CNS Managing Editor Loves It When Catholics Hate Gays As Much As He Does Topic: CNSNews.com
It's indisputable that CNSNews.com managing editor Michael W. Chapman despises the LGBT community. Judging by the amount of Catholic stuff he posts Chapman is Catholic as well, and it's tickled to death whenever a Catholic Church cardinal or priest is as anti-gay as he is. After all, he's already repeated the bogus claim by Bill Donohue of the right-wing Catholic League that gay priests are responsible for those of the sexual abuse of children.
On Dec. 19, Chapman touted a Mexican cardinal ranting about, among other things, "gender ideology, which with its package of perversions aggresses against family and life, with the unconfessed purpose of ruining societies, subjugating and plundering them."
On Jan. 4, Chapman highlighted how "Catholic Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke, the former archbishop of St. Louis who now serves on the Vatican's highest court, said the 'homosexual condition' is an 'abnormal condition,' and that there is no reason for the Catholic Church to 'ask forgiveness for teaching the truth about sex and sexuality.'" Chapman's article also included a picture of a gay-pride march, which was curiously described as a "gay pride resistance march." There's also a picture of "David Kirby, a homosexual activist who died from AIDS in 1990," apparently near the end of his life; Chapman did not explain why the picture was used given that Kirby is mentioned nowhere in his article. Perhaps Chapman wanted to exploit Kirby's gaunt appearance as an apparent illustration of how he thinks all gays should be punished.
In a Jan. 10 article, Chapman found even more anti-gay rantings by that Mexican cardinal:
In an exclusive interview with the Catholic news service LifeSiteNews, the Archbishop Emeritus of Guadalajara, Mexico, Cardinal Juan Sandoval Iniguez, said that "homosexuality is a psychological illness which can be cured," but for those who practice it they will face the same fate as those in Sodom and Gomorrah, who were "destroyed" by God for their sin.
He continued, "Even more so, knowing that homosexuality is a psychological illness which can be cured. Let them seek a cure, because homosexuality is never permitted."
"That's what Genesis is about, Gomorrah," said the Cardinal. "What happened with Sodom and Gomorrah? What happened? He destroyed them."
Chapman added, "The Catholic Church operates a very successful program for homosexuals who want to live chaste lives called Courage." Chapman offered no evidence to back up the claim about the program being "very successful."
When Catholics don't hate gays as much as Chapman does, however, he lashes out. He huffed in a Jan. 18 post:
Georgetown University, founded in 1789 and ostensibly a "Catholic" school, will offer a "gender & sexuality" housing complex for students starting in the 2018-19 academic year, which will operate as a residential center for homosexual, transgender, and "questioning" students, according to Campus Reform. The center was the brainchild of Georgetown senior Grace Smith, who leads the student government's LGBTQ+ Inclusivity Policy Team.
Although Georgetown University on paper is a Catholic school overseen by Jesuits, in practice it gave up its Catholic identity many years ago. The new LGBT housing community is further evidence of Georgetown's moral decline.
And in a Jan. 26 post, Chapman ranted that a German priest who suggested that the Catholic Church should offer some recognition of same-sex relationships was acting "in contradiction to 2,000 years of Catholic teaching on sex and marriage," later putting scare quotes around "marriages" when referring to the same-sex variety. Even recognition of couples involving partners who were once married in the church but later divorced and "civilly remarried" was a step too far for Chapman, declaring that those couples are "living in adultery."
Chapman is doing all this gay-bashing as an MRC employee, meaning that these views are effectively the MRC's. And since Chapman remains an MRC employee, Brent Bozell and Co. clearly have no problem with that.
AIM Complains Undisclosed Locations Weren't Described as 'Luxury' Topic: Accuracy in Media
An anonymous Accuracy in Media writer complains in a Feb. 2 post:
The GOP is holding a retreat at the Greenbrier resort in West Virginia, which was home to a Cold War bunker facility. It has since been turned into a large-scale luxury resort, attracting NFL teams and their fans for preseason practices and training camps.
The media wasted little time highlighting the venue as a “luxury resort,” which is true. It could be a self-inflicted wound on part of the GOP, which selected the venue in the first place.
But, on the other hand, the Democrats’ past retreats and media coverage omit the word “luxury.”
In 2017, Politico called the Democrat retreat in Shepherdstown, West Virginia a “retreat,” without any mention of where it would be held in the town. There was no mention of “luxury” or “hotel” in that article.
This year, the House Democrats will host their retreat in Cambridge, Maryland at an undisclosed location. Again, Politico and other media outlets such as CNN did not use the word “luxury” in their coverage of the retreat. The omission of exact location could be due to former Vice President Joe Biden’s visit and speech to his party members. But it seems unfair that the word “luxury” has been omitted from coverage of the Democratic Party and that the location is not mentioned.
First, the anonymous writer gets the Greenbrier's history wrong. It was a not a Cold War bunker turned into a luxury resort; it's a luxury resort that had a Cold War bunker -- which was designed to house Congress in the event of nuclear war -- built into it.
Second, it's hard to describe the Democratic retreats as being "luxury" if their locations aren't disclosed. Actually, though, the Shepherdstown retreat was at a place called the Bavarian Inn, While apparently a nice place, it's arguably not quite as nice as the Greenbrier, according to the New York Times.
So AIM is complaining that something was accurately labeled as "luxury" while something whose location wasn't given wasn't labeled as such. That's a pretty lame item, even by AIM standards.
NEW ARTICLE: Another Fox News-Shaped Blind Spot Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center continues to avoid scrutinizing -- let alone condemning -- Fox News personalities accused of sexual harassment, even as it obsesses over non-conservative harassers. Read more >>
WND Columnists Are Still On 'S***Hole' Patrol Topic: WorldNetDaily
A few weeks after President Trump made his alleged "shithole countries" remark, WorldNetDaily columnists are still trying to defend it, insisting that Trump's disparaging remark was accurate.
Erik Rush served up his take in his Jan. 31 column:
Agreement with Trump’s alleged faux pas, widespread or not, is hardly the point either. Suffice it to say that there are innumerable nations, principalities and warlord-run Third World outfits that qualify as “s-holes” by Western standards.
If we focus on such trivialities as whether the president said something coarse or untoward rather than focusing on the basis for his alleged statement, we entirely avoid the heart of the matter, and the question everyone ought to be asking: Why do these “s-holey” nations exist in such notable squalor in the first place?
Here is why these allegedly s-holey nations exist in such squalor: Because, like so many evils perpetrated by global elites, there are socioeconomic imperatives for the status quo. Corporate greed and crony capitalism plays a part, but it is the globalist power players who foster and sustain the phenomenon of “s-hole” countries, all the while blaming whites, capitalism and the West in general for all attendant malaise.
In the end, global elites like the ones excoriating Trump for calling a spade a spade need “s-hole” nations for the same reason they need disenfranchised demographics here at home – to justify their own existence.
Then, it's James Zumwalt's turn in a Feb. 4 column, arguing that we need shithole countries to appreciate America more:
But returning to Trump’s alleged word usage and keeping liberal sensitivities in mind concerning developmentally challenged nations, would an acceptable alternative to “s—hole countries” have been “fecalized countries”? This is the term proffered by Karin McQuillan, a former Peace Corps worker, who actually spent time in Africa and agrees wholeheartedly with Trump’s description.
McQuillan explains how one country in which she served, Senegal, was described to her in advance as a “fecalized environment” by a Peace Corps doctor. He did so intentionally, not to denigrate the country, but to forewarn her about serious health issues. Upon her arrival, she quickly discovered why:
“S— is everywhere. People defecate on the open ground, and the feces is blown with the dust – onto you, your clothes, your food, the water. He warned us the first day of training: Do not even touch water. Human feces carries parasites that bore through your skin and cause organ failure.”
McQuillan points out, even in Western nations, she has observed immigrants raised in such fecalized environments choosing to relieve themselves in similar fashion, unaffected by their presence in a more sanitation-oriented surrounding.
McQuillan concludes her Peace Corps experience was the greatest gift of her life for the insights it gave her. It caused her to “treasure America more than ever” and “take seriously my responsibility to defend our culture and our country,” passing on America’s heritage to the next generation.
Wanting to preserve this, contrary to what liberal activists may clamor, is not racist. It is simply a desire to keep a good culture going. If only we could send these holier-than-thou liberal activists, hellbent on trashing America, to such “s—hole countries” to better understand why our culture must be preserved at all costs.
WND, CNS Credit God for Super Bowl Win Topic: WorldNetDaily
Donald Trump's election isn't the only thing WorldNetDaily is crediting God for. A Feb. 5 WND article expands that to the Philadelphia Eagles' Super Bowl win:
The Super Bowl champion Philadelphia Eagles became known this year as one of the most spiritual teams in the league, with group baptisms, team Bible studies and group accountability.
In March, tight end Zach Ertz committed his life to Christ.
“I was baptized in March, got married the next day. Our marriage has been built on that foundation from the Word and Jesus and it’s changed my life. And just to have these guys hold me accountable on a daily basis has been phenomenal,” Ertz told CBN News.
A few months later, wide receiver Marcus Johnson was baptized in a North Carolina swimming pool ahead of a game against the Carolina Panthers.
Five teammates — linebackers Jordan Hicks, Mychal Kendricks and Kamu Grugier-Hill, and wide receivers Paul Turner and David Watford — were baptized in the Philadelphia Eagles’ recovery pool late last year, according to reports.
Quarterback Carson Wentz didn’t play in this Super Bowl against the New England Patriots because of a torn ACL in Week 14, but his backup quarterback Nick Foles loves to share his faith and wants to be a youth pastor after his football career is over.
Embedded in the article was a link to a 2015 WND article featuring an unofficial chaplain for one NFL team insisting that God really does care who wins the Super Bowl: "If God knows that something going one way or another will bring him more glory or honor than another alternative, he has every reason to be involved in such a way that his name will be raised high."
Meanwhile, CNSNews.com, which has a tradition of sorts in highlighting athletes who invoke God when they win -- or, in the case of Tim Tebow, even if they lose -- was on it when Eagles players did thaf very thing:
MRC Blogger Gets Vague About Why People Are Calling Tennis Player Alt-Right Topic: NewsBusters
The mysterious Jay Maxson tried to work up a little anger in a Jan. 24 MRC NewsBusters post:
Tennys Sandgren, the 97th-ranked men's tennis player in the world, just pulled off the greatest victory of his life in the Australian Open. He took out No. 5 seed Dominic Thiem in five sets Monday. The huge upset moved Sandgren into the quarterfinals with some of the great names of tennis, including Rafael Nadal and Roger Federer. That alone should have been the big story, but instead liberal media checked out his social media, branded him "alt-right" and ganged up on him.
During the press conference after upsetting Theim, an unidentified Aussie reporter ambushed Sandgren about his alleged social media ties to the alt-right:
“Tennys, the rise in your profile has drawn attention to your social media output, which includes some political figures who might be considered outside the mainstream. Yeah, there was a #Pizzagate exchange at some point, and I just wondered if you were concerned about having yourself connected to some of these controversial figures.”
Sandgren found the question amusing and laughed. The reporter continued the questioning, asking him about various conspiracy theories and people identified as alt-right. Sandgren denied he's alt-right and responded:
"I mean, no. I'm not concerned about it. It's fine, it's fine. Look, who you follow on Twitter I feel like doesn't matter even a little bit. What information you see doesn't dictate what you think or believe. I think it's crazy to think that. I think it's crazy to assume that, to say, 'Oh well he's following X person so he believes all the things that this person believes.' I think that's ridiculous."
Sandgren added that he's "a firm Christian" whose allegiance is for "Christ and following Him and that's what I support."
Maxson, however, is a little on the vague side about exactly what Sandgren tweeted that made the media (correctly) think he's alt-right, stating only that his Twitter account had "numerous links to right-wing ideologues" and that he "had engaged with people spreading misinformation portraying Hillary Clinton as a Satan-worshiping occultist, and 'Pizzagate, a similarly baseless conspiracy theory hoax that Clinton was connected to a pizzeria child sex ring.'"
In fact, Sandgren said in a tweet that he had read "everything" about Pizzagate and concluded: "It's sickening and the collective evidence is too much to ignore." And he went far beyond merely "engaging with" people spreading the occult stuff about Hillary (which may be the first time the MRC admitted something bad about Hillary is "misinformation"); he effectively endorsed it by claiming that people don't know what to do with it. Or they are concocting a way to make it sound not so bad."
Instead of telling us the full details of Sandgren's tweets, Maxson whined that he was "ambushed" with questions about it and that one blogger "is now labeling Sandgren a 'Pizzagate Truther' and castigating him for believing in 'fake news.'"-- a contention Maxson never disputes.
ConWebWatch at Salon Topic: WorldNetDaily
Salon's Matthew Sheffield has written an article on the financial problems facing right-wing websites, with a focus on the current "existential threat" at WorldNetDaily. ConWebWatch's work is linked to from thte article, and we are quoted. Read the article.
CNS Finally Decides to Stop Censoring Story of WH Aide's Spousal Abuse Topic: CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com has not generally been interested in reporting on stories that don't reflect well on President Trump and his administration. For instance, it censored claims that Trump had an affair with porn star Stormy Daniels (the only mention is in a video clip reposted from sister website NewsBusters), and it has completely censored how casino mogul Steve Wynn resigned as finance chairman for the Republican National Committee after numerous allegations of sexual harassment were made public.
The news of White House aide Rob Porter being allowed to work in a high-profile position in the Trump administration despite lacking a full security clearance because of allegations of domestic abuse by his two ex-wives seemed destined for censorship as well. But the story became too big to ignore, so on Feb. 9, a couple days late to the game, CNS' Susan Jones -- she of the copious pro-Trump stenography -- had to grudgingly write about it.
So grudging was Jones, in fact, that she spent part of her article effectively complaining she was forced to write about it because the "liberal media" was on it first:
Great fury and indignation from liberal media outlets on this Friday, not over another (brief) government shutdown and a bill that will produce escalating deficits and debt, but over the White House hiring -- and now firing -- a high-ranking official whose two ex-wives accuse him of domestic abuse.
Aside from the outrage over the alleged abuse, press reports said some White House officials tried to give Rob Porter a pass, even though they have known for some time why Porter's security clearance was held up by the FBI.
At the White House press briefing on Thursday, spokesman Raj Shah admitted, "We all could have done better over the few hours or last few days in dealing with this situation."
Liberal media outlets -- newspapers and cable shows -- on Friday attacked [White House Chief of Staff John] Kelly's character and credibility.
"Kelly Is Now Center of the Storm He Was Hired to Tame," read one headline in The New York Times. The liberal media also pounced on the by-now familiar theme of dysfunction and tone-deafness in the Trump White House.
It's not just a theme -- it's a reality. And Jones trying to dismiss it as a "liberal media" narrative so that it doesn't interfere with her pro-Trump everything-is-awesome narrative doesn't make it go away.
WND Cranks Out Puff Pieces on Devin Nunes (Also, Buy His WND-Published Book!) Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily has done puff pieces on other Trump administration officials, so why not the guy behind the infamous memo about the Trump-Russia investigation? Art Moore does the deed in a Feb. 1 article, with the added hook of a sales opportunity in the fact that WND published a book Nunes wrote in 2010:
Who is the man behind the memo?
Before President Trump was inaugurated a little more than a year ago, few Americans had heard of Devin Nunes.
But with his leading role in the Trump-Russia probe over the past year and with the imminent release of a four-page document he spearheaded that is said to allege politically motivated intelligence abuses “worse than Watergate,” the 44-year-old Republican congressman from California’s San Joaquin Valley is in the spotlight.
In the introduction to his book “Restoring the Republic,” published by WND Books, Nunes cited Thomas Jefferson’s declaration that Americans “are a people capable of self-government, and worthy of it.”
He asked what Jefferson might think of the U.S. government today.
“The Democrats, and even some Republicans, are a lot like Jefferson’s bitter rivals, the Federalists, who supported a powerful central government, weaker states, and diminished individual freedom,” he wrote in 2010.
Nunes said the Democrats “have betrayed Jefferson’s legacy by making their party the home of the radical left, which pursues an authoritarian agenda that has little in common with Jeffersonian democracy.”
He concluded that “the real threat to our Republic” lies in “the convergence of big government, big business, and the radical left in Washington.”
WND CEO Joseph Farah recalled in a recent interview with the New York Times that he first learned about Nunes in 2010 from an old friend, Rep. Richard Pombo, R-Calif., who represented a neighboring district and, like Nunes, is a rancher of Portuguese ancestry.
Pombo, who had written a book for WND, told Farah that Nunes had completed a manuscript and wanted it out fast.
They arranged a deal, largely over the phone, and later met at his Capitol office, where they talked for hours.
“He’s very knowledgeable, well-spoken, warm, down to earth, non-officious,” Farah said. “Interestingly, my impression of him was not that he was a firebrand conservative. He seemed to have warm relations back then with the leadership, back when John Boehner was speaker.”
WND editor Joseph Farah piled the sycophancy in his Feb. 7 column:
Devin Nunes is one of those guys who went to Congress for all the right reasons.
He was like Jimmy Stewart in “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.”
He didn’t want to be a politician. That was not his aspiration. He wanted to serve his country, his Constitution, to preserve our institutions of limited government and liberty.
And, naturally, Farah plugs Nunes' book as well, and if you really loved WND, you'd buy one:
You can imagine it’s as hot as a firecracker right now.
It’s so hot the New York Times called to interview me about Nunes – and what he was really like.
I told them.
Nunes is a humble man, down to earth, good sense of himself, lived modestly.
In fact, when I met him in 2010, he was living in his House office, like a handful of other members of Congress, including, at that time (but no longer, thank goodness), Anthony Weiner.
Don’t underestimate Nunes. He’s as sharp as a tack.
He’s principled, patriotic and not for sale – except for his book, of course.
What he did with regard to this affront to the Constitution and the rule of law in Washington recently is heroic. We owe Devin Nunes a debt of gratitude for his actions in spelling out in plain language the corruption that was taking place inside the Deep State.
Of course, he’ll never get the credit he deserves for exposing this outrageous abuse of the judiciary, the FBI, the intelligence agencies and the Justice Department – not from the media, not from the permanent government, not from progressives who want to hang Donald Trump out to dry.
But he deserves to get it from us – the people.
May I make a suggestion how we can do that?
Let’s send Devin Nunes’ book to the New York Times best-seller’s list! It can be done.
How do you think they’d like that over there at the newspaper of record?
Would they even acknowledge it?
For my part, I promise to reprint as many as are required – as long as you keep buying them.
That probably won't be necessary. Given that we don't recall Nunes' book being that big of a seller when it first came out, Farah probably has plenty of them still in stock.
MRC's Houck Viciously Maims the Art of Headline-Writing Topic: Media Research Center
Curtis Houck is the Media Research Center's new king of nonsensically hyperbolic headlines.
Last September, Houck huffed: "Ben Shapiro Eviscerates Jimmy Kimmel’s Health Care Tirades; ‘Egregious’ to Exploit His Son."
Houck used the word "deranged" in a headline twice in three days, broken up by the use of the word "nutso."
Houck's headline on Jan. 17 was "Limbaugh Torpedoes ‘Childish,’ ‘Unstable’ Liberal Media as ‘Unfit’ for ‘Their Constitutional Duties’."
In a Jan. 26 item, Houck declared, "Haley Obliterates Sexist Michael Wolff’s ‘Disgusting,’ ‘Highly Offensive’ Rumors About Sleeping With Trump." Haley strongly rebutting the rumors is hardly an "obliteration," given that Wolff was still alive the last time we checked.
For a Feb. 2 item, Houck's headline blared: "Blitzer Viciously Maims GOP Congressman Over Memo; It’s Your Fault ‘Putin Has Succeeded’." Yet that congressman was appearing from Salt Lake City, not in CNN's studio, so he couldnot possibly have been"viciously maimed" by Wolf Blitzer.
Apparently, a conservative politician being asked challenging questions by a reporter is tantamount to "vicious maiming" in Houck's world.
And on Feb. 8, Houck asserts, "Limbaugh Torpedoes CNN’s Brownstein, Lemon Over Their Supposed ‘Objective Journalism’." Apparently Limbaugh is Houck's go-to torpedoer.
Houck is starting to sound like liberals who overenthusiastically touted clips from the Jon Stewart-era "Daily Show." But even Stewart made fun of that.
WND Tries to Go the Big Damn Manly Route Topic: WorldNetDaily
One of the themes WorldNetDaily seems to be trying out in order to pull itself from the abyss is an attempt to be a more manlier website, whatever that is.
Self-proclaimed specialist in "human paleopsychology" Kent Bailey -- who has penned previous WND columns touting Donald Trump's maniless (and whiteness) -- returned with a Jan. 19 column to talk up Trump's manliness once again:
Why are Trump and masculine men so toxic and repulsive to today’s intellectual left and Democratic Party? Previously, I argued that the Republicans are the Daddy Party and the Democrats the Mommy Party. Although both parties – like our entire country – are highly feminized compared to adversaries like Russia, North Korea and numerous militant Muslim nations, there is still a residue of tentative maleness among Republicans. By contrast, the Democrats virtually swim in an ocean of estrogen and had the election gone as predicted, America would have quickly morphed into a gigantic harem ruled by Hilary the Great, replete with legions of male eunuchs and gloriously happy and safe “girly girls.”
But then the quintessential masculinist, warrior king Donald Trump prevailed, and their dreams were rudely shattered. And how they hate him for it, to the point of sheer madness!
As one might imagine, this quickly devolves into women he doesn't like:
All but the most militant feminists will concede that the male mind was at the forefront of the slow and arduous trek from the earliest precultural stages of humanity to the first-world, highly technological civilizations of today, but it seems Modern Woman does not need us guys anymore. She is ready to take over. Just ask any Democrat.
Modern Woman is “equal” to men in every respect – that is, except she cannot and really does not naturally want to compete head-to-head with men on a level playing field. She still wants and needs a residue of feminized and compliant men to fight the wars, keep the railroads running, police the streets and enforce silly and draconian PC “laws” that, ironically, go against male interests. That is, she is everyman’s “equal” as long as the entire American system is transformed into an awkward and gigantic “safe zone” where she can strut and act tough like Megyn Kelly did questioning Trump during the pre-election debates.
The last thing Modern Woman wants is true “equality” vis-à-vis the male gender. There would be no women’s golf – just golf; no women’s tennis – just tennis; no women’s classes – just classes; no female Olympics – just Olympics; no women’s standards in the military – just standards; and so on. That would mean the elaborate and multifaceted protections women enjoy in American society would be nonexistent. As a proud father of a daughter and lucky husband of a beautiful and accomplished wife, I am all for fair and reasonable protections for women. In fact, my daughter and wife live in my personal zone of protection, and they love me for it. But unearned strutting privileges, pushing men out of society, or expecting them to simply move aside while you experiment with running the country is pure PC madness.
Then, on Jan. 25, David Ruzicka informs us about the specific occasions, and only these occasions, when aman is permitted to cry, lest he huntyou down and make fun of you for it:
Big boys shouldn’t cry – with some exceptions:
Cutting onions. It’s not emotional, just biology.
Death of the best dog/best friend.
Acting like a total wuss. You should cry over that! Disgraceful. But crying about it makes you more of a wuss! It’s a vicious circle, so stay off the wuss train altogether!
During select manly movies. Like “The Champ” with Ricky Schroeder, “Old Yeller” and “The Patriot.” All Hallmark movies. Wait, what? Delete! Delete!
Totaling of a cherished car or truck.
If you’re God incarnate, completely infinite (John 11:35).
And obviously, you get a free pass for all crying if you’ve been in military combat service. Because you’re awesome, that’s why!
Bottom line: Crying is what the guys in “Twilight” movies do,neverwhat Rambo would do.
Someone: David, you sound like you’re promoting toxic masculinity!
Me:Sorry – no such thing. There is masculinity. And then there is a toxic male. One possesses God-given masculinity and does good things with it. The other is a meathead.
And mock he does later in the column, taking issue with Sen. Cory Booker saying he had "tears of rage" over Trump calling countries he didn't like "shithole countries."
No emotionally stable man has “tears of rage” over a comment like the one in question. I’ve never even met a man who has had “tears of rage.”
I could only find one example of “tears of rage” in recent history. After the abduction and murder of 6 six-year-old son, John Walsh wrote a book called, “Tears of Rage.” That crime is a reason for rage and tears. And he leveraged that rage to start a nationwide movement to track down over 1,000 fugitives through his TV show. Excellent man.
But Booker hears of someone else calling a bad place a bad name, and he beats up a woman with his raging tears.
I don’t believe him (He makes up whole people). And I can’t say enough bad about his fictitious tears. But you might think he’s being truthful – and in that case, his reaction is emotionally unstable. So fabricated or real, it’s a lose-lose for Booker.
There’s something about a good man who brings out the best in good people and who brings out the worst in evil people. A good leader ushers light and peace into the world around him, just as a wicked leader ushers in darkness and discord.
President Trump, despite all opposition to his efforts and endless attacks on his character, is truly making America great again!
Yeah, he's totally bringing out the best in all those white nationalists. Showing how much Peterson is to totally in the throes of hero worship -- he once again calls Trump "The Great White Hope," still apparently oblivous to the insulting history of that term -- Peterson add: "President Trump is like a good father to the country. He does not accept excuses, only solutions. I love him for the fact he pays no mind to the phony accusations of 'racism,' 'sexism' or any other '-ism.' He stands on truth, despite enemies and haters, and sets a good example for all."
Peterson doesn't explain how Trump "stands on truth" when he lies pretty much all the time.
CNS Lets Reagan Hagiographer Deny That Reagan Had Alzheimer's Symptoms While President Topic: CNSNews.com
As we'vedocumented, the Media Research Center is weirdly sensitive about the idea that Ronald Reagan may have had early symptoms of Alzheimer's disease. That sensitivity has migrated over to the MRC's "news" division, CNSNews.com, which published a Jan. 25 column by Reagan hagiogrpher Craig Shirley trying to hammer the denial home.
Shirley was particularly put out when President Trump's doctor, Ronny Jackson, made the claim while talking about Trump's health:
It would be nice to dismiss Dr. Jackson’s ill-informed and without substance comments and move on, just as the White House would like to put the hearsay concerning Trump's mental health behind it. But he and Trump's tweets have now given new life to an old and most thought extinguished and ridiculous rumor. So once again, Reagan historians have to beat it down. Dr. Jackson's uninformed comments made news and even worse, they were uttered by a White House physician, giving the veneer of officialdom. Jackson’s comments were clumsy and the irony is, he could have availed himself of his office’s files at Bethesda Naval Hospital on Reagan and seen for himself what Reagan’s doctors said about the Gipper. The Trump White House could have easily cleaned up this mess, but so far … crickets. Some believe it serves their purpose to boost Trump by running down Reagan.
Because if Reagan did – and we must emphasize he did not – have early stages of Alzheimer’s in the 1980s, then that would include as big a conspiracy and cover up as JFK. Reagan had four physicians personally check on him, and every report came back stellar.
A man with Alzheimer’s does not write for his last journal entry as president as beautiful words: “Then home and the start of a new life.” He was 77 years old, but looking forward to the next chapter in his life. He knew where he was, what he accomplished, where he failed, where he could have done more. He had the faculties of an old, but wise, man, who knew that the presidency was an important part of his own and America’s life.
Finally, we arrive at the real reason Shirley is writing this:
To carelessly speculate about Reagan as Trump's doctor has now done results in the very same effect as the thinly-veiled attempts to simply delegitimize all his work, his Administration, his life. He did something conservative? Oh, it was the “Alzheimer’s.” This is the same man who successfully crafted the policies that drove the GDP rise from negative 0.3 in the last year of Jimmy Carter’s presidency to 4.1 percent in 1988. Inflation, which was 13.5 percent, dropped dramatically. The Soviet Union was on its knees, only to fall with the Wall (a very real wall) a couple years later. Relations restored with world leaders and the blight of communism was put in sight.
There is an old phrase which says, “A lie can make it around the world while the truth is just getting out of bed.”
Let’s instead put the lie to bed, now and forever: Ronald Reagan was many things – almost all very good – but he did not have Alzheimer’s during his presidency.
It's worth noting here that in December, Shirley declared that only conservatives should be allowed to write about conservative history: "This is what conservatives must jealously guard; the truth, our truth. And root out and eviscerate and disembowel liberals writing of our history."
Got that? Shirley is conflating "the truth" with "our truth." We would venture to guess that where the two conflict, "our truth" would likely win out in Shirley's eyes.
Newsmax's Hirsen Says Accused Sexual Harasser Losing His Job Is 'Tragic' Topic: Newsmax
Newsmax columnist James Hirsen is nothing if not a loyal right-winger, at least on thte sexual harassment front. He's still bashing Anita Hill after all these years, and he tried to slut-shame one of Roy Moore's accusers.
Hirsen's sympathy for accused sexual harassers -- the conservative-leaning ones, anyway -- continues in a Feb. 6 tweet, in which he links to an NBC News tweet announcing that casino mogul Steve Wynn was stepping down from his casino company after multiple accusations of sexual harassment. (He had previously stepped down as finance chairman of the Republican National Committee when the allegations first surfaced.) Hirsen's added reaction: "This is tragic."
Hirsen has yet to explain what he thinks is "tragic" about an accused sexual harasser losing his job.
MRC's Graham Gives Pro-Trump Book A Positive Reception Topic: Media Research Center
After Michael Wolff's unflattering book about the Trump White House was published, the Media Research Center fired off a fusillade of posts denouncing it. By contrast, a book written by an employee of the MRC's favorite TV channel, Fox News, got a much more favorable reception.
In a Jan. 24 post, the MRC's Tim Graham cheerfully touts Howard Kurtz's book "Media Madness" and his claim that reporting critical of President Trump has "radicalized" him. Graham did not raise the question of why eight years of anti-Obama reporting and commentary at Fox News somehow did not "radicalize" Kurtz.
Graham did note that New York Times reporter Jonathan Martin challenged a claim Kurtz made about him in the book, then framed the possible false claim as just desserts:
How many times have anonymous sources said ridiculous things that Trump thinks are "fake news"? But the New York Times and The Washington Post think their anonymous digs at the president are what keeps "democracy out of darkness." A spokesman for Regnery, which published the book, said the publisher and author “absolutely stand by everything reported in the book.”
Graham didn't identify Kurtz as a conservative, nor did he point out that Kurtz's publisher, Regnery, is in the business of publishing conservative books.
And the book can certainly be criticized; Mediaite's Lloyd Grove points out that the book does have decided pro-Trump slant, that Kurtz is apparently close enough to Trump that the president calls him "Howie," and that Kurtz never bothered to talk to most of the journalists he spends his book atacking.
A few days later, Graham attacked Washingotn Post media writer Margaret Sullivan for doing what he wouldn't -- acknowledge that Kurtz and his employer have a definite bias:
Washington Post media columnist Margaret Sullivan unleashed a personal attack on Fox News host Howard Kurtz in a Sunday book review at the most transparent “Pot, meet kettle” level of criticism. She attacked Kurtz as an insincere creature of Fox News and as a tool of White House adviser Kellyanne Conway. Dear Margaret: Has your column ever boldly attacked The Washington Post, or strayed from its everyday spin?
She writes "Kurtz’s allegiance to his masters at Fox News is evident right from the start, when he offers something I never thought possible: a heartfelt defense of Kellyanne Conway’s coining of the infamous phrase ‘alternative facts’...He takes Conway’s side (as he does so often and so sympathetically that you may be tempetted to look for a Conway co-author’s credit)....”
The headline on B-5 of the Sunday Outlook section even bluntly accuses “Did Kellyanne Conway ghostwrite this book?”
If she hadn’t kicked Kurtz in the shins enough, Sullivan repeats her thesis near the end: “Overall, you can best understand Media Madness by considering the source: Despite his long history in journalism, Kurtz is a creature of Fox News now, as the host of a show called Media Buzz.”
It’s a shocking personal attack on Kurtz, and self-refuting in that Margaret does it while at the same time kissing up to the man who hired her at The Washington Post, with the apparent task of defending the liberal media at their most aggressively liberal: “For the most part, though, they (the media) are trying to cover him, not take him down. (As Post editor Martin Baron put it, ‘We’re not at war. We’re at work.’)”
Liberals like Baron (and his admiring employee Margaret Sullivan) think journalism and liberalism are the same thing. Sullivan concluded: “Although Kurtz emphasizes he is a journalist, through and through, with printers’ ink running through his veins, Media Madness clearly is meant to reinforce Fox Nation’s disdain for legitimate journalists who are trying to hold a norm-busting president accountable.”
In his book, Kurtz offers an entirely different conclusion on who is busting norms: "A common refrain among Trump's antagonists in the press is that they must resist normalizing his presidency. But in the process, they have abnormalized journalism."
Pointing out the indisputable fact that Kurtz is toeing the pro-Trump party line of his employer in his book is a "shocking personal attack"on him"? Maybe Graham should just rename the MRC -- which uses much harsher language against the people it hates -- the Shocking Personal Attack Center.
WND Calls Up Ex-Congressman To Rehash Old Clinton Derangement Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily was founded on Clinton derangement, and it's never ended there. That appears to be one reason why former congressman James Rogan -- one of the House Republicans who pushed for President Clinton's impeachment in 1998 -- has suddenly popped up to write some columns at WND.
The other big reason: Rogan's a WND author, and WND has some books of his collecting dust in its warehouse that it would like to unload for some desperately needed cash. So revered is Rogan at WND that it bought the domain "RoganCollection.com" and pointed it to the page at WND's online store that lists the books he's written for it. He also has a new WND-published book coming out in May (if WND is still in existence then, that is).
Iin his Jan. 20 column, Rogan rehashed all the old Clinton-bashing talking points from the '90s, insisting that Clinton's impeachment (the subject of Rogan's first WND-published book) mattered because "it wasn’t about sex – it was about the rule of law" and that "I still wonder why people back then didn’t care."
Rogan gave no indication that he cares about the political abuses and personal scandals of the thrice-married adulterer and shady businessman currently occupying the White House. But then, he's rumored to be on the shortlist for a federal judicial appointment to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals , and he certainly doesn't want anything to get in the way of that.
On Jan. 31, Rogan wrote a column lionizing Richard Nixon as "wholly gifted, wholly flawed, wholly undaunted – wholly American." Watergate merited mention for only half a sentence.
Then, in his Feb. 7 column, Rogan praises Donald Trump -- you know, the guy who might appoint him to that cushy appeals court seat -- as a political populist in the vein of, um, George Wallace. Sadly, Rogan means this as a complement.
To do that, of course, one has to whitewash, as it were, the history of Wallace, particularly as it relates to his 1968 presidential campaign, the subject of Rogan's upcoming (maybe) book. For instance, Rogan claims that "By 1968 Wallace had long since jettisoned his earlier segregationist message and instead focused on the populist themes he had used in 1964," but he also states that a key part of Wallace's platform was "states' rights" -- which, as any student of history knows, is a code word for segregation.
But it appears Rogan is most pleased with Wallace for splitting the Democratic vote enough to cost Hubert Humphrey, "a diehard liberal and a recent Vietnam peace convert" the election and "put Richard Nixon (a moderate-conservative and a Vietnam War hawk) in the White House."
These, it seems, are the kind of chits you call in when you're WND and can't actually afford to pay anyone for their content.