciferians.”
As we pointed out the last time someone at WND claimed this, Podesta took part in no such thing.
Malloch then went on to falsely claim that Saul Alinsky made a "dedication" of his book "Rules for Radicals" to Lucifer -- even as the article goes on to quote from the book in which it's made clear that Alinsky's "over the shoulder acknowledgement" of Lucifer as "the very first radical" was not a dedication (the book is actually dedicated to "Irene") and Jones is quoted as conceding that the reference was, in the words of the anonymous WND writer, done "in a cheeky way, simply meant to provoke."
But zombie lies and false biography-gilding are acceptable behavior at WND, even if it would not be at any genuinely legitimate news organization.
CNS Reporter Keeps Up Stenography for WH Press Secretary Topic: CNSNews.com
We've documented how CNSNews.com reporter Melanie Arter devoted a whopping 26 articles in September and October to whatever White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders had to say. Well, it's time for another count.
In November and December, Arter added another 10 articles to that total:
NEW ARTICLE: Fake News At WND, Zombies and Trolls Edition Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily keeps zombie lies alive long after they've been discredited. It also fell for a Russian troll pro-Trump Twitter account and profiled a pro-Trump merchandiser who doesn't appear to actually exist. Read more >>
MRC's Persistent Fox News-Shaped Blind Spot on Sexual Harassment Topic: Media Research Center
We've repeatedlyhighlighted the Media Research Center's Fox News-shaped blind spot on the issue of sexual harassment -- harping on allegations everywhere else but ignoring the ones at the MRC's favorite TV channel. And they keep piling up.
Tim Graham and Brent Bozell's Dec. 20 column highlights the "stunning announcements and admissions about the serious alleged sexual misbehavior of Harvey Weinstein and others." "Others" is the closest Graham and Bozell get to referencing the scandals at Fox News.
Graham and Bozell spend the rest of their column parsing the definition of sexual harassment. At first, it seems incongruous that they're giving something of a pass to certain allegations against hated enemies like Chris Matthews ("he's a pig, not a harasser") and Matt Lauer (regarding a woman who had an affair with Lauer she now says was an abuse of power (italics theirs): "You were a 24-year-old woman. Act your age. If he's a scoundrel, so are you").
The reason becomes clear later in their column: They're trying to set up a defense against allegations made against Donald Trump. Here's how they attack one Trump accuser:
Speaking of makeup artists, Jill Harth filed a sexual harassment suit against Donald Trump in 1997 and renewed her allegations in the fall of 2016. John Solomon at The Hill reports that she repeatedly sent Trump gushing emails during his presidential campaign offering to do his makeup and even testify about how wonderfully he treated women. "I also want to put it out there that I would be willing to say at a rally or somewhere how DJT helped me with my self-confidence and all positive things about how he is with women to counter any potential negativity that may come out at some point in the campaign," she wrote.
(We're not watching CNN rushing to the president's defense.)
Then there's the old notion of cashing in on allegations. Solomon added that Harth's lawyer, Lisa Bloom, "eventually started a GoFundMe.com fundraising effort to help Harth and located a donor that paid off Harth's mortgage on her Queens apartment in New York City."
The blind spot was even more obvious in Jeffrey Lord's Dec. 23 NewsBusters column, in which he served up a lengthy list of how "across the media landscape one player after another fell" by, among other things, "having let loose their private sexual demons on unsuspecting colleagues or others." Curiously missing from that list: anyone from Fox News.
That Fox News-shaped blind spot hasn't shrunk a bit.
WND Silent On Its Author/Candidate's White Supremacist/Anti-Semitic Bent Topic: WorldNetDaily
We've detailed how WorldNetDaily has heavily promoted Paul Nehlen's campaign to run against Paul Ryan in the 2018 Republican primary in Wisconsin -- so enthusiastically, in fact, that it just might violate campaign law. After all, WND did publish Nehlen's anti-"globalist" book "Wage the Battle" in July and is selling his anti-Muslim film "Hirjah" in its online store.
But WND hasn't done a lot of promotion of Nehlen lately. Near as we can tell, the last time Nehlen got an article to himself on WND was Sept. 14, in which Paul Bremmer touted Nehlen's declaration that "America demands a wall. You cannot effectively deport a criminal without a wall."
As much as we'd like to think that it suddenly expressed concern about election law after our first piece was published, the truth may be a little more inconvenient: Nehlen has been descending into white nationalism and anti-Semitism.
Nehlen has been caught unironically using triple parentheses around a Jewish name -- a trope that white nationalists use to harass Jews on Twitter -- and he has strongly suggested his critics are being paid by Jews to attack him.He has also embraced other white nationalist memes. It's so bad that Breitbart, which has been an even more enthusiastic booster of Nehlen than WND, has reportedly dropped its support of him (or maybe not).
Meanwhile, it's been crickets from WND. While it hasn't promoted him since mid-September, it also hasn't said a peep about the controversies surrounding him. You'd think that as the publisher of Nehlen's book and seller of his Muslim-bashing film, it would have something to say.
Then again, WND is weirdly proud that it can keep its racism relatively covert, at least to the point that Google doesn't threaten to pull its advertising over race-baiting.
This is the second WND-linked writer in trouble for racially charged rhetoric in recent months. We've already noted how WND-promoted contrarian investor Marc Faber got caught saying that he thanked God that "white people populated America, and not the blacks. Otherwise, the U.S. would look like Zimbabwe."
UPDATE: It appears Breitbart now has definitively cut ties with Nehlen after he tweeted about he was enjoying an anti-Semitic book. We've contacted WND Books for a statement about its relationship with Nehlen; we'll let you know if we hear back.
CNS Reporter Serves Up Pro-Trump Rant As 'News' Story Topic: CNSNews.com
The general decline of standards at CNSNews.com over the past year or so, plus its determination to be a pro-Trump stenographer, has led to embarassing things no real "news" operation would ever publish -- like a Dec. 15 "news" article that's more political rant than news. Jones huffs:
Impatient to get President Trump out of the office to which the American people elected him a year ago, media liberals on Monday re-introduced some of the women who have accused Trump of harassing them sexually years ago.
The women first spoke to Megyn Kelly on her cable show, then they held a news conference organized by a group called Brave New Films, which produces liberal propaganda on issues such as "justice," "inequality" and "gun violence."
The re-emergence of Trump's female accusers fits neatly into the script written by Democrats, including Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), who said after the complainants' news conference that President Trump simply must resign.
We don't recall anyone at CNS or its Media Research Center parent similarly portraying the emergence of the women who accused Bill Clinton of sexual harassment and worse as stunts to drive the Republican political agenda. Indeed, MRC chief Brent Bozell and Tim Graham used them to deflect from Trump's offenses when they first surfaced before the 2016 election.
So, apparently, it's OK for only one side to exploit sexual harassment charges for political purposes as far as Jones and Bozell are concerned.
Still, Jones continued to whine, grumbling on the Trump White House's behalf that "Trump's female accusers were among the topics at the White House press briefing on Friday, as spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders fielded questions she's answered before." She concludes that the story is being pushed by reporters "biased against trump" for the sole purpose of trying to get Trump on something since the Russia scandal purportedly isn't panning out:
One biased-against-Trump reporter insisted that Sanders answer her question about Trump's accusers, "because this is spinning and it's focused on him now and--"
Sanders interrupted, noting that Trump has already addressed the issue directly with the American people.
The reporter persisted: "But will he -- it's coming up new and afresh and more people are now speaking out. Will...the president address the nation on this? This is a huge issue, Sarah," the reporter insisted.
As Trump himself noted, that other huge issue -- the special counsel's investigation into the Trump campaign's possible coordination with Russia -- so far has produced no clear evidence implicating the president, which seems to be the point of the investigation.
So cue the Trump accusers...
Again, the complete opposite of the way CNS and the MRC has portrayed Clinton's accusers, which it has never accused of being political pawns though they were certainly no less so than CNS and the MRC accuse Trump's accusers of being.
Being a CNS reporter, it seems, means never having to be held to journalistic standards.
WND Ambushes Donna Brazile With Conspiracy Theories About Seth Rich Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily reporter Alicia Powe begins her Dec. 17 article this way: "Former DNC Chairwoman Donna Brazile appeared incoherent and agitated when WND approached her at a Tuesday book signing to ask her questions about murdered DNC staffer Seth Rich."
Unmentioned by Powe: That is likely a logical reaction to a writer for a fringe-right-wing website invading a book signing to pester her with conspiracy theories over Rich's death.
Indeed, that's exactly what Powe did, trying to pin Brazile down on arcane details on her book regarding Rich, which Powe framed as "conflicting statements about Rich's murder." She then mocks Brazile -- and demonstrates the malicious intent of her ambushh of her -- by whining that Brazile "appeared lost for words and made bizarre and rambling statements."
Powe included Brazile's answer, which doesn't sound rambling at all. Perhaps Powe found it bizarre when Brazile called out soulless conspiracy theorists like herself: "I don’t practice the conspiracy theories that people have used to scar Seth’s memory, to hurt his family. I have been to Omaha. I have been to his synagogue. I have cried because of him. I love that boy."
Of course, Powe and WND only love Seth Rich to the extent that they can cynically exploit his death to further their near-pathological hatred of Hillary Clinton. Powe has never been to Omaha, where Rich is from, nor has she been to his synagogue. Rich is not a person to anyone at WND -- just a tool.
Powe's article also includes the requisite reference to WND's dishonest crowdfunding effort to investigate (read: perpetuate conspiracy theories about) Rich's death. That effort continues to be a failure, having raised only $4,630 after nearly seven months.
MRC Wrongly Calls Wash. Post Reporter 'Liberal' Topic: Media Research Center
Ex-Media Research Center researcher Brad Wilmouth huffs in a Dec. 15 NewsBusters post:
Some liberal journalists just can't get the notion out of their minds that George Wallace was a Republican, even though the former segregationist governor of Alabama was a lifelong Democrat. On Friday's Washington Week on PBS, host Robert Costa -- also a Washington Postreporter -- suggested that Wallace was a part of the Republican party's "past" as he recalled that some black voters in Alabama are worried about the direction the GOP is taking. Costa:
I spoke to a lot of African-American voters when I was down there, Jeff, and they said that they're worried that the Republican Party -- broadly speaking -- is turning back to its past. They cited the former governor of Alabama, George Wallace, a segregationist, and they say, in Roy Moore -- sometimes even in President Trump -- they hear echoes of a past that makes them uncomfortable.
Not one of the four panel members jumped in to correct the suggestion that Wallace was ever a Republican as CNN's Jeff Zeleny, CBS's Nancy Cordes, NBC's Kristen Welker, and Vice News's Shawna Thomas got their turns to speak.
In fact, Costa is not a "liberal journalist." He came to the Washington Post from National Review, and the MRC regarded his work so well at the time that a 2013 NewsBusters post celebrated Costa's hiring by crediting Post owner Jeff Bezos for "encouraging his staff to think outside the box" by hiring someone from "a right-leaning publication."
How quickly the MRC forgets that Costa was once their guy.
Further, Wilmouth's freaking out about the mere suggestion that Wallace was a Republican seems rather silly given that both Wallace and Trump share certain traits in exploiting peope's fears and promoting racially tinged populism.
Newsmax Columnist: Trump's No Hitler, Obama Is! Topic: Newsmax
Right-wing radio host Chuck Morse has been preoccupied with portraying President Obama as a Hitler-like figure. While writing a column and serving as a source for WorldNetDaily, Morse regularlypushed this meme. Morse is over at Newsmax now, and he's still doing the same thing.
In his Dec. 11 Newsmax column, Morse does some mind-reading by taking a vague allusion from an Obama speech and turning it into a specific allegation that Obama likened President Trump to Hitler:
Echoing a meme that has become a worldwide article of faith for the authoritarian-oriented, Trump-hating left, former President Barack Obama has compared his successor, President Donald J. Trump, to Hitler.
Speaking at the Economic Club of Chicago, Obama noted that the U.S. has survived tough times before and will again, offering as an example of tough times the days of communist fighter Joseph McCarthy.
“The danger is grow[ing] complacent,” Obama said. “We have to tend to this garden of democracy or else things could fall apart quickly.”
“That's what happened in Germany in the 1930s,” Obama opined. “Sixty million people died. So, you've got to pay attention. And vote.”
In a major case of projection, Obama deflected from the unprecedented economic success of President Trump’s first year in office, hardly tough times for working people, while he avoided the stark contrast between Trump’s tremendous first year and his lackluster and economically torpid previous eight years. Obama’s reference to Senator McCarthy, juxtaposed with his comparing Trump to Hitler, is ironic given the fact that the main work of Senator McCarthy was to investigate the real agents of Hitler, secret communists working within the FDR Administration who were pro-Nazi during the Hitler-Stalin Pact years, 1939-1941, the first 2 years of World War II.
Morse doesn't provide any support for that latter claim, let alone explain how one could be both communist and pro-Nazi, given that Hitler declared war on the communist Soviet Union. But then, he's back on his old smear that Obama -- and, really, any liberal -- is the real Hitler:
We should recall that it was Barack Obama who, in 2008, developed a cult of personality that was unprecedented in American history.
Reminiscent of the cult that developed around such socialist leaders as Hitler, Fidel Castro, V.I. Lenin, and Mao tse Tung, Obama, in a subtler context made palatable to an American audience, was worshipped by the liberal establishment, by the press, academia, and various cultural institutions. I recall, for example, a second grader that I knew informing me that her teacher had the students keep a diary of each day of Obama’s presidency starting on the first day. Women were reported to have fainted at his rallies.
Obama’s style of speaking, as illustrated by these recent remarks to the Economic Club of Chicago, is classic demagoguery, what French historian and former communist Alain Besancon described as “the language of ideology…the official language.” Obama speaks with indirection, innuendo, double-speak, and sophistry. His style is almost a form of code for the liberal establishment. His dishonest attempt to manipulate emotions without naming the target of his ire is a classic form of socialist agit-prop. Indeed, an English translation of a Hitler speech is filled with such innuendo and if the word “Jew” in one of those vile speeches were to be replaced with a word like “corporate interest” the speech would almost resemble the type that might be delivered by the likes of Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren.
Has Morse never noticed the cult of personality around Trump? Apparently not, since he seems to be a full-fledged member. Writing like a full-fledged sycophant, Morse then unironically writes:
President Donald Trump, in contrast, speaks plainly, perhaps a bit too plainly at times, and honestly. Trump’s speeches contain no guile or hidden agendas. He says it like he sees it, warts and all. It may not always be pretty, like the suave Obama, and it may make us cringe from time to time, but Trump is honest and he is who he is. And that is, unlike Obama and his ilk, a man who supports and who seeks to advance genuine American ideals and principles. Trump, unlike the socialist demagogues of history like Hitler, speaks plainly because he has nothing to hide.
Trump has nothing to hide? Two words for Morse: tax returns.
At CNS, Winning Trumps Conservative Beliefs Topic: CNSNews.com
Surprisingly, the Trump stenographers at CNSNews.com found something to dislike about the Republican tax bill: it lowers the maximum age a child is eligible to be counted for the child tax credit from 18 to 17. CNS editor in chief Terry Jeffrey laid this out in an overly dramatic way in a Dec. 17 article, using language and a headline -- "Republican Tax Bill Says Your 16-Year-Old Won’t Be Your Child Next Year" to bizarrely suggest that the government was going to actually take custody of your children:
The final version of the Republican tax bill released by a congressional conference committee on Friday holds that your 16-year-old child who is living in your home this year and attending high school will no longer be your child next year—even if they continue living in your home and attending high school.
That is because they will turn 17--the age at which the Republican congressional leadership has decided American parents should no longer be able to claim a child tax credit for their child.
This is in contrast to the version of the bill that passed the Senate, which, through 2024 at least, would have allowed parents to claim the child tax credit for their children until they turned 18.
Your newborn, who will be eligible under the final Republican bill for an increased “child” tax credit next year, will no longer be eligible for that increased credit when he or she is 9 years old--because the increased credit will disappear after 2025.
Jeffrey's concern over this provision didn't stop CNS from enthusiastically promoting the tax bill -- as Trump stenographers, they are highly invested in helping Trump score a legislative victory. It touted a (unsubstantiated) claim that the bill had bipartisan input, gave Treasury secretary Steve Mnuchin a platform to promote the bill, and promoted a Republican congressman's promotion of the bill, as well as Paul Ryan's shilling for it.
Interestingly, none of those articles mentioned Jeffrey's concern about the child tax credit change, even though they were all written after Jeffrey's article was published.
When the tax bill did pass, Jeffrey's article on it curiously failed to mention his own previous concerns about the child tax credit, instead cheering about how the bill "kills that individual mandate to buy health insurance" under the Affordable Care Act. So much for principled outrage.
And after the bill fully passed Congress, Susan Jones gushed about the "vintage Trump press conference" held afterward, with a headline that summed things up: "Trump: 'It's Always a Lot of Fun When You Win'." She also didn't mention the child tax credit her boss was worked up about just a few days earlier.
Winning is all that matters, apparently, and Jeffrey and CNS ultimately care more about making sure Trump wins than holding to any conservative convictions they may have claimed to have.