MRC Denounces Those Who Liken Trump, Conservatives to Nazis -- But Its Senior Fellow Attacked 'Demzis' Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center doesn't like it when someone in the media tries to liken President Trump or conservatives in general to Nazis. For instance:
Kristine Marsh denounced a "ridiculous segment" on MSNBC in which panelists "claim[ed] Trump was behaving like a Nazi."
Curtis Houck attacked a CNN segment that "subtly painted Tea Partiers as angry, irrational conspiracy theorists who ran around with signs depicting the President as the Joker or a Nazi."
Ryan Foley grumbled that Fox News host Laura Ingraham was likened to a neo-Nazi over an anti-immigration rant despite "Ingraham making it perfectly clear that she did not intend for her comments to come off as racist."
That outrage, needless to say, does not extend to anyone who likens a non-conservative to Nazis -- indeed, it seems the MRC encourages such attacks. Case in point: An Aug. 6 column by MRC senior fellow Allen West, published at MRC "news" division CNSNews.com, is a rant about how ">much of what the venerable First Infantry Division stood against now seems to be penetrating our America." His first example: "Men who landed on Omaha Beach to fight against National Socialists (Nazis) now live in an America with avowed Democratic Socialists (Demzis)."
Also needless to say, West still has a job at the MRC. Hypocrisy at its finest.
WND Still Falsely Portraying Reconstruction of Arch As Symbol of Idolatry Topic: WorldNetDaily
For the past few years, WorldNetDaily has been obsessingover reconstructions of ancient ruins destroyed by ISIS -- particularly the arch to the Temple of Palmyra, or the Temple of Baal as WND insists on calling it -- ludicrously portraying them as a return to paganism instead of the poke in the eye from historians to the artifacts' destroyers that they actually are.
An anonymously written Sept. 16 WND article goes the freakout route again complaining that the arch "will reappear in Washington, D.C." This time, though, WND admits in the second paragraph that "The original in the Middle East was destroyed by ISIS in October 2015, but it was re-created by the Institute for Digital Archaeology using 3-D printing technology."
But WND descends soon enough into its rote, ridiculous accusations of idolatry:
But the arch isn’t just a Roman ruin. It was originally an arch for the Temple of Baal, a pagan god repeatedly mentioned in the Old Testament. The rites of Baal were marked by child sacrifice and ritual prostitution.
Rabbi Yosef Berger, the rabbi of King David’s Tomb on Mount Zion, told BIN it’s a symbol of a resurgence of idolatry.
“The last time we saw this level of idolatry was when the Temple stood in Jerusalem. Now that we are close to the appearance of the Third Temple, idolatry is reappearing, even in popular culture among people who claim they are atheists,” he told the news organization.
The rabbi said it is no coincidence that the arch is becoming a centerpiece at gatherings of world leaders.
“This is like a child who builds a Lego tower that gets knocked down,” Rabbi Berger said. “After having it knocked down several times, he goes to build the Lego tower next to his mother so that she will stop it from being knocked down. An average person, Jew or non-Jew, has no tolerance for open idolatry. If someone built an altar to idolatry in the middle of a nice neighborhood, everyone would gather together to destroy it. The average person has no desire for idolatry. So the people who seek dark and unholy power build their symbols of idolatry next to powerful politicians, at these world power summits, so that normal people will not be able to challenge them.”
While WND did take the unusual step of admitting that ISIS destroyed the original arch, it once again failed to mention that the temple served as a Christian church during the Byzantine era. That would seem to be an important part of its history that WND is strangely choosing to ignore.
UPDATE: WND followed up with a Sept. 30 article that actually blamed the "craziness that enveloped Washington" surrounding the Brett Kavanaugh nomination on the arch replica's presence in Washington:
Some are asking the question of whether the craziness that enveloped Washington last week might be connected with Baal – kind of like a full moon.
Who made the decision? Why? Who knows? Maybe it’s just a coincidence – even though many observers of the Supreme Court nomination hearings that took all the oxygen out of the capital last week note that the entire process had to do with abortion.
Other are questioning whether the disposition of the Arch of Palmyra might bring a semblance of normality to D.C. today.
WND does not identify who these "observers" or "other[s]" are who are making this claim.
The article went on to rehash all the Baal stuff from previous arch freakouts and again failed to mention that at one time the temple served as a Christian church. It also cited anonymous, unsourced claims by "some on social media" criticizing the arch.
MRC Goes Into Conspiracy Mode Over Kavanaugh Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center has spent years attacking Hillary Clinton for saying that a "vast right-wing conspiracy" was out to destroy her husband's presidency in the 1990s. As recently as July, the MRC's Brent Bozell and Tim Graham mocked Clinton's claim as "ridiculous" (even though Bozell declared in 2001 that "Yes, Virginia, the vast right-wing conspiracy did exist all along!")
But Bozell and Graham have their own conspiracy to peddle now.
In their Sept. 25 column, unironically titled "The Vast Anti-Kavanaugh Conspiracy," the two rant at anyone who doesn't see the conspiracy they do against Brett Kavanaugh's Supreme Court nomination:
Washington Post media reporter Paul Farhi wrote a Sept. 25 article on liberal-media bias headlined "Kavanaugh Supporters See a Conspiracy Afoot." The Post painted this as a little crazy, like a UFO is involved. Can anyone imagine the idea of the Democrats and liberal reporters working hand in glove to torpedo a Republican nomination?
Maybe we can remember Supreme Court nominees Robert Bork and Douglas Ginsburg in 1987, John Tower in 1989 or Clarence Thomas in 1991. Maybe we can recall John Ashcroft being tarred as a racist in 2001. In these cases and many others, "objective" reporters lined up and repeated the Democrat talking points as "news" and often succeeded in wrecking nominations.
Farhi lined up the deniers. "We aren't colluding with anyone about anything, including the Kavanaugh nomination," said Martin Baron, executive editor of the Post. "The conspiracy theories are pure nonsense and completely false."
"Pure nonsense"? The Post quotes anonymous sources multiple times a day, so how would anyone be able to piece together and figure out the entire collusion experience? The Post claims on the front page every day that "Democracy Dies in Darkness," and it disdains "dark money" in political campaigns. But it loves "dark sources" spicing up its incessant attacks on the Trump administration.
No one should believe any of these collusion deniers. No media outlet perpetuating this Kavanaugh-crushing conspiracy is nonpartisan, or disinterested. They are on a witch hunt.
Funny how conspiracies become real for Bozell when they can be politically exploited.
Having thus received its marching orders from the top, the rest of Bozell's MRC started going conspiracy-crazy.
Kristine Marsh alluded to one in a Sept. 26 post complaining about an ABC segment asking teens about the Kavanaugh controversy. She added in a update that one of the teens interviews was "accused of planting a question to Hillary Clinton during a 2016 townhall." Marsh relayed the conspiracy theory wrong; actually, the teen was accused by right-wing media of being a "child actor" plant at the townhall because she once had a small role in a short film. In fact, she was the daughter of a local politician who got to take part, and Clinton had no knowledge of her question beforehand.
In a Sept. 27 post, Nicholas Fondacaro went full Bozell in sneering at a "thick-headed" columnist, Kirsten Powers, who "couldn’t understand how Kavanaugh could think there was a conspiracy against him. "Fondacaro howled:
Hmm, maybe he knew the radical Democrats were out to destroy him because nearly all of them announced they were opposing his nomination before ever meeting with them. Some, in fact, were opposing anyone President Trump nominated. That’s not to mention that there were New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand and Hawaii’s Mazie Hirono who declared him guilty days before the hearing.
Or perhaps it was New Jersey Senator Cory Booker, who called Kavanaugh and his supporters evil. It could even have been the Democrats who pontificated that he was going to put the lives of millions at risk. Kavanaugh actually addressed this in his opening remarks, so for Powers to claim ignorance was just slimy.
Even as WorldNetDaily is becoming less WND-like due to its continued fight for survival, the MRC has decided to be even more WND-like by embracing political conspiracies it used to despise.
Newsmax's Gizzi Promotes Kavanaugh Doppelganger Theory Topic: Newsmax
Newsmax's John Gizzi, as befits a reporter for a conservative website, is doing what he can to support the Supreme Court nomination of Brett Kavanaugh. That means the questionable theory that Christine Blasey Ford, who accused Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting her during their high school years, was actually assaulted by someone else. And he found someone to promote it. From Gizzi's Sept. 19 article:
An attorney who specializes in cases of sexual assault among college students told Newsmax she believes Professor Christine Blasey Ford did experience the assault of which she has accused Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.
However, Lynchburg, Virginia, attorney Margaret Valois, whose speciality is Title IX (the law guaranteeing equality between males and females) violations, also believes Ford's charge against Kavanaugh might easily be a case of mistaken identity.
"I have no doubt [the assault] happened — something happened to her in 1980," Valois told us. "These are terrible situations and not unlike situations I deal with now among college students. But given all the testimony to Judge Kavanaugh's character as a young student and today, I have doubts that he was the one who assaulted her."
Thus, Valois concluded, Ford might well be naming the wrong person in pointing a finger at the former Bush White House official and U.S. Court of Appeals judge on the eve of the Senate Judiciary Committee's vote on his nomination to the Supreme Court.
"My gut says Professor Ford was assaulted when she was 15, but not by Kavanaugh," Valois said. "She made a claim and deserves to be heard," she said, adding she felt the hearings were "a good thing."
But Valois also pointed out she felt the statements of exemplary character – by people who are well-acquainted with Kavanaugh from his days at Georgetown Prep and Yale University to his stint in the White House – "certainly count for something."
A week later -- following Ford's Senate testimony about the attack and Kavanaugh's rebuttal, as well as conservative attorney Ed Whelan's attempt to push a similar doppelganger theory that went so horribly wrong that he was forced to take a leave of absence from his day job as the head of a conservative think tank -- Gizzi called on Valois once again to tout the theory anew:
Despite Dr. Christine Blasey Ford's testimony Thursday that she was "100 percent" certain it was Brett Kavanaugh who assaulted her when they were both in high school 35 years ago, attorney Margaret Valois — who specializes in sexual assault cases among college students— still believes Ford's charge against the Supreme Court nominee is dealing a case of mistaken identity.
"I don't think she can be certain that it was Judge Kavanaugh," said Valois, who first advanced the "mistaken identity" theory with Newsmax a week ago.
"How can she be certain if she cannot address the other circumstances with certainty—location, date, time, and the other people involved?" Valois told us.
Curiously, Gizzi made no mention of Whelan's doppelganger fiasco. Nor did he mention that Valois takes a decidedly right-wing approach to Title IX, filing a lawsuit against Tulane University for purportedly discriminating against men.
Mark Judge Worked For MRC Even Longer Than We Thought Topic: Media Research Center
Earlier today, we documented the nearly complete failure of the Media Research Center to disclose that Mark Judge, the alleged witness to his prep-school drinking buddy and Supremen Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh's alleged sexual assault on Christine Blasey Ford, worked as a "blog reporter" for the MRC's "news" division, CNSNews.com, for a year and a half. But there's an even deeper Judge connection the MRC has been silent on.
A few months after departing CNS, Judge was back to write blog posts for the MRC's video-centric operation MRCTV. Judge wrote for MRCTV beginning in April 2017 , and his final post was on Sept. 13 of this year -- just a few days before Ford's accusations against Kavanaugh and citing Judge's involvement in the incident.
As Media Matters documented, a few of Judge's MRCTV posts reflect his history of bigotry and borderline misogyny. For instance, Judge mocked comedian Amy Schumer as "big-boned Barbie" in a May 2017 post.
Judge is also clearly not fond of the LGBT community. On July 24, he ranted about a Broadway play that he portrayed as "a lecture from transgenders" and speculated that there is no such thing as a "straight white playwright." Another Judge post positively reviewed a book he said claimed that "the modern transgender phenomenon and its defenders share a similar mentality to that which produced Nazi Germany."
Interestingly, while every other MRC operation has been loath to admit that Judge worked for it, two of the four MRCTV's postsreferencing Judge in relation to Kavanaugh as of this writing (though not the two written in the pastday) not only disclose that "Mark Judge is a freelance writer who has written pieces for MRCTV," they link to Judge's MRCTV archive. Did someone down the hall corral the MRCTV folks and remind them of the Judge omerta?
Meanwhile, the omerta continues at the rest of the MRC. A Sept. 27 MRC post by Kyle Drennen mentioned Judge in passing but not his work for the MRC. And a Sept. 27 CNS article by Susan Jones attempting to undercut Ford's veracity by highlighting her Senate testimony that she "said hello" to Judge at his job at a grocery store parentically noted that "For the record, Judge has written about his drunken/hungover high school years" but didn't disclose, parenthetically or otherwise, that Judge wrote for the MRC for more than three years.
WND Just Can't Stop Smearing Transgenders With Photos Topic: WorldNetDaily
We've documented how WorldNetDaily smears transgenders by its selection of photos to illustrate its transgender-related stories -- either a photo it stole from the Associated Press of male legs in a dress and heels (that is actually from a 2012 "hairy legs on heels" race in Madrid, so the person in the photo is not even transgender) or a stubbled male face applying lipstick.
Well, WND is still engaging in this ridiculous, biased behavior. An Aug. 25 article by Bob Unruh ranting about the idea that anti-discrimination laws cover transgenders used the lipstick photo for its front-page tease:
A Sept. 21 WND article on a transgender woman who is seeking to expunge the crimes she committed as a male also used the image:
You'd think that with all the trouble WND has had stay afloat of late that it would have better things to do than promote anti-transgender discrimination with such stereotypical bias. Apparently not.
MRC Won't Tell You Kavanaugh's High School Drinking Buddy Used To Work For It Topic: Media Research Center
References at the Media Research Center to Mark Judge, the prep-school classmate of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh who was reportedly in the room at the party where Christine Blasey Ford claims Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her. At the MRC's NewsBusters, almost all references to Judge are in passing or limited to mentions in transcripts, except for one article that attacked a "massive error" in a New York Times story about Judge. At the MRC's "news" division, CNSNews.com, Judge is similarly mentioned only in passing.
The MRC has almost completely hidden the fact that Judge used to be an employee. From mid-2015 to early 2017, Judge was a "blog reporter" for CNS. Access to Judge's archive has been blocked by CNS, but the Internet Archive lists his archive through January 2017 (he left shortly thereafter).
None of those NewsBusters items mention Judge's MRC employment. The only CNS article or column referencing Judge that discloses it is a Sept. 19 article by editor in chief Terry Jeffrey admitted that Judge "used to be a writer for CNSNews.com," albeit not until the 15th paragraph of his story.
Much of Judge's CNS blog work focused on entertainment, celebrities and pop culture as seen through CNS' right-wing mission -- which is to say, praising conserative values and mocking what are portrayed as liberal values. Typical was an item featuring author S.E. Hinton denying any gay subtext in her classic teen novel "The Outsiders."
We've documented how Judge gushed over Mel Gibson, touting his then-new film "Hacksaw Ridge" and helped him tease his plans for a sequel to his Christian film "The Passion of the Christ" while hiding Gibson's ugly past.
Since the MRC's playbook on Kavanaugh is to protect him and attack his accusers, you likely won't read much about at any MRC website about Judge's days as a heavy-drinking prep student, or of the fact that Judge's memoir of said days references a "Bart O'Kavanaugh" who passes out drunk and throws up in a car.
WND's Mercer Insists She Opposed Apartheid As She Touts An Intellectual Case For It Topic: WorldNetDaily
Ilana Mercer -- the WorldNetDaily columnist who has a sweet spot for the apartheid era in her native South Africa -- insists in her Sept. 6 column that she "opposed apartheid" and concludes it by stating, "This is an historical account of how the Afrikaner intelligentsia viewed a policy against which the writer and her family fought. A writer need not agree with it to chronicle and analyze it."
The problem is that the rest of her column sure reads like a defense of apartheid.
Mercer declares her thesis at the outset:
Monomaniacal Westerners – they have one thing on their minds: it begins with an “R” – have come to think and speak of apartheid as a theory of white supremacy.
It was not.
The South African policy of “separate development,” as it was admittedly euphemized, was not a theory of racial supremacy, but a strategy for survival.
Mercer goes on to cite Hermann Giliomee, "author of the grand historical synthesis, 'The Afrikaners: Biography of a People,'" to boost her view that the genesis of apartheid was "overwhelming existential, rather than racial."She added: "Giliomee, a liberal historian who opposed apartheid (like this writer), contends that 'apartheid was not uniquely abhorrent and had much in common with Western colonialism and American segregation.' Another of the historian’s apparent heresies has it that 'attempts to depict the nationalist leaders as proto-fascists showed a poor understanding of both the Nazi and the Afrikaner nationalist movement.'"
Mercer doesn't mention there is a faction of Afrikaner nationalism that is very much Nazi-esque. When Mercer wrote about the 2010 murder of the leader of this faction, Eugene Terrblanche, she hid his history of extremism.
She went on to declare that "The Cape Town-Stellenbosch axis of the nationalist intelligentsia, which was the most influential lobby in Malan’s National Party (NP), almost without exception defended apartheid not as an expression of white superiority but on the grounds of its assumed capacity to reduce conflict by curtailing points of interracial contact." But South African news organization Independent Media published a 2003 review of Giliomee's book, stating that apartheid was accepted in most Afrikaner quarters as a racist policy:
But apartheid was giving the Nationalist rank and file what they wanted: white supremacy, segregated residential areas, train coaches, public toilets, post office counters, and beaches. And so it went on until the whole rotten edifice collapsed.
Giliomee acknowledges the devastating effects of apartheid legislation - the pass laws, race classification, group areas etc - on the lives of Africans, Indians and coloured people.
Yet he does not explain how a kindly, civilised, church-going community such as the Afrikaners could contemplate with equanimity the appalling human suffering inflicted by these policies.
Afrikaner public opinion, as a whole, remained unmoved, their response one of callous indifference. Of course the same can be said of much of the English-speaking section who voted happily for the Nationalists at successive elections.
Mercer also writes: "In retrospect, it is easy for me to see the merits of Giliomee’s argument for 'the essential moderation of Afrikaner nationalism.' Anybody who lived, as I had lived, among Afrikaners during the apartheid era can testify that crime and communism were foremost on their minds."
But being able to make an intellectual case for apartheid in a "historical account" that ignores its inherent racism doesn't make apartheid any less racist. That makes Mercer's protestations that she actually fought apartheid at the time questionable at best.
Posted by Terry K.
at 9:48 PM EDT
Updated: Wednesday, September 26, 2018 9:49 PM EDT
MRC Senior Fellow Can't Stop Lying About Margaret Sanger Topic: CNSNews.com
For a guy who's a "senior fellow" at the Media Research Center, Allen West is utterly uninterested in doing even the most basic research.
In July, we caught West spreading long-discredited lies about Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger. In his Sept. 10 column at MRC "new" division CNSNews.com, he repeated those lies and added a couple more:
Then we have the amazing tale of two organizations, comparing the NRA with another organization, Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood was founded by a person that was a white supremacist, a racist, someone who referred to blacks as “weeds” and “undesirables.” Sounds a lot like “deplorables” doesn’t it? And yes, there is a correlation, since the person who referred to some Americans as deplorables is a recipient of the Margaret Sanger Award, the founder of Planned Parenthood.
Again: Sanger was not a "white supremacist" or a "racist." And as we've also documented, Sanger never called blacks "weeds." We've found no evidence that Sanger ever called blacks "undesirables" -- she did refer to "undesirables" in a speech, but it was in reference to the "breeding of defectives and insane" (a reflection of her belief at the time in eugenics) and no racial reference was made.
West also ranted that Sanger was "someone that wanted to exterminate – yes, strong words, but true – the black community." Again, not true.
West then huffed:
The first Roy Innis Memorial Award will go to an American black man, a former soldier, someone who stood up against the tyranny of being unarmed, Otis McDonald of Chicago. Yes, the same Otis McDonald for whom the Second Amendment case,McDonald v. City of Chicago, is named. And who was it that stood with Otis McDonald? It was not Planned Parenthood. It was the nation’s oldest civil rights organization, the National Rifle Association. Hmm, how many blacks have been awarded the Margaret Sanger Award?
NEW ARTICLE: Another Month, Another WND Funding Crisis Topic: WorldNetDaily
Joseph Farah spent his August begging for money "to make ends meet" at WorldNetDaily. He still won't talk about the fake, conspiracy-laden WND content that helped bring him and his website to that point. Read more >>
MRC Runs The Playbook Against Kavanaugh's Accusers Topic: Media Research Center
Like its "news" division CNSNews.com, the Media Research Center proper is in heavy spin mode regarding the sexual misconduct allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.
First order of business: minimize and dimiss the allegations. Gabriel Hays sniffed that it was "one paltry allegation of sexual assault" and whined that "Hollywood liberals have taken to social media to blast Kavanaugh for his alleged abusive past (if one unsubstantiated allegation can be called a past), because it’s the only thing they’ve got to delay his confirmation." When another claim of sexual misconduct surfaced, Hays declared it to be "flimsy," adding that "rabid lefties seek to annihilate his reputation and humanity before he’s found guilty of anything" -- apparently oblivious to the fact that he's a member of the brigade trying to destroy the reputation and humanity of Kavanaugh's accusers, in part by blithely dismissing their claims.
Next order of business: Beat up on Anita Hill (again). Nicholas Fondacaro asserted that one reporter "rewrote history and implied that Hill’s claims were credible," citing as evidence that, "according to polls done at the time, more people believed [Clarence] Thomas than Hill after the hearings were held." Gee, we weren't aware that public opinion polls were an accurate mesaure of one's credibility.
Geoffrey Dickens, meanwhile, complained that (while, yes, citing an opinion poll claiming more people bellieved Thomas than Hill) the media was using the same "playbook" against Thomas that it is purportedly using against Kavanaugh. It's more accurate to claim that the MRC is using the same playbook against Kavanaugh's accusers that it did against Hill.
(MRC boss Brent Bozell and underling Tim Graham have already denigrated Hill as "the Janet Cooke of sexual harassmsent.")
Third order of business: getting offended when anyone brings up the shameful history of sexual misconduct of Trump administration officials and conservatives in general when talking about Kavanaugh. Curtis Houck huffed that MSNBC host Katy Tur -- a longtime MRC target -- engaged in "skullduggery" that was "ghoulish at worst" in airing "a video mash-up comparing Kavanaugh to other men such as the late Roger Ailes, Corey Lewandowski, Roy Moore, and Rob Porter because they too were firmly defended by President Trump as they faced their own allegations of sexual impropriety." Houck also made sure to reference the first order of business by calling the claims against Kavanaugh "flimsy."
Fouirth order of business: equivocation. Ryan Foley touted how "Laura Ingraham pointed out the hypocrisy of Democrats, who 'howl for answers from Brett Kavanaugh in an opaque charge' while not 'asking the same of DNC co-chair Keith Ellison,' who faces credible abuse allegations from a former girlfriend." Foley didn't mention that Ellison, unlike Kavanaugh, is not upu for nomination to the Supreme Court, nor did he discuss the hypocrisy of himself and his employer obsessing over Ellison while downplaying the accusations against Kavanaugh.
Fondacaro combined a couple of the approaches in another post:
Despite the fact that the latest sexual misconduct allegation against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh was so full of holes it looked like Swiss cheese, CBS Evening News actually scoffed at the notion that the accusations against him were part of a smear campaign during their Monday broadcast.
The scoff was intoned as CBS chief Congressional correspondent Nancy Cordes was leading into her critical report. “In fact, they strongly reiterated their support for Kavanaugh today and suggested that these women might somehow be working together to smear the nominee,” she declared acting as though the Democrats weren’t the ones to dig up the newest accusation as has been reported.
Fondacaro didn't explain how he was able to read Cordes' mind to determine she "scoffed."
Judge Brett Kavanaugh is being accused of sexual assault and therefore is claimed to be unfit for confirmation to the Supreme Court of The United States (SCOTUS).
How many times have we witnessed Democrats miraculously and implausibly, at the 11th hour, unearth a phalanx of women who just happen to have been assaulted, harassed or raped by a Republican their party opposes for election or an appointment, as in this instance, to the SCOTUS. This tactic is as predictable as it was that the New York Yankees would bring Mario Rivera in from the bullpen to face the last three batters of a game. But if that’s where they want to go, let’s talk about it.
This accusation is balderdash. The only thing missing is Gloria Allred parading the woman before the cameras.
No women came forward to defend Bill Clinton, as he was being held accountable for rape, sexual battery and sexual molestation. No women classmates from Oxford University came forward to say Clinton was a man of impeccable moral character who was respectful and treated women with dignity, as he was being expelled from Oxford. Shouldn’t Clinton have been deemed unfit for office?
Alleged classmates don’t remember Obama at any of the schools he supposedly attended. Shouldn’t that fact, coupled with his having paid millions to have his records sealed, disqualified Obama from office? Shouldn’t the sworn revelations of Larry Sinclair, the homosexual who “outed” Obama, have been taken seriously by Democrats?
Where was this woman when Judge Kavanaugh was appointed to the various other courts?
It’s time for Republicans to cease playing along with Democrats. There is no need to delay voting on Judge Kavanaugh. Feinstein tried to sabotage the proceedings. Now let her eat cake.
Brett Kavanaugh fully denies the allegation of misconduct by him at a party 36 years ago, when he was merely 17 years old, and this issue is not something senators should be taking seriously today. On the verge of his confirmation to the Supreme Court, this politically motivated, last-minute smear against him should be laughed off the stage.
Only in the fantasyland of the U.S. Senate, where Clarence Thomas had to endure a similar ordeal in 1991, does fiction replace fact so easily. Accusations about teenage conduct in 1982, even if Kavanaugh were at the party, should not change anyone’s vote concerning his confirmation to the Supreme Court.
The confirmation process for Supreme Court justices should have sensible limits on irrelevant testimony when considering nominees. It is time to repudiate untestable #MeToo allegations that were never reported within the statute of limitations, and it is time to draw the line before politics descends further into the theater of the absurd.
Most schools would not even punish a student for such behavior at a party, even if true, let alone expel someone for it. It is beneath the dignity of the Senate to give credibility to an accusation about silly teenage behavior at a drinking party, as though that has any bearing on the abilities and character of an adult more than three decades later.
President Trump was elected to blow the whistle on this kind of circus that too often dominates D.C.
Just when it looks like a conservative might attain a high position, like a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court, all of a sudden come accusers out of the woodwork, alleging something that supposedly took place even decades ago.
This is reminiscent of last-minute allegations of sexual harassment against Clarence Thomas, who decried the “high-tech lynching” the left attempted against him at that time to block him from sitting on the high court.
These are the same people who for more than 20 years gave Bill Clinton a pass.
Too often the left has begun to take the principles of that Machiavellian Marxist community organizer from Chicago, Saul Alinsky (1909-1972) and apply them to virtually every position of political power.
Senate Democrats are pure evil, but like the devil, no one will deny that they are smart. At the 12th hour they have succeeded in throwing a monkey wrench into the confirmation of Supreme Court appointee Brett Kavanaugh by having a woman, Christine Blasey Ford, whom they extracted from the woodwork, to accuse this Republican establishment jurist of attempted rape when he was 17 years old and in high school, almost 40 years ago! Sound familiar?
Given the upcoming midterm elections, which at a minimum will decide control over the House of Representatives, the Democrats and their tool, Ms. Ford, have checkmated the party of Lincoln.
Let’s get this straight. A woman from almost 40 years ago claims that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh groped her at a high school party in 1982. She made no complaints about it at the time, not even to any close friends or to her parents, and then waited 36 years to say something. No rape. No intercourse. Teenagers. The accuser is from California, a Feinstein supporter. Raised in Maryland. California and Maryland, along with Massachusetts, are the most liberal states. Democrats.
She cannot remember when it happened or where it happened. She cannot remember who was at the party except for Kavanaugh and his friend Mark Judge, who says it never happened. Kavanaugh says it never happened. The accuser cannot remember how she got to the party or with whom, or how she got home or with whom. No one vouches for her story. Was she drinking? Using drugs? Did the party ever really happen? So what was she doing at such a sordid party? Why did she go into a bedroom with two drunk teenage boys? And why did she wait until now to sound the alarm about it?
Wow. Can you imagine this? High school. Thirty-sex years ago. Teenagers. No witnesses. No date nor location. And maybe not even true. What has America become?
Voters, beware this November! Remember what Democrats are doing with their Alinskyite “ends justify the means” strategy.
So what is in your high school year book? Welcome to a Brave New World … or is this Orwell’s “1984”? Even Ruth Bader Ginsburg thinks this confirmation process has been a sham. Voters beware!
Our legislators have been at their worst over the Supreme Court confirmation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh. What a shameful display: condescending, arrogant, showboating senators questioning him in a manner reminiscent of the Grand Inquisitor. The only things missing from this B-grade movie were the rubber hoses and interrogation lights. Some of us remember that you could count on one hand the “nay” votes for the confirmations of ACLU attorney Ruth Bader Ginsburg and known-conservative Antonin Scalia.
This last-ditch effort to derail Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation is more than mere political theater; the interrogators are immoral and beyond hypocritical. The “Lion of the Senate,” Ted Kennedy, killed a woman; former Senate Majority Leader Robert Byrd was an exalted cyclops in the Ku Klux Klan; and we all know about President Clinton. But that’s OK; their lapses in judgment were somehow worth our compassion and forgiveness.
Imagine if these political hacks were in charge of your medical care.
I am again amazed at the craven cowardice of our politicians and even so-called conservative pundits. If I hear one more time from Fox News commentators that we must take Christine Blasey Ford’s accusation seriously, I will barf. Would they take it seriously if it were directed at them?
Even the fascist left would be outraged if such charges were leveled at them. The difference is, the left would ignore it if it involved one of theirs.
Ford’s charges are not only outrageous, they are evil. Why do I say that?
This woman is not a dingbat; she is obviously bright and therefore knows the allegations she made are not provable – that the truth absolutely can never be known. She also knows no sane legal authority would take such a case, 36 years old, in which the accuser does not know the year or place it happened, and in which all three people she claims were present as eyewitnesses deny her allegations. Therefore, knowing this vile and unprovable allegation could destroy a man and his family, why did she do such a thing?
The answer is abortion on demand.
The left hates and fears Kavanaugh because he is a Catholic and seems to practice his faith, unlike some judges. Plus there are cowards on the Republican side who are anxious to harm Trump.
Now they’re attacking the president’s Supreme Court nominee, Judge Brett Kavanaugh.
The evil #MeToo movement unearthed a pro-abortion participant of the Dirty Women’s March – a liberal California psychology professor. This evil liar emerged from the gates of hell to accuse the judge of “attempted rape.” She chose the setting for her story about 36 years ago when both were minors, allegedly at a house party. (Judge Kavanaugh says he didn’t even attend the drunken party in question. Why did she?) Of course she provided zero evidence.
In 1991, everybody knew that Anita Hill was lying against Justice Clarence Thomas. (Today, Anita Hill is a far-left, liberal, black feminist, “social justice” professor who teaches about Obama.) Similarly, no one believes this pro-abortion professional, Professor Christine Blasey Ford, who’s accusing Judge Kavanaugh.
Even the old wicked Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who kept the accusation secret for months, admitted, “I can’t say everything’s truthful.” But the Democrats and children of the lie mindlessly chant, “I believe her.” The younger generations of leftists are worse than than the old! Evil grows when you don’t deal with it.
This attack on Judge Kavanaugh is an attack on all men. I warned after the lynching of Bill O’Reilly that feminists hate all men. Liberal males won’t escape, nor the sons of these angry, God-hating women. Wherever men are weak, there is no love – and destruction reigns. Thank God that President Trump continues to stand strong for good men.
Men, it’s okay to be a man! To all good men and women, it’s okay to say, “I don’t believe her!”
For me, incidents of immoral behavior or poor judgment in a person’s past aren’t enough to disqualify him or her from public service, or even from being worthy of role-model status. I know that there isn’t a person alive who has a perfectly clean, pure moral record. I also know that people can and do grow and change.
So while immoral behavior is not “OK” and should not be glossed over or ignored when it occurs, neither should it be, in most cases, an absolute, eternal bar to public service. To insist otherwise is to steer us toward delusion and hypocrisy, and to ultimately disqualify every honest leader from service.
Instead of looking for moral perfection, we should look for honest, humble leaders who can acknowledge their flaws and failures while demonstrating an upward moral trajectory. For me, claims of moral purity since birth trigger suspicion and distrust. But a frank acknowledgment of imperfection, a willingness to confess and repent, and a demonstration of moral growth and maturity just might be the marks of a leader I can trust and respect.
The only crimes Brett Kavanaugh is guilty of is being a white male who is religious, conservative and pro-life. The left couldn’t careless whether he’s guilty or not of the crime alleged by Christine Blasey Ford and his latest accuser, Deborah Ramirez. All they care about is keeping him off of the Supreme Court by any means necessary. Damn his reputation, family and career.
The left isn’t concerned about true justice; they have a larger goal in mind – social justice, also known as collective justice, which is no justice at all. True justice requires equality before the law – blind justice based on evidence not accusations, regardless of one’s race, sex, faith or socio-economic status. In America, we are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Under social justice, however, if you belong to a certain race of people or belief system, you can be found guilty in the court of public opinion before you ever get your day in court. Such is the case with Brett Kavanaugh.
Lastly, the FBI has no jurisdiction over a 36-year-old local crime. Ford, doesn’t deserve special treatment under the law for an uncorroborated attack. Sadly, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley has done a grave disservice to the Senate by allowing this spectacle to continue for so long.
We are currently witnessing an attempt by the left and leftist-driven media, liberal politicians, celebrities, rabid pro-abortionists and ignorant masses to dismantle our biblical, legal and political due process. The new “progressive” standard is that sexual-assault allegations must be accepted as true merely for having been made, especially if they are made by a woman.
To date, not a single alleged witness provided by professor Christine Blasey Ford has corroborated her charges against Judge Brett Kavanaugh. And until Sunday night, not another woman had come forward with any charge of any kind. Now, however, that other woman has emerged, also claiming improper behavior by Kavanaugh, this time when he was in college. How do we sort this out?
The entire public testimony of Kavanaugh’s professional life has been virtually without blemish. That’s why pundits like Dennis Prager urge us not even to consider whether Kavanaugh misbehaved while in high school 36 years ago. In Prager’s view, even if Kavanaugh were guilty, that’s not who he has been for decades, and we should appreciate the man he is and has been for so many years.
David French also reminded us that, in contrast with prominent men like Bill Clinton or Donald Trump, there is not a long line of women echoing the charges of abuse or impropriety. Because of this, he suggested, Kavanaugh has more of a presumption of innocence.
Then there is the seriousness of bringing a false accusation, something that could destroy someone’s career, family, or even life. Do we take that lightly? How can we?
An article on National Review notes that thousands of men have been falsely accused of sexual misconduct and crimes. Many have even spent years in prison although innocent.
How CNS Is Covering Kavanaugh Accusations: Bias By Omission, Stenography Topic: CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com reported on Brett Kavanaugh's Supreme Court nomination in the wake of accusations of sexual misconduct they way you'd expect: with lots of biased stenography and omission of inconvenient facts.
A Sept. 19 article repeated Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's lament that the accusastion was made public "right at the end" of the process -- even thoughthere's no hard-and-fast rule regarding how long the process must take -- and that "it's pretty obvious this is all about delaying the process." Jones didn't mention that McConnell was all about delaying the process in 2016 when he stopped President Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court from even reaching the hearing process. He even said that "One of my proudest moments was when I looked Barack Obama in the eye and I said, 'Mr. President, you will not fill the Supreme Court vacancy.' "
CNS managing editor Michael W. Chapman touted how Juanita Broaddrick tweeted that if the FBI investigates the allegations Christine Blasey Ford made against Kavanaugh, then it should "investigate my RAPE allegations against Bill Clinton, too." Chapman the recounted the story of how Broaddrick "has long maintained that Bill Clinton, when he was the Arkansas Attorney General, raped her -- a 'forcible, brutal rape' -- in a hotel room in Little Rock, Ark., on April 25, 1978."
But Chapman curiously forgot to report that not only did Broaddrick spend 20 years denying that any such "rape" occured, she made a sworn affidavit to that effect to the Ken Starr independent counsel investigation of Clinton.
Chapman also wrote that "President Bill Clinton apparently has never denied Broaddrick's rape allegation. His attorney, David Kendall, has denied it on Clinton's behalf." But if Clinton's lawyer is denying it on his behalf, that means Clinton is denying it.
(Weirdly, this is the second time in recent years that someone at the Media Research Center, which runs CNS, has tried to argue that the statement from Clinton's lawyer doesn't count as an actual denial because it didn't come from Clinton personally.)
A Sept. 19 article by Melanie Arter reported that "The brother of Christine Blasey Ford, the woman who accused Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault, worked for a law firm that hired Fusion GPS, which produced the fake dossier on President Donald Trump." But Arter somehow forgot to report that Ford's brother left that law firm in 2004 -- seven years before Fusion GPS was even founded and several more years before its involvement with the dossier (which, by the way, is not "fake").
In addition to Jones' retro attack on Anita Hill that we've already highlighted as part of the MRC's continued obsessive loathing of the woman, CNS also reprinted Clarence Thomas infamous "high-tech lynching" speech in response to Hill's allegations against him.
In other words, CNS' editorial policy in a nutshell.
Newsmax's Gizzi Does A Weird Tribute to Paul Manafort's Dad Topic: Newsmax
The news that Paul Manafort has decided to cooperate with special counsel Robert Mueller prompted Newsmax reporter John Gizzi to do a little mstiy-eyed reminiscing. About Manfort's dad. No, really.
From Gizzi's Sept. 19 article, deceptively headlined "The Paul Manafort I Know":
Official Washington was jolted Friday by the news that former Donald Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort had decided to cooperate with the Department of Justice—including Robert Mueller’s probe of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.
The sartorial splendor of Manafort, his vast collection of horses and luxury homes in New York, and his schemes to avoid paying taxes on his foreign income—all will probably be rehashed in the media when the famous political consultant’s name comes up in the weeks ahead.
But, for those of us who are older and grew up in or near the Hardware City of New Britain, Connecticut, the name “Paul Manafort” evokes other memories.
Paul Manafort, namesake-father of the current Manafort, was the three-term Republican mayor of New Britain. Growing up next door in a close suburb, New Britain was an urban mecca to me — blue collar, industrial, and ethnic.
In 1981, Manafort’s name appeared in headlines when he was charged with two counts of perjury. He had insisted he did not know that an envelope he was given by New Britain’s personnel director contained answers to exams for promotion to sergeant on the city’s police department (which two Manafort family friends were vying for). A jury subsequently acquitted the former mayor.
When Paul Manafort died in 2013 at age 89, that final black mark on his life of public service was barely mentioned in obituaries. His funeral was one of the biggest New Britain had ever seen.
Today the name Paul Manafort evokes a lot of negative feelings. But to this reporter, who grew up on the New Britain border, it generates quite different memories.
Gizzi made no mention of what exactly Manafort the younger did to generate those "negative feelings."
MRC Reacts To Kavanaugh Accuser By ... Smearing Anita Hill (Again) Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center has been in full spin mode defending Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh and attempting to discredit allegations by a woman who said he had sexually assaulted her during a party during high school. One of the ways it's doing so is going back to an old trope: attacking Anita Hill, who had made accusations of sexual harassment against another conservative Supreme court nominee, Clarence Thomas.
The MRC has been bashingHill for more than a quarter-century, and the Kavanaugh story is giving it yet another excuse to do so. The MRC's Tim Graham and Brent Bozell rant in their Sept. 21 column:
Anita Hill, perennially painted as the "Rosa Parks of sexual harassment" by the national press, is back on the scene as the media push the unproven teenage-groping accusations against Brett Kavanaugh. The New York Times asked her to write an op-ed on how we can get these next Kavanaugh hearings "right." The Boston Globe put Hill on the front page, lecturing about a better protocol in Congress for sexual harassment claims.
Asking Anita Hill how to get a fairer congressional hearing is like asking Janet Cooke how to get better newspaper reporting. If you're too young for the analogy, Janet Cooke won a Pulitzer Prize for selling a fraudulent story in The Washington Post in 1980 about Jimmy, an imaginary 8-year-old heroin addict who "lives for a fix."
On ABC, George Stephanopoulos sympathetically asked if the prospect of hearings for Kavanaugh's accuser Christine Blasey Ford was meant as an intimidation tactic. Yes, that's right — the same Stephanopoulos responsible for running "bimbos" into the political ditch for Bill Clinton.
Donald Trump could tweet it: Anita Hill's 1991 accusations of sexual harassment against Clarence Thomas were "fake news." The American people sided with Thomas. Even The Washington Post editorial board sided with Thomas. Her stories were never proven. But to this day, the media treat her as if her accusations were precious jewels of truth.
Even after her million-dollar book deal — after she pledged she would not cash in on her story — she is still portrayed as the victim, not the victimizer.
Graham and Bozell provide no evidence that Hill willfully lied about anything a la Janet Cooke. Yet they continued to rant about Hill's "feminist fictions" and that "the accusers of Thomas and Kavanaugh have been 'weaponized' by liberals to spread lies about offenses that never happened."
Meanwhile, over at the MRC's "news" division, CNSNews.com, Susan Jones penned a Sept. 19 piece attacking Hill and drawing parallels to Kavanaugh's accuser:
Anita Hill and Christine Blasey Ford -- the only two women to bring sexual accusations against nominees to the U.S. Supreme Court -- have certain memory lapses in common. And for what it's worth, they both hold degrees in psychology.
Christine Blasey Ford has accused Judge Brett Kavanaugh of sexually attacking her in a bedroom at a party some 36 years ago, when both were in high school.
Yet Ford told the Washington Post she doesn't remember how the gathering came together; at whose home the party took place or exactly when it happened; how she got there; or how she got home after she fled from the house.
Questioned about that one-on-one dinner with her alleged tormenter, Hill could not remember the restaurant where the dinner took place; what type of food was served at the restaurant; whether she had a drink; or how either one of them got home.
"I took the subway home, if I recall correctly," Hill said in response to a question. "As I am recalling -- I'm not sure how I got home."
Even though Jones purports to be a objective reporter, she was seething with right-wing bias as she concluded:
Meanwhile, liberal media outlets are full of the "lose-lose" scenario for committee Republicans -- all white men -- faced with an alleged sexual assault victim in the "#MeToo" era, just weeks before the midterm election. And Judge Kavanaugh, even if he is confirmed, will have an asterisk attached to his good name, just as Clarence Thomas has, in what could be nothing more than a replay of an old, dirty trick.
Like her MRC bosses, Jones provided no evidence that Hill or Kavanaugh's accuser have lied.
UPDATE: Curtis Houck chimed in as well, responding to a cmmentator's claim that women who accuse powerful men of sexual harassment "don't benefit from this. Their lives are ruined. They are threatened. They are chased out of their homes" by retorting: He must have neglected to mention Anita Hill receiving a million dollar book deal, a job at Brandeis, commencement addresses, and celebrity status in liberal political circles." As with every other MRC employee who made the claim, Houck offers no evidence to back up his claim that Hill made her accusations against Thomas specifically to get a teaching gig and a book deal.