Considering the foregoing, the idea that there is a very substantial contingent of the American electorate still willing to elect Clinton is sobering at best, and horrifying at worst. When we look at Hillary Clinton at rallies or debates, leering into the cameras with bug eyes and Jack Nicholson’s frozen Joker smirk, I believe we are looking into the face of sheer madness.
That aside, Clinton’s lack of comeliness is probably the least of her liabilities. Despite all the efforts of the press, at this point the empirical evidence should speak for itself. If it does not – and barring widespread election fraud – we will know the answer in November. Then it will be apparent that Americans’ capacity for self-delusion has overcome their basic instinct for self-preservation.
Hillary Clinton is a user. No, to my knowledge she doesn’t do illegal drugs. Her drug of choice is political power – and it should be obvious to anyone who is paying attention that she has and will use anything or anyone to get it. The best example is her 41-year marriage to a charismatic serial philanderer, who used his charm to become president of the United States and now is attempting to use that charm to secure power again through his dutifully addicted wife.
We’re caught in a terrible impasse, a choice we must make between a woman who wants to be commander in chief and leader of the free world, a woman who polls show over 60 percent of other women believe to be untrustworthy and untruthful – and a man who never held public office and who has a penchant for fiery outbursts of accusations, name calling, bragging promises and flimsy outlines of impossible-sounding programs.
It’s clear that no matter what sleaze surrounding Hillary Clinton and her gang of criminals is uncovered, the march is on to elect her president, bringing into the White House with her: radical Black Lives Matter, Farrakhan, Sharpton and New Black Panthers types, self-hating Jew and Nazi collaborator billionaire George Soros, more Muslims like her top aide and girlfriend, Huma Abedin, radical gay, lesbian and transgender activists, socialists, communists, atheists, anarchists, domestic terrorists and anyone who wants, in President Obama’s equally evil wake, to destroy the nation and refashion it in their image.
The angst displayed by the worse – Hillary– and Michelle Obama over Trump’s disgusting remarks bragging about his ability to seduce women, caught on tape 11 years ago, was truly over the top in light of more recent events. Didn’t Michelle and her husband gratefully accept help from the man who had sex with an intern in the Oval Office? Can you imagine what would happen to a Republican president who did such a thing? Can you imagine what would happen to a college president or the CEO of a corporation who did such a thing? It’s disgusting!
Make no mistake about it. If you are a conservative Christian and Hillary Clinton becomes our next president, she will declare war on certain aspects of your faith. Your religious liberties will be targeted, and your biblical beliefs will be branded disturbing, if not downright dangerous.
Do not be deceived.
She has made herself perfectly clear on this in the recent past, and we deny this is to our own peril.
I can absolutely say, without reserve, that Hillary Rodham Clinton is a fraud from the top of her head to the soles of her feet. The way she portrays herself, in contrast to who she really is, are two different revelations.
FRAUD, n. [L. fraus.] Deceit; deception; trick; artifice by which the right or interest of another is injured; a stratagem intended to obtain some undue advantage; an attempt to gain or the obtaining of an advantage over another by imposition or immoral means, particularly deception in contracts, or bargain and sale, either by stating falsehoods, or suppressing truth.
From her boastful (criminal) record to her contrived and fabricated support, with her answers and comments, it is not hard to detect that she is a fraud.
Much of Wednesday’s debate was spent on her accusing her opponent of crimes of which she is guilty.
For one thing, Hillary Clinton seems to have pulled together a coalition of, shall we say kindly, “non-traditional” voters?
people on the government dole
those who detest the military
those who sacrifice children to the god of convenience
It’s an odd mix, you have to admit. It’s hard to imagine a future of peaceful coexistence between some of these groups, let alone self-governance.
And maybe that’s just the point. Do you think Hillary Clinton believes in self-governance – the concept unique to the American constitutional system?
But it’s certainly interesting that she doesn’t mind throwing stones while clearly living in a big glass menagerie of malcontents and drawing more than her share of support from some who could accurately and fairly called “deplorables.”
WND's Kinchlow Demonstrates 'The Danger of A Biased Media,' But Not How He Thinks Topic: WorldNetDaily
Ben Kinchlow's Oct. 16 WorldNetDaily column is titled "The danger of a biased media," in which he complained: "In an 'unbiased' media, why is it permissible to report allegations of improper behavior against one candidate but not another?"
He then cites right-wing author Ronald Kessler's attacks on Hillary Clinton, based on anonymous claims. Kinchlow touts Kessler as "the Washington Post’s investigative reporter," but he hasn't worked for the Post for decades; his most recent journalism gig was for Newsmax, where he was anythingbutunbiased.
Which highlights the major flaw in Kinchlow's analysis. He complains:
If you think most of what you see on TV, read in the print media or hear on radio is there without conscious design, then the free press – our “unbiased media” – have been extraordinarily successful in fooling a lot of people.
But he doesn't seem to understand that his column is published by one of the most biased "news" organizations on the planet. He should read WND's website sometime to see how many smear jobs they perpetuate against Hillary vs. actual reporting on Donald Trump's vile misogyny.
As for the media "fooling a lot of people," we need only to go to Kinchlow's column of the previous week, in which he once again goes birther on Obama:
We must introduce, and face the repetition of, a concept that led to the election of Barack Obama as president. It must be clearly understood that an objective view of Obama’s qualifications for president reveals the qualifications simply do not exist. There is nothing in his past, in terms of achievement, that qualified him for the office he now holds.
America wanted to prove to others, and itself, that it was not “racist.” This was the perfect opportunity to show that true equality had at last arrived in America. A relatively handsome, young, college-educated (no serious research done on that issue), articulate black male (no serious research into his birth circumstances) was the candidate.
In fact, Obama has released two birth certificates, verified as authentic by Hawaii state officials.
Kinchlow might want to address the danger of the highly biased media that has been extraordinarily successful in fooling him -- while also publishing him -- before he complains about the "unbiased media."
WND's Corsi Hurling Mud At Hillary, To Nobody's Surprise Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily has been desperately trying to distract its readers from bad news about Donald Trump and his woman problems by trying to sling as much mud at Hillary Clinton as it can. You know, business as usual.
WND is flinging so much mud, in fact, that we don't have the time to rebut it all beyond pointing out that it should be assumed that WND has no credibility and because of that, nobody takes their so-called reporting seriously.
It is important, however, to document the atrocities to show the continuation of WND's downward spiral. We've already noted WND's false reporting on Hillary's "everyday Americans" remark (which, despite being utterly false, is still live at WND) and its pushing of the discredited story of Bill Clinton's purportedly illegitimate son.
Let's take a quick look at the mud Clinton-hater Jerome Corsi is flinging these days.
Corsi has been really desperately trying to insist that Hillary, not Trump, is the one with all the questionable ties to Russia. So much so, in fact, that he haswrittenfourarticles on the subject. In the first article, he tries to whitewash one of the Trump campaign's most damning connections -- that former campaign manager Paul Manafort received millions as a lobbyist for pro-Russian politicians in Ukraine by insisting that "opponents have failed to document he ever received $12.7 million in approximately 22 previously undisclosed cash payments from Yanukovych’s pro-Russian party as supposedly documented by ''black ledger' entries revealed by Ukraine’s National Anti-Corruption Bureau."
But Corsi has so discredited himself over the years -- we remember all too well his bogus journey to Kenya to get fake documents and his Obama ring fail -- that he simply cannot be believed.
The "Bill Clinton's illegitmate son" story is his as well -- he's working with charlatan filmmaker Joel Gilbert despite the fact that Gilbert burned him badly on the Obama ring thing. He has a new story up announcing that said "illegitimate son," Danney Williams, will file a paternity suit against Bill Clinton. Corsi is continuing to deny that a 1999 DNA test was meaningful.
Corsi is censoring the obviously political motivations behind Williams, who is almost surely being exploited by pro-Trump forces like Gilbert. The statement announcing the paternity suit is hosted at the website for Citizens for Trump, which claims to be a "grassroots" group with the goal to "assist the Trump for President campaign in both winning the nomination for the GOP, and the general election in November of 2016."
Corsi also promoted the appearance of Malik Obama, President Obama's half-brother, at Wednesday's debate as a guest of Trump. Gilbert has his sleazy hand in this as well. Meanwhile, Right Wing Watch has documented how WND, led by Corsi, flipped from bashing Malik Obama as a filthy Muslim to joining Gilbert in exploiting him.
On top of all this transparently hackish anti-Clinton work, there's the fact that Corsi's anti-Hillary book is tanking so badly (it's currently No. 11,812 at Amazon, an abysmal ranking for a current-events book pegged to the presidential election) that WND is resorting to begging readers to buy it in bulk, and it's clear this election year is a bust for Corsi.
UPDATE: We forgot to note that Corsi has been maintaining another bit of Clinton-hating slime: recruiting poliitically driven doctors who have never examined Hillary Clinton to make various alarming armchair diagnoses of Hillary Clinton, such as Parkinson's disease. Corsi published twomore articles just this week.
Months After It Would Have Mattered, WND Weighs In On Cruz's Eligibility Topic: WorldNetDaily
Months ago, back when Ted Cruz was still running for president, WorldNetDaily couldn't runfast enough from questions about Cruz's eligibility to be president despite the fact that, by WND's own definition, Cruz was even more ineligible than it claimed President Obama was.
Nnow, all of a sudden -- months after Cruz stopped running for president and his eligibility is off the table for at least the next four years -- WND is expressing an opinion about Cruz's eligibility.
As does a lot of things at WND right now, it comes in the context of the stolen WikiLeaks emails. In an Oct. 16 article, an anonymous WND writer speculates about a proposed Democratic plan during the primary to declare that it would not challenge Cruz's eligibility:
But, was that the real story – or the whole story?
No, it wasn’t. Had the Democrats challenged Cruz on eligibility, it would have been tantamount to challenging Obama. Both had one American citizen parent – in both cases, their mothers. But, given the age of Obama’s teen-age mother at the time, there were legal questions raised, whereas Cruz’s mother had long been established as an American citizen. It would have been a tough case to make against Cruz given the ridicule the Dems piled on all those who challenged Obama’s constitutional eligibility.
Astute birther scholars will notice that this anonymous WND writer repeats an irrelevant claim and also moves the birther goalposts.
The statement that "there were legal questions raised" because of the age of Obama's mother at the time of his birth is true -- but it leaves out the fact that this clause only applies if the child was born outside the United States. Since Obama was born in Hawaii, and WND has not proven otherwise, it doesn't matter how old his mother is -- Obama is a citizen.
WND's current insistence that Cruz is a citizen because his mother "had long been established as an American citizen" is a change in position from the one it has longpromoted: that both parents must be citizens in order to confer citizenship on the child.
Of course, WND doesn't explain the reason it wouldn't address Cruz's eligibility at that time: because Joseph Farah, Jerome Corsi and crew knew that if they defended Cruz -- since, again, he was even more ineligible than Obama since, unlike Obama, he was born outside the U.S. -- they would also have to prove Obama was eligible as well. That refusal simply proved that WND's obsession with Obama's eligibility was never about the Constitution and always about trying to personally destroy Obama.
So, it apparently took six-plus months for WND to figure out a defense of Cruz's eligibility that managed to also keep Obama's eligibilitiy in question -- and it's still dishonest. That's just another reason nobody believes WND.
WND's Farah Suggests Anti-Muslim Bombing Plot Is A False Flag Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily editor Joseph Farah has a conspiracy theory he'd like to share with you. From his Oct. 16 column:
Have you ever asked yourself what the real purpose of Barack Obama’s “fundamental transformation of America” is really all about?
Have you considered why Obama has opened America’s doors to tens of thousands of unscreened and unscreenable, so-called Muslim “refugees” from Middle East terror hotspots?
Have you ever wondered what the endgame of this national suicidal policy is all about – along with other actions that seem to be pushing the hot buttons of even the clearest-thinking Americans with an ounce of common sense?
Maybe what appears to be a foiled “domestic terror plot,” in Kansas, so far under the radar of the national media, should give us a clue.
According to federal investigators, who apparently infiltrated a “militia group” called the “Crusaders” in the town of Liberal, Kansas, three men were arrested last week for planning to bomb a Garden City, Kansas, apartment complex where 120 people, including many Somali immigrants, lived – then publish a manifesto. The date of the attack was set for Nov. 9, the day after the presidential election.
Think about it. This is the kind of event that would put the seemingly bizarre Obama-Hillary Clinton agenda for the Islamization of America on steroids.
I hate to say it, but they seem to be dreaming about just such a bizarre attack – doing everything in their power to make it a reality.
Do you remember how Bill Clinton blamed Rush Limbaugh for the bomb attack on the Oklahoma City Murrah Federal Building in 1995?
I hate to say it, but an attack like this one would represent a sweet aroma to the noses of Obama and Hillary. It would provide an opportunity for massive surveillance, propaganda, sweeping federal control and worse.
Those who rightly oppose their certifiably insane policies on national security and open-door immigration practices would be blamed. They would finally have their evidence of widespread xenophobia, Islamophobia and right-wing “hate crimes.”
Sooner or later, it’s bound to happen.
I suspect it didn’t happen this time only because local police stumbled onto evidence for the impending attack when one of the plotters was turned in by his girlfriend on a battery charge.
Until then, FBI investigators were providing them with weapons and offering money for the attack. The plotters were under surveillance since February, the FBI said.
Operations? It sounds like these guys had other ideas in mind besides the November bombing. They also talked about bombing a mosque. What if they acted prematurely – without consultation with the FBI or confidential source? Was that a concern? Or was it the plan?
I hate to speculate like this. I hate to think like this. But it’s getting hard not to. Am I crazy paranoid – or are you thinking the same way?
Nope, you're crazy paranoid, Joe. You've been listening to the likes of Alex Jones and Michael Savage rant about false-flag conspiracies that you've now apparently decided to get in on that action and concoct one of your own.
You can't admit that some -- let alone the vast majority -- of Muslims in America are peaceful and not deserving of the condemnation and lazy Islamophobia your website heaps upon them.
And you most definitely can't admit the possibility that WND's anti-Muslim may very well have played a role in inspiring these men to plot to blow up Muslims in the middle of Kansas. (You've done this before.)
So, you hide behind tinfoil hats and false flags and pretend you're being the reasonable one.
Bizarre: Black WND Columnist Endorses White Nationalists' Anti-Black Race-Baiting Topic: WorldNetDaily
Jesse Lee Peterson is more concerned about white people than ever. He begins his Oct. 9 WorldNetDaily column by warning: "Warning to whites: Avoid black people. Your life may be at risk. Whites are under attack like no other time in history. It’s about to get worse."
The proximate cause this time is the new film "The Birth of a Nation," about the Nat Turner slave rebellion. Peterson likens the film to the original, century-old and very racist "Birth of a Nation" film, which sparked a resurgence in the Ku Klux Klan, calling both "hate-inspired propaganda."
If it's not bizarre enough that Peterson is attacking his fellow African-Americans, he adds this:
It’s evil enough to stir black anger to new levels of violence against whites.
If you don’t already know about rampant black-on-white crime (rape, robbery, murder and atrocious assaults), check the research of Colin Flaherty, Heather Mac Donald and Jared Taylor.
Yep, he wrote that.
Flaherty, as we know, is a race-baiter who promoted a blanketdescription of blacks as violence-prone thugs -- a grossly inaccurate generalization Peterson appears to endorse.
Mac Donald is an author attached to the right-wing Manhattan Institute who has attacked the Black Lives Matter movement as a campaign based on lies and, like Flaherty, paints blacks as violence-prone criminals and effectively deserving of being shot by police.
Taylor, of course, is head of the unabashedly white nationalist American Renaissance. He's an unabashed racist; the Southern Poverty Law Center quotes him as saying, "Blacks and whites are different. When blacks are left entirely to their own devices, Western civilization — any kind of civilization — disappears." It appears Peterson is totally down with this kind of "research" from Taylor.
Peterson interviewed Taylor in 2005 (available on the AmRen website). His pushback on Taylor's advocacy of racial separation is tepid at best, and he and he concurs with Taylor's view of black liberal activists like Jesse Jackson and that black activists "hate white folks." So it's probably not a surprise that he's moved so far right that he's apparently signing on to Taylor's white nationalist aggenda.
Yes, Peterson has a longrecord of invoking his black conservative privilege by saying things that would be considered racist were he not a black conservative. But to actually make common cause with white nationalists and white race-baiters in peddling harmful stereotypes about blacks? That's just bizarre.
Larry Klayman Reminds Us That He Can't Take Criticism Topic: WorldNetDaily
Larry Klayman is a buffoon, a terrible lawyer and an ambulance-chasing hate peddler who likes to file nuiscance lawsuits to take revenge on his critics. He can't even tell the truth about himself, and when he's confronted with a situation in which he must -- i.e., when his ex-wife accused him of "inappropriate behavior" with his children -- he pleads the Fifth Amendment.
Here's an example of thte latter, from Klayman's Oct. 8 WorldNetDaily column, in which he complains about the indignities he suffered while filing nuisance lawsuits in the 1990s against Bill and Hillary Clinton, whom he calls "the Bonnie and Clyde of American politics":
In addition, every two weeks, an article would appear in the politically compromised the Washington Post – which, not coincidentally, is a client of Kendall’s Williams & Connelly. The articles contained false and misleading “information” to smear me. The name of the biweekly column, written by sleazy, pliant reporter David Segal, was called “The Klayman Chronicles,” a phrase adapted from a film, “The Clinton Chronicles,” about Slick Willy. While I was flattered to have my “own” biweekly column in the Washington Post, I was also outraged that this major newspaper, however leftist and compromised, would make it a mission to try to run interference for Bonnie and Clyde.
You will not be surprised to learn that this story happened completely differently from the way Klayman portrays it. David Segal did not write a "biweekly column" about Klayman for the Post; he wrote a column called "Washington Hearsay" in which he occasionally included a "Klayman Chronicles" section (it's unclear whether that section appeared on a biweekly schedle, as Klayman claims).
The purportedly "false and misleading information" Klayman claims Segal wrote about him is apparently a reference to a 1999 column in which Segal highlighted how aggressive Klayman's Judicial Watch minions were in badgering bookers to try and get Klayman on TV. According to a former employee, writes Segal, "Klayman demanded that his public relations person call a handful of talk show producers every single day, rain or shine, regardless of the day's news":
"He would come in each morning and ask, `Who have you called and why haven't you called?'" said the onetime employee, who requested anonymity. "If the show was doing Hollywood that night, he'd say call anyway. If they were doing Tiananmen Square he'd say, `Well, I'm an international lawyer, try to pitch that.' If there was a school shooting he'd say, `So what? We're doing important things here.'"
Unsurprisingly, Klayman sued Segal over this, claiming that he had been defamed because Segal "falsely caused [him] to appear so bent on publicity for himself that he is insensitive to the murder of innocent children." The case went to trial and Klayman lost, with the trial judge noting that "Mr. Klayman does not dispute that he considers his activities to warrant significant media attention."
Klayman appealed and he lost there too. The District of Columbia Court of Appeals stated that "the challenged material, in context, demonstrates that the article's message centered on Mr. Klayman's drive for publicity" and that the statements "could perhaps be viewed as unpleasant and offensive from Mr. Klayman's perspective, but such perceived unpleasantness and offensiveness are not sufficient to sustain an allegation that material is reasonably capable of defamatory meaning." The appeals court concluded: "Rather, when read in context, a reasonable person of ordinary intelligence would understand the words to convey the message that a school shooting tragedy should not interfere with an employee's scheduling of television talk show appearances to enable Judicial Watch to explain its public interest endeavors, even if scheduling appearances required pitching the public relations strategy to a major event of the day, such as the Tiananmen Square event."
In short, Klayman is still holding a grudge over something written about him nearly two decades ago, reminding us that he can't handle criticism. (Soundfamiliar?)
Klayman spends the remainder of his column denouncing the release of the Donld Trump tape in which he discusses his vile misogyny (though he concedes Trump made "disgusting, lewd comments"), ranting that "I would bet the ranch that David Kendall, Williams & Connelly and their private investigators – either the old ones or a whole new crop of sleaze balls – were behind this." No evidence has ever surfaced that they are.
Meet Bob Just, The WND Democrat Topic: WorldNetDaily
Back in 2008, we identified Jerry Zeifman as a "Newsmax Democrat" -- a self-proclaimed Democrat who did nothing but appear at right-wing websites to bash his purported fellow Democrats (and misled about his relationship with Hillary Rodham Clinton during the Watergate investigation).
Well, it looks like we now have a WorldNetDaily Democrat, one Bob Just. His WND bio describes his this way: "Bob Just is a WND columnist, editor-at-large of Whistleblower magazine and a veteran national radio talk-show host. He has guest-hosted Sean Hannity's national radio show and also worked on Hannity's best-selling book, "Deliver us from Evil," doing research and development."
Does that sound like a Democrat to you? Yet he insists he is one.
In 2014, for instance, Just wrote a WND column insisting that "it has never been more important for mainstream Democrats to draw a line by not voting Democrat." Why? Because of the "disastrous leadership" of President Obama and the influence of Saul Alinsky on both Obama and Hillary Clinton.
Now, Just has written a couple of columns lamenting the state of "my Democratic Party." On Sept. 28, Just praises Donald Trump's campaign:
Among other things, that’s what Donald Trump says he’s campaigning to do. “Imagine what our country could accomplish,” Trump said recently, “if we started working together as one people under one God, saluting one flag.”
Sounds like “the greatest generation” talking.
And if Trump wins, the executive branch could cease being the enforcing arm of PC power. Then PC’s oppressive hold over the American people would start to break.
Just attacks Hillary Clinton as "she of the Benghazi scandal" and quotes approvingly from conservative anti-Clinton author Peggy Noonan. He concludes: "But most Americans aren’t fans of fantasy politics. They know something is terribly wrong – that this country is truly and dangerously on the wrong track. And that Hillary Clinton will not bring the change we need. In fact, she’s an enabler of our woes."
Just returned on Oct. 11 to lament "the cold civil war of my Democratic Party," in which he makes another pro-Trump argument and tries to spin away his vile misogyny: "Voters – especially women voters – are now being heavily pressured to consider Donald Trump as an unthinkable choice for president. Yes, his 'hot mic' comments from over a decade ago were unthinkable, but for many crucial reasons his candidacy is not."
Just's alleged "civil war" is between the religious and the secular, and he wants religion -- and Trump -- to dominate:
If we as voters allow our judgment to be clouded by anger or frustration at Donald Trump’s real flaws (possessed also by previous presidents), we will be making a dangerous emotional decision – rather than a sober one that creates the real future we want for our children and grandchildren. I’m asking you, as a Christian and as a Democrat, to vote to remain America.
The only “unthinkable choice” is Hillary Clinton.
Dos that sound like a Democrat to you? We didn't think so. But as long as Just insists on calling himself one, WND will continue to allow him to indulge in his fantasy.
WND Peddles Discredited Tale of Bill Clinton's Illegitimate Son Topic: WorldNetDaily
Two signs that a WorldNetDaily article has a high probability of being misleading, if not outright false: 1) Jerome Corsi wrote it, and 2) Joel Gilbert is his source.
In 2012, Corsi promoted Gilbert's fraudulent anti-Obama film that promoted false, sleazy attacks against Barack Obama's family, and just before the 2012 election, Corsi pushed the Gilbert-sourced claim that Obama has Islamic writing on his wedding ring -- a claim so false Corsi's fellow birthers felt compelled to discredit it.
Now, in an Oct. 11 WND article, Corsi latches onto a video made by Gilbert about Danney Williams, who was pushed by Clinton conspirators in the 1990s as Bill Clinton's illegitimate son -- an identity Williams has apparently latched onto, presumably with a lot of coaching from Gilbert.
Ah, but Corsi has a response to that too. In a separate article, he hunted down then-editor of the Star, who now insists that he saw no lab report from the 1999 test, despite him being quoted at the time as saying "There was no match, nothing even close," and that the Star never published a story about test. Corsi also claims that "the results made public came from the less reliable method known as a 'polymerase chain reaction' test, or PRC, that experts do not consider sufficiently robust to determine paternity."
Corsi then went into conspiracy territory, noting that "About a month after the 'DNA showdown,' The Star was purchased by the investment group Evercore Capital Partners LLC, headed by former Deputy Secretary Roger C. Altman, a longtime friend of Bill Clinton," with the suggestion that there was something fishy about the timing. Needless to say, Corsi offers nothing to back that up.
It's obvious that Corsi and Gilbert latched onto the Williams story for the sole purpose of desperately trying to distract from the mounting sexual harassment allegations against their favored candidate, Donald Trump. It's yet another sign of how desperate WND has become and how little it cares about the truth.
WND's So-Called 'Consensus' On Trump Winning Debate Topic: WorldNetDaily
The headline of Garth Kant's Oct. 10 WorldNetDaily article declares: "Consensus: Trump wins debate, media lose along with Hillary." But Kant's "consensus" appears to be made up of people who support Trump and, thus, would be predisposed to say Trump won the debate.
Here's who Kant cites as part of his "consensus":
The New York Post
Two writers at Lifezette, a right-wing website run by Laura Ingraham
John Hinderaker of Powerline
Kant does quote a couple of non-conservatives to suggest they were saying Trump won, but that's not quite the case. For instance, Kant writes: "Even a notable liberal conceded defeat, as Peter Beinart, a contributing editor for The Atlantic, tweeted, 'hate to say it but I think @realDonaldTrump staunched his campaign’s collapse tonight. Until the next big scoop.'" Successfully performing damage control does not equal winning a debate.
Kant also claimed the UK Telegraph newspaper "scorched the moderators for bias," but, in fact, the quote from the paper he uses shows that it's merely noting that moderator Martha Raddatz was repeatedly trying to get Trump to answer the question that was asked and that Trump was complaining about that -- not an admission of "bias."
NEW ARTICLE: How Does An Ex-Soviet Bloc Spymaster Endorse Trump? Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily fave and ex-spymaster Ion Mihai Pacepa (and his co-author, Ronald Rychlak) strangely has nothing to say about Trump's cozy ties to Russia and its ex-Soviet spymaster leader Vladimir Putin. Read more >>
WND Columnists Love Obnoxious, Sexually Predatory White Males Topic: WorldNetDaily
In condordance with its love of Donald Trump, WorldNetDaily is moving from merely excusing his vile misogyny to endorsing the behavior that makes it possible.
Kent Bailey -- who has cheered Trump's appeal to white males as a "tall, blond and Nordic 'warrior extraordinaire'" and insisted that "diminutive, pudgy, non-athletic and cerebral" Hillary Clinton just can't handle Trump, "who drives a golf ball 300 yards and eats nails for breakfast" -- devoted his Oct. 9 WND column to opining about something he invented called "Politically Correct Psychosis," which he claims "emerges when the Marxist, liberal and progressivist crypto-religious worldview is challenged, and it is especially prevalent in highly educated, upper middle class, Caucasian populations in New York, Florida, and California." A subset of this, apparently, is the idea of "toxic white masculinity," and Bailey links this in with his own brand of Trump-esque misogyny:
Today, feminist women and feminized liberal men are determined to not only rewrite European and American history, but the history of the species as well! They believe they can completely take over the country from the “toxic white men” who founded it and furnished it with virtually every invention in sight from the clock to the electric light, the Ford Model T, the Saturn rocket and, of course, the Internet – thanks to Al Gore. Read the works of historian Daniel Boorstein, and see who are the great discoverers, creators and developers of today’s amazing world – a virtual extravaganza of “toxic white men.”
7) What is this “toxic white male” thing all about, anyway? The answer-strained and fabricated notions about the literal “equality” of the sexes. Marxist liberals and their foot-soldier feminists are determined to produce equality in every nook and cranny of American culture even when it conflicts with human nature and objective reality. Thus, after 70 years of failure to usurp male influence and power, the new approach is to belittle, confuse, demean and ultimately disenfranchise men with the help of the media, the feminized universities and the Democratic Party.
If you cannot compete with men or take their place by legitimate means, then just bitch them to death, reject and shame them out of existence. This is basically how tattletale sisters have dealt with their annoying brothers since the dawn of time, and this is exactly what Hillary and her crowd are attempting with the ultimate toxic white male – Donald Trump.
So we can guess that Bailey is totally down with how Trump demeans women.
By contrast, Wayne Allyn Root dispenses with the pseudoscience of "paleospsychology" that Bailey hides behind and goes totally unhinged in his Oct. 10 WND column, sneering at the "fancy Ivy League degrees, media credentials and political titles" who predicted Trump was through and gave a full-throated endorsement of Trump's "savage" misogyny:
The media have it all wrong. The GOP establishment don’t get it. Trump isn’t a politician who has to abide by the rules. Trump is one big middle finger to all the people in power – to “business as usual.” He is our middle finger. He is our caveman. He is our savage. He is our animal.
So he doesn’t have to be well-mannered. Trump gets bonus points for being a savage. If he makes ladies in gowns faint … if he makes liberals vomit … if he makes crooked politicians tremble … then he’s our guy!
All of this bad stuff, all of these secretly recorded videos, they just make the story better. Trump isn’t a man; he is a folk hero. He’s Paul Bunyan. He’s the Loch Ness Monster. He’s Sir William Wallace, the hero warrior of “Braveheart.”
Yes, Trump’s an animal, a savage – but he’s our animal. He’s our savage. He’s a tough guy fighting viciously for us. And if he’s fighting “dirty”? Great. It’s about time we had someone on our side who brings a bazooka to a gun fight, instead of a knife.
Yes, any other politician would have stepped down, or backed down after that secretly recorded video was released. Trump DOUBLED DOWN. Instead of playing doormat or shrinking violet to Hillary at the debate, even after the release of that terrible video, Trump promised to put her in prison. Are you kidding me? This guy has balls in a nation filled with neutered men.
Trump wants to send Hillary to prison? Trump mocks her when she compares herself to Abraham Lincoln? Trump asks her why she doesn’t put some of her $250 million fortune in the race? Trump calls her behavior disgraceful? That was all music to our ears. This is our guy. Thank God we have a savage on our side!
Root concludes by going into full-throated nihilism:
So here’s my message to the liberals, the mainstream media and the GOP establishment:
Keep practicing premature prognostication. Stay delusional. Keep lying to yourself that Hillary is going to win. Stay over-confidant. We’re going to wipe that smug look off your faces on Nov. 8.
And keep the dirty tricks coming. Take it from the author of “Angry White Male” – you’re making us angrier. You’re creating a feeding frenzy. The more you attack him, the more you motivate us.
Release more videotapes – we dare you.
Show Trump using the “F” word. Release a Trump sex tape. Show Trump talking about how he owns all the crooked politicians. Prove Trump doesn’t pay taxes to our corrupt government. We love it. You’re just feeding the beast. You’re making the legend of Trump even bigger. You’re making our folk hero 10 feet tall. You’re creating a monster.
BRING IT ON. Let’s see the best you got. We don’t care. We’re coming to burn D.C. down. We’ve got our pitchforks. We’ve got our Brexit attitude on. More importantly, we’ve got our long, strong, vicious, savage middle finger …
We’ve got Donald J. Trump.
Of course, it's so much easier to destroy than to build, and Root talks only of destroying, of burning D.C. down. That makes him -- and Trump -- no better than a vandal. But he's too busy trying to burn down the country to notice.
WND Pushes False Anti-Hillary Story Topic: WorldNetDaily
Bob Unruh breathlessly writes in an Oct. 11 WorldNetDaily article:
There long has been evidence of Hillary Clinton’s sense of entitlement – the stories of her ordering Secret Service officers to carry her bags, her unabashed demands for hundreds of thousands of dollars for speeches, her insistence on specific travel accommodations and much more.
Now there’s evidence of exactly what she thinks of the average American who works hard and pays taxes to support the Washington establishment.
“I know she has begun to hate everyday Americans,” wrote her campaign manager, John Podesta, in an email.
Hillary for prosecution, not president! Join the sizzling campaign to put Mrs. Clinton where she really belongs
The email has surfaced in a WikiLeaks dump of Podesta’s emails. Infowars’ Paul Joseph Watson noted the email, sent by Podesta on April 19, 2015, was a discussion about what “talking points Hillary should use in framing her candidacy for president in order to get a good head start.”
“I know she has begun to hate everyday Americans, but I think we should use it once the first time she says I’m running for president because you and everyday Americans need a champion,” he wrote. “I think if she doesn’t say it once, people will notice and say we false started in Iowa.”
Her director of communications, Jennifer Palmieri, responded, “Truth.”
“To emphasize,” Watson wrote, “John Podesta, Hillary’s campaign guru, is in black and white admitting that Hillary Clinton hates everyday Americans. This is huge.”
In fact, that's not true at all. As Media Matters explains, there is context to that email that Infowars -- the Alex Jones conspiracy website -- and Unruh ignore. The reference was to the "everyday Americans" slogan that Clinton used when she first launched her presidential campaign; when Podesta says "I know she has begun to hate everyday Americans," he's saying she hates the phrase in relation to her campaign.
Watson's original article has apparently been removed from the Infowars website and sister site Prison Planet, presumably because it's utterly false. As of this writing, Unruh's article is still live.
Unruh and WND are getting what they deserve for considering Infowars to be a credible source of information.
We know WND will publish any anti-Hillary claim it thinks it can get away with, regardless of its factual accuracy. It's already had to remove at least one false article from its website -- never apologizing for publishing that false information -- and it has published lies about Hillary it won't retract.
Reminder: Trump Is WND's Candidate Topic: WorldNetDaily
If ever we needed a reminder that Donald Trump was the kind of person WorldNetDaily wanted to run for president, Joseph Farah provided one in his Oct. 6 column. He starts out his column of advice for Trump for the then-upcoming debate by stagting:
I suppose I could call this column in to the campaign managers for Donald Trump.
Most of them have been friends of mine for between 10 and 30 years.
Which means the Trump campaign comes by its birtherism (and disowning of same after it stopped working as a political attack) and Clinton derangement honestly -- they're just as obsessed as Farah, Jerome Corsi and WND are.
WND Censors Trump's Threat to Jail Clinton Topic: WorldNetDaily
Paul Bremmer (who works in marketing and is not an actual reporter, though he was an intern at the Media Research Center) writes in an Oct. 9 WorldNetDaily article:
Donald Trump made a bold move during the first half hour of Sunday night’s presidential debate, declaring that if he is elected, he will appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Hillary Clinton’s email scandal.
“I didn’t think I was going to say this, but I’m going to say it, and I hate to say it, but if I win, I am going to instruct my attorney general to get a special prosecutor to look into your situation, because there has never been so many lies, so much deception,” Trump said to his opponent’s face. “There has never been anything like it. We’re going to have a special prosecutor.”
Trump’s declaration came in response to Clinton’s call for Trump to apologize. The Democratic nominee noted Trump never apologized for his past remarks about the family of U.S. Army Capt. Humayun Khan, Judge Gonzalo Curiel of Indiana or the “racist lie” that President Obama was not born in the United States.
“He owes the president an apology, he owes the country an apology, and I want him to take responsibility for his actions and his words,” Clinton said.
Trump responded first by saying Clinton is the one who owes Obama an apology, because her 2008 presidential campaign first looked into whether Obama was eligible to be president. Then he pivoted to the ubiquitous email scandal.
“But when you talk about apology, I think the one you should really be apologizing for and the thing that you should be apologizing for are the 33,000 emails that you deleted and you acid washed, and then the two boxes of emails and other things last week that were taken from an office and are now missing,” Trump charged.
Trump said people he speaks to around the country are furious about Clinton’s destruction of her emails – after those emails had been subpoenaed, no less.
“So we’re going to get a special prosecutor and we’re going to look into it, because you know what?” Trump asked. “People have been destroyed, their lives have been destroyed for doing one-fifth of what you have done. It’s a disgrace, and honestly, you should be ashamed of yourself.”
As you'd expect from an article by someone who works in marketing, there's some news missing here -- namely, what happened after Bremmer cut off Trump. Here's the exchange that followed shortly after the excerpt Bremmer wrote about:
CLINTON: ... I told people that it would be impossible to be fact-checking Donald all the time. I'd never get to talk about anything I want to do and how we're going to really make lives better for people.
So, once again, go to HillaryClinton.com. We have literally Trump -- you can fact check him in real time. Last time at the first debate, we had millions of people fact checking, so I expect we'll have millions more fact checking, because, you know, it is -- it's just awfully good that someone with the temperament of Donald Trump is not in charge of the law in our country.
TRUMP: Because you'd be in jail.
Apparently, a candidate threatening to throw his opponent in jail if elected was not news to Bremmer, even if it was to pretty much every other actual news reporter. Either he didn't bother to even put it in, or it was removed from the article by someone else later in the editorial process.
Regardless, WND censored news that made its preferred candidate look bad.