MRC: Formerly All-White School Has One Black Student, So It Must Not Be Segregated Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's Nicholas Fondacaro spent a Nov. 26 post ranting about "lies" purportedly told about Cindy Hyde-Smith, the Republican candidate in a runoff for a Mississippi Senate seat against Democrat Mike Espy. Fondacaro huffs regarding NBC's Kristen Welker:
Welker decided to condemn Hyde-Smith for the actions of her parents because they made her attend a segregated high school while growing up. “And tonight a new controversy,” she boasted, “the Jackson Free Press reporting Hyde-Smith attended an all-white segregated high school…” Welker then lied and insisted Hyde-Smith “sent her daughter to a similar school.”
While the school, Brookhaven Academy, was founded as a segregated school, it obviously no longer is because they do, in fact, have minorities in the student body. Hyde-Smith’s daughter graduated from there in 2017. Clearly, Welker and the rest of the liberal media don’t know what century we live in.
Fondacaro is hiding the fact that Brookhaven Academy has "minorities in the student body" only in the most token sense. As Jackson Free Press reported, in the 2015-16 school year the academy had just one black student and five Asian students ... and 386 white children.The town of Brookhaven itself is 55 percent black.
So, yeah, it is for all intents and purposes segregated, despite Fondacaro's insistence that the academy deserves to be thought of as fully integrated despite still being 99% white.
Fondacaro then claimed: "All of these lies were to create a smokescreen to hide the true controversy in the race: Espy’s deep financial ties to an African despot on trial in the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity." That would be Laurent Gbagbo of the Ivory Coast.
The funny thing is that conservatives used to love Gbagbo. Glenn Beck, for instance, attacked President Obama for expressing support for Gbagbo's opponent in a 2011 election, ostensibly because the opponent was a Muslim running against the Christian Gbagbo. Pat Robertson similarly stood by Gbagbo in a dispute over that election, declaring that "He's a Christian, he's a nice person, and he's run a fairly clean operation in the Ivory Coast."
WorldNetDaily also took Gbagbo's side in the election dispute, touting him as an “opening practicing Christian” and complained about “outsiders” supporting “an attempt by a Muslim to unseat a Christian president.”
We doubt that anyone at the MRC would have had any problem with Espy's ties to Gbagbo in 2011, so it a little strange for Fondacaro to make an issue about it now.
WND Comes To The Defense of Corsi Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily hasn't had much to say about Jerome Corsi after he left WND in early 2017 to go further down the credibility spiral to work for Infowars. But now that Corsi has been implicated in Robert Mueller's Trump-Russia investigation, WND is taking an interest again.
A Nov. 27 article touted how "Corsi is now rejecting a plea deal he says was offered to him by Mueller because it would force him to lie about his alleged inside information pertaining to WikiLeaks leaks and his relationship with founder Julian Assange." The qrticle quotes Corsi saying "I never met Julian Assange, I never spoke with him, I’ve never emailed him, I’ve had no contact with Julian Assange whatsoever."
But Corsi somehow sure knew a lot about plans by the Assange-led WikiLeaks to release stolen Democratic emails in a bid to attack Hillary Clinton and help Donald Trump. The same day as the WND article, the Washington Post reported that Corsi alerted Stone about the pending email dump. Corsi is in denial there as well, saying, "I’m convinced my memory is correct that I didn’t have a source that connected me to Assange. I really don’t think so" and insisting he was merely engaging in speculation about the email dump. That seems to strain credulity.
(That alert also proved that Corsi -- and WND -- spent the last two years lying about Seth Rich by portraying him as the person who leaked the Democratic emails to WikiLeaks.)
On Nov. 30, WND touted the lawsuit filed by terrible lawyer Larry Klayman on Corsi's behalf in an attempt to end Mueller's purported "reign of terror." That was joined by a Klayman column in which he gushes over Corsi as "a 72 year-old, vibrant, renowned and distinguished conservative journalist, investigative reporter and accomplished New York Times best-selling author now in the cross-hairs of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s “witch hunt” to take down President Donald J. Trump" and ranted about the "felonious" plea deal Mueller wanted Corsi to sign. A Dec. 3 article further summarizes Klayman's lawsuit without any outside analysis.
Needless to say, nobody at WND is going to mention the fact that Klayman's complaint is basically a joke, full of Klayman's usual pseudo-legal BS such as charging Mueller with "conspiracy to commit treason."
Corsi has gotten some support from WND columnists as well. Dave Goronski asserted in his Dec. 4 column:
In the news today we are hearing reports that elderly pundit Dr. Jerome Corsi is likely facing prison time for getting tripped up in a perjury trap during psychologically abusing grillings by grand inquisitor Robert Mueller. Corsi’s actions, whatever the specifics, did not produce a victim (though Robert Mueller did when he helped mislead the nation into the Iraq War, as tens of thousands of wounded or killed soldiers prove).
Regardless of what you think of his politics, Corsi is facing the prospect of being locked in a cage merely for the impotently cathartic game of D.C. blood sport. Seemingly near half the country seems to be foaming at the mouth at the sight of a political writer being caged in his last years just because he favored their rivals’ presidential pick. Who wants to live in a society where its law and liberty is decided by these violent bouts of scapegoat pingpong?
Michael Master touted: "Jerome Corsi and Roger Stone already refused to compose for Mueller. If they hold out, they will win."
Oddly subdued, though, is the guy who hired Corsi lo those many years ago, WND editor Joseph Farah. His only reference to Corsi's current troubles came at the end of a rambling Nov. 14 column that was about CNN's Jim Acosta but featuring a lot of dissembling about the birther conspiracy theories he promoted, Farah interjected: "Jerome Corsi is expressing fears he will be imminently indicted in matters related to Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation of so-called 'Russian collusion' in the 2016 presidential election."
MRC Mad That Documentary Accurately Reported The Clintons Were Right-Wing Targets Topic: Media Research Center
Kristine Marsh complains in a Nov. 19 Media Research Center post:
On Sunday night’s miniseries The Clinton Affair, A&E took potshots at conservatives in their attempt to create a sympathetic portrayal of Bill and Hillary Clinton. While praising Clinton as a feminist president, the network gave soundbites to Democrats attacking anyone on the right who dared to criticize the political couple for their numerous scandals.
Right from the get-go, the series portrayed conservatives and Republicans as the villains of the story, with a barrage of soundbites from journalists, and Clinton operatives, attacking Newt Gingrich, independent counsel Ken Starr, and anyone who dared to be critical of the Clintons as fueled by “Republican lies,” out for a witch hunt against President Clinton:
Who did A&E blame for Hillary becoming an “object of hatred?” Right-wing commentators and Republicans of course. Immediately after those soundbites, the network played clips of Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh criticizing Hillary for implementing policy as First Lady.
Marsh headlined her piece "A&E Docuseries Paints Clintons as Victims of Conservative Hatred" -- which is what, in fact, they were. She might wnat to check with her boss, Brent Bozell, who declared in 2001 that "Yes, Virginia, the vast right-wing conspiracy did exist all along!"
So the right didn't merely "criticize" the Clintons for their "numerous scandals" -- it targeted them from the get-go. It's not "liberal bias" to report that fact, no matter what Marsh claims.
WND's Farah, Tries To Bash Anti-Semitism, Complains Instead That White Men Are Being Blamed Too Often For Mass Violence Topic: WorldNetDaily
Being who he is (an inveterate liar and Muslim-hater), WorldNetDaily editor Joseph Farah just can't be good with a solid, uncontroversial denunciation of anti-Semitism. See how, in his Nov. 18 column, Farah takes things in another direction:
Jewish people were the victims of more reported hate crimes than any other religious minority in 2016, according to the most recent year of FBI statistics. In fact, those incidents were higher than the rest of religiously motivated hate crimes combined.
Last year, anti-Semitic incidents rose almost 60 percent, the largest single-year increase on record. The ADL found 1,986 cases of harassment, vandalism or physical assaults against Jewish people or institutions in 2017. It found 1,267 in 2016.
Does anyone ask why this should be?
No, not really. In fact, the numbers parallel the trends in Europe where immigration trends run high among Muslims, as they do in the U.S. There are now 3.45 million Muslims living in the U.S., up more than 1 million in the last decade.
Yet we look not at who is committing these crimes. In fact, let’s face it. Every time there is a terrorist attack in America, the news media starts the game of pin the tail on the gun-toting, Christian white guy. It is considered “racist” to examine demographic changes in communities and immigration trends as a contributing cause – just as it is now to consider the threat posed by MS-13 gangs throughout the country. It is also considered inappropriate to look at the changing ways we educate our children about matters of faith, morality, justice, equality under the law.
Farah seems not to understand that the reason white men are looked at as perpetrataors of mass shootings is because that's statistically likely -- more than half of mass shootings in the past 30-plus years have been committed by white men. And the worst act of violence against Jews in America -- the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting that took place just a few weeks befvore Farah's column was published -- was perpetrated not by a Muslim but, rather, by a white man.
Indeed, by complaining that "demographic changes in communities and immigration trends" are not being examined as a "contributing cause" to mass violence, Farah seems to be justifying the Pittsburgh massacre. The shooter targed the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society for its work in bringing refugees into the U.S. -- an agency Farah's own WND has demonized for bringing too many Muslims into the country (which is to say, bringing any Muslims, period). So it's entirely possible that WND helped inspire the shooter, something WND has had a problem with over the years.
But Farah doesn't want to talk about that -- there are brown people to fearmonger about.
Farah is also a pro-Trump sycophant, so his column turns to the president as well:
How does Donald Trump get sandbagged with that smear – the father of a Jewish convert, the father-in-law of a Jewish man, a New York developer who has worked lifelong in the city with a population of 2.2 million Jews. Never before he ran for president was there even a single allegation of antisemitism or racism toward him or anyone close to him. It would have been considered preposterous. It should be considered just as preposterous and irresponsible today.
Can we stop the dangerous labeling of Trump and his supporters as anti-Semites and racists? Indeed, it is dangerous and inflammatory, and not just for the president and his supporters. It is also is an excuse for not examining the real symptoms, the real perpetrators, the real hatred and the forceful violent solutions to which they so readily resort.
Well, Joe, one gets tagged as having anti-Semitic when one rants that one's political opponent "meets in secret with international banks to plot the destruction of U.S. sovereignty," is slow to disavow the support of white supremacist David Duke, tells Republican Jews he doesn't want their money, and inspires anti-Semitic attacks on his Jewish critics, among other things. It's not preposterous at all, which Farah would know if he had done the slightest bit of research before writing his column.
Farah concludes his column by declaring: "Never again. No more racism. No more bigotry. No more phony blame-gaming slanders. No more fake hate-baiting." That's an odd declaration from a man whose website was built on bigotry and slander (againstObama) and a lot of fake hate-baiting (ofMuslims).
CNS Responds To Migrant Caravan By ... Invoking Abortion? Topic: CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com responded to the migrant caravan in the expected right-wing ways.
One of which was justifying the use of tear gas on the mmigrants and downplaying the fact that women and children felt their effects. An article by Susan Jones noted that "The American Civil Liberties Union tweeted that 'Tear gassing children is outrageous and inhumane,'" followed by the Border Patrol's parenthetical insistence that "The crowd that tried to crash across the U.S. border near San Diego on Sunday was comprised mostly of adult men, some of whom threw rocks at federal agents, who were vastly outnumbered." Another Jones article uncritically pushed Border Patrol spin that the tear gas was actually "a very low level of force." A third Jones article let another Border Patrol agent uncritically blame the parents: "What I find unconscionable is that people would intentionally take children into this situation."
CNS also trotted out loopy rabbi Aryeh Spero to rant that "It is a sign of ignorance and imbalance to compare and equate the plight of the Jews of the Holocaust with those who have joined the caravan to forcibly enter the U.S." because the migrants "reportedly have guns, are well fed, and have been offered residency in Mexico" and, by contrast, "None of the Jews wishing to come to America posed a threat of physical criminality, nor were they carriers of lethal drugs, or MS-13 gang members." Spero doesn't seem aware that MS-13 wasn't founded until the 1970s so such membership was an impossibilty in the late 1930s.
But CNS also offered probably the most bizarre take on the caravan in a Nov. 26 article by Emily Ward that irrelevantly invoked abortion:
The number of Hispanic babies aborted in 2015 in the 31 states and the District of Columbia that report their abortion numbers to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (72,056) outnumbered the migrants estimated to be in the current caravan from Central America (approximately 10,000) by about seven to one, according to new abortion data published by the CDC and estimates of the number in the caravan published by the New York Times and the Washington Post.
In fact, there were more Hispanic babies aborted in New York City alone in 2015 (17,391), than there are people in the caravan today.
What, exactly, was the point of injecting abortion into this? Is Ward arguing that if abortion was illegal, enough women could be forced to have children that all immigration into the U.S. should be halted? We're confused.
Linda Harvey LGBT Derangement Watch Topic: WorldNetDaily
The Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade included a float from the Broadway musical "The Prom," which is about a gay teen who wants to take her girlfriend to the high school prom over the school's objections. The production piece from the show concluded in the two lead characters kissing -- the first same-sex kiss in parade history.
Cue anti-gay activist Linda Harvey's freakout in her Nov. 22 WorldNetDailiy column:
On Thanksgiving morning at 9:00 a.m., we turned on the TV, eager to see the Ohio State marching band in the Macy’s Thanksgiving Day parade. The famous all-brass stars of Big 10 football games were scheduled to be the leading band in the heartwarming procession down Central Park West to 34th Street.
But of course, we weren’t allowed to enjoy this moment before the incessant homosexual agenda was thrust into America’s face.
The cast of the hit Broadway musical “The Prom” performed in the first few minutes of the broadcast, smilingly introduced by NBC’s Hoda Kotb as the story of a teen girl whose high school would rather cancel prom than let her take a girlfriend to the dance. In the scene, the female performers held hands – one in a tuxedo and the other in a dress – and the closing touch was their lesbian kiss.
And of course, possibly millions of American children are watching, and the producers of the parade and the program know this. This offense, this corruption, is deliberate as the procession toward normalizing decadence marches on.
How many times have you heard activists scoff, denying there’s a “gay agenda”?
I long for the respect of youthful innocence that was once a pretty reliable standard for public broadcasts and parades. We have never been a perfect nation, but now we must monitor every influence on children, even within our own homes.
This agenda is like an airborne infection that’s suddenly everywhere. From “LGBT”-affirming church youth groups, to “gay”-affirming anti-bullying school lessons, to rainbow “pride” apparel sold at Target and Walmart during the spring and summer, to the obligatory pro-homosexual article in the daily newspaper, to disturbed transvestites reading to preschoolers in libraries. It seems to be critically important to stick it to our children, all in the name of phony “tolerance” and “acceptance,” embracing sins leading to personal disaster, societal destruction and spiritual death.
Things are about to get much worse. This is just the latest example, as Satan transforms himself into an angel of light, even with smiling affirmation of celebrities and all the brilliance of Broadway.
But there is opportunity in darkness. We can still call it what it is and shine our brightest light.
Hold your children close, teach them Who is really the One from Whom all blessings flow, and let’s do what we can to make a difference right now.
Start by contacting NBC and Macy’s.
And do not shop at Macy’s this Christmas season.
Harvey's outrage is as tedious as it is predictable.
MRC Doesn't Want To Talk About How Facebook's Kowtowing To Conservatives Undercuts Its Anti-Facebook Narrative Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center has long been a critic of Facebook, so you'd think it would be happy that the New York Times published an article shining a light on its dubious practices. But, weirdly, no: A Nov. 15 MRC post by Corinne Weaver described the article (to which she curiously fails to link) as a "hit piece" that "sent Facebook into a frenzy to fix its public image."
The problem, of course, is that the Times article completely undermined the MRC's narrative on Facebook.
Weaver rather benignly described the Times article as having "accused Facebook of working with conservative groups and generating stories from a conservative angle that discredited liberal activists funded by Soros, as well as Apple, and Google." In fact, it was about much more than that: the Times detailed how Facebook failed to act on messages from Donald Trump's presidential campaign that violated its hate-speech policies, dragged its feet on Russian-related activity designed to influence the 2016 presidential electionand hired conservative political consultants to deflect attention from Facebook and uncover any link between groups critical of Facebook and MRC-despised financier George Soros.
That runs contrary to the MRC's narrative, which paints Facebook as unfriendly to conservatves to the point of censoring conservative content. For instance, the MRC did a "special report" (of the not-so-specialkind, we can presume) earlier this year accusing Facebook and other social media cits of trying to "censor the conservative worldview from the public conversation." An MRC-commissioned poll in September sought to reinforce that narrative by claiming that nearly 29 percent of conservatives said they left or were considering leaving Facebook because of "censorship of conservatives." It included a quote from MRC chief Brent Bozell: "The question Facebook and other social media companies need to ask themselves is this: Do you want to be seen as an open platform for all political beliefs or would you rather be considered a left-wing public interest group that censors free speech worldwide? The latter will prove to be unbelievably costly."
In other words, the MRC is highly invested in this narrative. The Times article pretty much blew that up, pointing out how deeply Facebook is kowtowing to conservative critics. Needless to say, Weaver and the MRC didn't want to talk about that, and her post is the last we heard about this article.
For a while, anyway. A Dec. 3 MRC post by Julia Seymour returned to the article in a very narrow way: to insist that Facebook's investigation of Soros was totally justified. No, really:
Since when it is controversial for a company to research a powerful billionaire calling for it to be regulated and who could potentially impact its stock price? Since now — if the company is Facebook and its opponent is liberal billionaire George Soros.
The New York Times has become Soros’ press office now that Facebook has acknowledged looking into where his money goes. The paper has done 18 stories, columns or editorials about Facebook that also mention Soros since Nov. 15.
That was the day slightly more than two weeks ago that it ran a front-page investigative piece critical of Facebook: “Delay, Deny and Deflect: How Facebook’s Leaders Fought Through Crisis.” That story first mentioned the firm’s hiring of a “Republican opposition-research firm” that looked for connections between anti-Facebook protesters and the liberal billionaire.
Between Nov. 15, and Dec. 3, the Times published 11 news reports and published 7 columns or editorials in the newspaper including the editorial “Facebook Cannot Be Trusted to Regulate Itself” and a column from Michelle Goldberg headlined, “Democrats Should Un-Friend Facebook.”
Buzzfeed threw cold water on the controversy on Dec. 1, when it published a three-page document of research on Soros that firm provided to Facebook and calling it “largely innocuous.”
But it’s doubtful that the Times would have portrayed such an act as controversial at all if the scrutiny wasn’t of a prominent funder of left-wing groups. Earlier Times’ reporting led Facebook to launch a “liberal apology tour” and fire Definers Public Affairs, a “Republican-linked firm,” that it had hired. The group spread “public information about Mr. Soros’s funding of American advocacy groups critical of Facebook.”
In fact, the Buzzfeed piece notes that the document is only some of the research the oppo-research firm did for Facebook, not its entirety.
Seymour then weirdly obsessed about Soros having "broke the Bank of England," referencing it twice in her post, as if profiting from a financial gamble somehow underscores Soros' bad-guy credentials. Like Weaver, Seymour didn't want to discuss how Facebook hating Soros almost as much as the MRC does (though without the overt anti-Semitic imagery) undercuts the MRC's attacks on Facebook as not being conservative-friendly.
Jealous Much? WND's Farah Rants About Obamas Making Money Topic: WorldNetDaily
Mychal Massie is not the only WorldNetDaily writer with a lingering Obama Derangement Syndrome affliction. WND editor Joseph Farah lets his derangement flag fly in his Nov. 23 column:
Want something to be exceptionally thankful for this weekend?
Be thankful Barack Obama is not your president – and that Donald Trump is.
If you don’t feel that way today, try this: Watch his clip from his appearance at the Obama Foundation Summit in Chicago where he stumbled through an incoherent talk on climate change (I think, you decide), doing what he does best – criticizing others for carrying around too much “hate, anger, racism” and, after stumbling around for the right word of phrase, coming up with “mommy issues.”
I’m not sure if the man is just intellectually lazy in his new life on his way to billionaire status, or consumed by hate of his successor like no other president.
What we're gonna decide is that Farah is having a massive jealousy fit over Barack and Michelle Obama making money after leaving the presidency, just like every other president has done:
Maybe you didn’t know that Obama is on the way to becoming a billionaire?
That’s what we’re learning now as this he follows the Clintons’ pathway to prosperity for essentially doing nothing.
First, someone ghostwrote a book called “Becoming” for Michelle Obama – providing an advance of $65 million, which will never earn half of it out. She also shares with him a $50 million Netflix deal and a 10-city U.S. tour and sales of merchandise connected to her autobiography.
Next, she’s being asked to speak to corporations for $225,000 a pop. Sound familiar?
That’s on top of raking in $20.5 million in salaries and other royalties for books they didn’t write between 2005 and 2016.
Forbes estimates they are already worth $135 million – not counting the speeches.
Farah mocking the Obamas for ghostwriting their books -- allegations he doesn't substantiate, by the way -- is highly ironic, given that probably the most lucrative thing Farah has ever done was ghost-write Rush Limbaugh's 1994 book "See, I told You So." We're guessing Farah has never begrudged all the money he made from that the way he lashes out at the Obamas.
And, as usual, Farah lies about Obama. The reported $65 million advance was for memoirs by both Michelle and Barack, not Michelle's book alone -- which, by the way, has become the best-selling book of 2018. That, along with the sold-out tour and merchandise sales, means that she's likely to make back her part of the advance.
That must grate on Farah, given the struggles he's had just trying to raise money to publish his own book that, even if it's successful, would make only a tiny fraction of Obama's.
Farah's hate continued:
But it’s all in the name of charity, you see. Because she gives away an astonishingly generous 10 percent to Global Girls Alliance, another Barack Obama Foundation initiative – another way to make lots of money on the misfortunes of others.
What are they doing for $50 million from Netflix? It’s a little nebulous: A multiyear deal for which they “produce a diverse mix of content, including the potential for scripted series, unscripted series, docuseries, documentaries and features,” which will be broadcast in 190 countries – like it or not.
Actually, value of the Netflix deal Farah relayed is merely high-end speculation, and it's still a small fraction of Netflix's $8 billion programming budget. And only Farah would think that a charitable organization would b e a scam, a "way to make lots of money on the misfortunes of others," solely because it's run by people he hates and spent years trying to personally destroy (only to destroy his own operation instead).
Maybe that's the real issue here. Farah's eight-year campaign to destroy Obama with birther lies backfired badly; not only are the Obamas thriving, he ruined his own "news" organization in the process. It must grate on Farah that he is basically a failure who can't admit he's failed -- that's why he lashes out at the internet "cartel" as his supposed downfall when it's really his and WND's shoddy journalism that actually caused it.
Farah still hasn't demonstrated that WND deserves to live, and continuing to rant enviously about the Obamas isn't exactly helping his case.
Divine Donald Alert: CNS Gushes Over Christian Musicians Singing In Oval Office Topic: CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com hasn't paraded President Trump's purported Judeo Christian worldview to the extent as, say, WorldNetDaily, though wacky pro-Trump rabbi Aryeh Spero has his moments. So Patrick Goodenough's gushy Nov. 15 CNS article about Christian musicians spontaneously breaking out into song during an Oval Office visit it a bit of a surprise in its divine-Donald propagandistic tone:
A “faith briefing” at the White House this week saw Christian music artists hold an impromptu worship session, singing songs of praise near the Oval Office.
In social media posts, some participants, including Contemporary Christian Music (CCM) recording artists, described learning more about the administration’s faith-based initiatives, and having what they called an remarkable experience of singing praise songs in that location.
Several phone-captured video clips were posted, included one by Christian rock and pop artist Tauren Wells showing attendees singing, without accompaniment, the Hillsong Worship song, “What a beautiful name.”
Other clips included snatches from “How great is our God” and “Thank youLord for saving my soul.”
“What a privilege to declare the name of Jesus in worship and in prayer today at the White House,” Wells posted on Instagram. “I was challenged, informed, convicted, & inspired at the faith briefing w/ many peers in the CCM industry. The church has a great opportunity to rise with grace & truth in this hour.”
Members of We Are Messengers, an Irish worship band based in Nashville, Tenn., said the visit had given them “a genuine sense of Hope for this nation.”
“God is in control and has people at the very top level of Government who are working day in and day out to reach people with the love of Christ, to raise up the lowly, to take care of widows and orphans, to re-energize communities and faith communities all across the USA,” they said. “We need to pray for this Government and unite with them in the Work they are doing.”
Goodenough got even further o the bandwagon by presenting a Trump administration Christian-pandering initiative as something more meaningful:
The White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives was established by President George W. Bush a week after taking office in January 2001, as a way to enhance the capacity of faith-based and community groups to provide federally-funded social services, by removing legal and institutional barriers preventing them from doing so.
President Obama renamed the initiative the Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships and also established an advisory council.
President Trump in an executive order last May renamed it the White House Faith and Opportunity Initiative, to empower faith-based organizations and “promote religious freedom.”
A number of key government departments now have Faith and Opportunity directors. They include the departments of State, Justice, Homeland Security, Labor, Commerce, Agriculture Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Veteran Affairs and USAID.
Goodenoughh even embedded links to each of those agency offices in his article. Now that's being dedicated to your propaganda.
Massie's latest anti-Obama screed is his Nov. 26 column headlined "The Obama have led blacks away from God," and Michelle Obama's new book seems to have set him off this time. He writes:
Instead of fawning over these people, black ministers should be preaching against the sin they personify. Case-in-point Michelle Obama was regaled for recently telling the world that she will, “never forgive him,” referring to President Trump during her book tour.
Where in the Bible does God’s word say it is OK to lie? Any minister with a passing familiarity of Scripture knows that God hates a liar. How do they reconcile: “These six things doth the LORD hate: A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among the brethren.” (Proverbs 6:16-19 KJV) Do their Bibles omit Proverbs 22:12?
Michelle Obama told an outright lie, and even more sordid, she did so to engender hatred, which the Bible also speaks to. Matthew 6:14-15 is a statement of fact; it is not open to interpretation: “For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.” (KJV)
Michelle Obama knows that Hillary Clinton is responsible for the “birther” issue. It was Clinton’s presidential campaign that unearthed Obama’s background and brought it into the public in 2008. But Obama blames President Trump for doing it in 2011. What about Matthew 5:21-22 and the book of 1 John chapters 1 and 2 escapes these people?
Gotta love the random Bible quotes about lying and forgiveness Massie sticks in there -- this from a man who has clearly not forgiven Barack Obama for the crime of being elected president and who has told numerous malicious lies about Obama (grifter Larry Sinclair, for one, would be surprised to learn that he died suspiciously in 2011).
Also note that Massie omits the full context of Michelle Obama's words about Trump. As we've previously noted, Obama said of Trump's birther obsession: "The whole thing was crazy and mean-spirited, of course, its underlying bigotry and xenophobia hardly concealed,. But it was also dangerous, deliberately meant to stir up the wingnuts and kooks. What if someone with an unstable mind loaded a gun and drove to Washington? What if that person went looking for our girls? Donald Trump, with his loud and reckless innuendos, was putting my family’s safety at risk. And for this I’d never forgive him."
In other words, Obama was mad because the bogus birther conspiracy endangered her family. Funny how Massie doesn't think that part is newsworthy. Massie would likely be not so forgiving of someone (almost as much as he's unforgiving of Obama) if someone told lies about him that put him and his family in danger.
And, as we've also pointed out, it's revisionist history to blame Hillary for birtherism. Hillary made no public statements about it whatsoever, and her campaign never made it an official talking point. It's only when right-wing, anti-Obama outlets like WND got a hold of it that it became an public issue. It was WND, not Hillary, that fed birther conspiracies behind the scenes to Trump in 2011 -- an inconvenient fact Massie clearly doesn't want to talk about.
Meanwhile, the hate-filled Massie fills the rest of his column with rants that fulfill its headline:
I ask those blacks who are drunk with adulation for the Obamas, what have they done to help black people?
Under Obama, eight-year White House occupant, blacks were unemployed – but they did get Obama-phones and food stamps. Under Obama, blacks were not even the recipients of Michelle Obama’s throwaway clothes. She lived high off the proverbial hog. She was a jet-setting superstar taking usufruct to unprecedented heights.
The Obamas support the murder of babies, i.e., abortion, they support homosexuality, and they support gluttony and avarice. How can blacks that consider themselves as clergy abide such agendas? Where in their Bibles does God sanction such behavior?
Not only have the Obamas not done anything to help the very demographic that worships them, but they have knowingly led a supposedly religious people away from the Lord.
Can there be any wonder how it is that the most religious demographic in America is the most deeply immersed in lifestyles that have nothing to do with religious lives? Satan has blinded the people and used his minions to lead blacks far from the Lord. That is, unless black church leaders are prepared to argue that sin for blacks isn’t the same as for everyone else.
It's clear the hypocritical Massie will never apply Proverbs 6:16-19 and Matthew 6:14-15 to himself.
AIM's Double Standard On How Botched Facts Are Treated Topic: Accuracy in Media
Brian McNicoll complains in a Nov. 19 Accuracy in Media post:
TMZ got one fact wrong in its original rush story on Michael Avenatti being arrested for felony domestic violence – and quickly corrected it.
But that gave the rest of the mainstream media enough room to discount the allegations against the attorney.
In “Michael Avenatti Arrested for Felony Domestic Violence … I’LL BE ‘FULLY EXONERATED,’ the celebrity/show-biz-focused outlet originally reported the woman Avenatti allegedly struck was his former wife.
“We were initially told by our sources the alleged victim was Avenatti’s estranged wife,” TMZ wrote atop an updated piece. “We now know it was not. The incident involved a different woman.”
McNicoll is actually complaining that others do what AIM does. Compare McNicoll's tone with Carrie Sheffield's tone in a Dec. 3 AIM post on a different media outlet and a different fact that had to be fixed:
NPR was forced to correction append its report titled “Trump Jr.’s 2017 Testimony Conflicts with Cohen’s Account of Russian Talks.”
NPR reporter Philip Ewing claimed that Donald Trump Jr.’s testimony conflicted with attorney Michael Cohen’s testimony about the timeline of possible real estate deals that were in tentative talks among some Russians and the Trump Organization. NPR had conflated two separate real estate negotiations with two separate parties, one that included “the Agalarov family, Emin and his father Aras,” that ended prior to President Trump launching his presidential campaign.
The NPR correction came after online pressure from conservatives, including Andrew Surabian, who tweeted: “Will @nprpolitics retract this blatantly false story and apologize to @DonaldJTrumpJr? Or are they ok with misleading their audience and spreading verified #FakeNews all over social media?”
So TMZ merely "got one fact wrong" in a story on a person conservatives hate -- and merely a "misleading" graphic from its apparently subjective rating system -- while NPR got accused of #FakeNews for getting a fact wrong in a story about a conservative darling and the full "fake news" rating, despite also correcting the record. Funny how that works.
CNS Labors to Spin Away Trump Failing To Go To Arlington Cemetery on Veterans Day Topic: CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com is such a loyal pro-Trump operation that it even spins his screw-ups to make them look not so bad.
A Nov. 19 CNS article by Melanie Arter featured President Trump admitting that he should have gone to Arlington National Cemetery on Veterans Day, as is traditional for presidents. But she was quick to frame criticism of Trump's failure to do so as having a partisan motivation, claiming "liberal media pundits dumped on Trump" for failing to go.
In fact, criticism came from across the Political spectrum, as compiled in an article at the conservative Daily Caller. Even the decidedly not-liberal Reagan Batallion website pointed out that President George W. Bush went to Arlington in the rain -- rain being the cited reason Trump didn't go. And right-leaning political pundit Ana Navarro highlighted how Trump mostly escaped criticism for his failure to go when President Obama would have been excoriated had he done the same thing. Indeed, Arter's article is the first mention of Trump's failure by CNS.
Arter then went even further, finding "at least one war veteran said he's not offended by President Trump's decision to skip the Arlinton ceremony": Dan Crenshaw, a newly elected Republican congressman, who spouted Trump talking points about raising military pay and "giving us the equipment we need" as being more important than showing up at Arllington on Veterans Day.
Did WND Know The Seth Rich Conspiracy Was Fake News All Along? Topic: WorldNetDaily
Last week, the Daily Beast reported that Jerome Corsi and Roger Stone, despite spending the past two years promoting the conspiracy theory that Democratic National Committee staffer Seth Rich was murdered because he leaked private DNC emails to WikiLeaks, knew as early as August 2016 -- less than a month after Rich's death in apparent botched robbery attempt -- that Russian hackers, not Rich, gave those emails to WikiLeaks.
This raises some uncomfortable questions for WorldNetDaily, one of the chief promoters of this bogus conspiracy theory. Corsi was an employee of WND until January 2017, when he moved to Alex Jones' InfoWars.
WND was quick to embrace the conspiracy theory that Rich was murdered over the emails. An August 2016 article by Bob Unruh published a week after Corsi knew Rich had no role in leaking the DNC emails touted how Rich was among the "people with tangential connections to Bill and Hillary Clinton have died in unusual circumstances" and repeated the suggestion from right-wing columnist Rachel Alexander -- most recently prominent at WND for painting corrupt right-wing ex-congressman Steve Stockman as an innocent victim of the "deep state" -- linking his death to the leak of the DNC emails. Even the slow disintegration of the Rich conspiracy theory on other fronts hasn't moved WND to correct the record.
Now we know that at least one WND employee at the time it embraced the Rich conspiracy theory knew the story was false as WND promoted it. It's possible, if not likely, that others at WND knew that as well.
In short: WND knew or should have know the Rich conspiracy was fake news, yet it spent two years promoting it as if it was real.
Rich's family and spokespeople have not been shy about filing lawsuits against those who promulgated the false conspiracy theory (even if they don't always succeed). It's clear that with this revelation, Corsi and WND now face legal liability for pushing a story they knew or should have known was false from the get-go.
WND has not reported on this development, let alone admit its implications. This refusal to take responsibility for its mistakes -- or, in this case, an apparent decision to knowingly publish a false story -- is a big reason why WND has not yet demonstrated that it deserves to live beyond its ongoing financial crises.
MRC Outraged That Female Genital Mutiliation Law Overturned, Silent On The Conservative Principle Invoked Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's Bill D'Agostino huffed in a Nov. 21 post:
Liberal cable and broadcast networks have completely ignored a Detroit Judge’s finding that federal laws against female genital mutilation are unconstitutional. As of noon on Wednesday, Fox News remains the only television news outlet to have reported on this controversial decision.
The Detroit Free Press announced the ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Bernard Friedman overstepped its bounds by legislating to prohibit FGM [Female Genital Mutilation].
On its face, a Judge overturning a federal law against female genital mutilation sounds newsworthy. But although CNN at least is aware of the ruling (as evidenced by November 20 article on their website), they and other TV news networks have determined that it is not worth the time to inform their viewers of this court decision. Why might that be?
As outraged as D'Agostino is about the decision, he's curiously reluctant to explain the judge's reasoning -- perhaps because it involves a bedrock conservative principle.
As an actual news outlet explained, Friedman stated that "As laudable as the prohibition of a particular type of abuse of girls may be ... federalism concerns deprive Congress of the power to enact this statute," adding: "Congress overstepped its bounds by legislating to prohibit FGM ... FGM is a 'local criminal activity' which, in keeping with longstanding tradition and our federal system of government, is for the states to regulate, not Congress."
Federalism is generally adhered to by conservatives as a principle faithful to the Constitution by letting more issues be handled on a state-by-state level than mandated on a federal level. In other words, Friedman was simply applying a conservative principle to the issue of female genital mutilation and ruling that it should be regulated on the state level (not unlike what conservatives want to do with abortion by agitating for the repeal of Roe v. Wade).
The MRC's "news" division, CNSNews.com, did a slightly better job. A Nov. 21 article by Patrick Goodenough did explain that Friedman ruled that the practice "is for the states to regulate, not Congress," but allowed conservative activists to attack the decision without explaining that the judge invoked a conservative principle.
Then And Now, Charlie Daniels Edition Topic: CNSNews.com
So, will we ever be able to have a sensible conversation between the diverse political and social factions?
Will we ever again be able to sit down at the same table and actually work things out?
Well, at least in my humble opinion, the only way that’s going to happen is for both sides to put aside the animosity, the animus, the preconceived, the distrust and forget the old battle scars and try to see some merit in each other’s opinions, and after having examined both sides of the issues in question, approach them with common sense, make a fair and honest assessment and find a point of agreement.
This would require a lot of flexibility and give and take on both sides.
Being a Bible-believing Christian, I hate globalism with a passion.
Globalism is the kingdom of the antichrist, and it happens when the nations of the world hand their sovereignty and power over to a person, masquerading as an angel of light, who seems to have all the answers to the world’s problems, but is actually the embodiment of evil.
That is the ultimate act of mankind putting their trust in other men rather than Almighty God.
That's when the term "hell to pay" becomes a reality.
Had everything gone according to plan, Hillary Clinton would have been elected, and all the corruption would have been buried way down deep. Two more ultraliberal rubber-stamp Supreme Court Justices would have been appointed, the borders would have been completely opened up and a method developed for granting these individuals citizenship – and voting rights granted to undocumented immigrants – and our government would have turned into a one-party monopoly, without any way to defeat it.
Guns would have eventually been confiscated, tax cuts never passed, the military gutted, coal mining banned, domestic fracking and petroleum exploration abandoned and business-killing federal restrictions put in force. Yes, entitlements would balloon. The national debt would double, perhaps triple, and eventually cause the kind of inflation we can’t even imagine.
The American dollar would have ceased to be the official trading currency around the world, and America would have to buy whatever the preferred currency would be to pay for imports. Environmental groups would have finagled legislation that would make farming unprofitable, and carbon credits would have driven fuel prices out of sight. Abortion mills would have become as common as fast food restaurants, and religious rights would have been severely curtailed.
It seems that – for the most part – political dialogue in America has deteriorated from discussion and debate to, name calling, catfights and one-uppance contests, with everybody more intent on having the last word, than proving a point.
We – and I include myself in this group of verbal hyperbolics – instead of responding to some slight of someone on our side with a sensible reason why the accusation is untrue or unfair, allow our dander to rise, and we come up with some overinflated criticism of something their fair-haired boy, or girl, has done, or said. They respond in kind, and the incendiary battle is joined, waxing more caustic, more unproductive and ridiculous in the process.
I am not pointing fingers, as I have been guilty of a toxic gilding of the lily and responding with more heat than any civilized conversation can handle.
When the battle lines are drawn by ideology, the heated rhetoric fanned by an agenda-driven media, and human nature being what it is, it’s hard not to fly off the handle, to start with a prejudiced view of the other person’s opinion, with a preconceived attitude toward the other person and their point.
But can we not just let our differences be settled by courteous dialogue? We might actually learn something about each other. And goodness knows we need to.
The odds are too high to let temper and implacability take over.
Maxine Waters’ maniac raving, encouraging the harassment of those who disagree with her and her party’s politics is motivated by the same evil purposes as the creation of the Brown Shirts and could give birth to a very nasty movement, a “law” unto itself and totally out of anybody’s control.
The purpose, to physically suppress, terrorize and hound political opponents, with complete political dominance by one party is the goal.
So, Maxine, Hillary, Corey and all the rest of you rabble-rousers, it’s time to call off the dogs, to rein in the fledgling brown shirts before you foment something you can’t possibly control that can only end in a kind of violence you can’t even imagine.
Remember, America: the same political bunch who are willing to sic the mobs on you are the same bunch that wants much stricter gun laws.
Folks, there are those who are trying to steal your country, to make it into their deformed image of a socialist servant to a central global government that would control every facet of your life, and if they win at the ballot box, there is little that can be done to stop them.