MRC Downgrades Trump's Implicit Threat to Hillary To A 'Remark' And 'Slip'
Topic: Media Research Center

The Media Research Center doesn't think Donald Trump's implicit threat against Hillary Clinton's life is that big of a deal. It's predicably whining that Trump got more coverage than something involving Hillary Clinton.

Nicholas Fondacaro is first up to distract:

Similar to how the “Big Three" played down the alleged ransom payment to Iran, the nets chose to focus primarily on a Donald Trump controversy instead of a Hillary Clinton one. On Monday Clinton held a rally in Orlando, Florida and in attendance was Seddique Mateen, the father of the Orlando nightclub terrorist, while on Tuesday Trump used innuendo to suggest that 2nd Amendment supporters would somehow stop Clinton. In all, the nets dedicated over four times the coverage to Trump, rather than Clinton, during their Tuesday evening broadcasts.

Note that Fondacaro refuses to admit the implicit violence in Trump's "innuendo."

Next up is Scott Whitlock, who portrays Trump's threat as a "gaffe":

The journalists at MSNBC responded differently to gaffes by Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. On Tuesday morning it became clear that Seddique Mateen, the father of the Orlando nightclub shooter, sat directly behind Clinton at a rally in Florida. Rather than express outrage, MSNBC journalists praised the Democrat’s quick response in putting out a statement in response.

However, when Donald Trump at a rally on Tuesday said that “maybe” “Second Amendment people” can do something about Hillary Clinton’s liberal judges, MTP Daily host Chuck Todd pounced. He opened show by demanding, “What did Donald Trump mean by this?”

Whitlock also fails to acknowledge the implicit violence in Trump's"gaffe."

Whitlock returned with a so-called "study" of coverage, downgrading Trump's threat to a "remark" in his headline and in the accompanying chart:

Both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton should have been forced to deal with campaign messes on Tuesday, but the three networks only treated the Republican’s problem as a huge gaffe worthy of extensive coverage. ABC, CBS and NBC deluged viewers with more than five times more coverage — 25 minutes and 35 seconds versus 4 minutes and 41 seconds —  to Trump’s “Second Amendment people” remark than they did to the father of an ISIS-inspired terrorist sitting right behind Clinton at a rally in Orlando, Florida. 

CBS pounced on Trump’s comment that “maybe” “Second Amendment people” can do something about Clinton’s judges, highlighting the story for 14 minutes and 24 seconds on Tuesday night and Wednesday morning. In contrast, the Evening News and CBS This Morning hosts allowed just a scant 59 seconds to Seddique Mateen, the father of a man who murdered 49 people in an Orlando night club, attending a Clinton at a rally on Monday. 

As expected, MRC chief Brent Bozell ran to Fox News to tout the coverage "study" (keeping his mouth shut about Roger Ailes' travails pays off!) and makes it clear how he intends to interpret Trump's implicit threat:

What did Donald Trump say? Either you believe what he said, which is that a political movement, gun rights movement, could stop the election of Hillary Clinton or you believe her supporters, which is that he's openly advocating killing her. Now, I’m not even going to debate it. It's obvious. However, it becomes a huge controversy. 

Bozell went on to rant about "the Clinton playbook for the media in deflecting from really any Clinton-related scandal." Meanwhile, he's using the Trump playbook for the right-wing media to push the Clinton Equivocation, the right-wing axiom that anything a Clinton does (even if there's no evidence a Clinton had a role in doing it, as with the case of Seddique Mateen), is automaticlaly worse than anything any conservative or Republican has done.

(Funny thing is, last week Bozell appeared on The Blaze to complain that Trump is "stupid" for saying things that distract from Hillary's purported crimes and stuff. And yet he's defending Trump's latest stupid act. Apparently, Trump is not so stupid that Bozell will not ultimately defend him.)

Bozell's lieutenant, Tim Graham, followed shortly thereafter with his own trip to Fox News, and the NewsBusters post hosting the Graham clip downgraded Trump's threat even further; it's now apparently a "slip." Graham, meanwhile, somehow managed to avoid passing judgment on Trump's words, but we assume that he's in lockstep with MRC groupthink and considers it a "slip" as well.

WND Doubles Down on Hillary Health Conspiracy Theory
Topic: WorldNetDaily

The whole Hillary-is-a-criminal thing isn't working out for WorldNetDaily.

At a time when three anti-Hillary books are at the top of the New York Times' nonfiction bestseller list, WND's attempt to play to the anti-Hillary crowd, Jerome Corsi's "Partners in Crime," is tanking -- ranking a dismal 11,703rd at Amazon as of this writing, a terrible showing for a book out only a week on a candidate for president. Perhaps Corsi's track record and the fact that the book is dedicated to a convicted criminal has something to do with it.

Obsessing about Hillary Clinton's purported health issues, however, is apparently drawing enough eyeballs to the website -- never mind that it's mostly bogus, but when has that ever stopped WND before? -- so WND is doubling down. Bob Unruh does the stenography job this time around:

Two prominent physicians sounded an alarm about Democratic Party nominee Hillary Clinton’s suspect health just as a video of her appeared revealing what the Drudge Report labeled “another brain freeze.”

There long have been questions about Clinton’s health, from her tripping and falling, to reports of blood clots, to special glasses that she used during the Benghazi congressional hearings.

But those incidents happened before she formally entered the presidential race.

Now that she is running, the “seizures,” the “brain freeze” and the fact she was helped up steps are raising red flags, according to Fox News “Medical A-Team.”

Appearing on Sean Hannity’s Fox News show, Dr. Marc Seigel and Dr. David Samadi both insisted Clinton’s health is a campaign issue.

[...]

“The picture going up the stairs speaks a million words,” Samadi told Hannity. “Is she fatigued? Is she dehydrated? One of the main reasons she fell in 2012 and had the concussions was severe dehydration. They’re holding her and going up the stairs. So she may be really dehydrated, she may have arthritis, she may have back pain, she may have fallen again. We don’t know. There are questions that are unanswered. What we know today is she’s on thyroid medication, she suffers from hypothyroid, low thyroid, that can cause fatigue and gaining weight and all of that.”

Needless to say, Unruh doesn't mention that Samadi is a urologist who specializes in prostate surgery, so he cannot possibly add anything relevant to Hillary's health to the discussion.

Unruh fills out the rest of his article with right-wing conspiracy theorists and armchair analyses of alleged professionals who have never examined Clinton.

Unruh followed that with another article breathlessly declaring that "Fresh questions are being raised about Hillary Clinton’s health, including her mental well-being, after a new photo emerged that appears to show an aide holding her up at a campaign event." LIke the right-wing blogger from whom he lifted the information, Unruh offers no context for the months-old photo but insisted that the image "suggest[ed] a physical problem."

WND also published a column by right-wing doctor and misinformer Jane Orient, who goes full conspiracy theory:

While we don’t have Mrs. Clinton’s medical records, it is widely stated that she experienced a fall that caused a concussion. Since then, she is sometimes seen wearing eyeglasses with prisms, as are used to correct double vision.

Concussions often cause traumatic brain injury, which might not be visualized on a standard CT or MRI. Many of our veterans who experienced blast injury from improvised explosive devices suffer from it. These are some symptoms: difficulty thinking, attention deficits, confusion, memory problems, frustration, mood swings, emotional outbursts, agitation, headaches, difficulties with balance and coordination, and seizures. Many veterans with such an injury cannot hold a job or interact normally with their families.

Obviously, it would be very dangerous for a person subject to symptoms like this to be dealing with foreign leaders or making critical decisions. The president of the United States may have to make world-changing decisions on a moment’s notice. For example, should we launch nuclear-armed missiles? And if the commander in chief is confused, who will make the call?

[...]

Is it conceivable that Hillary supporters would really be voting for Huma Abedin, Clinton’s top aide, or for the first first-man president, Bill Clinton? The American people are entitled to know the objective medical facts about Secretary Clinton.

The American Medical Association discourages doctors from speculating on the health of a public figure. Orient might want to look into that sometime.

NEW ARTICLE: CNS Does the Unemployment Shuffle
Topic: CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com just can't stop playing up cherry-picked jobless statistics to make President Obama look bad while burying the good news about new jobs created. Read more >>

MRC's Response To Our Post On Its Crowdfunded Film Is A Huge Fail
Topic: Media Research Center

So the Media Research Center took the time to respond to our post -- well, the Huffington Post version of it -- on the MRC's attempt to crowdfund for a upcoming documentary on coal miners purportedly harmed by President Obama's clean-air policies.

Here it is, in its entirety:

Huffington Post Uncorks on Upcoming 'Right-Wing' MRCTV Documentary -- Without Seeing It

Look out, the leftist media has discovered an anti-Obama media plot. On Sunday night, The Huffington Post published an article on our sister organization MRCTV with the headline “Right-Wing Media Org Is Crowdfunding to Distort Obama’s Record on Coal.” They began:

The right-wing Media Research Center is getting into the crowdfunding business, setting up a Kickstarter page to raise $15,000 for “completing the production and marketing” of a “short documentary” about “the devastating human toll of the EPA’s war on coal,” to be called Collateral Damage.

MRCTV crews went to West Virginia to report on the economic dislocation caused by the Obama administration's climate-change policies, inspired by Obama's campaign promise in 2008 to bankrupt coal companies through environmental regulation -- a promise he succeeded in imposing, to cheers from the Left.

Despite the inconvenient truth that the documentary isn’t available for The Huffington Post to view, they claim “it looks like this documentary will be on the dishonest side.” They find it completely defensible for Obama to claim “You know, the irony is that what’s actually hurt coal is not any EPA rules.” They also complained “apparently nobody has told the MRC that Obama is not running for re-election, so bashing him seems rather pointless.”

A few observations on it:

Not only did the MRC not name us as the writer -- ironically, the MRC's post is anonymously credited only to "NB Staff" -- the post falsely portrays our post as the official opinion of the Huffington Post. In fact, we are not employed by HuffPo; we're one of hundreds of writers who post their content there without compensation.

On top of that, the MRC did not provide a link to our post so readers could see it for themselves.

That meant that the MRC's readers would not be able to see that the anonymous MRC writer avoided addressing the two main issues we brought up: why the MRC, which raised more than $15 million last year, couldn't allocate a measly $15,000 to finish its film and resorted to crowdfunding instead; and why the MRC took President Obama's statement about EPA rules not being the main culprit in coal's current downfall out of context and hiding fracking is also a major culprit and that he wants to retrain coal miners.

Of course, the MRC doesn't have to trust us on coal mining. It can look to its own ideologically aligned sources, like the Washington Examiner, which similarly admits that "the precipitous drop in oil prices" has driven the current loss in mining jobs.

The MRC can also turn to one of its own, CNSNews.com editor in chief Terry Jeffrey. His May 6 article on how "The United States has lost approximately 191,000 jobs in the mining industry since September 2014" includes a handy chart that shows that -- oops -- current mining industry employment is higher than it was during much of the presidency of Republican George W. Bush:

Finally, the MRC's complaint that I criticized its yet-to-be-completed film without having seen it is rather rich given the MRC's history of bashing films its employees couldn't be bothered to see beforehand.

So, yeah, pretty much a fail all around.

WND Columnist: Vote Trump Because Obama Wasn't Qualified Either
Topic: WorldNetDaily

Observe the interesting bit of talking down of qualifications Ben Kinchlow does in his Aug. 7 WorldNetDaily column, effectively claiming that Donald Trump should be elected despite his manifest disqualification to hold the office. His defense: Obama wasn't qualified (and apparently wasn't born here, proving that Kinchlow is a discredited birther), and people will vote for Hillary only because she's a woman!

There is one overriding factor that will be at the forefront of the upcoming election, just as there was a similar factor in play regarding the election of our last president. Remember, this was/is a man who had, in effect, done nothing of significance in life, has no definitive proof of American citizenship, bowed to the Saudi king and has called the Islamic call to prayer “one of the most beautiful sounds” on earth.

So why was Obama elected president? It wasn’t because he was the most eminently qualified individual, but because America wanted to prove to itself, and the world, that it was not racist – ergo they elected Barack Hussein Obama.

Today we come face to face with another issue confronting the American voting public. America has an extremely high percentage of voting-age college students, millennials, transsexuals, homosexuals, bisexuals and feminists. In addition, many normal Americans want to demonstrate that they are not racists, homophobes or anti-feminist.

So, let’s cut to the chase.

Actual qualifications (ala Obama) have little to do with the matter, and since most politicians have a few blots on their public records, we, the voting public, are willing to overlook some of their missteps. Consequently, in order to prove, as Americans have previously done, that they were not racists by electing a black person, they now want to demonstrate they are not anti-feminist by electing a woman. Yes, you read that right. This not about qualifications, character, ability, experience, the American way, etc. This is about electing the first woman president in our history.

Don’t believe me? Point out one continuing negative stream of reportage (absent Fox News) regarding Hillary Clinton. You will find high-ranking Republicans criticizing Trump and media reports on his gaffs and misstatements. Has Trump made dumb statements? Spoken out of turn? We all know the answer to those questions; now ask those same questions about Hillary Rodham Clinton.

[...]

Let me reiterate: America voted in Barack Hussein Obama to prove that we were not racists – and now comes the opportunity to demonstrate to the world (and ourselves) that we are not anti-feminist, sexist bigots.

So, the question is: Will it be “hooray for Hillary” – regardless of qualifications – other than the fact that she’s a woman?

Is Kinchlow really claiming that Clinton isn't qualified to do the job? Sheesh.

CNS Portrays False Attack on Hillary As Credible, Merely Disputed
Topic: CNSNews.com

The idea that Hillary Clinton's emails outed an Iranian nuclear scientist, thus leading to his execution by Iranian authorities, is a myth -- but don't tell CNSNews.com that.

An Aug. 8 CNS article by Susan Jones uncritically repeated Republican Sen. Tom Cotton's suggestion that scientist Shahram Amiri was executed because "in the e-mails that were on Hillary Clinton's private server, there were conversations among her senior advisers about this gentleman. That goes to show just how reckless and careless her decision was to put that kind of highly classified information a private server. I think her judgment is not suited to keep this country safe." Jones quotes from the emails, but none of them mention Amiri by name, nore do Cotton or Jones back up the suggestion that Iranians had access to Clinton's private server.

On Aug. 9, Patrick Goodenough frames the claim as a mere dispute between the Trump and Clinton campaigns after Trump latched onto it:

The execution of an Iranian nuclear scientist surfaced on the campaign trail Monday when Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump suggested that his Democratic rival’s private server emails may have been linked to his death.

“Many people are saying that the Iranians killed the scientist who helped the U.S. because of Hillary Clinton’s hacked emails,” Trump tweeted, in reference to Shahram Amiri, executed last week according to the Iranian judiciary.

Clinton’s use of a private email server during her tenure as secretary of state is a major controversy in her presidential campaign and Trump’s tweet referred to reports that a couple of emails – among thousands released by the State Department in line with a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit – referred implicitly to Amiri.

The tweet drew a sharp retort from Nick Merrill, Clinton’s traveling press secretary, who said the GOP nominee was presenting a fabrication, under the cover of what other, unnamed people supposedly are saying.

“‘Many people are saying’ = ‘I made this up’” Merrill tweeted. “After a morning on the teleprompter, the muzzle was bound to come off.” (Trump gave a major economic speech in Detroit earlier in the day, reading off a teleprompter.)

Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), for one, has raised concerns about the emails on Clinton's private server in relation to Amiri’s fate.

Not only does Goodenough fail to offer any proof of Iranian access to Clinton's server, he failed to mention the crucial fact that there's no link whatsoever between Amiri and Clinton's emails.

A Washington Post article posted before Goodenough's article -- so he had no excuse not to reference it -- debunked claims of a connection:

There are several possible explanations as to why Amiri decided to go home and face the judgment of the Iranian justice system, which concluded he was a traitor. The Iranian government may have threatened his wife and 7-year old son. He may have hated life on the run. He may have had a change of heart.

But there’s no reasonable connection between the discussion of Amiri’s case on email by Clinton’s staff to Amiri’s eventual execution. There’s no evidence her server was hacked. The Iranians knew all about Amiri well before the emails were released publicly. His kidnapping story never held water and his fate was sealed long before his sentence was carried out.

An Aug. 9 Washington Post fact-check by Glenn Kessler was even more definitive:

As can be seen with this timeline of newspaper articles, the defection and then return of Amiri was widely covered in the news media in 2009 and 2010. Iranian officials could have learned everything they needed to know about Amiri’s defection from reading The Post. Moreover, Iran first publicly raised questions about his disappearance. There was little to be learned from the cryptic messages in Clinton’s emails, even if Iran had somehow gained access to Clinton’s server.

Mystery solved! And four more Pinocchios for Donald Trump.

Will Goodenough correct his article? Will Jones explain to her readers that Cotton was wrong? Will CNS admit it's promoting a false, politically motivated attack and that it knows it's false? Does CNS even care about publishing fair and accurate journalism?

WND Tries, Fails To Raise Questions About Hillary's Health Again
Topic: WorldNetDaily

For months now, WorldNetDaily has attacked Hillary Clinton by forwarding armchair analyses by so-called health experts who have never examined her (and Dolly Kyle) pontificating on Hillary's purportedly fragile health. Well, as part of WND's effort to avoid discussing Donald Trump's mental health issues, it got to do so again in an unbylined article regurgitating dubious speculation by other dubious right-wing websites:

In this heated presidential race where being “fit” and “stable” have become terms in the arsenal of both campaigns, startling photographs emerged Sunday showing Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton apparently getting help in climbing up some stairs.

The photos, published by the Reuters and Getty news agencies, show Mrs. Clinton, 68, receiving help as she tries to ascend a staircase in front of a home. The images were actually taken in February when the former first lady was campaigning for president in South Carolina.

The popular Drudge Report splashed a banner headline Sunday evening that stated, “2016: Hillary conquers the stairs.”

[...]

Reporter Kyle Olson of the American Mirror asked in a brief article about the new photos on the stairs, “At what point is the mainstream media going to question Clinton’s health status?”

Of course, a six-month-old of Hillary being helped up stairs proves absolutely nothing -- not that WND will ever admit it, of course. As the Washington Post' David Weigel pointed out, this barrage was part of how "the Drudge Report, WorldNetDaily and a small army of would-be Twitter sleuths tried to build the case that the Democratic nominee for president has serious health issues and only they had noticed." 

Weigel goes on to further bust WND:

Indeed, for other websites critical of Clinton, the "stairs" photo was just one part of a #HillarysHealth mosaic. It gave WorldNetDaily a hook to resurrect "a July 21 video posted on YouTube [which] shows Clinton’s head suddenly turning and shaking vigorously for several seconds." That video, titled "Hillary Clinton has seizure/convulsions - tries to play it off making fun of seizures," was also robbed of its context. Two clips of Clinton bobbing her head had been looped and slowed down, as ominous music and voice-overs played behind them — a combination that helped the clip score 1.4 million views.

The clip wasn't from July 21, and (as the scrum of media should have indicated) it wasn't rescued from pro-Clinton censors. It was from June 10, when Clinton, fresh off a series of wins that effectively locked up the Democratic nomination, held a few events ahead of the District of Columbia's primary. Beat reporters followed Clinton to a coffee shop in the Shaw neighborhood; CNN's Dan Merica, to her left, asked her about the breaking news of President Obama's official endorsement. Then, to her right, the Associated Press's Lisa Lerer asked a question about Elizabeth Warren, whom Clinton had met with as vice presidential speculation swirled.

The reporters, who had covered Clinton for a year, interpreted her exaggerated head-bobbing as a joke at how she'd been suddenly surrounded — and as a successful attempt at ending the scrum. It did not occur to them that it would become seen as evidence of a "seizure," as people suffering from seizures do not typically laugh and continue to hold cups of coffee.

In WorldNetDaily's coverage, the evidence that Clinton's bobble-head moment resembled a seizure is that bloggers said it did.

WND's article, meanwhile, devolves into a rehash of its previous attempt to avoid talking about Trump's mental health issues by trying to raise questions about Clinton's mental health -- which is lazy padding and, frankly kinda sad.No wonder WND is in financial trouble.

Dubious AAPS Doc Still Pining for (Ineffective) DDT To Stop Zika
Topic: Newsmax

Medical misinformer Jane Orient, president of the far-right Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, has hopped from WorldNetDaily, her usual home, to Newsmax, once again lamenting in an Aug. 3 column that we can't use DDT to wipe out mosquitoes and, thus, the Zika virus:

CDC and Florida are applying insecticides, but though they aren’t working very well, it is the height of political incorrectness to suggest trying DDT, which was used in effective vector-control programs up until the early 1970s, when the EPA banned it for overblown or even fabricated environmental concerns. DDT probably saved 500,000,000 human lives without killing anyone. Nor does it kill fish, birds, or cats. We might start with a head-to-head comparison of DDT with what we’re using instead for both effectiveness and hazard.

Orient doesn't seem to want to acknowledge that 1) DDT did, in fact, disrupt the ecosystem for fish and birds that eat fish, and 2) most mosquitoes are immune to DDT due to past overuse and bringing it back would do nothing.

Orient also complains about one particular commercial mosquito repellent:

The CDC-recommended strategy, with do-it-yourself prevention, is a step above nothing: Don’t have a baby (and here’s a condom), wear long sleeves and pants, and apply a mosquito repellent such as DEET.

It has taken an unprecedented action of warning about travel to an area in Florida, but what about those traveling from high-risk areas in the Caribbean and Central and South America?

Personally I have not found DEET under socks and long pants to be effective at keeping those ankle-biters from enjoying a meal. Maybe it wasn’t strong enough.

In fact, research has shown that DEET is a highly effective mosquito repellent. But then, Orient doesn't seem to be much interested in research.

MRC's Graham May Want to Rethink His Denial of Roger Ailes-J. Edgar Hoover Comparison
Topic: Media Research Center

In a July 23 NewsBusters post, the Media Resarch Center's Tim Graham took offense to New York Times media critic James Poniewozik referring to outgoing Fox News chief Roger Ailes as the J. Edgar Hoover of TV news who acted for the conservative movement like "a power behind the power, unelected but mighty, outliving administrations and the ebbs and flows of elections, ruling by force and fear."

Graham dismissed that claim -- and the sexual harassment allegations against Ailes -- by asserting, "If these claims of sexual harassment are true, Ailes seems more like Bob Packwood than J. Edgar Hoover." That's one of the very few references to Ailes' sexual harassment scandal at the MRC, which is sadly not surprising -- Graham, Brent Bozell and the rest of the MRC would like to keep appearing on Fox News, after all.

But it turns out the J. Edgar Hoover comparison is much closer than Graham or even Poniewozik claimed. New York magazine's Gabriel Sherman has reported that Ailes used the Fox News budget to hire consultants, political operatives, and private detectives who reported only to him and conducted PR and surveillance campaigns against journalists, authors and other critics of Fox News or perceived threats to the organization.

Don't expect the MRC to report on this development, or Graham to revise his denial of the Ailes-Hoover comparison. Again, they don't want to jeopardize future Fox News appearances.

Questions About Trump's Mental Health Are Driving WND Crazy
Topic: WorldNetDaily

Questions about Donald Trump's mental health have gotten WorldNetDaily in a froth. Not that it's treating those questions seriously with sober examination, mind you -- far from it. WND knows that the questions are legitimate, so it must do everything it can to change the subject.

WND managing editor David Kupelian's outright denial of Trump's issues in furiously attempting to distract by focusing on President Obama and Democrats was only the tip of the iceberg, it turned out.

Trump-fluffer Kent Bailey -- last seen here cheering Trump's appeal to whites -- chimed in with an Aug. 4 column denouncing the people making armchair diagnoses while reminding his that he's "a retired professor of clinical psychology with 32 years of experience in teaching, research and writing, and in practicing and supervising students in personality assessment and psychotherapy." And his own armchair diagnosis finds Trump to be crazy ... about America!

There is no evidence whatsoever that Trump is suffering from any psychiatric disorder or pathology. However, as do most rich, powerful and influential persons, Trump has a number of personal quirks and eccentricities that sometimes get in the way of being “presidential” in the soft and sensitive girly world we live in. And to be truthful, even his closest and most loyal family and friends may, at times, recoil from his insensitivity, social missteps and unforced errors. Nevertheless, he is a bona fide member of the warrior class, and such alpha super-males often make waves in times of peace.

But in the “dark” kind of times outlined in the Republican convention, the sharp-edged warrior becomes a life-or-death necessity. In dark times, superficial things like the “first woman,” “I feel your pain” and high-sounding, socialist giveaway programs are literal threats to national survival. With terrorism rampaging in Europe and literally knocking at our door, I for one believe we are in dark times indeed – both domestically and internationally. Moreover, we need all the warriors we can get at every level of government – and that includes the president of the United States.

In a subtle way, we have implicit evidence that Donald Trump will bring fellowship and order to a world reeling from both domestic and worldwide violence and terrorism. Just look at the respectful, orderly and well-behaved masses of people at Trump’s meetings and the Republican Convention versus the hateful divisions, the need for massive police presence to maintain order and the overall chaos that defines the highly divisive Democratic/socialist way of life. At the Republican Convention talk was realistically harsh and critical, but people were exceptionally orderly and well-behaved. By contrast, the Democratic Convention was characterized by “talk sweet and then hit the streets and destroy cities if you do not get your way.” We already have ample evidence that Trump is truly the “law and order” candidate as advertised.

Gina Loudon -- another armchair-diagnoser -- also chimes in with her Aug. 7 column, and she goes the denial-and-distraction. She doesn't even mention Trump in her column, but she's quick to diagnose Hillary Clinton with a litany of mental illnesses:

Mental illness is nothing to ignore. It is dangerous to all involved. Hillary’s behavior might indicate a much deeper, darker mental condition that is flatly ominous. She has had visual, memory and reasoning issues in recent years following her head injury. She has endured many subsequent falls, which would be obvious indicators of traumatic head injury. Instead of running for president, Hillary could be seeking a medical battery of testing that could get to the heart of what may be a worsening mental disorder, as well as intense therapy and perhaps medication (if she isn’t already medicated), before more lives are lost at the hands of her incompetence.

Most devastatingly, the symptoms Hillary exhibits may be indicative of a deeper, progressive psychosis. A NIHMS study showed that pathological liars had increased white matter volumes in the orbitofrontal, inferior frontal and middle frontal cortices. Another theory said long-term use of lying may actually cause regional increase in white matter volume, and that repeated lying could cause permanent changes in brain chemistry. Whether the most caustic disease model of lying is caused by genetic factors or environmental influences is still up for major debate among experts.

If the condition of someone with such systemic mental conditions worsens, their decision-making capacity and overall ability to distinguish truth from fantasy could be impaired. This would be dangerous for the leader of a family, or a company, but it could be devastating for a national leader.

Only after making this declaration, though, does she concede that "Only testing and analysis by a clinical psychologist or psychiatrist could say for sure, and I am neither, nor have I ever examined Hillary in a clinical setting." Still, she goes on to declare that "it might be a healthy decision for Secretary Clinton to step back from the limelight, and instead seek some testing or therapy to determine her mental fitness before endangering more lives." She makes no such recommendation for Trump.

An Aug. 7 WND "news" article by Paul Bremmer also goes the distraction route, asking, "But while everyone is discussing Trump’s sanity, what about Hillary’s?" In addition to summarizing the attacks from Loudon and Kupelian, Bremmer calls in WND friend Michael Savage (conveniently, author of a book called "Liberalism is a Mental Disorder") and expertise-denying WND author Marc Fitch to denounce anyone who passes judgment on Trump's psyche as people who "are trying to give the impression that they are reasonable and rational – medical, if you will – thinkers, so the public will look up to them as the kings and queens of smart."

Fitch didn't mention Savage's book -- savage likes to present himself as an expert --  or a book sold at WND by Lyle Rossiter, who uses his psychiatric training to paint liberals as suffering from "psychopathology" that "threatens to destroy the West's greatest achievement: the American dream of civilized liberty."

Needless to say, at no point does Bremmer actually address the issue of Trump's mental health, merely serving as a stenographic gateway to attack anyone who actually does raise the issue.

Again, the fact that  WND is hitting back so forcefully strongly suggests that it knows Trump has mental health issues and it could be a legitimate avenue of attack. So as committed Trump fans, WND must attack and deny. Which may be a mental illness in itself.

CNS Unemployment Numbers Distortion Watch
Topic: CNSNews.com

As usual, the CNSNews.com article by Susan Jones on July's unemployment numbers obsesses over the labor force participation rate:

94,333,000 Americans were not in the labor force in July, a slightly better showing than June’s 94,517,000; and the labor force participation rate improved slightly, increasing a tenth of a point to 62.8 percent from June’s 62.7 percent, the Labor Department's Bureau of Labor Statistics reorted on Friday.

In September 2015, the labor force participation rate dropped to 62.4 percent, its lowest point since 1977.  The best it’s been since Barack Obama took office is 65.8 percent in February 2009, the month after Obama was sworn in amid a recession.

The labor force participation rate is the percentage of people in the civilian noninstitutionalized population, age 16 or older, who are either working or actively seeking work.

As noted by the Congressional Budget Office, the labor force participation rate reflects people’s decisions about the attractiveness of working or looking for work compared with alternatives such as attending school, caring for family members, or retiring.

But Jones failed to report that the labor force participiation rate is -- as we've noted -- a poor measure of unemployment. As even the conservative American Enterprise Institute has pointed out, 41 million of Americans not in the labor force are retired, a number boosted by retiring baby roomers, and an additional 15 million are not looking for work because they are in school.

If Jones is putting so much emphasis on a bogus number, that means the real number must be good. And it is -- but Jones waits until the fifth paragraph of her article to mention that 255,000 jobs were cfreated in July.

Jones also penned a sidebar highlighing that "government employment increased by 38,000 in July." But had Jones bothered to look into the numbers at all, she would have found -- like Reuters did -- that much of the employment in the government sector had to do with hiring teachers.

Such laziness and dishonesty not only shows us that Jones is a terrible reporter, but also that CNS cares nothing about fair and accurate reporting.

What LGBT Stuff Is The MRC Freaking Out About Now?
Topic: Media Research Center

There's been so many anti-LGBT freakouts at the Media Research Center lately, we couldn't wait another whole month to catch them all. So what are they on about now?

Karen Townsend doesn't like that Chelsea Handler did an episode of her Netflix show that "was an ode to all things “queer” – lesbian, gay and transgender, in particular."Handler noted a a report finding millennials to be the “gayest generation in history,” commenting that she’d like to “thank the greatest generation for storming beaches in Normandy so that we could storm the beaches of Fire Island.” Needless to say, Townsend hated that too: "Yeah, that’s about as far as American patriotism goes for lefties. How sad."

Melissa Mullins harrumphed about a "completely lopsided article" in Teen Vogue "on a 16-year-old transgender student from Kenosha, Wisconsin who is suing her school because she wasn’t allowed to use the boys’ bathroom." Mullins ranted at thewriter of the article: "Did you ever consider the school administration is keeping [transgender student] 'Ash' safe because if they did allow 'him' to use the boy’s restroom, 'he' may be bullied, abused, or even worse…raped? So yeah, there’s a legitimate reason why the administration is doing this. Why not give both sides of the story?" As if the MRC is genuinely interested in being fair and balanced -- look at its "news" operation.

Eliot Polsky whines that a YouTube promo ad includes a transgender person going on to grumble that "you can express your identity unless you’re a straight white man. Bigots like them better not use YouTube Music."

Maggie McKneely geared up for a cartoon-related freakout:

Here’s the latest step in the trans agenda, coming to a book store near you.

Meet Chalice, the world’s newest transgender superhero. The dude dressed in a miniskirt is set to be the central hero in the Alters series, a comic ironically about societal outcasts who end up with superpowers.

Most superheroes only have to conceal one secret identity. But Chalice makes his life more difficult by having to conceal two. Chalice is actually a male college student named Charlie Young, but begins transitioning to female, unbeknownst to his parents. One of his brothers has cerebral palsy and Charlie is afraid his gender crisis might further upset his family. Yeah, no kidding.

[...]

In a slap at the current bathroom debate, the debut issue of Alters, which hits shelves next month, will have a special surprise for its North Carolina readers. Although in the other 49 states the series cover will feature a profile of Chalice, in NC the front picture will be of Chalice sending greetings from the statehouse.

But as author Jenkins said, Chalice’s story isn’t meant to be political commentary. Nothing liberals do ever is. 

McKneely would almost certainly deny that her anti-trans screed is political commentary.

McKneely also rants about Huffington Post writer James Michael Nichols claiming that gays shouldn't vote for Donald Trump, huffing, "Whatever happened to white men not imposing their views on everyone else, Mr. Nichols? Shouldn’t people be allowed to vote for whoever they want to?"

Finally, McKneely has a fit about the second season premiere of the anti-Catholic Real O’Neals" airing on October 11, National Coming Out Day, as well as the show's announced guest stars, "all of whom are gay."

The Snapping of David Kupelian's Mind
Topic: WorldNetDaily

We've documented the mental contortions WorldNetDaily had to undergo in order to justify abandoning his far-right sense of morality and endorse Donald Trump, trying to console himself by clinging to the belief that Trump's "heart is good."

Well, there's no actual evidence that it is, and Kupelian doesn't want to admit it. And now all those contortions are apparently to rot his brain.

As evidence keeps mounting of Trump's apparent mental instability and rampant narcissism, Kupelian has to try and change the subject, so he dedicates an Aug. 2 column to going into full denial mode, addressing the issue of Trump's mental health by changing the subject:

Having recently researched this subject while writing my new book, “The Snapping of the American Mind,” allow me to bring a few startlingly eye-opening facts to the forefront of this challenge to the Republican candidate’s sanity.

First, rewind to the start of Obama’s presidency. In 2009, Obama’s Department of Homeland Security singled out conservatives, pro-lifers, constitutionalists, critics of illegal immigration and returning war veterans as potentially violent “rightwing extremists.” Later, peaceful tea-party folks were accused by “mainstream media” pundits of acting like “terrorists,” “vampires,” “zombies” and “cannibals.”

There are many such examples. During the Obama administration we have witnessed, non-stop, the modus operandi of the left, wherein those who through monumental deceit have conspired to transform Judeo-Christian America, upend her Constitution and impose an alien new system of governance and morality upon her, have the audacity to accuse the traditionally minded American middle class, which just wants its country back, of being ignorant, deranged and dangerous.

Psychologists call this “projection,” where one person or group literally projects its own wrongs onto another. Thus, for decades, the left – which throughout the 1900s gave the world its bloodiest century in history – has been busy denouncing and “diagnosing” conservatives and Christians. In the Soviet Union, this practice was integral to the ongoing operation of the communist state. Dissidents – the sanest and most courageous people in the country – were confined to psychiatric hospitals for “treatment.” If you had a problem with communism, you were mentally ill and diagnosed with made-up conditions like “philosophical intoxication” and “sluggish schizophrenia.”

Actually, the DHS was prescient -- and correct in identifying right-wing extremists as potentially violent (remember the Cliven Bundy standoff and the armed takeover of the Oregon wildlife refuge?) and identifying military veterans as potential recruits for violent extremism (it has repeatedly happened, from Timothy McVeigh to the Wisconsin Sikh massacre to the Dallas police shooting).

At no point in his column does Kupelian even try to defend Trump -- it's all the projection he claims liberals engage in. So far in denial is Kupelian that he writes this:

Ironically – almost comically – the most oft-cited armchair diagnosis of Donald Trump is narcissism. Really? After eight years of Barack Obama, whose behavior as president matches perfectly the clinical symptoms of “narcissistic personality disorder,” now his die-hard supporters are going to try to make that stick to Trump?

Actually, it's pretty easy. Did Obama ever do anything like this at any Democratic convention?

 

'Nuff said.

But Kupelian has a lot invested in his Obama-is-a-narcissist narrative. WND's Whistleblower magazine, which Kupelian is in charge of, dedicated an entire issue in 2012 to the subject "Why Obama Lies," and it starred an essay by Kupelian denouncing Obama as a "super-ambitious and vainglorious person" suffering from "extreme narcissism." Kupelian ultimately declared, "Obama lies because that’s how he gets his way, and getting his way is all he cares about."

All of that, of course, much more accurately applies to Donald Trump, and Kupelian could swap "Obama" for "Trump" in his armchair psychoanalysis and be much more accurate. Trump really is the narcissistic sociopath Kupelian has accused Obama of being, but he'll will never admit it because he wants Trump to win so badly he's in serious denial.

Kupelian should probably talk to a mental health professional about his condition soon.

Watching Kupelian's mind deteriorate further as he keeps on turning a blind eye to Trump's growing demonstrated lack of fitness for the presidency in order to justify his hatred of Hillary Clinton will be sadly, weirdly entertaining.

CNS Managing Editor Can't Stop Promoting Discredited Anti-Gay Psychiatrist
Topic: CNSNews.com

CNSNews.com managing editor Michael W. Chapman really, really hates gays and transgenders. So much so, in fact, that he publishes -- and republishes -- articles by discredited anti-gay and anti-transgender psychiatrist Paul McHugh.

Chapman's still at it. In May, Chapman devoted an article to telling us that "Dr. Paul R. McHugh, the Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University and former psychiatrist–in-chief for Johns Hopkins Hospital, who has studied transgendered people for 40 years, said it is a scientific fact that 'transgendered men do not become women, nor do transgendered women become men.'"

Chapman states this particular McHugh rant came from "an article for The Witherspoon Institute," but he doesn't mention that it was published 11 months earlier -- meaning it had no news value and that he's very late in getting around to rehashing it. Or that CNS -- presumably upon Chapman's request -- republished McHugh's piece shortly after it appeared at Witherspoon.So Chapman is not only rehashing a nearly year-old piece, it's a rehashed nearly year-old piece CNS itself republished.

Then, in a July 21 article, Chapman tells us once again that McHugh is "the Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University" -- an appeal to authority that means nothing --  and that he now says "it is a scientific fact that 'there is no gay gene.'"

According to Chapman, McHuch states of his claim:

"The best data, of course, [comes from the Framingham Study],” said Dr. McHugh.  “If you are a man and you grow up in a rural environment, you are four times less likely to have homosexual relationships than if you grow up in a metropolitan area. That's not left-handedness.”

“If you are a lesbian, you are much more likely to be college-educated,” he said.  “That's not something that happens at conception.” 

McHugh appears to be referring to the Framingham Heart Study, which is a study of heart disease, not homosexuality.

Oh, and these statements are even more out of date: the interview Chapman is quoting from was published in January 2010. That's right -- Chapman is presenting a six-year-old article as something new.

Nedless to say, in neither article does Chapman present a view counter to McHugh's, despite the fact his anti-LGBT views have been widely discredited. That violates the mission statementof the "news" organization he runs, which "endeavors to fairly present all legitimate sides of a story."

It seems Chapman cares nothing about journalism despite running a "news" organization, interested not in news or even current events but, rather, pushing a biased, partisan agenda and silencing opposition. But we knew that already.

WND's Farah Doesn't Read His Own Website
Topic: WorldNetDaily

Does Joseph Farah even read the website he runs? It appears not.

In his Aug. 2 WorldNetDaily column bashing Khizr Khan for criticizing Donald Trump, he takes issue with Khan pointing that Donald Trump wants a ban on Muslim immigration to the U.S.:

Despite what you hear, see and read in the Big Media on a daily and hourly basis, Donald Trump is not suggesting a ban on Muslim immigration. From the very beginning, Trump said he was concerned about the way Obama has been actively importing Muslim refugees into the U.S. by the tens of thousands without any ability to know if they represent a threat to the safety and security of the American people. At most, Trump called for a moratorium on such immigration, not a ban. Doesn’t that make sense? Who in their right mind could argue with such a policy – besides Obama and Hillary Clinton, the latter proposing a 500 percent increase in Muslim “refugee” resettlement?

Actually, a moratorium is a ban. The fact that it's presented as temporary -- Trump has not said how long his moratorium would last, if he even intends to lift it at all -- does not make it less of a ban.

Farah then bashes Khan again: "Instead, knowingly or unknowingly, he is perpetrating a fraud. No one believes all Muslims represent an inherent threat to the safety and security of the American people. That would be foolish."

Farah apparently hasn't read the WND "news" article that appeared thet same day as his column, in which Leo Hohmann cheered that a "mega-mosque" in Virginia would not be built due to "resistance from residents." Hohmann approvingly quoted one resident opposing the mosque:

At one meeting in November, a sheriff’s deputy reportedly halted the meeting after one man got a little too riled up. The male resident was captured on video pointing a finger at the imam and saying, “You’re a terrorist. Every one of you is a terrorist, I don’t care what you say. You can smile at me, you can say whatever you want, but every Muslim is a terrorist.”

Is Farah going to go up to that man opposing the Virginia mosque and tell him that he is foolish? 

Farah also seems to have missed WND's entire coverage of settling Muslim refugees in the U.S., in which the word "refugee" is put in scare quotes, as if to suggest that all Muslims are would-be criminals, if not secret terrorists.

Of course, if Farah's not reading his own website, he's far from alone -- to the point that Farah must beg for money to keep WND alive.