Here's one of the more unlikely things we've seen in a while: A Media Research Center writing approvingly of '80s rock band Twisted Sister.
CNSNews.com managing editor Michael W. Chapman tells us all aout it in a June 12 blog post -- and, needless to say given CNS' fanboyish pro-Trump stenography, there's as Trump involved:
Believe it or not, Twisted Sisters' lead singer Dee Snider sang the teen hit "We're Not Gonna' Take It!" at a fundraiser for the Eric Trump Foundation, which benefits St. Jude's Children's Hospital, and Donald Trump, Eric Trump and his wife Lara, Donald Trump Jr., Ivanaka Trump, and Ivana Trump (the president's first wife) joined in onstage to belt out the rock classic.
The fundraiser took place in August 2015. Donald Trump announced he would run for president in June 2015. The video has recently resurfaced and it is a cultural oddity to behold.
"We're Not Gonna Take It!" is a rock song about teenage rebellion against an older generation. Given Trump's campaign about "draining the swamp" and weeding out the old, obsolete, and ineffectual forces in Washington, D.C., the song could easily be viewed as a message about Trump's vision and that of his followers, the so-called "deplorables." They aren't going to take it, anymore.
Chapman then reprinted the complete lyrics of the song.
Also needless to say, Chapman didn't mention that Snider succeeded in getting Donald Trump to stop playing the song at his campaign rallies. Nor did he mention that the Donald J. Trump Foundation apparently funneled money from the Eric Trump Foundation into the Trump Organization and other Trump-related charities, in part by charging exhorbitant amounts for the Eric Trump Foundation to use Trump-owned golf courses for charity events. That's something New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman has decided he's not going to take anymore.
WND Scraping Bottom of Barrel To Keep Seth Rich Conspiracies Alive Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily has been flailing for some time to keep its malicious and cynical Seth Rich conspiracy theories alive. Not only has its GoFundMe campaign been a failure -- as of this writing, just over $4,000 has been raised in more than a month of soliciting -- it's running out of stories to pump it up.
On June 22, Alicia Powe was content to serve as stenographer for similarly malicious conspiracy-monger Jack Burkman -- a Republican lobbyist whose politically motivated conspiracy promotion Powe laughably called "independent" and "nonpartisan" -- who was ranting that "Several online accounts belonging to murdered DNC staffer Seth Rich have been deleted in recent weeks."
By June 28, Powe was down to promoting a fringe candidate for Debbie Wasserman-Schultz's congressional seat, Tim Canova, who was asserting that "Any American who cares about the rule of law should be demanding the truth about the mysterious murder of DNC staffer Seth Rich." Powe lamented that "After weighing in on social media about the Seth Rich murder mystery, Canova quickly became the target of widespread criticism."
Surprisingly, Powe did report on Canova's even more conspiratorial rants, like how he believes Wasserman Schultz apparently sent a power surge to his house that fried his computer surge protector.
Powe also used a June 25 article to promote a class-action lawsuit against the Democratic National Committee for, in Powe's words, "rigging the 2016 presidential election" (shouldn't Powe be talking to Russia about that?) -- a lawsuit so badly constructed, according to one observer, that its issues "would be apparent to any second semester law student." Powe did PR work for the plaintiffs, uncritically repeating their assertion that "they’re being harassed with threatening messages and “freaky” encounters and they fear for their safety – particularly in the wake of the mysterious and unsolved murder of DNC staffer Seth Rich – but a federal court has denied their request for protection." Powe also regurgitated their purported concer nover Rich's death because, according to a statement by one fo the lawyers, "Mr. Rich might have been a potential witness in this case."
That's what might be charitiably called scraping the bottom of the barrel. Then again, complete lack of credibility hasn't stopped WND before.
MRC Pushes Fake News That GOP Health Care Bill Doesn't Cut Medicaid Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center is so loyal to President Trump -- remember the big flip from last summer and the Mercer money that may have driven it -- that it will go the fake-news route to defend him and the Republicans who support him.
The MRC's big talking point on the GOP Senate's health care bill is that, despite what everyone is saying, it doesn't cut Medicaid. Nicholas Fondacaro laid out the talking point in a June 25 post: "The Senate bill doesn’t cut Medicaid, it only slows down the rate of spending growth by the federal government. In fact, the bill pegs spending growth to inflation so it’s almost guaranteed to go up every year."
Of course, slowing down the rate of spending growth is still a cut if Medicaid is rising faster than inflation, which it is. Fondacaro, doesn't mention that, though.
The MRC has been religiously repeating the talking point ever since:
Fondacaro complained on June 26 about a media report containing "fake news about the bill drastically slashing Medicaid."
Alex Xenos grumbled: "In reality, the plan cuts the rate of growth in Medicaid spending. Only Democrats would consider that an actual cut."
Fondacaro again whined that "ABC and NBC both continued to push the fake news story of there being massive cuts to Medicaid in the bill during their evening broadcasts. That’s despite the fact that the CBO report itself disproves their lie.
Scott Whitlock dutifully insisted that "In reality, the bill simply slows the rate of growth."
Kevin Baker had a lengthy regurgitation of the talking point that somehow included much more wiggle room: "The line of attack by the liberal media that supposed "cuts" to Medicaid in the Republican health care bill will destroy health care is ludicrous. In reality, there are no "cuts" to anything. The proposal would actually increase Medicaid spending, but at a slower rate over time than under ObamaCare. Furthermore, there is nothing in the legislation preventing our esteemed elected officials from revising such spending as time goes on, so the idea that Medicaid itself will undergo any sort of profound change is unlikely at best."
Fondacaro once more: "the Big Three Networks (ABC, CBS, and NBC) continued to spread the fake news that Senate Republicans were cutting Medicaid despite the Congressional Budget Office’s report the proved otherwise."
Baker returned to complain about "the narrative that the fictional Medicaid "cuts" in the GOP health care bill would devastate the poor."
Like a lot of arguments the MRC makes, the claim that the GOP bill doesn't cut Medicaid because funding doesn't decrease is biased, narrowly tailored and ludicrous.
The Washington Post's Philip Bump explained how dishonest this argument is when it was voiced by White House aide Kellyanne Conway, pointing out that both House and Senate GOP health care bills would cut federal funding to states to fund Medicaid expansion, which would effectively be a cut because cash-strapped states are unlikely to fil the gap on their own:
Conway argues that the Republican measures give “governors more flexibility” in allocating Medicaid funding, thanks to another change in the bills, which would switch how the government pays for Medicaid by moving to a per capita compensation system. But the reduction in federal funding as above would also mean states would face significantly higher cost, even while, as Conway argues, it’s already the case that “states are having a very difficult time meeting the bills.”
Bump concluded:
Conway’s argument is that decreasing federal spending and slowing the amount spent per patient over the long term is not a “cut” to the program, since the program still exists and since there will still be funding. That’s the political goal, to allow Republicans [like Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) who made the case on CBS’ “Face the Nation” on Sunday] to argue that vulnerable Medicaid patients won’t be at risk because funding will continue and because the Obamacare expansion mostly added people who were healthier. But reducing funding to states means that states will have to either pay more or decide how and where to focus Medicaid enrollment to reduce costs.
In other words, because federal funding for Medicaid is decreasing from current levels, Medicaid will have to be cut in some manner from its current state.
It appears the MRC is putting out fake news -- which if loves to bash the "liberal media" for allegedly engaging in.
How do we know that WorldNetDaily is having a transgender freakout? It drags out the slanderous photo it stole from the Associated Press of a man wearing a dress and heels (which is, in fact, not a photo of a transgender person but, rather, from a 2012 "hairy legs on heels" race in Madrid).
That photo graces a June 30 WND article by Bob Unruh detailing an attempt by right-wing legal group Liberty Counsel to get soldiers out of "transgender awareness" training. Why does Liberty Counsel want to keep soldiers securely hateful of people who are not like them? Unruh explains:
Liberty Counsel contends transgender “training” mostly “requires personnel to accept false statements about the nature of sex, gender, biology and morality.”
“This directive includes requiring officers to approve medically unnecessary surgeries and harmful, unproven hormone replacement, all at taxpayer expense; addressing gender-confused officers and soldiers ‘identifying’ as the opposite sex by false gender pronouns and false gender titles; and requiring female soldiers (and vice versa) to sleep, shower and perform private bodily functions in the presence of the opposite biological sex.”
Needless to say, Unruh made no effort to contact the military to find out exactly what the "transgender awareness" actually entails. That would be too much like journalism.
This was followed the next day with an article by WND intern Joe Wilson -- also illustrated with the same misleading, malicious stolen photo -- complaining that transgenderism has been "de-pathologized" and worrying about "the impact on impressionable children who see such people celebrated in the media and given special privileges." Wilson does not identify the "special privileges" transgenders purportedly receive.
Instead, Wilson quotes anti-LGBT "experts" like his boss, WND managing editor David Kupelian:
Many transsexuals suffered from sexual abuse as children, often from a parent or a close family member. This could be a cause of their “gender dysphoria,” as Kupelian points out.
“Little children, being so exquisitely impressionable, are powerfully shaped by the environment in which they grow up. Early sexual abuse … can be devastating,” he said.
But instead of treating the underlying cause of the “dysphoria,” the modern world seems more interested in hushing it up and calling it normal, Kupelian contends.
“The most vulnerable members of society are the young, so exposing children to dangerous and confusing cultural delusions, like the idea that transgenderism is perfectly normal, is particularly reckless and dangerous,” he said.
Should decision-makers encourage children in behavior that will lead to attempted suicide for 40 percent of them? Is it really child abuse to tell them that biology doesn’t make mistakes? Can the nation justify running all of these risks so that changeable children can act out a gender identity that most of them would lose naturally as they grow older?
The answer is no for many experts who contend that encouraging transgenderism in children should be described as it was for decades: child abuse.
WND apparently never got around to teaching Wilson the part of journalism where you tell both sides of the story. Of course, if Wilson was actually interested in fair and balanced journalism, he wouldn't be interning at WND.
MRC Still Standing Athwart History, Yelling 'Bias!' Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center is still angry that the media is calling historic things "historic."
Tim Graham devoted a lengthy June 8 post to complaining how "One obvious way the TV networks proclaim what is History In The Making is by putting it on live television – canceling their daytime line-ups and eating advertising revenue for 'public service,'" unsuprisingly asserting that "they have a liberal bias in deciding just which scandals get the daytime or prime-time live coverage." Of course, Graham says that about everything.
Graham actually complains that the Watergate hearings were broadcast live, because it "was a big moment for the empowerment of PBS."He went on to whine about broadcasting of the Iran-Contra hearings: "PBS cleared its decks to stick it to the Republicans, with the hope of electing a Democratic president in 1988."
As befits an organization that's never forgiven Anita Hill for talking about Clarence Thomas' alleged sexual harassment, Graham complains the testimony about her "unproven sexual harassment charges" were broadcast, whining: "No one singled out the Democrats as the dirty tricksters -- instead, Hill's unproven leak was praised as part of a trend of leakers doing a 'public service.'" Gotta love how testimony before Congress is somehow a "leak."
Graham is particularly incensed that the media didn't conform to the right-wing political agenda by airing live hearings during the Obama years. He was particularly upset that no Benghazi hearings were covered on live network TV, even though multipleinvestigations found nothing particularly scandalous and even Republican members of Congress admitted that the so-called scandal was designed to hurt Hillary Clinton's election chances.
Another post the same day on the same subject came from Scott Whitlock, who complained:
In case you didn’t realize just how excited liberal journalists were about James Comey’s testimony in front of Congress on Thursday, CBS This Morning reporters described it as “historic” or “history” six times. Of course, they even looked back at Watergate for a comparison.
Whitlock later listed the sponsors of the "biased" CBS segments. He doesn't explain where the supposed "bias" is in calling a historic event "historic" -- and he refused to concede that a fired FBI director testifying before Congress about the president who fired him was, in fact, historic.
NEW ARTICLE: Leo Hohmann's Muslim Freakouts Topic: WorldNetDaily
Muslim politicians, a church sold to a mosque, Muslims in general -- the WorldNetDaily reporter fearmongers about them all. Read more >>
CNS Tries Again -- And Fails Again -- To Troll Pelosi Topic: CNSNews.com
Apparently, it's one of the duties of an intern at CNSNews.com to ask a politically motivated gotcha question to Nancy Pelosi. In 2015, for example, CNS intern Sam Dorman deliberately tried to provoke Pelosi by asking her, “Is an unborn baby with a human heart and a human liver a human being?”
Well, CNS is at it again, set off by Pelosi's statement the President Trump dishonors God by pulling the United States out of the Paris climate accords.
Intern Teresa Smith hurled her gotcha question -- again, abortion-centric -- at Pelosi, as detailed in a June 22 article:
At Pelosi's press briefing on Thursday, CNSNews.com asked Pelosi if her understanding of what dishonors God extends to aborting a baby with a beating heart as well as pulling out of the Paris Accord;
CNSNews.com:"Three weeks ago you said we need to be 'responsible stewards' of 'God's creation.'"
Pelosi: Yes.
CNSNews.com:"And that it dishonors God to pull out of the Paris Accord."
Pelosi:"Yes."
CNSnews.com:"The Heartbeat Protection Act would prohibit aborting a baby with a heartbeat. Does it dishonor God to abort a baby with a beating heart?"
Pelosi did not answer the question directly but said:“I don’t—obviously you want to get into that discussion. What I say is: I completely respect a woman’s right to choose. I am a mother of five children, nine grandchildren. But my five grandchildren--my five children were born within exactly six years of each other. When my baby came home from the hospital, when we brought her home our oldest child was turning--I thought she might be here, she’s not allowed in the room, I guess--turning six that week.
Apparently deciding that Pelosi had been insufficiently trolled on the issue, CNS sent another out the following week to ask another version of the same question. This time Annabel Scott did the dirty work, similarly complaining that Pelosi didn't fall for her trolling:
At the Capitol on Thursday, CNSNews.com asked Rep. Pelosi, “On the health care bill, yesterday you said that ignoring the needs of God's creation is to ‘dishonor the God who made us.’ Do you believe that defunding Planned Parenthood dishonors God?”
Pelosi did not answer the question and instead said, “I think defunding Planned Parenthood disrespects every woman in this country, disrespects her judgment to make her own decision about the size and timing of her family, with herself, her doctor, her God, her family.”
“And so, I think we have to respect the dignity and worth of every person and their ability to make decisions to answer for their behavior,” said the House Minority Leader.
Pro tip to CNS: Pelosi knows you're trolling her. She's not falling for it. She also knows that you don't care about journalism and are just trying to score cheap political points in thte hope of getting linked on Drudge.
WND Race-Baits About Nightclub Shooting Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily has largely backed off its race-baiting tendencies of late (funny what Google threatening to cut off ad revenue will do to moderate one's editorial agenda), but that doesn't WND won't race-bait if the opportunity presents itself.
And it did so in a weekend shooting at a Little Rock nightclub. The anonymously written July 1 WND article on the incident makes sure to note that "Video posted to Facebook shows a mostly black crowd, with the group Finese2tymes performing on stage" at the club prior to the shooting, and that "Posters promoting the concert by Memphis rapper Finese2Tymes featured a man pointing a gun at a camera." The article added that "Little Rock police have responded to a dozen drive-by shootings over the previous nine days."
The anonymous WND writer, however, undermined his/her own race-baiting at the end of the article by conceding the problem appears to actually be a poorly run operation:
Power Ultra Lounge’s license has been suspended 11 times for failing to pay taxes, and it has been cited seven times for 14 various violations including unknowingly furnishing alcohol to minors and allowing alcohol to leave the premises since 2012, ABC Director of Enforcement Boyce Hamlet said.
A hearing before the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board is scheduled for July 10. The charges are expected to be disorderly conduct, allowing possession of weapons on the premises and “failure to be a good neighbor.”
Lest there be any confusion about WND's race-baiting intent, there's WND's accompanying poll asking readers to "sound off on Little Rock nightclub shooting." The top answer by a landslide is "Somebody's got to say it -- there's a serious problem in the black community."
Yep, race-baiting is still very much a thing at WND.
MRC's Graham Redefines Partisan Media-Bashing As 'Journalism' Topic: Media Research Center
Terrible media critic Tim Graham has now decided that his partisan anti-media rants aren't about being partisan at all.
In a June 28 Media Research Center post, Graham rails at CNN's Brian Stelter for making the accurate point that partisan right-wing attacks on CNN are "anti-journalism." When Stelter decried right-wing outlets like Breitbart who liken CNN to ISIS, Graham dismissed that inciteful rhetoric as "just trolling." Graham can't know that, of course -- he's just downplaying the idea that the MRC's multimillion-dollar anti-media budget could possibly have any negative consequences. Graham then rants:
But Stelter and his crew are incredibly tolerant of leftists comparing President Trump to Stalin, Hitler, Hugo Chavez, Kim Jong Un, and terrorists. That’s another day at the office for the liberal media. The mellow liberals compare Trump to Richard Nixon.
Breitbart's James Delingpole offered a point Stelter won't consider, their laughable pretense that the liberal, partisan media isn't liberal or partisan. Delingpole recalled being on a panel discussion: "What amazed me that, while I was perfectly frank with the audience that Breitbart was a conservative media organization which catered for a largely conservative readership, both the guy from CNN and the guy from [the] New York Timeswere adamant that they were objective seekers-after-truth." The truth about their bias they just never admit.
Stelter insists that unless you honor and respect the intentions of liberal journalists – never questioning that their motives might be partisan – then you are “anti-journalism.” If you actually document that the media elites “cover up good news and invent bad news,” then you’re “anti-journalism.” If you document that journalists and Democratic operatives are operating hand in glove – like, for example, CNN analysts offering questions to Hillary Clinton in advance, or journalists sending e-mails offering Clinton officials the chance to edit their stories before publication – that’s somehow “anti-journalism.”
Graham concluded: "What we’re doing at NewsBusters isn’t 'anti-journalism.' It’s journalism on journalism."
So Graham and NewsBusters are all about "journalism" now? How precious. If they're so offended by a president being likened to Hitler, where were they when their fellow right-wingers at WorldNetDaily were likening Obama to Hitler and the Antichrist? Hiding, apparently. And it was soooo journalistic for the MRC to fail to denounce Obama birtherism until the charge was levied against Brent Bozell's preferred 2016 presidential candidate, Ted Cruz.
If Graham and NewsBusters care so much about journalism, why are they trying to justify Trump's vicious attack on a media figure who criticized him? And why is Graham so mad that the MRC's hostility to media fact-checkers was called out? Anmd why is NewsBusters insisting that Steve Scalise didn't give a speech he apologized for giving?
Graham's dogged insistence that CNN is a tool of the "liberal, partisan media" betrays the fact that he has never worked a day in an actual journalistic organization and, thus, doesn't know what journalism is. CNN tries to fairly cover a story -- something that can't be said about the MRC's own "news" division, CNSNews.com, which is content to be paid Trumpstenographers and PR agents for the fossil-fuel industry. (Graham would never concede that our work exposing CNS' slavish right-wing bias is "journalism about journalism.")
If Graham and the MRC actually cared about journalism, CNS wouldn't be slavishly devoted to pushing right-wing talking points and bashing anyone who disagrees with them.It would be a laboratory for showing the "mainstream media" how to do its job. Then again, CNS may be leading by example after all -- the MRC would much rather prefer the entire media to be devoted to pushing right-wing talking points. That's the very definition of "anti-journalism."
As much as he would have you believe otherwise, Graham doesn't give a damn about journalism -- he wants to replace it with right-wing stenography. Calling partisan hackery "journalism" doesn't make it any less hackish.
Alicia Powe writes in a June 26 WorldNetDaily article:
Days after James Hodgkinson unveiled his homicidal intentions against conservatives with a gun attack on Republican members of Congress who were practicing for a congressional baseball game, conservative journalists rallied in front of the White House to demand an end to attacks on and assaults against Trump supporters.
They are making the demands not just of those who are violent, or potentially violent, but of the mainstream media, the Democratic Party and the party’s liberal supporters.
Jack Posobiec, journalist and author of “Citizens for Trump,” told WND he organized the rally “because it is time to stand for peace.”
“It’s time for Trump supporters, people on the right wing, people on the left wing, people in the center, people who are independents, moderates, Republicans – we should all be able to stand up for peace,” he said. “There is too much violent rhetoric, and it is time, finally, for us to say, ‘Enough with the violence, enough with the violent rhetoric – we need peace and we need it now.'”
Powe's description of Posobiec as a "journalist" is laughable. She either doesn't know, or is hiding, Posobiec's true nature: that of a lying alt-right plagiarist.
Posobiec has promoted the completely discredited Pizzagate conspiracy theory and planted a "Rape Melania" sign at an anti-Trump rally in an attempt to discredit protesters. He has been caught plagiarizing the work of others.
This is who Powe and WND are portraying as a legitimate member of the media.
But Posobiec is not the only alt-right agitator Powe is calling a "journalist." Later in her article, she touted Mike Cernovich as an "independent journalist." As we've noted, Cernovich is an alt-right troll who makes racially charged statements and also promoted Pizzagate.
Powe also touted someone named Ali Akbar, described only as a "political consultant and president of National Bloggers Inc." Turns out Akbar is apparently a convicted felon and a terrible businessman, and it's not clear that "National Bloggers Inc." is even a going concern. Powe uncritically repeated Akbar's assertion that "the KKK was the terrorist wing of the Democratic Party," ignoring that well, it wasn't.
So, basically, Powe, Posobiec and Cernovich are are complaining that some in the media are treating Trump the way WND and the right-wing media treated Obama. How ironic.
MRC Pretends Anti-Muslim Group Isn't Anti-Muslim Topic: Media Research Center
In the wake of last month's sparse protests organized by right-wing anti-Muslim group ACT! For America, Tim Graham wrote a post headlined "WashPost, NBC Smear Anti-Sharia Protesters as 'Anti-Muslim' 'Hate Group'." But in all his complaining that the group was designated as a hate group by "the radical-left Southern Poverty Law Center" and that stories about female genital mutiliation in America "underlines what the ACT members" are protesting, at no point does Graham explain how ACT! For America is not anti-Muslim.
Indeed, he proves the opposite -- that ACT! For America is indeed anti-Muslim and not merely "anti-Sharia" -- nby including in an excerpt from an NBC article a 2007 statement by ACT! For America leader Brigitte Gabriel that a "practicing Muslim ... cannot be a loyal citizen of the United States." Graham lets that statement go by without comment, going on to insist that the group is simply engaging in "conservative protest."
At the very end of the article, Graham includes a statement that explains why he's running to the group's defense: "Disclosure: ACT for America founder Brigitte Gabriel has been a featured speaker on our MRC Cruise."
In a June 20 NewsBusters post, Stephanie Schmitt took another stab at defending ACT! for America, declaring that the group isn't anti-Muslim because, well, they said they weren't, and that's apparently good enough for her:
ACT is fighting against those specific parts of Sharia Law that go directly against the democratic vision of human rights (honor killing, female genital mutilation, etc.) They are NOT looking to dismantle the Islamic faith. This is explicitly stated. And yet, the media's main representation of the march has all focused on its "hateful" cause and combating hate speech.
Schmitt didn't mention Gabriel's explicity anti-Muslim statement, nor did she disclose the group's relationship with the MRC. Instead, she rants that Teen Vogue magazine, which had called ACT! for America's agenda "hateful speech," was encouraging the "snubbing of free speech" and the the magazine is just trying to "push liberal talking points."
Schmitt didn't acknowledge that her job is to push conservative talking points -- one of which, apparently, is that ACT! for America is a mainstream group that doesn't hate Muslims.
WND Is Still Pushing Fake-News Story About Macy's Topic: WorldNetDaily
We've detailed how WorldNetDaily loves to push the fake-news story that financial woes at Macy's are somehow directly tied to the department store chain discontinuing Donald Trump's clothing line. But WND is bizarrely trying to keep the false story alive, the latest attempt coming in a June 27 article by Liam Clancy:
Nearly two years after phasing out its Donald Trump line of menswear, Macy’s stock has plummeted to its lowest levels in years.
Macy’s dumped Trump merchandise in July 2015 after the then-Republican presidential candidate made “derogatory” comments about Mexican immigrants.
“Macy’s is a company that stands for diversity and inclusion,” the company said at the time. “We are disappointed and distressed by recent remarks about immigrants from Mexico.”
Trump responded by calling for a boycott of the store, tweeting: “Those who believe in tight border security, stopping illegal immigration, [and] SMART trade deals [with] other countries should boycott Macy’s.”
The boycott by Trump supporters has taken a toll, according to Fortune magazine.
Macy’s now plans to close up to 100 stores and lay off 10,000 workers as sales plummet.
As usual, Clancy ignores the actual reasons Macy's is in trouble: customers moving away from traditional department stores and shopping malls to online, fast-fashion and off-price retailers.
For a website that loves to complain about fake news, WND sure publishes a lot of it.
CNS Managing Editor Promotes Another Message of Hate Topic: CNSNews.com
We've detailed how CNSNews.com managing editor Michael W. Chapman is particularly fond of sharing his hatred of all things LGBT. He shares the hate once again with a June 20 blog post touting how WorldNetDaily columnist Jesse Lee Peterson literally thinks gays are the devil's spawn and parents who teach respect and tolerance for others don't love their children:
Reverend Jesse Lee Peterson, who runs BOND, which is dedicated to "rebuilding the family by rebuilding the man," said the people who are celebrating June as LGBTQ pride month are deceived because they actually are "celebrating sin," and contrary to their claims about being "children of God," they are "children of the lie" whose father is the "Devil."
He added that parents who allow their children to be indoctrinated in school with LGBT propaganda do not truly love their children, but turn them over to be "brainwashed."
[...]
"This month is so-called homosexual month -- can you imagine -- the whole entire month is dedicated to celebrating quote on quote wrong, celebrating sin, isn't that amazing?" said Peterson.
"We are all not children of God," he continued. "I don't know where that idea came from -- oh, from the children of the lie."
"We are not all children of God," said Peterson, "and this man Michael [who called in], this male Michael calls himself a preacher, so a lot of people are going to believe that lie simply because he says he’s a preacher."
"You're not all children of God," said Peterson. "You're children of your father, the Devil."
[...]
Peterson then explained how some parents do not truly love their children because they allow them to be exposed, indoctrinated in pro-LGBT propaganda in the schools.
"Most or many parents do not love their children today," he said. "They don't. They sacrifice their children to the children of the lie."
"They allow their children to be sacrificed for evil, and I'm mentioning this because this whole month of June they're celebrating homosexuality in schools and playgrounds and everywhere else, and there's no outcry about it anymore," said Peterson.
Chapman did not repeat Peterson's words because he disapproves of them -- he's repeating them because he agrees that gays are the devil's spawn.
Anti-Transgender Pastor Laughably Calls for 'Responsible Rhetoric' Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily columnist Michael Brown is on a reasonableness kick again.
In his June 16 column, Brown surprisingly holds both sides to account for extreme political rhetoric, concluding: "It’s time we speak with greater responsibility, measuring our words carefully, considering the implications of our accusations and pushing people to constructive, rather than destructive, action." And his his June 30 column, Brown argued against the right-wing urge to defend every utterance President Trump makes, particularly his vile slurs of Mika Brzezinski, stating that "for us to defend his every tweet is to make ourselves into stooges more than supporters, helping no one in the end."
Which is all very well and good -- the world needs more commentators who don't play favorites when the chips are down. Problem is, Brown can't bring himself to do that consistently.
Brown's rhetoric is much less responsible when it comes to LGBT-related issues -- he did, after all, write an anti-gay book called "A Queer Thing Happened to America" -- engaging in lazy stereotyping, inflammatory rhetoric ("Transanity!") and pushingfalsehoods.
Brown's rhetoris is also less than responsible when it comes to the subject of Islam. He huffed in a May 24 column:
And we need to call on Muslim leaders across the world to denounce Islamic terror and to combat it, without caveat or qualification. That means that if a Muslim suicide bomber blows up people in Israel or England or France, the action must be condemned unequivocally.
Islamic theologians and political leaders must unite and say, “That is not Islam, and that is a hell-bound murderer, not a martyr.”
While some Muslim leaders have done this with consistency (although, more rarely when it comes to attacks against Israelis) all too many others have not.
[...]
Only Muslim leaders can end this debate. If Islam is not, by nature, a violent religion, then the top Muslim voices across the world must denounce it and combat it. And they must help the West combat it. Is this too much to ask?
Nope. But apparently it's too much to ask for Brown to do some basic research before making such a claim. A Muslim college student has compiled a 712-page list of Muslim leaders denouncing acts of terrorism (posted online here).
Responsible rhetoric is a good thing. Brown just needs to walk the walk a lot more than he does before he starts lecturing the rest of us about it.
MRC Justifies Trump's Nasty Tweets -- Then Complains Media Is Covering Them Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center went into freakout mode last month when CNN's Anderson Cooper said of Trump defender (and NewsBusters columnist) Jeffrey Lord: "if he took a dump on his desk, you would defend it." But the MRC does that too -- and it just demonstrated a prime example.
Trump took a Twitteresque dump on MSNBC's Mika Brzezinski, and the MRC defended it.
Its first reaction -- as to be expected from an organization that joinedRush Limbaugh in smearing Sandra Fluke as a slut and attacked women who lodged sexual harassment allegations against 2012 Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain -- was using its NewsBusters Twitter account to justify Trump's attack by sending out a series of supposedly mean things Brzezinski said about Trump:
The MRC didn't mention that its leader, Brent Bozell, likened President Obama to a "skinny ghetto crackhead" but Obama did not respond in kind.
MRC official Tim Graham joined in the justification-fest by rudely asserting in a tweet: "Let's guess @PolitlFact won't check whether Mika had a facelift. Too rude to check."
The next day, however, the MRC had something of a change of heart -- after defending Trump's sleazy smears, it moved to attacking the fact the media covered them at all.
A June 30 post by Nicholas Fondacaro conceded that Trump "egregiously mocked" Brzezinski, then complained that the media -- once again narrowly defined as only the network evening news shows -- coveredd Trump's tweets much more than how, "in two bipartisan votes, the House passed both Kate’s Law and a measure to punish sanctuary cities."
Later that day, Kyle Drennen featured another narrow sliver of the media, the network morning shows, to complain that they "devoted a staggering 52 times the amount of coverage to the President’s social media attack than to Kate’s Law passing the House.
We'll leave it to CNN's Chris Cillizza to explain why the MRC's attack on coverage is so lame:
Here's the thing: Theonlyreason that the networks dedicated so much coverage to the Trump tweets is because it was the President of the United States cyberbullying a female journalist based on her looks.
That's a BIG story. Particularly when First Lady Melania Trump has spoken about the dangers of cyberbullying and how she wants to work to stamp it out during her time in the White House. And when it's part of a pattern of inappropriate and sexist comments over a period of years by Donald Trump.
The MRC thought it was a BIG story too -- until it realized that the blowback Trump was getting from his nastiness was universal, meaning it was time to shift into deflect-and-distract mode.
The MRC finally realized it had to stop defending the Trump dump. No word on whether Jeffrey Lord will do the same.
Here's one of the more unlikely things we've seen in a while: A Media Research Center writing approvingly of '80s rock band Twisted Sister.
WorldNetDaily has been 
The Media Research Center is so loyal to President Trump -- remember the 
How do we know that WorldNetDaily is having a transgender freakout? It drags out the slanderous 
The Media Research Center 
Apparently, it's one of the duties of an intern at CNSNews.com to ask a politically motivated gotcha question to Nancy Pelosi. In 2015, for example, CNS intern Sam Dorman 
WorldNetDaily has 
Terrible media critic 
Alicia Powe writes in a June 26 WorldNetDaily 
In the wake of last month's sparse protests organized by right-wing anti-Muslim group ACT! For America, Tim Graham wrote a 
We've detailed how WorldNetDaily loves to push the 
We've 
WorldNetDaily columnist Michael Brown is on a reasonableness kick again.
The Media Research Center 
