Hostility to Film About Transgender Teen Spreads Across Entire MRC Topic: Media Research Center
CNSNews.com editor Terry Jeffrey wasn't done having a freakout about the documentary about a transgender teen, "Real Boy," which recently aired on PBS.
Jeffrey's June 14 column cites the mere existence of "Real Boy" as a reason tocut off federal funding for public broadcasting. Why? He doesn't really say, beyond making the unsupported assertion that the show is something Americans"do not want."
Meanwhile, irrational anti-LGBT hatred for "Real Boy" appears to be an agenda item across the entire Media Research Center. A June 20 post by Callista Ring complained about the documentary appearing on "liberal taxpayer-funded PBS." Ring showed particular hostility for the transgender teen, sneering that he can now take "a college class on toxic masculinity" and huffing at the teen's assertion about needing to take time to heal from the pain he's gone through: "Because having the support of a famous musician, PBS, and millions of viewers like you apparently wasn't enough."
And the original transgender freakout king himself, Tim Graham, weighed in along with MRC chief Brent Bozell in their June 23 column whining about the film's "gushy music" andthat the film purportedly censors anyone with a "binary" view of gender.
Of course, to Graham and Bozell, any film that doesn't tell transgenders they are dishonoring God and going to hell merely for existing is "propagenda":
Shaleece Haas, the maker of “Real Boy,” is upset that there aren’t a glut of pro-transgender propaganda films, and claims the media part of the cultural revolution isn’t sufficient. “It does not solve the problem of homophobia and transphobia, of all the various forms of hatred.... alongside storytelling, we really need to be working to create safe, inclusive spaces, in our schools, communities, in our institutions.”
The cultural revolution will be televised ... and then it will be imposed. Dissenters will pay for the privilege of being denounced. Then the Left complains that the conservatives hate democracy.
Well, Graham and Bozell have certainly demonstrated that they hate anyone who doesn't look or think like them.
WND Freaks Out Over Hotlines To Report Anti-Muslim Hate Crimes Topic: WorldNetDaily
The idea that someone should be able to call a hotline to report hate crimes, especially against Muslims, has sent WorldNetDaily into yetanother anti-Muslim freakout mode.
A June 21 WND article by Leo Hohmann on a new hotline in Minneapolis touts right-wing former Rep. Michele Bachmann denouncing the hotline as, in Hohmann's words, "a form of fascism in which citizens are encouraged to turn in their neighbors for holding opinions deemed forbidden by the state" and "a stealth move ... to impose Islamic anti-blasphemy laws on non-Muslims."Hohmann doesn't quote anyone explaining why hatred of Muslims must be protected.
Then, a June 26 article by Art Moore complained that "The Council on American-Islamic Relations, an unindicted co-conspirator in a terror-financing plot, has launched a mobile phone app called 'Making Democracy Work for Everyone' that enables Muslims to quickly and efficiently report 'hate crimes.'" Like Hohmann, Moore doesn't explain why hatred of Muslims is somehow a protected right, other than to vaguely claim that "many incidents the organization has reported as hate crimes are found to be misreported or even fabricated."
Annals of Random Coverage Comparisons At the MRC Topic: Media Research Center
We've noted how the Media Research Center loves to compare coverage of things it doesn't like to other, random things. TheMRC's Matt Philbin makes his contribution in a June 22 post whining about media coverage of Melissa McCarthy's "Saturday Night Live" skits as Sean Spicer:
Between inauguration day and the season’s end on May 20, the ABC, NBC and CBS news programs couldn’t get enough of Melissa McCarthy’s Spicer. In fact, the networks dedicated 10 minutes and 49 seconds of airtime just to the impression. But while they were enjoying partisan satire that fit neatly with their biases, there was actual news they could have been reporting.
Baltimore, for example. According to a Reuters reportfrom May 2, “homicides in Baltimore have reached such alarming levels that the mayor is getting federal assistance and requesting more support from the FBI. For the first time in nearly 20 years, the city of Baltimore, Maryland, has experienced more than 100 murders before the end of April.” The networks haven’t reported once on the carnage or the mayor’s unprecedented plea for help. Baltimore crime received just four minutes and 18 seconds of attention on the networks – most of it reporting the hunt for “Baltimore’s Public Enemy #1,” an alleged arsonist who firebombed a home in March.
Perhaps Philbin's rant would be more effective if he had bothered to show how his own employer's very own "news" outlet, CNSNews.com, covered the Baltimore story. Oh, wait, it didn't -- we found no reference to high homicide levels in Baltimore in the CNS search engine dated within the past two months.
If the MRC led by example, Philbin's random comparison might make some sense. But it doesn't, so it doesn't.
AAPS-Affiliated Doc Rants Against Health Care As A Right Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily loves to provide a platform to doctors linked to the fringe-right Association of American Physicians and Surgeons -- such as Jane Orient, Lee Hieb and Elizabeth Lee Vliet -- whose ideas on the subject of health care are, shall we say, a bit peculiar.
The latest AAPS-affiliated doc to opine at WND is Alieta Eck, whose June 19 column bashes AAPS' much larger rival, the American Medical Association, for considering a resolution on whether health care is a human right. Eck opines in the negative:
Unlike the unalienable rights listed in our Declaration of Independence, a right to “health care” is not self-evident. The rights to life, liberty, and property ownership (or “pursuit of happiness”) are endowed by our Creator – not the AMA or the government. These rights belong equally to all. My right to liberty does not diminish yours.
“Health care” is not like that. Speaking against the Resolution, AMA delegate Dr. Ralph Kristeller of New Jersey correctly asserted that health care is a responsibility of each individual. People must develop good health habits of diet, exercise, avoiding substances that harm the mind and body, and avoiding risky behavior. Getting early screening for deadly diseases is also the responsibility of the person who would gain most by early detection – the patient. Seeking professional counsel – and following the advice – is also the patient’s responsibility.
Calling health care a human right is clearly misleading. It is generally taken to mean medical services and payment for these services.
Before Big Government entered the medical arena in the U.S., there were many independent physicians in every town. In the 1950s, an office visit was $10, and the doctor earned a good living. When a child became ill, parents knew where to go for help, and payment was a secondary consideration. Many doctors waited for payment or, knowing the family, provided the services for free. Hospitals were local institutions, established by the town fathers. They were operated and staffed by well-trained doctors and nurses, who took part in helping the medical schools train the next generation of professionals. Charity fundraisers and robust volunteer services kept the hospitals places where kindness was the rule. Medical care was local, and the federal government had no role.
In 1965, with the passage of Medicare and Medicaid, the huge infusion of taxpayer dollars caused an explosion in the cost of hospitalizations, and the commoditization of medical services ensued. MBAs, instead of retired physicians, took over the administration of hospitals, and today they command seven-figure salaries. Electronic medical records became a vehicle for exploiting the system as well as for attempts to control rampant fraud. Today, big hospital conglomerates are buying up independent medical practices to harness the revenue and thus control what the doctors do for their patients.
Once a service, paid for by somebody else, is declared a “right,” it becomes immediately obvious that it cannot be an unlimited right, but only a claim on those services deemed appropriate by authorities or planners. Nor is everyone equal. Everything that is given to some must first be taken from someone else. My “right to health care” diminishes your right to liberty – such as your right to use your own earnings to buy a medical service you need to preserve your own life.
Medical services may be necessary for those who are ill, but food, clothing and shelter are necessary for all. If these were declared to be rights, it would mean the provision of food, clothing and shelter for every American: socialism in every part of the economy. How much food? How lavish a wardrobe? How big a house? And how much medical service can a citizen demand from others? Constant conflict and eventual shortages and impoverishment are guaranteed.
Somehow, we doubt that the creation of Medicaid caused doctor's visits to stop being 410.
NewsBusters' Sports Blogger Spews Hate At Obama And Non-Conservative Pro Athletes Topic: NewsBusters
Mysterious NewsBusters sports blogger Jay Maxson has a knack for oozing contempt for anyone who doesn't hold the same right-wing views that he does. He (or she; Maxson's gender is not immediately clear, since his/her NewsBusters bio has no photo and includes no personal information) does so again in a June 8 post cmplaining about a Politico article on former President Obama's closeness to pro athletes. Maxson dismissed the article as "Kool-Aid" being dispensed to a "politics lite audience" and huffed that the article "demonstrates how Obama used jocks to further his agenda. And the gullible athletes were all too willing to be used."
Maxson's contempt for Obama and the pro athletes who like him drips from every word of his post:
Bryant says the ex-prez helped make locker rooms more “politically aware” (worth a separate wing in the Obama Presidential Library?) and he “did help athletes progress beyond just asking questions or just being angry, and asking why something is the way it is.” It’s unsaid in the article, but Obama unwittingly taught athletes the art of the boycott. At times Obama spent more time with them than meeting with his President's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness, which he boycotted for at least a year.
Obama was famous for his love of basketball, even scrimmaging with pro players on occasion.”Wow, those scrimmages rank right up there with President Reagan’s fame for ending the Cold War and demanding and getting the destruction of the Iron Curtain.
Strauss touted LeBron James for doing a PSA video encouraging people to enroll in the failure that became ObamaCare.
As Americans gave up seeking employment by the tens of millions, basketball and being “cool” became “critical” to Obama’s political image, Strauss writes. Pickup games on the campaign trail “undermined Republican efforts to portray Obama as foreign, suspicious, or someone who ‘pals around with terrorists.’” Nothing like style over substance.
Obama also used NFL players for political purposes, too, Strauss pointed out. Richard Sherman and Russell Wilson recorded propaganda videos for Obama’s socialized health care. And some former football players are running for political office now (and losing).
Strauss also gave love to Michelle Obama’s Let’s Move campaign, which “promoted sports and brought partnerships with pro leagues.” It’s about time we had an administration in Washington that did so much for the world of sports, especially amid the terrorism around the world – and the violence in Detroit and Chicago.
Can you be an effective and viable media critic when all you have to offer is hate and contempt? The MRC needs to ask this question about Maxson . And while they're at it, they should also supply information about Maxson to prove he/she is an actual person and not a coward hiding behind a fake name like former NewsBusters blogger "Bruce Bookter."
WND Columnist Hides Facts on Transgender Teen Case Topic: WorldNetDaily
Michael Brown's June 7 WorldNetDaily column is more of his usual anti-gay blather, this time using isolated incidents in Canada to fearmonger about the federal government wanting to "snatch" children away from parents who taught them to hate gays. He writes:
First, are the people of Canada unimportant? Does something matter only if it affects America? Surely you won’t say, “Who cares if Christian families in Canada have their children seized by the government? I’m OK here in America.”
Second, we’ve seen how LGBT activism has become the principle threat to our freedoms of speech, conscience and religion here in the States. Canada is just one step ahead.
Third, already in America, “A federal district court judgea mother’s lawsuit, essentially upholding Minnesota’s very harmful and unconstitutional ’emancipation statute’ that allows minor children — with the aid of outside groups — to leave their families whenever there is conflict, as long as the child is living independently and can support himself or herself.”
In the case at hand, the mother’s minor son had “decided to be treated with hormones in an effort to ‘change’ his biological sex and to change his name.” The mother opposed this, which was one of the reasons the child sought “emancipation.” Now, the government (here in America!) is helping to underwrite his “transition,” and there’s nothing his mother can do to prevent it.
Brown is hiding the full story of this case. As we documented when WND pushed this story, the mother had essentially abandoned her child and made no effort to bring her home or reported her as a runaway, and that she showed no interest in her child's current situation until she started taking hormones. The mother lost her lawsuit against her child. Brown offers no evidence to support his claim that Minnesota's emancipation statute is either "harmful" or "unconstitutional."
Brown concludes his column by declaring, "This madness must be stopped." The lying and deception should too.
Graham Mad That MRC's Hostility to Fact-Checking Was Called Out Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's Tim Graham complains in a June 9 post:
Alexios Mantzarlis at the journalism website Poynter.org reported "Conservative websites are far more likely to attack fact-checkers than their liberal counterparts." That almost sounds like "Conservative websites more hostile to facts." Something called the Duke Reporters' Lab issued a study of ten "partisan" websites and determined that the conservatives were much more hostile to the fact-checkers, while the liberals were overwhelmingly supportive.
"Conservative websites more hostile to facts"? Hey, if the shoe fits, Tim. As part of its anti-media agenda, the MRC has been waging a partisan war against fact-checkers for years for committing the sin of fact-checking conservatives -- a war the MRC has ramped up to defend chronic liar Donald Trump.
Tellingly, Graham doesn't link to the Duke study he's bashing; instead, he whines that his operation was accurately identified in the study as the MRC instead of NewsBusters. Surely Graham is aware that most MRC content appears at NewsBusters these days, so his complaint is a distinction without a difference.
After noting that the Poynter writer argued that conservative attacks on fact-checkers may be "further undermining the capacity of building a public discourse on shared facts," Graham goes on to rant:
"Shared facts" is exactly the field of combat here. Liberals insincerely insist that's all they want, but what they really want is to insist they own the facts and that they are the ones who determines they are factual, and anyone who challenges their sweaty grip is uncivil.
When a study finds that conservative sites offered 86 percent of the negative comments and liberal sites offered 85 percent of the positive ones, academics can properly speculate that "fact checkers" are perceived as liberal by both sides.
Note that Graham refuses to concede that there is such a thing as "shared facts."
To him, it's not about facts -- it's all about control of the political narrative. The entire existence of the MRC, after all, is dedicated to de-legitimizing any media outlet that doesn't uncritically promote the conservative agenda.
If, as Graham claims, the partisan split on the perception of fact-checkers means that they should be considered liberal, it also means we can properly speculate that conservatives are running a coordinated, targeted campaign to smear and denounce fact-checkers.
Indeed, Graham cheerfully highlights how one right-wing critic likened one fact-checking site to a "Bangkok hooker" -- then huffs that identifying liars as liars "risks undermining public discourse."
And Graham's MRC has such an aversion to "shared facts" that one of his writers keepsinsisting that Steve Scalise didn't give a speech that he apologized for giving.
So, yes, Tim, "shared facts" should be a thing. You and your organization should check them out sometime -- and not just when it's to your political advangate to do so.
You're just mad that your fact-averse agenda was exposed as the partisanship it is, and that it has nothing whatsoever to do with concern about journalism.
LGBT Derangement Syndrome, WorldNetDaily Edition Topic: WorldNetDaily
Same Sex Attraction Disorder is not “gay,” it is SSAD, and there is absolutely nothing to be proud of in “LGBT” history. It is commendable that President Trump did not issue an endorsement of the moral atrocity called “Gay Pride Month” as Obama did each year, but he sends a mixed message by allowing the U.S. Navy to do so under his watch.
The LGBT movement was birthed in depravity and violence and has never changed. Behind the facade of ubiquitous pro-LGBT propaganda in the media and academia is a community of deeply troubled people, rife with drug and alcohol abuse, domestic violence, self-destructive behaviors, “hate crime” hoaxes, Machiavellian political manipulations at every level, pathological self-centeredness and seething hatred for anyone who dares oppose the “gay” agenda. While many strugglers manage to live decent and orderly lives despite their dysfunction, far too many others do not, and all of society suffers for failing to face that fact openly. Their cynical exploitation and degradation of our military for political gain is just one example of this enormous problem.
This column is to remind our commander in chief that making America great again means restoring the standards and values America held when it was at its best, as reflected in the Navy Guidelines of 1957 – NOT perpetuating the moral degeneracy that represents America’s worst, as reflected in the Navy’s Facebook page today.
Make no mistake about it. From the moment gay activists came out of the closet in America, their agenda was clear. Society must get over its anti-gay sentiments and embrace everything gay – and I mean everything.
That’s why many of them were so brazen, chanting, “We’re here, we’re queer, get used to it.”
That’s why gay pride parades were marked by the most offensive elements of the gay community, even if they were not representative of the whole.
That’s why it was drag queens who led the way in the 1969 Stonewall Riots. They were part of the front-line resistance, and they were out, proud and unashamed.
But statistics weren’t the issue. Image was the issue. And gay strategists fully understood that America would not embrace their goals as long as the most extreme elements of their society were at the forefront.
Transgender activists understood this strategy as well, making a clear distinction between themselves and drag queens. “No, we’re not like them, and this has nothing to do with sexual orientation. We’re just normal people trapped in the wrong body, like little Sammy who’s really Sally.”
Americans could embrace that before they could embrace “Little Hot Mess” the drag queen.
But now that so many of the goals of LGBT activism have been realized, there’s no reason to push some of their own to the back of the bus, so to say.
And what does this mean, practically speaking? It means here come the drag queens.
Now, I personally believe there are gay readers who are also upset as they read this account, saying, “That drag queen does not represent me. What he did is just plain filthy.”
Unfortunately, the cat is now of the bag, and if it’s gay (or trans), it’s got to be good.
That means if a gay couple is monogamish rather than monogamous, we’ve got to embrace it. Gay love is good!
And that means when a boy who identifies as a girl beats the girls at a track meet, we’ve got to celebrate it. You go boy-girl!
And that means when a drag queen wants to read stories to your 2-year-old or, better still, gyrate and flash his G-string in front of your 5-year-old, you should show your appreciation.
In other words, our sentiments should be, “You’re here, you’re queer, and we’re used to it. In fact, we love it.”
Count me out of that one, friends. Enough is simply enough.
With Wonder Woman’s revival, think about this. What is your picture of the ideal woman?
It probably doesn’t include theft. And most likely, it starts with women who are not actually guys, which is the kind of question one must consider in today’s wacko culture.
How about women who readily discard their beautiful design as females to try to “become” males? Yes, they would be automatically disqualified.
Wouldn’t it be great if America could pause before feminism’s self-worshiping altar to reconsider these virtues for women: humility, honesty, service, godliness, modesty, decency, kindness, faithfulness, self-control?
Making the rounds of the Sunday talk shows, Jay Sekulow, a member of President Trump’s legal team, tried to set the record straight:
“The president is not and has not been under investigation,” Sekulow told CBS’s “Face the Nation.” He said the same thing on several other Sunday shows.
Sekulow, the chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice, was responding to Trump’s tweet on Friday morning, in which he wrote: "I am being investigated for firing the FBI director, by the man who told me to fire the FBI director. Witch hunt."
“The president issued that tweet on social media because of the report in ‘The Washington Post’ from five anonymous sources…alleging that the president was under investigation in this purported, expanded probe,” Sekulow said.
Jones curiously omits Sekulow's appearance on "Fox News Sunday," where host Chris Wallace called out his convoluted explanations and pointing that Sekulow was still insisting that Trump was not under investigation even after admitting that doesn't know for sure.
Another Obama Derangement/Trump Derangement Disconnect At WND Topic: WorldNetDaily
In the grand WorldNetDailytradition of Obama Derangement Syndrome sufferers complaining about Trump derangement, Garth Kant tells us in a June 14 article:
“The assassination plot directed at Republican members of Congress Wednesday morning is proof positive of Trump Derangement Syndrome,” former Rep. Michele Bachmann told WND.
“The political left is more than unhinged; they have fallen into a dangerous delusion of their own making,” she remarked after a gunman opened fire on GOP lawmakers at a baseball practice in Alexandria, Virginia, Wednesday morning, wounding five people.
MRC Insists Fake-News Breitbart Article Is Real Topic: Media Research Center
Like Breitbart News, the Media Research Center gets a notable portion of its funding from the right-wing Mercer family. That shared source of cash may be the reason the MRC is running to the defense of Breitbart.
In a June 8 post, Charles Dorfeuille -- who doesn't disclose the financial connection between the MRC and Breitbart -- complains that a Breitbart article was listed in a PBS report as "fake news":
The article, titled “Pentagon May Court Martial Soldiers Who Share Christian Faith” was written in 2013, and was about religious liberty concerns at the Department of Defense during the Obama Administration. The article had followed reports from the Family Research Council and Fox News.
The article was penned by Ken Klukowski, who was at the time a senior fellow at the Family Research Council for religious liberty. To call Breitbart a fake news site based on some of its more outrageous articles is one thing, but to insinuate Klukowski, a man who's worked at the American Civil Rights Union as a Senior Legal Analyst, is outrageous.
Tellingly, Dorfeuille does not link to the Breitbart article in question so his readers could judge for themselves. Despite Klukowski's alleged credentials, this is yet another one of those outrageous Breitbart articles.
Klukowski is ridiculously alarmist, falsely portraying a reiteration of longstanding Pentagon policy against proselytizing in the military as a ban on even talking about religion:
So President Barack Obama’s civilian appointees who lead the Pentagon are confirming that the military will make it a crime–possibly resulting in imprisonment–for those in uniform to share their faith. This would include chaplains–military officers who are ordained clergymen of their faith (mostly Christian pastors or priests, or Jewish rabbis)–whose duty since the founding of the U.S. military under George Washington is to teach their faith and minister to the spiritual needs of troops who come to them for counsel, instruction, or comfort.
This regulation would severely limit expressions of faith in the military, even on a one-to-one basis between close friends. It could also effectively abolish the position of chaplain in the military, as it would not allow chaplains (or any service members, for that matter), to say anything about their faith that others say led them to think they were being encouraged to make faith part of their life. It’s difficult to imagine how a member of the clergy could give spiritual counseling without saying anything that might be perceived in that fashion.
That Fox News item Dorfeuille cites as evidence of Klukowski's purported veracity is, in fact, a rant by Fox-employed radio host Todd Starnes, who has a lengthyrecord of falseclaims.
Just because a man has worked as a "Senior Legal Analyst" for a right-wing group doesn't make him immune from pushing fake news. If anything, it makes him more prone to do so.
Make no mistake -- Klukowski's article is fake news. The fact that it dovetails with the MRC's right-wing agenda doesn't make it any less so.
WND Selling Book By Man Who Claims Trump Is Fulfillment of Prophecy Topic: WorldNetDaily
We've detailed how WorldNetDaily believes that God's hand was involved in the electionof Donald Trump as president. Now it's selling a book by a guy who claimed to have prophesied Trump's election. An anonymously written June 15 WND article details:
Donald Trump’s victory in the 2016 election may have been the biggest political upset in American history. Up to the very morning of Election Day, Trump was considered by most commentators in the mainstream media to be something of a joke.
So when Trump won a stunning victory over Barack Obama’s supposedly inevitable successor, Hillary Rodham Clinton, reporters, liberal activists and the Washington politicos were shocked to the core. None of the supposed experts saw it coming.
But one man did. A simple fire fighter had foreseen the rise of President Donald Trump as far back as 2011.
Even more remarkably, he says he received his information directly from God, a prophecy he explains in the sensational new book “The Trump Prophecies.”
Fire fighter Mark Taylor claims he has been receiving messages from God, which he wrote down and shared with some others.
WND concedes that Trump didn't run in 2012, then spins away Taylor's bad prophecy: "Taylor claims it wasn’t really Trump who was postponing his historic run for the White House – it was God. Taylor claims God allowed Obama to continue in office in order to rouse a 'righteous anger' that would eventually create a Trump administration."
The anonymous WND writer further spun: "The idea God willed Trump into the Oval Office is far from a fringe view. Indeed, given the improbable circumstances of Trump’s victory, it may be the most convincing explanation possible for the unprecedented occurrences America witnessed in 2016."
Note that the subtitle of Taylor's book steals the "Man Who Saw Tomorrow" phrasing from a old documentary about Nostradamus.
Turns out Taylor is also a perfect friend for WND -- a far-right ranter who has claimed that Hillary Clinton, had she won the election, would have shut down churches and turned them into mosques.
MRC's Wilmouth: Ignore That Scalise Apologized For Giving That Speech, He Totally Didn't Give It! Topic: Media Research Center
For a while now, the Media Research Center's Brad Wilmouth has been vociferously denying that Republican Rep. Steve Scalise once spoke to a David Duke-founded group -- despite the fact that Scalise has apologized for giving said speech.
So desperate is Wilmouth to cling to his falsehood that he issued a rare MRC attack on Fox News in a June 16 post:
The discredited claims that House Majority Whip Steve Scalise 15 years ago spoke to a white supremacist group founded by former KKK leader David Duke have left such a mark, that the claims even manage to make it onto Fox News Channel more than two years after the more dominant drive-by liberal media seized on them.
On Wednesday'sFox and Friends, as Fox News producer Greg Pergram reported in by phone in the aftermath of the attack on congressional Republicans in Alexandria, Virginia, he incorrectly recalled that it was the KKK that Scalise was accused of meeting with, when in reality the debunked accusation was that he spoke to a white nationalist group that was founded by Duke.
Additionally, Pergram failed to inform viewers that, even though Scalise issued an apology, the central claim that Scalise spoke to Duke's group was undermined both by a flyer from the eventthat did not list Scalise as a speaker, and by a man who helped organize the event who claimed thathe invited Scalise to speak at a separate gathering in the same hotel that was not part of the white nationalist convention.
Brad, honey, Scalise apologized for speaking to the group. That trumps any defense you're offering. Accept it and move on with your life.
WorldNetDaily editor Joseph Farah once insisted that "we seldom use anonymous sources." Like a lot of things he says, it's not true.
Take this June 15 article by Liam Clancy touting an anonymously written anti-Muslim screed:
In a post that quickly went viral, blogger Loretta the Prole outlined how a flood of Muslim refugees changed the face of her hometown of Utica, New York, forever.
The piece, titled “My Hometown is Gone,” was written in response to the recent increase in refugee numbers and was designed to “convey what it is like living in an Islamizing area,” according to Loretta.
“I’m from the Utica, N.Y., area. Utica is the city nicknamed by the UN ‘the city that loves refugees!’ Soon every American city will be a city that loves refugees! Get ready!” the piece begins sarcastically.
“So I would like to tell you what it is like living in an area where the major city is about 25 percent (or more) refugee, mainly Muslim.”
The first thing Loretta noticed under increasing Islamization during the Obama era was the conversion of an old Methodist church into a mosque. The next was that Muslim immigrants were increasingly put in local positions of bureaucratic power.
“So let me just summarize: the social worker at the school is Muslim, the administrator who ok’s homeschooling is Muslim, the CPS worker is Muslim, the nurse practitioner at the ER is Muslim, the doctor at the ER is Muslim. These are positions of authority that wield a lot of power,” Loretta notes.
Not only do refugees get preferential treatment over American citizens, but they bring disease as well. Loretta cited a WND article relaying the re-emergence of TB in Utica.
“This is why so many Democrats voted for Trump. Americans are getting squeezed out by non-Americans at multiple levels,” she believes. The county where Utica is located is historically a Democrat county, but it went for Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential election.
“Americans can see that they are being forced to accommodate non-Americans to their own detriment and expense,” Loretta states.
Clancy doesn't explain where, exactly, this anonymously written post "went viral," but we're guessing it didn't go much beyond the pack of online Muslim-haters WND hangs out with.
And curiously, Clancy doesn't even bother to link to the post in question so we can all read it -- perhaps because it demonstrates how much Loretta, who has since moved to North Carolina, hates Muslims. She writes at one point: "The local Walmart is full of headscarves and burkas. I cried when I went into my first Walmart in North Carolina and all I saw were Americans."
That's the level of discourse WND is championing by giving Loretta more prominence.
CNS -- Promoter of Sheriff's Nasty Rhetoric -- Posts Sheriff Group's Call To Tone Down Rhetoric Topic: CNSNews.com
Craig Bannister ramps up the irony in a June 15 CNSNews.com blog post:
“Vitriolic political rhetoric” must stop because it “puts us all in danger,” the National Sheriffs’ Association (NSA) warned after Wednesday’s shooting of Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA) at an Alexandria, Virginia baseball field where Republicans were practicing for a congressional game.
NSA President Sheriff Greg Champagne offered his prayers for Scalise, who remains in critical condition the day after being shot:
"The National Sheriffs' Association would like to offer our collective prayers to House Majority Whip Steve Scalise and his family, as well as to all of those injured in the unprovoked shooting in Alexandria, VA this morning. We wish all of those victims a speedy and complete recovery.”
Champagne called on Americans to end today’s hateful rhetoric that can lead to violence – violence that law enforcement officers themselves have been victimized by the effects of "this destructive rhetoric":
“We also call upon everyone to end the vitriolic political rhetoric that has no other purpose than to dehumanize and demonize those with different political views or who belong to a certain group. Law enforcement officers have also been the subject of this destructive rhetoric that puts us all in danger. It is literally tearing our country apart.
"Enough is enough!”
The sheriff's group's call itself is highly ironic because one of the chief purveyors of vitriolic political rhetoric in America today is Wisconsin sheriff David A. Clarke Jr. And it's doubly ironic that Bannister posted it at CNS because CNS -- mostly in the person of managing editor Michael W. Chapman -- loves to post Clarke's hate-filled rants, especially when his anti-Obama screeds served its political agenda. For instance:
Needless to say, Bannister never noted the disconnect between the sheriffs group's rhetoric and the hate coming from one of its own -- or that CNS is a chief purveyor of the "vitriolic political rhetoric" that statement was denouncing.