WND's Mercer Responds To Criticism With Attacks and Whitewash Topic: WorldNetDaily
It took a few months, but Ilana Mercer spent her Nov. 8 WorldNetDaily column taking issue with a Slate item from August calling her out for being on a panel with since-departed White House speechwriter Darren Beattie. It's arguably a indictment of the weakness of her case that Mercer starts off by questioning the manhood of the Slate writer, Ben Mathis-Lilley, solely on the basis of having a hyphenated last name:
Incidentally, double-barreled surnames are largely a feminist affection. “Mathis-Lilley” happens to be male. Or, rather, an excuse for a man. Real men don’t bully, berate and bitch baselessly.
That’s what my many dogged, anti-Semitic, unmanly readers do.
Mercer also irrelevantly claimed her Jewish bona fides -- "I’m a Jewish, independent writer, the daughter of a scholarly, penniless rabbi. Bullies invariably target the weakest" -- despite the fact that Mathis-Lilley does not mention Jewishness or anti-Semitism anywhere in his article.
Mercer then defended her book, "Into the Cannibal's Pot" from Mathis-Lilley's headline description of it as comparing black South Africans to cannibals:
Cannibalism serves merely as metaphor in my book, “Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America from Post-Apartheid South Africa.”
The origin of the title is expressly and unambiguously explained in the Introduction. “It is inspired by Ayn Rand’s wise counsel against prostrating civilization to savagery.” (p. 8)
The exact Rand quote is citation No. 15 in “Into the Cannibal’s Pot.” It comes courtesy of “Robert Mayhew (ed.), Ayn Rand Answers: The Best of Her Q&A (New York, 2005).”
Unlike Mathis-Lilley’s unsourced material in Slate, “Into the Cannibal’s Pot” is topped and tailed with hard evidence, and sports over 800 endnotes.
Based on the evidence presented, readers come to see “that South Africans had been tossed into the metaphorical cannibal’s pot.” (p. 9)
These are facts, not slander. Slander is Slate’s purview.
Mercer also complained about Mathis-Lilley's description of the book's cover -- dark handprints covering a naked white woman's body -- as "insanely unsubtle" -- while also trying to wash her hands of the work: "Mathis is no wordsmith. His choice of adjectives is positively Kardashian. The cover art, of course, is the publisher’s purview, not that of the author."
As has been her recent trend, Mercer then presents herself as someone who was an anti-apartheid activist back in the day:
Daddy was a noted anti-apartheid activist before it became a fashionable and safe virtue-signaling pastime. The book maligned by Slate’s Mathis-Lilley as “racist” pays homage to dad (who refuses to leave his South Africa) for being “… a leader in the Promethean struggle to end apartheid. Rabbi Abraham Benzion Isaacson’s fight for justice for South Africa’s blacks was inspired by the advanced concept of Jewish social justice showcased in Deuteronomy and in The Prophets. …” (“Into the Cannibal’s Pot,” 2011, pp. 185-186.)
Mathis-Lilley is a pig of a man (with apologies to pigs, which I love and do not eat). The woman he dubs “a real piece of work, racism-wise” worked tirelessly against petty apartheid.
A couple of pathos-filled pages in “Into the Cannibal’s Pot” detail how, in one single day, with nothing but determination, this “racist” broke a bit of the apartheid bureaucracy, to benefit a beloved domestic worker, Ethel, tribal name Nomasomi Khala. (pp. 70-72)
Accompanied by me, Ethel entered the Department of Home Affairs in Cape Town as a woman whose tribal marriage was unrecognized by the authorities, whose kids (in tow) were without birth certificates and whose decades of toil left her bereft of state benefits.
Ethel was not in The System. She was stateless. But not for long.
When we departed the Department, that same day, Ethel and Jim, her husband of 25 years, had had their union solemnized by a grumpy magistrate, summoned at my insistence. And the children – bless them, they had dressed to the nines for the occasion – had birth certificates.
Good people, Mathis-Lilley, act. Bad people badmouth.
Note Mercer's use of the term "petty apartheid." That tells us she appears to have no problem with the overall concept of apartheid, just its "petty" aspects. Indeed, a few months back, Mercer spent a column trying to make an intellectual case for apartheid as a response to crime and communism, pretending it could be separated from its racist aspects.
Mercer took particular offense to Mathis-Lilley's descrption of her book as making the case that "white people shouldn’t support democracy in countries in which they’re a minority population because they will be exterminated by nonwhite savages.”
And I’m the pseudo-intellectual?
Every democratic theorist worth his salt knows that South Africa doesn’t even qualify as a democracy.
The scholarly data cited in “Into the Cannibal’s Pot” stipulate that a prerequisite for a classical liberal democracy is that majority and minority status should be interchangeable and fluid; that a ruling majority party should be as likely to become a minority party as the obverse.
By contrast, in South Africa, the majority and the minorities are permanent, not temporary. And voting is strictly along racial lines.
If majority and minority are perpetual or fixed, then government ceases to have a mediating or remedial function. It becomes an instrument of perpetual oppression of the minority by the majority.
That’s untrammeled tyranny.
Meanwhile, what Mercer doesn't say in her column is perhaps even more important -- specifically, that she is completely silent about the context in which her name came up in reference to Beattie.
That panel on which Mercer and Beattie appeared took place at something called the H.L. Mencken Club Conference, described by CNN as a gathering of white nationalists. Indeed, also appearing at the conference were white nationalists Peter Brimelow, Jared Taylor and John Derbyshire. Mercer was listed as giving a talk on "Libertarians and the Right" and taking partin a debate called "Should The Right Be Pro-Capitalist?"
It's worth noting her that Brimelow runs a notorious white supremacist website called VDARE, and it published the preface to Mercer's "Into the Cannibal's Pot," along with a promotional blurb from Derbyshire.
We suspect VDARE would not have done that if it didn't think Mercer was making a racial argument that would appeal to its white nationalist audience.
If Mercer is the anti-apartheid activist she claims she is, why is she palling around with white nationalists like Brimelow? Perhaps because, at heart, she really isn't that.
Mercer also whined that "Duly ignored was my polite request, addressed to Slate’s editors, to let me counter Mathis-Lilley’s lies." In the middle of nitpicking statements, Mercer is certainly not going to concede just how close Slate got to the truth.
Trump Gives MRC An Excuse To Ramp Up Its War Against Jim Acosta Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center already despises CNN White House correspondent Jim Acosta for failing to adhere to its right-wing agenda, and it hardly needed added ammunition to perpetuate its war against him. But President Trump provided some anyway, and the MRC's war on Acosta went to a whole 'nother level.
When Trump insulted Acosta for trying to ask a question at a Nov. 7 presidential briefing, the MRC's Scott Whitlock reveled in it, hyperbolically calling it "WAR" in his headline and touting: "The President slammed Jim Acosta as a 'rude,' 'horrible' and 'terrible person.' At one point, Trump told Acosta to sit down as a White House aide tried to take the microphone away from him." Whitlock went on to happily transcribe:
As a White House aide attempted to take away the microphone from Acosta, the journalist pushed her away. Trump snapped, “CNN should be ashamed of itself having you working for them. You are a rude, terrible person. You shouldn't be working for CNN.”
The fight continued as the President fought back: “You're a very rude person. The way you treat Sarah Huckabee is horrible and the way you treat other people is horrible. You shouldn't treat people that way.”
When CNN personalities defended Acosta, noted Acost-hater Curtis Houck put "HISSY FIT" in all-caps in the headline of his rant, sneering that the defense was a "20-minute love letter to itself":
After Wednesday’s free-wheeling and tense White House press conference, CNN went on the offensive against President Trump, illustrating a level of self-centeredness that’s unrivaled in the media and showing petty levels of emotion on-set reacting to the President’s condemnations and heated exchanges with chief White House correspondent Jim Acosta, political analyst April Ryan, and PBS’s Yamiche Alcindor.
Check out the video here of co-hosts Wolf Blitzer and Jake Tapper welcoming on Acosta like a triumphant Captain America who took on the President as if he were Thanos in Infinity War, but actually won.
Legal analyst Laura Coates led off this shameless display of arrogance, ludicrously claiming that the media did not “take the bait” or engage in a “tit for tat” and lashed out in the same way the President did at the media, including Jim Acosta and his throwdown. Yes, really.
Of course, Houck also thinks that it's "self-centered" for journalists to be concerned about their safety in the face of an anti-media president, so his priorities are a little distorted.
When the Trump White House pulled Acosta's press credentials, Houck was excited about that too, squarely blaming "circus act" Acosta and, again, a purportedly narcissistic CNN and certainly not a thin-skinned president:
As Acosta had likely hoped, it drew attention to himself and CNN, triggering over 20 minutes of CNN expressing its love for, well, CNN while showing its undeniably deep disdain for the President.
After years of back-and-forth jousting, this feud came to quite the head Wednesday night and will certainly reverberate across the political universe. And without a doubt, CNN will seek to make this about, well, CNN.
And, predictably, Houck whined again when CNN defended him on air.
Also predictably, the MRC almost completely ignored the fact that White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders tweeted out a doctored video showing the contact between Acosta and the White House intern trying to take the microphone away from him as more violent than it actually was. It was only obliquely referred to in a Nov. 8 post by Kristine Marsh noting the "suggestion" that Acosta assaulted the intern.
When CNN filed suit against the White House over the pulling of Acosta's press pass, the MRC cranked up the anger again. MRC chief Brent Bozell issued a rant claing that "Jim Acosta is not a reporter; he is a left-wing activist" and "CNN is not a news organization but a political hit squad for the far left." He and Tim Graham followed with a column listing "Six Reasons the CNN Acosta Lawsuit Is Lame," one of which was defending Trump's right to take questions from whomever he chooses like other presidents have, adding: "President Obama never consented to questions from Sean Hannity."But Hannity is not a White House correspondent; he's a right-wing Fox News ranter with an affinity for conspiracy theories.
Geoffrey Dickens and Bill D'Agostino introduced a montage of out-of-context "disruptive behavior" moments by Acosta under the headline "Here’s Why Jim Acosta Should Be Kicked Out of the White House," huffing: "CNN White House correspondent Jim Acosta – during the Trump administration – has shouted at and talked over press secretaries Sean Spicer and Sarah Sanders. He has interrupted his fellow White House press corp [sic] colleagues, called the President himself “fake news” and even screamed at Trump as he was talking to children at the annual Easter Egg roll."
Alasa for the MRC, that was not to be, at least in the meantime: a judge restored Acosta's press pass. And, of course, they grumbled about that:
Houck complained about the "exuberant mood" at CNN after the ruling, adding an attempt at a hip allusion: "For as much as CNN thinks of itself as The Avengers, there's likely a fair portion of the American public that instead sees them as the cast of Monty Python and the Holy Grail running away from the Rabbit of Caerbannog."
Whitlock dismissed CNN's "excited" reation to the restoration of Acosta's press pass as "self-important," further grousing that "Panelist Jeffrey Toobin smugly redefined the liberal Acosta as an American hero."
D'Agostino was annoyed that CNN's Brian Stelter said that "the courts effectively did their jobs" in restoring Acosta's press pass.
Farah Still Hustling Bitcoin-Esque Cybercurrency To Save WND Topic: WorldNetDaily
For months, Joseph Farah has been hustlingcybercurrency as part of a scheme to save his WorldNetDaily by giving some of it away in the form of a shadily-marketed variant called AML Bitcoin (not to be confused with actual bitcoin) to donors. He hasn't really stopped, and the begging -- and vague promises of cashing in big -- continued in his Oct. 19 column, framed around the idea of selling his cybercurrency scheme to the older-skewing readers who make a notable part of WND's readership:
Well, the next big thing is cryptocurrency – the blockchain. Trust me on this.
And I would like to introduce you into this new world with no risk or obligation. It would help me in my little battle for survival against the forces of evil – Google and Facebook and the rest of the Digital Speech-Code Cartel – and their eventual demise. (Don’t bet against me on this!)
First, let me be open and honest about one thing – I need a little financial support from you. Many of you have given already. If you can give more, great. If not, I understand. Thank you for what you have done. If everyone who reads WND or subscribes to our news alerts gave only $3, I figure we would have been long past this crisis we’ve been in since President Trump won the White House and Google and Facebook went to war with the deplorables in the independent media.
We would have made money!
Instead we lost MILLIONS – in two years!
So, we need your help if we are to continue defending and safeguarding our free society.
We would also like to see America retain its free speech, free press, freedom of religion, free enterprise and free elections, correct?
That’s why we need your direct financial help.
And that’s where I’ve got something to give back to you.
If you will donate at least $100 to WND, I’ll send you one AML Bitcoin token, the cryptocurrency I consider to be the best bet to dominate the industry in the next year or two because of safety, security and anti-piracy and anti-money-laundering technology. (That’s why it’s called AML.)
When we first made this offer, AML Bitcoin was not even trading on any exchanges. It is now on several. Look for it to take the cryptocurrency world by storm in less than a year.
This is a way for you to tippy-toe into the strange new world, get your feet wet and start to wrap your brain around the future.
Send WND a donation of $100 and get one token. Send WND $500 and get five. Send WND $1,000 and get 10. Send WND $5,000 and get 50. Send WND $10,000 and get 100. Suit yourself, but get started – without the hassle of the exchanges and without trying to become a total cryptocurrency geek overnight.
As you may have heard in my previous announcements, AML Bitcoin boasts patented hack-proof technology that I believe will make these units precious.
So, why am I giving them up? Because WND needs the money now to fight for something even more precious, America’s freedom.
It’s more than possible that your contribution to WND will in the future pay for itself and then some. In fact, I’m counting on it!
As before, Farah didn't explain how he got this stash of AML Bitcoin he's giving away months before it was publicly traded, or what kind of deal he made with the currency's promoters to make this happen.
Farah copied-and-pasted his cybercurrency hucksterism in his Oct. 29 column, this time framed around yet another Google-bashing attack.
When we last checked in on the value of AML Bitcoin in September, it was valued at around 28 cents. As of this writing, it's valued at 23 cents. So much for donations to WND paying for themselves.
MRC's Campaign To Make Jordan House GOP Leader Is A Failure Topic: Media Research Center
We'vedetailed how the Media Research Center and its "news" division CNSNews.com spent the last few months heavily lobbying for conservative Rep. Jim Jordan to become House speaker afater the midterm elections. So how did that turn out?
First, the midterms didn't turn out. Democrats took control of the House, meaning that the chief House Republican would no longer be speaker but, instead, minority leader. Still, the MRC gave Jordan's bid one last shot.
Nearly a week after the midterms, MRC chief Brent Bozell -- who did a fawning interview of Jordan in September -- issued a statement blandly titled "Bozell Comments on Midterms and Media" in which he tried to spin the loss of GOP control of the House as a "serious messaging problem" because "their leaders aren't committed to their own party platform. They cannot articulate it, sell it, and enact it, because they don’t believe in it." At the end was an endorsement of Jordan as minority leader:
For them to regain the faith of their constituents, conservatives believe the GOP must find new leadership with leaders that truly believe in and are willing to fight for the conservative policies they espouse. It’s why conservatives are rallying behind Jim Jordan as the new GOP Minority Leader. Conservatives believe that with his leadership the Republicans will regain their fallen majority, and they can do it in two years. It is then that they'll fight – fight seriously – for that which they say they believe. This time it'll be Promises Made, Promises Kept for them.
House Republicans elected their leader on Nov. 14, and the winner was ... not Jordan. Kevin McCarthy is the new minority leader, and it wasn't even close: 159 votes for McCarthy, 43 for Jordan.
Despite being a self-proclaimed "news" organization, CNS never reported McCarthy's election and Jordan's defeat. It was similarly never acknowledged on the MRC's main content site, NewsBusters, though a Nov. 15 post by Scott Whitlock complained that during an "exclusive interview" with CBS after his elevation to speaker, "network journalists chose to spend the entire interview demanding McCarthy answer for a lack of diversity within the Republican Party."
Herbert London, called a "conservative thought leader" by Newsmax, where he wrote a column for several years, died last week. Newsmax's John Gizzi gushed that he was a "renaissance man of the right" whose death "was a devastating blow to conservatives in his home state of New York and nationwide." Newsmax columnists Bruce Abramson and Jeff Ballabon touted "Herb’s prowess as a thinker, a teacher, and an institution builder" who was "always gracious, always open, always decent." London even got a farewell from CNSNews.com columnist Bill Donohue, who called him "a brilliant and courageous professor, writer, and activist, one who inspired everyone around him."
We touched on London a few times: He endorsed anti-gay conversion therapy, he freaked out over President Obama reiterating the general U.S. policy toward Israel by likening it to giving Hitler the Sudetenland, and he's approvingly quoted by WorldNetDaily columnist Kent Bailey calling Hillary Clinton "the embodiment of evil."
But we also caught London whitewashing his own history. In a 2009 Newsmax column, London claimed he was "reluctant to challenge" his opponent in a race for New York state comptroller when, in fact, he tried to smear his opponent as an anti-Semite in a campaign ad that was so nasty that even London's fellow Republicans distanced themselves from him.
That's a "conservative thought leader" in action, apparently. We hope Herbert has found peace.
CNS Finally Happy That More Christian Refugees Than Muslim Refugees Admitted to U.S. Topic: CNSNews.com
During the Obama administration, CNSNews.com and particularly reporter Patrick Goodenough were obsessed with comparing the number of Muslim refugees admitted to the U.S. with the number of Christians admitted. He complained a lot about the number of Muslims being admitted while only occasionally conceding that the reason the numbers of Christians were so low is because they tended to not use the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees camps from which he pulled his numbers as reprted to the State Department. Goodenough and CNS also had trouble admitting that Muslim refugees in Syria were fleeing religious persecution just like Christian refugees were.
But now, under the Trump administration, Goodenough has the numbers he likes, as stated in a Nov. 6 article:
The first month of the new fiscal year saw 1,834 refugees admitted to the United States, more than three-quarters of them Christians, as agencies involved in resettlement began operating under the lowest refugee admission cap set by an administration since the Refugee Act was enacted in 1980.
Despite the 30,000 ceiling set for fiscal year 2019 – down from 45,000 in FY 2018 and 85,000 two years earlier – more refugees were admitted during October than during the same month last year (1,248), although significantly fewer than the numbers admitted in October 2016 (9,945) and October 2015 (5,348).
Of the 1,834 newcomers, 1,425 (77.7 percent) were Christians of various denominations, and 362 (19.7 percent) were Muslims (including Sunnis, Shi’ites and Ahmadis.) Ahmadi beliefs are deemed heretical by many mainstream Muslim clerics and outlawed in the criminal code of Pakistan – the country of origin of the 15 Ahmadi refugees admitted in October.
Rounding out the October refugee admissions were 47 non-Christian and non-Muslim refugees, including 17 Buddhists, five animists, four Hindus, three Jews, and several others who gave their religious affiliation as “other” or “none,” according to State Department Refugee Processing Center data.
Goodenough did not explain why he thought the number of Christian refugees increased while the number of Muslims declined, though you'd think that the anti-Muslim leanings of the Trump administration would have played a big role in that.
These body-count articles are silly and serve only to serve CNS' political agenda -- anti-Obama and anti-Muslim a few years back, pro-Trump and pro-Christian now.
It was presented as a "news" article, but a Nov. 11 WorldNetDaily item was anonymously written and had an unambiguous opinion. So what did this anonymous coward rant about?
It didn’t take long for the central feud of the 21st century to rear its head amid the 100th World War I anniversary Armistice Day ceremony in a wet, dreary, overcast Paris, as French President Emmanuel Macron laid-down the gauntlet on the nouveau dirty word of international politics – “nationalism.”
With 60 world leaders present, the attack on nationalism was intended as a rebuke to President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin.
But, as George Orwell knew, it’s all in the way you define your terms.
Here is the way the key terms involved in the debate are still defined in 2018 – nearly 100 years after they came under attack by those who favor the one-world globalist alternative:
nationalism: (1.) “spirit or aspirations common to the whole nation;” (2.) “devotion and loyalty to one’s own country; patriotism;”
patriotism: (1.) “devoted love, support, and defense of one’s country; national loyalty;”
globalism: (1.) the attitude or policy of placing the interests of the entire world above those of individual nations.
Yet, here is the way Macron attempted to redefine the terms on the fly in Paris today.
“By saying, ‘Our interests first,’ we erase what a nation holds dearest … its moral values.”
He called nationalism a “betrayal of patriotism.”
He deplored the “selfishness of nations only looking after their own interests. Because patriotism is exactly the opposite of nationalism.”
He denounced rising ideologies that have warped religious beliefs and set loose extremist forces on a “sinister course once again that could undermine the legacy of peace we thought we had forever sealed.”
In other words, the central feud of the 21st century is being fought over morphing definitions, not stable ones.
Never far back in the shadows is the specter of Nazism – certainly one hideous form of national socialism.
As we've previously noted, Naziism was not socialism or even liberal.
This anonymous WND writer then declared: "Whatever is happening in this gathering in France Sunday may seem inconsequential. It is not. It is, rather, an expression of the central divide in the world. Do we govern ourselves as sovereign nation-states and sovereign citizens or as interdependent global communities of world citizens?
Even the headline mocked Macron by stating, "Parlez-vous anti-nationalist gibberish?"
WND did not explain why it presented an anonymously written opinion piece as "news." Such stunts do little to instill confidence and trust in WND's overall editorial product as something readers can trust.
MRC Mad The 'Conservative Backlash' It Orchestrated Got Called Out For What It Is Topic: Media Research Center
Jacob Comello whined in a Nov. 5 Media Research Center post:
When a conservative outlet or personality says something offensive, the media will rush to report the incident (often divorced from context or slyly edited.) Another conservative outrage against decency. When a liberal does it, you don’t often hear about the episode until there’s a “conservative backlash” to report.
Consider Pete Davidson mocking the war wounds of a decorated Navy SEAL on the Nov. 3 Saturday Night Live. Dan Crenshaw served numerous combat tours before losing an eye in Afghanistan, requiring him to wear an eye patch. Now he’s running for the House of Representatives from Texas. Davidson showed a photo of Crenshaw in the “Weekend Update” segment, saying, “You may be surprised to hear he’s a congressional candidate from Texas and not a hitman in a porno movie. I’m sorry, I know he lost his eye in war, or whatever.”
Numerous media outlets didn’t even cover the event itself and instead resorted to - you guessed it - conveying the ‘conservative backlash’ to Davidson’s jeering.
But Comello is complaining about what the MRC exists to do. It worked hard to create the "conservative backlash" to Davidson's joke. The MRC cranked out a whopping five posts in the two days between the joke being told and Comello's post:
The original post by Nicholas Fondacaro complaining about the joke .
Conello's boss, Brent Bozell, demanding an ad boycott of "Saturday Night Live" over thejoke and ranting, "Making fun of a former Navy SEAL for his combat injuries shows that nothing is too low for SNL when they have a chance to mock Republicans."
A post by Kyle Drennen noting a fellow "SNL" cast member stated thst the joke may have missed the marik.
Kristine Marsh whining that "The View" co-host Joy Behar "repeatedly defended the show and comedian, saying it was normal for the comedic show to make offensive jokes, (not noting that most of their “humor” is directed at Republicans.)"
Gabriel Hays following in his boss' footsteps by attacking the show's advertisers: "These companies should consider Crenshaw’s suggestion and give generously to to veterans’ groups. It’s one thing to advertise on a partisan “comedy” show. It’s another to do business with people who laugh at wounds suffered in service to the nation.
The MRC worked hard to create this "conservative basklash." Comello probably should not be attacking it.
"The backlash didn't stop, either. Bozell and Tim Graham devoted a spelentic column dedicated to attacking Davidson as a "loud-mouthed, spoiled punk," only slightly pausing to acknowledge that Davidson's firefighter father died in 9/11. The two again listed the show's advertisers, adding: "These merchants should think more than twice about the garbage they’re making possible."
(Yes, this is coming from the same guy who called President Obama a "skinny ghetto crackhead.")
Over at the MRC's "news" division, CNSNews.com, conservative backlash was the marching order as well. CNS repeated Bozell's rant, complained a video that included the "offensive" joke was "still posted on YouTube, and assigned a reporter to "repeatedly contact by phone and email each of the 24 companies that advertised on the Nov. 3 episode of SNL" to laboriously read Davidson's joke and ask if they "intend to continue advertising on Saturday Night Live."
When Davidson had Crenshaw on the following week's "SNL" to apologize, the MRC went into victory mode. A post by Fondacaro claimed that Davidson's joke 'united the left and right in outrage" (it did?) and gushed over Crenshaw for showing "great class," and Drennen touted how NBC's "Today" show praised Crenshaw's handling of it. At CNS, Craig Bannister also highlighted the apology while also complaining that "Davidson's insulting video segment is still featured on SNL's YouTube channel."
So, stop complaining, Jacob. Your employer's "conservative backlash" worked as intended.
WND's Pretend Democrat Tells People To Vote Republican Topic: WorldNetDaily
We've previously highlighted how WorldNetDaily columnist Bob Just insists he's a Democrat yet always bashes the party he purports to be a part of. He was at it again in his Nov. 1 column, in which he again claims he's been "a Democrat since my youth" but rehashes his previous anti-Democrat attacks before telling his readers to vote for, yes, Republicans:
And let’s face it, our Democratic Party is the “PC party” because of our current leadership – so they must be stopped with a powerful rebuke at the ballot box.
Many Americans have been shocked at the decline of our party, but I doubt they could have predicted Democratic leadership would soft-glove thuggish groups like antifa who go around bashing people and destroying property all in the name of being “against fascism.”
Even those Democrats who have never liked Hillary Clinton, could they have imagined she’d publicly reject civil behavior?
As Democrat President Kennedy said, “Sometimes party loyalty asks too much.”
That time is now. Vote Republican.
Just hasn't been loyal to the Democratic Party in quite some time, and he should renounce his party membership if all he can do is attack it and tell people to vote for the opposition.
But Just would lose his entire column-writing gimmick, wouldn't he? So that's probably not going to happen, as least while there's still a WND willing to indulge his silly delusion.
CNS Presents WH's Doctored Video To Justify Acosta's Suspension, Lets Trump Lie About It Topic: CNSNews.com
Needless to say, the folks at the Jim Acosta-hating Media Research Center couldn't have been happier that the White House suspended Acosta's "hard pass" for White House access, and that also goes for the MRC's "news" division, CNSNews.com. A Nov. 7 blog post by Craig Bannister cheered Acosta's pass suspension, adding that White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders "tweeted that the White House stands by its decision to suspend Acosta and invited Americans to watch the video of the incident she embedded in her post," and embedding the Sanders tweet containing the video in his post.
Just one problem: the video was doctored. A video expert enlisted by the Associated Press documented how the video tweeted out by Sanders had frames speeded up to make Acosta's action in trying to keep a White House intern from taking the microphone from him while he was asking President Trump a question look more aggressive than it was in reality, while other frames were slowed down to make the video's run time the same as an unaltered video. The doctored video apparently came from a reporter for far-right conspiradcy site Infowars. Heck, even one of CNS' favorite conservatives, Ben Shapiro, called out Sanders for sending out a doctored video.
Despite all that, Bannister's post was never updated to reflect the controversy over the video.
Two days later, an article by Melanie Arter addressed the issue not by admitting the clear, unambiguous evidence that the video was doctored, but by starting out in stenography mode, giving Trump three paragraphs to falsely rant that the video wasn't doctored:
President Donald Trump called out the media for reporting that a video that White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders released of a White House intern trying to take the microphone away from CNN’s Jim Acosta at Monday’s White House press conference was doctored.
When asked why Sanders “shared a doctored video of the incident in the East Room,” Trump said, “The taped video of Acosta? What are you talking about? Nobody manipulated it. Give me a break. See that’s just dishonest reporting. All that is is a close-up.”
“They showed it close-up, and he was not nice to that young woman. I don’t hold him for that, because it wasn’t overly, you know, horrible, but all that was-- When you say doctor, you’re a dishonest guy, because it wasn’t doctored. They gave a close-up view. That’s not doctoring,” the president said.
Even though the facts are not on Trump's side, Arter chose instead to present the story as a he said-she said, following Trump's rant with a statement that "The Washington Post reported Thursday that Sanders shared a video 'that appeared to have been altered' to make Acosta’s actions 'ook more aggressive toward a White House intern,'" with two additional paragraphs from the Post article.
Giving falsehoods the same credulity as the truth without admitting that the falsehoods are, in fact, false is the very defition of false balance. That's what you do when you're a stenographer and not a reporter.
Arter concluded her article with some uncritical dissembling from Sanders on the doctored video:
After the media questioned the reasoning behind the White House’s decision, Sanders issued a statement Thursday addressing reports that the video she shared was doctored.
“The question is: did the reporter make contact or not? The video is clear, he did. We stand by our statement,” she said.
Arter did not mention that the question was actually about the doctored video, nor did she point out that Sanders refused to answer the question that was asked. She's a stenographer, after all.
WND Touts Michael Flynn Fund-Raiser, Conspiracy Theory Topic: WorldNetDaily
An anonymously written Nov. 1 WorldNetDaily article touts a fundraiser for admitted perjurer Michael Flynn and advances the right-wing conspiracy theory that Flynn pleaded guilty to a crime he didn't commit:
Supporters of Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn who contend he is an American patriot who was unfairly targeted by Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation are holding a gala fundraiser in his honor next week.
Flynn, who briefly served as President Trump’s national security adviser, faces a hearing next month for his guilty plea for lying to the FBI in the Mueller investigation. But his defenders point out that Senate Judiciary Committee members say former FBI Director James Comey told them that FBI agents did not think Flynn was lying intentionally when he was first interviewed about his conversation with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak.
The fundraiser, Nov. 11, culminates a conference called Operation Classified organized by John B. Wells, host of the radio program “Caravan to Midnight” and a former host of “Coast to Coast AM.”
Flynn’s youngest sibling, Joseph Flynn, the spokesman and a trustee of the Mike Flynn Legal Defense Fund, accepted the offer and will be at the event.
“General Flynn is a victim of political expedience, political skullduggery and lawfare,” said Wells.
The left, he said, “crewed up and destroyed the man’s reputation, his families’ reputations and his finances.”
As we pointed out when WND columnist James Zumwalk embraced this conspiracy theory, it ignores that Flynn was being investigated on other charges of making false statements, particulaly regarding his lobbying for Turkey. In his plea agreement, Flynn pleged to cooperate with Mueller in exchange for the rest of the charges against him being dropped.
Of course, WND won't report that because it's an inconvenient fact to the fund-raiser.
NEW ARTICLE -- The MRC's War On Journalists, Part 3: Craven Callousness Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center tries to protect its brand and insists its (and President Trump's) hateful anti-media rhetoric doesn't inspire violence against journalists -- then claims that it's "self-centered" for journalists to be worried about their safety. Read more >>
An anonymously written Nov. 1 WorldNetDaily article sure tried to make its case, under the headline "Now Biden calls for GOP congressman to learn 'threshold of pain': More rhetoric calling for violence over 2018 elections":
Former Vice President Joe Biden only a week ago called for an end to “this division, this hatred, this ugliness” around the 2018 midterm elections.
Now he’s calling for a union official to come up and show a member of Congress “a threshold of pain.”
It’s the latest in the Democrats’ rhetoric calling for violence around next week’s election.
A post on the Twitter news aggregating site Twitchy said it “seems like only last week when Joe Biden was decrying ‘this division, this hatred, this ugliness.’ Probably because it was only last week.”
The RNC pointed out, “Joe Biden suggests union president should attack GOP Congressman @KevinCramer, ‘show him a threshold of pain.'”
Such comments have become common in the run-up to the vote.
Except that's not what happened at all. WND completely eliminates the context of Biden's remark -- which, surprisingly, was in the Republican National Committee video embedded into the article -- which clearly shows that Biden was responding rhetorically to a specific comment made by the Republican opponent of the Democratic candidate he was stumping for:
Let me tell you, these guys are amazing, and they stand up -- how they stand up and say things that are absolutely mind-boggling. I love this one on trade. This I love, and by the way, I told you I come from an agricultural state. I don't know how you can possibly get elected in an agricultural state with the things he's saying. But -- but, we're nearing the 20th week of zero soybean orders from the Pacific and Northwest and China, and your guy calls farmers' concerns hysteria and says they don't have a very high threshold for pain. Well, I get that president of the trade union's up here and he'll show him a threshold of pain.
In other words, WND is peddling fake news again. Given that fake news helped drive WND to the brink of death, you'd think Joseph Farah and Co. would know better by now.
WND Columnist Declares Trump To Be 'God's Man' Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily has been mildly obsessed with portraying Donald Trump's election as divinely ordained and placing him in the pantheon of Bible heroes. The latest stab in this genre comes from evangelist Hal Lindsey in his Nov. 2 WND column:
“Merry Christmas” is back. There is unabashed prayer in the Oval Office – in front of the cameras! As a nation, we have loudly proclaimed our support for and solidarity with Israel. We have smashed some of the most dangerous Islamic terrorist forces in the world. We have withdrawn from pacts and partnerships that were not only duplicitous, but dangerous. We are witnessing a restoration of the constitutional role of the judiciary. We have eased the bureaucratic burdens on industry and business that were choking our national economy. Most of us have seen the immediate benefits in our paychecks. We have unleashed the power of American creativity and productivity, and we’re seeing a rebirth in hope and optimism among American workers of all races and classes. We are finally seeing the brakes being applied to our mad rush toward a nonsensical world of unlimited and undefined genders. We are seeing a phenomenal surge in our citizens’ pride in and appreciation for our military, law enforcement and first-responders. And the list goes on.
In short, I think we are seeing a genuine resurgence of President Reagan’s inspiring ideal of America as a “shining city on a hill.”
We owe much of this progress to President Donald Trump. It’s not that he has singlehandedly made these things happen, but his genuine love for America, his optimism, fearlessness, determination, courage and willingness to suffer the blows has inspired so many people in so many areas to take a step of faith and do what is right for America.
I do not say that President Trump is a man of God, but I firmly believe he is God’s man for this time in America.
And the world, too. As we hurtle toward the end of this age, the infrastructure of the Antichrist’s government is being constructed with alarming speed. To have the leader of the free world stand tall and threaten the “globalist” forces who are preparing the way of the Antichrist cannot be a coincidence. If nothing else, President Trump is drawing into sharp focus the opposing forces and the battle formations that will soon come into play in the end-times scenario.
That means it is time to choose on which side of this battle you will fight.
How about the side that thinks lionizing Trump as a instrument of God is somewhere between creepy and blasphemous?
Posted by Terry K.
at 12:19 AM EST
Updated: Wednesday, November 14, 2018 12:29 AM EST