MRC: It's Not Biased For Fox To Ask Cruz About Sex Scandal, But It Is Bias For ABC To Play Fox Clip Of It Topic: Media Research Center
Curtis Houck huffs in an April 4 MRC NewsBusters item:
On the night before voters in Wisconsin go to the polls for the presidential primary, ABC’s World News Tonight found it worthwhile to spend nearly its entire time allotted for Ted Cruz rehashing the unsubstantiated smears from the National Enquirer tabloid about extramarital affairs.
All told, the networks wasted 55 seconds (out of the one minute and 16 seconds spent on Cruz) working to help resurrect the story in light of Megyn Kelly’s brief exchange with Cruz in a taped town hall that will air as an hour-long special on the Fox News Channel.
Anchor David Muir led into Republican campaign correspondent Tom Llamas’s report by harping on Trump being “in damage control” after his abortion comments last week and an interview one of Trump’s ex-wives recently gave before proclaiming: “Ted Cruz this evening, asked by Megyn Kelly, ‘have you committed adultery?’”
Wait a minute. Houck is not criticizing Megyn Kelly and Fox News for asking Cruz about about the "unsubstantiated smears" regarding Cruz, but he's accusing ABC for being biased for playing a clip of the Fox News segment? Yep.
How is this not a blatant double standard? Well, Houck has a pretty lame explanation that exonderates Fox News:
At the end of the day, it’s one matter for Kelly to spend a small amount of time alluding to the smear since she had an hour to speak with Cruz, but it’s another for a network newscast with only a handful of minutes to summarize the day’s news and harping on something that hasn’t been corroborated.
So, let us get this straight: It's not bias for Fox to focus on the Cruz scandal becsause it was a "small amount" of a larger interview, but it's bias for ABC to do so because it has "only a handful of minutes to summarize the day’s news."
CNS Reporter Is Sad Poor Blacks Will Get To Live In White Suburbs Topic: CNSNews.com
We've noted how the Media Research Center has slowly been turning into WND. Now it's creeping into WND-esque race-baiting.
In a March 25 CNSNews.com article, Susan Jones sounds the alarm about a "landmark" settlement in suburban Baltimore that means "low-income housing" (read: black people) will be coming to "affluent" suburbs (read: white people). She grumbles: "The goal is to move low- and very-low-income people out of the city and into the suburbs." As she's wont to do, Jones adds a little editorial snarking to her "news" article:
The county must, within 180 days, introduce (and keep trying to pass) legislation that prohibits housing discrimination based on a person's lawful source of income. This means a landlord can't refuse someone housing if he or she plans to pay the rent with Social Security or other public assistance instead of a paycheck (job!).
As WND did when it tackled the issue of housing inequality in the Baltimore suburbs a few months earlier, Jones ignores the history of racial discrimination in Baltimore and its suburbs that keep blacks in the inner city and out of the suburbs.
While Jones mocks the idea that the Baltimore suburbs must pass a law prohibiting discrimination against the type of income used to pay rent, she doesn't explain why such discrimination is a good thing. And her sneering that people who have housing vouchers don't have "jobs!" -- and, therefore, are lazy bums who aren't even white -- ignores the fact that people who are on disability and cannot work are also eligible to receive housing vouchers.
Jones is simply engaging in lazy reporting that caters to her right-wing (and, we can presume, mostly white) CNS audience.
Farah Lies About WND And Its Mission (Wait, It's A 'Christian' Website Now?) Topic: WorldNetDaily
Joseph Farah used his March 29 WorldNetDaily column to rant about how he's going to stop patronizing the various business interests that allegedly blocked the signing of an anti-gay law in Georgia, which he insists really isn't anti-gay because "Nowhere in the bill does it mention 'gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people.'" He then adds: "Might I also suggest that you get serious about media alternatives like WND, the largest Christian news site in the world, the largest Christian content site in the world and one that is pledged, first and foremost, to telling you the truth?"
Wait, what? WND is a "Christian" website now?
It would appear so. WND's "about" page -- which, for some reason, has its own domain name. aboutwnd.com -- blares that it is "the largest Christian website in the world -- bigger than any ministry site, bigger than any Christian broadcast site, bigger than any Christian content site, bigger even than the Vatican’s site."
And the idea that WND is "pledged, first and foremost, to telling you the truth"is utterly laughable, given themassivepileoflies WND has peddled over the years.
Farah piled on the false self-aggrandization in an April 1 column that's mostly about a reader named Chris who thought that WND's Chelsea Schilling was the reporter allegedly accosted by Donald Trump's campaign manager. He continued:
WND was launched 19 years ago as the very first independent online news agency. It was founded for the very reason Chris suggests – because the news media had lost its way, its sense of mission, its purpose and commitment to the facts without the bias.
From my standpoint, there are too many casual news consumers who are not using any discernment in reading the news, often jumping to conclusions and not really understanding the facts presented – let alone who is presenting them.
That’s a real problem for news agencies like WND. How in the world do things get so twisted?
Because WND is contributing to the twisting of facts that Farah is ostensibly complaining about. Remember that WND has refused to publish facts that contradict its Obama birther conspiracy theories.
And when WND's readers do actually use discernment against WND, Farah gets all bent out of shape -- as when readers called out Farah's endorsement of Ted Cruz for president by pointing out that by WND's own standards as applied to Barack Obama, he's not eligible.
This all goes to credibility and truth -- something Farah and WND threw away in its obsessive attempt to destroy Obama and which they have yet to rebuild. There's a reason nobody believes WND, and pretending it's now a "Christian website" that has only ever cared about the truth is just one of them.
NewsBusters Blogger Is Mad A Cable TV Show Says Being Gay Isn't A Choice Topic: NewsBusters
Such fortuitous timing! The same day we posted our profile of NewsBusters' Dylan Gwinn and his record of homophobia and inaccuracy, he comes through again.
For some reason, the lower-tier sports guy is reviewing TV shows for the Media Research Center, and he's extremely put out that "The Fosters," a show on Freeform (the cable channel formerly known as ABC Family, which probably has lower ratings than Fox News, a channel the MRC doesn't think needs to be monitored) talked about the gays, and the idea that one can't choose to be gay:
Yeah, and she’s lying now. Specifically, about the concept of free will. Free will would be completely unnecessary if it meant people could only choose what they biologically are. Because there is no choice in that. Your biology is pre-determined. Which of course, is precisely the point she’s trying to make: that gay people can’t use free will to change because it’s not a choice.
However, straight and gay people do make the choice to change all the time.
People like Cynthia Nixon from Sex and the City, who actually had a husband and a family before deciding to become a lesbian. Not only did Nixon decide to change her sexuality. But she even went so far as to say it was her choice to become a lesbian. Not something she was pre-determined to do.
Was her gay gene just “dormant” for the first few decades of her life? No, she used her free will because her biology was not pre-determined by anything called a gay gene. A reality that’s pretty horrifying to the activists behind shows like The Fosters. Which is why Nixon was heavily criticized by those in her own community for telling the truth.
Which of course is why scenes like this and shows like The Fosters exist. To make sure the inconvenient truths about the agenda the LGBT community is pushing remain conveniently hidden.
Gwinn conveniently omits the fact that in the ABC News article to which he links to support his assertion about Nixon's alleged "choice" to be lesbian, it quotes gay blogger Jon Aravosis explain that if you can freely choose the sex of your sexual partner, you're not gay (or straight):
If you like both flavors, men and women, you're bisexual, you're not gay, so please don't tell people that you are gay, and that gay people can "choose" their sexual orientation, i.e., will it out of nowhere. Because they can't," he wrote. "Every religious right hatemonger is now going to quote this woman every single time they want to deny us our civil rights."
And by golly, Gwinn proves Aravosis' final sentence correct. He does hate gays with the passion of a religious-right hatemonger, even cheering that openly gay football player Michael Sam didn't catch on in the pros.
Gwinn also whines that "The Fosters," by noting such things, is engaging in "LGBT activism and indoctrination" -- a rather rich accusation from someone working for an organziation dedicated to anti-LGBT activism and indoctrination.
WND Relieved To Know That Cop-Killer Is Black Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily's race-baiting may have become more subtle in order to hang onto ad revenue, but that doesn't mean it won't be blatant when the situation demands.
Take this April 1 article by Cheryl Chumley, in which the overriding feeling is relief that the man who killed a police officer at a bus station in Richmond, Va., has been revealed as black. The headline reads "Richmond cop killed finally ID'd as black man," and Chumley echoes the sentiment:
After nearly a day-and-a-half of waiting, authorities in Richmond, Virginia, have finally officially released the name of the suspect who was killed during a shooting attack on police at a bus station that left a law enforcement official dead and others injured – and he’s a black man who hails from the Chicago area.
WTVR CBS 6 reporter Mark Holmberg first reported late Thursday evening the name of the gunman as James Brown III, 34, of Aurora, Illinois, located about 40 miles outside Chicago. But police didn’t confirm the name until Friday morning, saying they needed to inform next of kin of his death.
As if the race of the shooter was the most important thing about this story. Of course, for the race-baiters at WND, it actually is.
As has been the pattern at CNSNews.com for the past few months, Susan Jones' lead story on March's umployment leads with the labor force participation rate. She fails as usual to mention the relevant fact that the labor force number -- since it includes students and retirees who aren't looking for jobs -- is a unreliable number for discussing unemployment.
Instead of recruiting Michael Chapman to write another article about how the black unemployment rate is double that of whites (which it has always been since statistics began to be kept, and which is referenced in Jones' article), Terry Jeffrey weighs in with an article on new data show "The United States lost 29,000 manufacturing jobs in March while gaining jobs in retail trade, food services and drinking establishments." Jeffrey's implication that this is somehow President Obama's fault is undermined by a chart accompanying his article that shows not only retail jobs eclipsed manufacturing jobs around 2003 -- under a Republican president -- but that manufacturing jobs were at their lowest levels since the 1940s in 2009, and that employment in the manufacturing sector has mostly been on the increase since then.
Speaking of Stupidity in Higher Education... Topic: Media Research Center
So the Media Research Center is promoting its MRCTV with ads like this:
Of course, it's not like getting college students to say dumb things on camera is difficult, or anything to be proud of as a career.
But when we think of "stupidity in higher education," we think of MRCTV's Dan Joseph pretending to be "transgender" by going to a college campus, dressing in gym shorts and a tank top speaking with a lisp (because, you know, transgender) and demanding to use the women's locker room because "I have the man parts but, you know, inside I feel more like a woman."
Maybe Joseph needs to go back to college (assuming he ever went in the first place) so he can learn what being transgender actually means. He won't, of course, because the MRC is paying him to mock transgenders, not tell the truth.
This week, a United States president was humiliated on the world’s stage by an aging, insulting Communist dictator.
Our feckless U.S. president appeared unfazed by the message he portrayed of American incompetence and historic irrelevance.
In fact, the president appeared pleased with himself and seemed to revel in his infallible cleverness.
-- Michele Bachmann, March 22 WorldNetDailiy column
This week, our illustrious president, Barack Hussein Obama, visited the communist island nation of Cuba. This of course gave rise to much contention, as the visit sort of symbolizes the success of the pernicious Obama agenda.
Since he’s an America-hating, socialist swine, Obama eagerly entertained criticism of America from Cuban President Raul Castro on the issues of race relations and economic inequality. In a sense, it is amusing that the tin-horn dictator of this Third World latrine would have the temerity to criticize America on those points, since race relations and economic inequality in Cuba are handled with the same heavy hand as other concerns.
It is now even more apparent that Obama, being in his last year of an arrogant, belligerent, divisive and highly destructive presidency, believes that he can do whatever he wants, regardless of appearances. He is consciously disparaging the United States as his final payback for what he views as hundreds of years of continuing racial discrimination toward African-Americans and, more recently, his fellow Muslims.
Within the ivory towers of America’s Ivy League colleges, where theories are equated with real-life experience, leftists like Obama are taught that dictators like the Castro brothers are a byproduct of America’s dominance around the world; therefore, they’re worthy of praise in a morbid sort of way, despite oppressing their citizens for decades.
At the same time, like so many around the world, we have felt profound contempt toward ISIS and are even more resolute than ever that the U.S. government needs to do everything within its power to eradicate Islamic jihadists from the planet.
Unfortunately, with the present regime in our White House, it’s never going to happen, for it was instrumental in creating ISIS, continuing to downplay its threat, and even aiding and abetting its growth. I’ll prove it.
Is Obama enabling the diminishing influence of Christianity and Easter itself in the U.S.?
Do you see why we need a strong, conservative, commonsense leader?
Does any of that mayhem have anything to do with this country or with our security? Does Obama – or anyone in his administration – care about the ongoing experience of Europe in dealing with the massive refugee problems, the crime, the inundation of its societies and the effect on the people, and the imminent and very real threat that among the migration of people are those who are, indeed, terrorists?
Judging by his non-reaction, any logical person would conclude Obama doesn’t care and doesn’t think it’s a problem, especially for Americans.
However, if anyone has any question as to why Donald Trump has the support he does, this is the reason.
Barack Obama has created Donald Trump’s support.
Donald Trump is saying what average Americans want to hear: Protect our country, our future and our heritage, and the bottom line is immigration. Stop it and fix it.
Barack Obama reaffirmed his determination to remain at war with the country he leads until Jan. 20, 2017, by admitting 100,000 predominantly Sunni Muslims from the Middle East whom he calls “refugees.”
It’s past time Congress, the press, the Republican Party and every 2016 presidential contender recognize what we are up against – not just a committed and brutal foe who seeks our destruction, but an appeaser in the White House either oblivious to the threat he is increasing or secretly accommodating it.
Remember who Obama is. He is a subscriber to the Marxist Cloward-Piven strategy of orchestrated chaos at home. He’s practiced it with his economic policies. He’s practiced it with his health-care policies. Why does anyone not believe he would practice it with national security policies?
One of the most noteworthy examples of this phenomenon has been our scurvy knave of a low-born, treasonous scoundrel president, Barack Hussein Obama, as he attempts to characterize Muslim populations as benign and assimilable. Specifically, I refer to Obama’s recent rhetoric in light of the massive uptick in terror attacks by Muslims over the last several years. He’s found it necessary to admonish Americans not to hold animosity nor suspicion toward “America’s Mooslims” as a result of their worldwide terror attacks, their ongoing invasion of Europe and the tinderbox they have made of the Middle East and parts of Africa. Presumably, this is toward strengthening his argument for allowing untold numbers of Muslim “refugees” into the United States.
It bordered on hysterical (as in outrageously humorous) a couple of days ago when Obama reminded us once again of the “many contributions” Muslims have made to the rich history of our country. I defy anybody to name one significant contribution Muslims have made to this nation – with the qualifier that it is a positive contribution.
No, Tom Blumer, Brussels Bombing Suspect Is Not A 'Journalist' Topic: NewsBusters
Tom Blumer, the spectacularly clueless NewsBusters blogger, is weirdly obsessed with the Associated Press, to the point that he's actually mad when the AP reports the truth.
Blumer goes off on the AP again in a March 28 post:
Media outlets around the world are reporting that Faycal Cheffou has been arrested for his alleged involvement with last week's terrorist attacks in Belgium.
Media outlets around the world are reporting that Faycal Cheffou was a journalist — except for the Associated Press.
There are two entries at the AP's "Big Story" site which contain references to Cheffou. A search at the AP's main national site, where stories originally posted often disappear after they are "updated" for future developments, returned no stories on Cheffou.
Why won't AP describe Faycal Cheffou as others have? Because he didn't have a union card? Someone will have to ask them.
AP's position on this is far more than an academic matter. Its writeups clearly drive the presentation of the news on the Big 3 networks' morning shows, and virtually ensures that Cheffou, if he is mentioned at all, will not be tagged as a journalist. If he really was, and there seems to be little reason to believe that he wasn't, that's a pertinent fact viewing audiences should know, and won't.
Missing from Blumer's article: any evidence that Cheffou is, in fact, a journalist. And there appears to be a good reason the AP didn't report this information: because it doesn't appear to be true.
Blumer does mention a video Cheffou posted on YouTube two years ago as apparent backup for his "journalist" claim. But as the UK Independent reports, that video is the only apparent proof of Cheffou being a "journalist," and nobody is calling him that except Cheffou himself.
Blumer notes an AFP article that "refers to Cheffou working, presumably as a news person, at a radio station back in 2008." But Blumer is merely speculating; the article does not state what he did at the radio station and, like the Independent, notes that the source of Cheffou being a "journalist" is Cheffou himself.
So it seems that the AP is being quite prudent in not labeling Cheffou as something for which there is no proof. Blumer might want to take a lesson from that.
WND Goes All In Defending Trump Campaign Manager, Bashing Reporter He Allegedly Assaulted Topic: WorldNetDaily
When the story first emerged of the alleged altercation between Donald Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski and reporter Michelle Fields, WorldNetDaily seemed at first to rush to Trump's side in an article by Cheryl Chumley that presented the side of Breitbart News, Fields' then-employer, in throwing its reporter under the bus. WND's reporting got more balanced, however, as videos supporting Fields' accusation that Lewandowski forcefully grabbed her.
But since the arrest of Lewandowski on a charged of battery over the incident, WND has totally gone in for Trump and Lewandowski, and against Fields.
Jerome Corsi declared that the Florida prosecutor who brought the charges "supports Hillary Clinton’s campaign for president." By contrast, Corsi and WND had no problem with Katherine Harris, the Bush supporter who just happened to be Florida secretary of state in charge of elections when the 2000 presidential election went all wacky in Florida -- to the point that the first book published under the WND Books imprint was a memoir by Harris.
Chumley played the distraction card with an article asserting that "when it comes to roughhousing reporters, Democrats, including one tied to President Obama’s years-ago CIA pick, seem to take the cake."
Another Corsi article takes stenography from the Trump campaign by repeating "his campaign’s initial suggestion that Fields had a history of such allegations against public figures."
Obama Derangement Syndrome victim Wayne Allyn Root, meanwhile, contributed a column in which he asserts that "The whole thing looks like a conspiracy to stop Trump’s campaign, while ruining the reputation of a good man" and slags Fields as a publicity-seeker who may be secretly paid by George Soros while playing the lame "I'm just asking the question" card:
Fields has a new book coming out. Did her attempt to turn a minor touch into an international incident have anything to do with boosting sales of her new book? Was she trying to claim her “15 minutes of fame”?
Could Fields have been paid to set up Trump and cry foul? Could George Soros or MoveOn.org have made her an offer she couldn’t refuse? Could the Clinton Foundation have promised her a lucrative job? Could a lobbyist have offered her a bribe? After all, K Street stands to lose billions in government business if Trump is elected.
These are all questions that need to be asked.
Is there solid proof that the bruise on her arm was legitimate? Could it have been created with makeup after the fact? Could she have purposely bruised her arm after the fact to create a false picture?
Was this entire incident an exaggeration from a desperate attention seeker? A political set-up? Or just an attempt to sell books?
One thing it was not is pretty clear: It was not assault.
Look: Michelle Fields and her enablers are no conservatives. These women and their male helpers inhabit a solipsistic, narcissistic, decidedly progressive universe.
In “A Nation of Victims,” Mr. Sykes had described a lamentable process whereby America’s formative institutions had morphed from transmitting timeless values, to being propelled by a therapeutic ethos, a “social contract with The Self.”
A contract with The Self – or the selfie – better describes the new breed of badly bred, unprofessional, Michelle Fields millennials.
The woman’s claims-making is that of someone who sees herself as the center of a small universe, feminized and sissified by her ilk.
Mercer goes on to huff that "Mr. Lewandowski is being criminalized and his employer maligned for an infraction invisible to the naked eye" by "Ms. Fields and her coven of pseudo-conservatives," concluding: "The assault on Ms. Fields was as real as the ectoplasm said to spill from a medium’s mouth during séance (which is to say, as truthful as what comes out of Megyn Kelly’s mouth)."
That line of thought appears to be the official WND line.
MRC's Tabloid Hypocrisy Continues Topic: Media Research Center
Is the Media Research Center still being hypocritical about the credibility of tabloids regarding the sex lives of presidential candidates? You bet it is.
The MRC continues to be aghast that the National Enquirer's report on alleged affairs by Ted Cruz though it demanded in 2008 that the media pick up tabloid reports of a John Edwards affair. Scott Whitlock huffs that "there’s a complete lack of solid sourcing in the sleazy National Enquirer allegations against Ted Cruz," and Curtis Houck complains that late-night hosts are "promoting the smear as legitimate."
And as expected, Tim Graham and Brent Bozell devote an entire column to whining about it, harrumphing that "The National Enquirer's name in journalism is synonymous with factually unsupported drivel of the lowest kind. It is a sacred truth that no responsible journalist would reference the kind of garbage found in this tabloid" and further complaining about "the awful National Enquirer."
Funny, Bozell (and, thus, Graham since he was Bozell's ghostwriter at the time) didn't have that problem in 2008. In his column on the Edwards scandal, he hurled no epithets at the Enquirer for pedding "garbage" and "drivel," instead touting how "for months ... the National Enquirer has been trickling out the goods they collected on John Edwards having an affair and possibly a love child with campaign aide Rielle Hunter, staking out Edwards in a California hotel - and how he hid in the bathroom to avoid them." He went on to praise the Enquirer for having "dug out the Edwards affair."
And the MRC was desperate to promote the Edwards scandal at the stage that it was "factually unsupported drivel." As early as October 2007, it was demanding that "MSM" coverage of the Enquirer's reports on Edwards because "the mere allegation would be worthy of a media frenzy based upon its recent behavior."
However, the MRC is so dedicated to keeping up the double standard that MRC video guy and world's lamest fake transsexual Dan Joseph went out and "asked Americans" -- read: played man-on-the-street in front of the White House -- about the Cruz-Enquirer story, which he introduced this way:
Last week, America's most-famous tabloid newspaper, “National Enquirer,” printed a story alleging that Republican presidential candidate Texas Sen. Ted Cruz has had extramarital affairs with multiple women throughout the course of his political career. Many of Cruz's detractors immediately took the story as fact and used it in an effort to derail his campaign.
Apparently, “National Enquirer” is now considered, by some, to be a legitimate source of political news and information.
MRCTV went to the White House and asked Americans what they thought of this shining beacon of journalistic integrity.
Joseph didn't tell the "Americans" he ambushed that his employer considers the Enquirer a "shining beacon of journalistic integrity" -- when they go after Democrats, anyway. But he does ask one person, apparently without irony, "Do you think it's a good thing that we're starting to have political discussions about stories that were broken in a tabloid like this?"
What WND Columnist Brent Smith Doesn't Get About Deportation Topic: WorldNetDaily
When Brent Smith joined WorldNetDaily's weekly commentary lineup at thte start of 2016, it touted how he considers himself "just an average Joe," adding, "I’m proud of the fact that I’m neither a journalist nor an academic, but a completely self-educated common-sense thinker, a la Limbaugh, Hannity and Beck." Well, that explains a lot.
Smith writes in his March 28 column defending the idea of deporting all 11 million allegedly undocumented immigrants in the U.S. and bashing an article in "the lefty website The Nation" for criticizing it:
Throughout the entire rather lengthy and supposedly “well-researched” article, there is not a single mention of America’s No. 1 success story regarding deportation – that of President Dwight D. Eisenhower. Maybe Tanya’s search engine didn’t go back to the year 1954, or I suppose it is possible that she has a search filter that won’t allow her to access micro-aggressive words like “wetback.”
In fact it was Eisenhower, who in 1954 began a deportation program called “Operation Wetback,” which successfully deported virtually all 3 million illegal Mexicans living in the United States. And by the way, he did it without 21st century technology and massive numbers of agents. In fact, “Operation Wetback” employed only a little over 1,000 men.
I wrote about it a couple of years ago.
Well, he got it wrong. As NPR details, only about 1 million allegedly undocumented Mexican immigrants were deported under "Operation Wetback," not the 3 million Smith claims. Further, several dozen immigrants reportedly died en route back to Mexico under the primitive conditions Eisenhower's troops shipped them.
But Smith would probably dismiss NPR as a "lefty" site that can't believed. So let's look at a site whose neutrality is unimpeachable, FactCheck.org:
The "Handbook of Texas," sponsored by the Texas State Historical Association, says in its entry on "Operation Wetback" that the number forced to leave is "probably less than 1.3 million":
Handbook of Texas: The INS claimed as many as 1,300,000, though the number officially apprehended did not come anywhere near this total. The INS estimate rested on the claim that most aliens, fearing apprehension by the government, had voluntarily repatriated themselves before and during the operation. … Many commentators have considered these figure[s] to be exaggerated.
We also contacted the Dwight D. Eisenhower Presidential Library and Museum in Abilene, Kansas. Director Karl Weissenbach told us his staff had researched the library’s holdings to determine the veracity of the 13 million claim and could find nothing to support it. Indeed, the staff turned up a report to Cabinet dated Jan. 26, 1955, that suggests a much lower total:
Report to the Cabinet, Jan. 26, 1955: [A] year ago the Border Patrol was faced with the disheartening task of apprenhending and expelling some 3,000 ‘wetbacks’ each day, apprehensions now are running slightly less than 300 daily.
Mexican nationals were shipped back using trucks, buses, planes and ships. According to the Texas State Historical Society, the use of ships was discontinued after some drownings caused a public outcry in Mexico.
In that piece from "a couple of years ago," Smith expanded on it more than he did at WND, claiming that "700,000 self deported," which in addition to being untrue seems to contradict his WND claim that Ike's troops did all the deporting. Smith adds at WND:
Eisenhower understood full well the dynamic effect of deportation. The first step is to let the country know you are serious. The next step is to demonstrate your resolve with direct deportations. When illegals catch wind that the authorities are not just “talking the talk” but “walking the walk,” they begin to self-deport, which is what happened under Ike. He had to deport only a fraction of those who fled our country. The overwhelming majority left on the own.
Which still isn't true. But remember, WND editor Joseph Farah is weirdly proud of the fact that his columnists promote misinformation.
AIM Joins WND In Trying To Revive Vince Foster Conspiracy Theories Topic: Accuracy in Media
WorldNetDaily isn't the only ConWeb outlet trying to revive fake Clinton scandals to try and take down Hillary Clinton.
A March 25 Accuracy in Media column by Hugh Turley prattles on about the "cover-up" of the "murder" of Vince Foster and tries to play concern troll:
As Hillary Clinton moves closer to securing the Democratic Party nomination for president, her critics and supporters might wonder why she has no apparent interest in the ongoing cover-up of the murder of her close friend and confidant. The day after Foster died, Hillary had lunch at her mother’s home in Arkansas with James Rutherford III, a friend and associate of Foster and the Clintons and dean of the Clinton School in Arkansas, and he told the FBI, “Hillary Clinton was in complete shock and disbelief at the thought of Foster committing suicide.” And she wasn’t alone. What changed her mind?
Needless to say, Turley -- credited only as having "co-authored the final 20 pages of Ken Starr's Report on Vince Foster's death" -- makes no mention of the numerous investigations that found Foster's death to be a suicide. Instead he suggests a more timely, if murky, conspiracy theory: that Brett Kavanaugh, an investigator for Starr, somehow fixed things for the Clintons by making sure any official intimation of murder disappeared from the Starr report on Foster, and that Hillary Clinton, if elected president, will elevate him to the Supreme Court as thanks, or something.
You can't make this stuff up, folks. And as long as there are Clinton-obsessed right-wingers around to gin up conspracy theories, you never have to.
WND Repeats Never-Proven Accusations of Censorship By Clintons Topic: WorldNetDaily
The death of Vince Foster isn't the only so-called Clinton scandal WorldNetDailiy will be trying to revive in its partisan attempt to stop Hillary Clinton from getting elected president -- now it's reviving a debate over a 10-year-old miniseries. A March 20 WND article by Bob Unruh begins:
Hillary Clinton’s presidential aspirations may be threatened by a possible indictment over her email server, the loss of American lives in Benghazi and other scandals. But the Clintons still wield enough power to suppress a movie that reflects poorly on her husband’s administration 10 years after the only time it was allowed to be seen.
“The Path to 9/11” was written by Cyrus Nowrasteh, who confirmed to WND this week that the Clintons ordered the five-hour documdrama to be quashed after it drew a stunning 28 million viewers when it was aired by ABC amid controversy.
Actually, Nowrasteh doesn't confirm anything, and he most definitely offers no proof to support what Unruh's article claims -- that the Clintons are "fiercely suppressing" a home video release of the 10-year-old ABC miniseries to this very day.
Unruh also lets Nowrasteh claim that his portrayal in the film of Clinton administration failures to capture or kill Osama bin Laden before 9/11 are "100 percent factually correct." It's not: As we documented at the time (along with others), it was quite inaccurate, making Clinton administration officials look as bad as possible. While Unruh touts that Nowrasteh "derived many of its scenes from the 9/11 Commission Report," one scene originally contradicted what the 9/11 Commission stated.
WND's pushing of such a fact-free claim tells us that the barrel of Hillary outrage it will be similarly flogging as the election draws near will be similarly devoid of substance.