CNSNews.com editor in chief Terry Jeffrey writes in a Jan. 28 article:
Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina told attorney general nominee Loretta Lynch at a confirmation hearing today that the fact that, in support of Planned Parenthood, she had advocated for partial-birth abortion did not "disqualify" her from serving as attorney general of the United States.
But Lynch did not "advocate for partial-birth abortion," as Jeffrey himself concedes in his very next paragraphs:
"In 2006, you signed an amicus brief supporting Planned Parenthood's opposition to partial-birth abortion ban; is that correct?" said Graham at Lynch's confirmation hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee.
"Yes," said Lynch, "I was one of a number of former Department of Justice officials [who signed it]."
"Although, the amicus brief that we signed was focused on the issue of the facial issues of the law, and how it might impact the perception of law enforcement's discretion and independence," she said.
Signing onto an amicus brief opposing a law banning "partial-birth abortion" does not equal "advocating" for the practice. And it's clear she was discussing issues of the law, not defending the practice.
Jeffrey does not provide a link to the amicus brief in question so his readers can see for themselves what, exactly, she supposedly was "advocating."
In other words, Jeffrey is lying about Lynch. Is that something the editor of a self-proclaimed news organization should be doing?
CNSNews.com, it appears, just doesn't care about journalism anymore, increasingly dedicating itself to being a right-wing propaganda outlet.
The headline of a Jan. 21 CNS article by Penny Starr reads, "Planned Parenthood’s Cecile Richards: ‘We Proudly…Provide Abortions’." But Starr actually quotes Richards in the second paragraph of her article as saying, "We proudly provide safe and legal abortion."
Not only did CNS improperly pluralize "abortion," it put ellipses in the wrong place for its dishonest removal of "safe and legal."
Starr is an anti-abortion crusader, and her bias shows in her article by irrelevantly noting Richards' salary as Planned Parenthood president. By contrast, we can't recall any CNS article that disclosed the compensation package of its boss, Brent Bozell.
CNS Doesn't Want To Talk About Rape And Abortion Topic: CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com was eager to report that House Republicans scuttled a proposed bill to outlaw abortions after the 20th week of pregnancy. It was much less eager to tell readers why.
A Jan. 22 CNS article by Melanie Hunter highlighted how "Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the pro-life group Susan B. Anthony List, said Thursday she was 'disappointed' that the Republican-controlled House delayed a vote on the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act." Another article by Hunter the same day detailed how "Family Research Council President Tony Perkins on Thursday said despite the House delaying debate on the late-term abortion bill Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, GOP House leadership has not abandoned the 'pro-life effort.'"
Interestingly, neither of those articles saw fit to explain to readers why the vote on the "Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act" was scuttled: Female Republican House members objected to a provision that allowed an rape exception only if that rape was reported to law enforcement.
Later CNS articles mentioned the reason the bill was scuttled, but really didn't want to talk about it much further. A Jan. 22 article by Susan Jones noted that "a few Republicans objected" to the rape provision, then huffed, "Expanding the bill's exemption to cover all claims of rape would allow more abortions." But none of the people Jones quoted in her article expanded on the issue of the rape provision.
A Jan. 23 article by Lauretta Brown reported on "A crowd of pro-life millennials" who gathered outside the office of one of the House Republicans who objected to the rape provision, Rep. Renee Ellmers, "to express their anger with her for delaying and attempting to dilute the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act." Brown noted that the "pro-life millennials" were "angered" by the scuttling of the vote, but strangely, she did not ask any of those protesting "pro-life millennials" thought of the rape provision.
Why doesn't CNS want to get into the meat of the rape provision, even though it's at the center of the controversy over the anti-abortion bill, so much so that even normally pro-life Republicans find it objectionable? Perhaps it's following Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham's advice to conservative to keep from letting such controversies over definitions "become the issue." But by censoring the issue, CNS can only make sure it becomes an issue.
Wait, doesn't CNS pledge to "fairly present all legitimate sides of a story"? Yes, but it's hard to do that by pretending that one prominent side of a certain issue doesn't actually exist.
CNS Back To Its Old Gotcha Game Topic: CNSNews.com
It's been a while since CNSNews.com hurled a "gotcha" question at members of Congress - apparently taking in the lesson learned when Barney Frank decided he didn't want to play and turned the tables on a hapless CNS reporter.
Apparently, the sting of the reverse gotcha has faded enough that CNS is back in the gotcha business, hurling a certain loaded question at Democratic members of Congress being ambushed by CNS reporters. See if you can detect a pattern:
CNS Promotes Huckabee on Beyonce, Ignores His Hypocrisy Topic: CNSNews.com
Melanie Hunter is full of Huck-love in a Jan. 20 CNSNews.com article:
Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee told MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” on Tuesday that he has “nothing” against Beyonce, despite criticizing the president and first lady for allowing their daughters to listen to her lyrics, which he called “obnoxious and toxic mental poison” in his new book.
In a chapter called, “The Culture of Crude,” Huckabee talks about Beyonce and her husband Jay Z’s performance of her song, “Drunk in Love” on the 2013 Grammy Awards.
“The song contains words and imagery so graphic that they would never make it through the editing process of this book. … But the onstage gyrations, bare flesh, and (most of) the lyrics did make it onto CBS, again during the smoldering remnants of what used to be the ‘family hour,’” Huckabee wrote.
“You could not repeat the lyrics,” Huckabee told MSNBC’s Scarborough.
In his book, Huckabee wondered why President Barack Obama and first lady Michelle Obama would let Sasha and Malia listen to “that trash.”
“I’ve generally admired the parenting instincts of the First Couple, so it’s hard for me to believe they’ve actually listened to those lyrics,” Huckabee wrote.
Curiously, Hunter didn't mention that a few days earlier, "The Daily Show" exposed Huckabee's hypocrisy on the issue of allegedly raunchy song lyrics by airing a video of Huckabee playing bass behind Ted Nugent singing the lascivious "Cat Scratch Fever."
This probably would have been news at CNS if Huckabee had been a Democrat. But he's a Republican, and his presidential prospects must be protected.
CNS Reporter, Managing Editor Pretend Fox News Apology Over 'No-Go Zones' Doesn't Exist Topic: CNSNews.com
Apparently, because the Media Research Center hasn't acknowledged that Fox News has apologized for and retracted a claim that there are numerous "no-go" zones in Europe where non-Muslims are forbidden to enter -- even stating that there is "no credible information" to support that they exist -- it didn't actually happen.
How else to explain Penny Starr's Jan. 19 CNSNews.com blog post uncritically repeating claims by Republican Gov. Bobby Jindal that those "no-go zones" exist?
Starr made no mention of Fox's apology over the "no-go zones" claim. Instead, she plays up a Daily Mail article Jindal referenced. But as the Guardian noted, the article did not give specific religious groups or towns.
Interestingly, unlike Starr, the Daily Mail reported Jindal's remarks while also noting Fox News' apology for making the same claims.
Starr promoted her article on Twitter by claiming, "Gov. Bobby Jindal tells the truth and the liberal news media is aghast." She did not identify what part of Jindal's comments were "the truth."
But Starr is not alone in her determination to wipe Fox News' apology from the right-wing memory. CNS managing editor Michael W. Chapman repeatedlypromoted the Daily Mailstory on his Twitter account; his account makes no mention of the Fox News apology.
CNS Bases 'News' Article On Right-Wing Website's Rant Topic: CNSNews.com
We have previously praised CNSNews.com's writer Patrick Goodenough for being an unusually fair and balanced writer for the ConWeb. But it appears he has been fully assimilated into the borg.
In a Jan. 14 CNS article, Goodenough fretted about Israeli "media bias" because the purported cause of "Reports claiming that Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu angered French President Francois Hollande by taking part in Sunday’s mass rally in Paris":
Israeli media also charged that the prime minister had unceremoniously shoved his way to the front row, where he joined the leaders of France, Germany, Mali, the European Union, the Palestinian Authority (P.A.) and others.
The left-wing daily Ha’aretz cited an unnamed Israeli source as saying France had privately asked Netanyahu not to attend; that Netanyahu had agreed but changed his mind after learning that two political rivals were planning to go; and that France had then retaliated by inviting P.A. chairman Mahmoud Abbas to take part.
By contrast, a review of French media reporting on the rally finds no French officials – named or otherwise – cited as confirming tensions between Hollande and Netanyahu.
In an op-ed in the conservative Israel Hayom daily on Tuesday, Haim Shine, a member of board of governors of Jewish Agency, said the anti-Netanyahu media’s coverage of the Paris visit “shows the degree to which they resent Netanyahu and the Israel he represents.”
Note the pejorative labeling of Ha'aretz as "left-wing" while Israel Hayom is benignly described as "conservative." Actually, Israel Hayom appears to be as right-wing as Goodenough claims Ha'aretz is to the left.
This is the kind of pseudo-news CNS usually provides -- Goodenough offers no particular demonstrated expertise on "media bias" in Israel, and even CNS' parent, the Media Research Center, does next to nothing on the subject. Then he cuts to where he apparently got the idea for his article:
Writing on the Frontpage magazine site, Freedom Center fellow Daniel Greenfield said the sources of the reporting were “a major reason to be skeptical of the claims” about the Hollande-Netanyahu spat, adding that “the lack of French reports confirming it are suspicious.”
“While it’s entirely possible that Hollande really did not want Netanyahu to come, the sourcing on this story is from Ha’aretz,” he said. “Ha’aretz is a left-wing Israeli publication that will print absolutely anything negative about Netanyahu that it can.”
“Israel is in an election season now, and one of the domestic political attacks against him is that he alienated Obama and Europe. So this particular line plays all too well into the attack campaign by Ha’aretz’s favorite candidates.”
Strange that in an article that's supposed to be about biased news outlets, Goodenough doesn't identify the political Leanings of FrontPageMag. It's the digital platform for far-right activist David Horowitz and is not interested in actual "news" or unbiased research, as Greenfield's completely unsupported claim that Ha'aretz will "will print absolutely anything negative about Netanyahu that it can" amply demonstrates.
Greenfield goes on to sneer that "Haaretz is an untrustworthy source in general and a particularly untrustworthy source for anything involving Netanyahu," again without providing any evidence to back it up.
Horowitz and his FrontPageMag are so far out of the political mainstream that the last time we wrote about them, it was because a Greenfield rant about "the leftist hijacking of black identity" contained a doctored image of Hillary Clinton in blackface.
That's the level of discourse that takes place there. Why did Goodenough think this screed needed to be sanitized and elevated?
CNS' Hunter Still Obsessing Over Money Spent on LGBT Issues Topic: CNSNews.com
Last month, CNSNews.com deputy managing editor Melanie Hunter tried to start the ball rolling again on the website's crusade to portray any money spent on LGBT issues as wasteful. She does it again this week:
Of the five articles Hunter has written over the past month highlighting government spending , all five have singled out LGBT issues. She has not explained why she apparently finds such spending so offensive.
It may also be that Hunter is simply providing catnip to CNS readers. Each of her articles include dozens, if not hundreds, of comments from CNS readers that can only be described as virulently homophobic. CNS has not explained why it feels the need to perform such a service to let its readers vent their hatred.
CNS Afghan Body Count Obsession Watch Topic: CNSNews.com
We've documented how, in contrast to touting how U.S. troop casualities declined under President Bush (which involved ignoring how they also increased under Bush), CNSNews.com is dedicated to telling us how many U.S. casualities there have been in Afghanistan. CNS does it again in a Jan. 7 article by Ali Meyer:
Fifty-five U.S. servicemen were killed in Afghanistan in 2014, bringing the total number of American fatalities in the 13-year war to 2,232, according to a CNSNews.com database.
Of those 2,232 deaths, 1,663 – 74.5 percent – occurred since President Obama took office on Jan. 20, 2009. The deadliest years for U.S. personnel were 2010, when 495 were killed; 2011, when there were 404 casualties; and 2009 when the death toll was 306.
Those three years combined accounted for more than half, or 54 percent, of the total U.S. casualties in the war.
As is usual, two words you won't find in Meyer's article are "Iraq" and "Bush," even though the casualty rate in Afghanistan (not to mention the total casualty rate ) has been much lower than it was at its peak in Iraq.
In December, the U.S. economy added 252,000 jobs and the unemployment rate declined to 5.6 percent. As usual, you won't be reading about this at CNSNews.com. Instead, you'll hear all about these cherry-picked numbers:
Only one of the articles mentioned the fact that the unemployment rate dropped to 5.6 percent. None mentioned that 252,000 jobs were created. And the article about black unemployment waited until the fourth paragraph to mention that the 10.4 percent rate of black unemployment in December was a significant drop from November's 11.0 percent, though writer Michael Chapman insisted the rate merely "dropped slightly."
CNS' Starr Gives Keystone Falsehoods A Pass In Shilling for Oil Industry Topic: CNSNews.com
Penny Starr writes in a Jan. 6 CNSNews.com article:
Jack Gerard, CEO of the American Petroleum Institute, says President Barack Obama is “factually incorrect” to say that the Keystone XL Pipeline will not benefit Americans.
At the press conference in Washington Tuesday, CNSNews.com asked Gerard about Obama’s remarks in November about the pipeline, which, if approved, would transport crude oil from Canada and from two U.S. states to refineries on the Gulf Coast.
Obama said at the time that the pipeline would only benefit Canada and would not have any impact on domestic gasoline prices.
CNSNews.com asked Gerard: “In November, President Obama said at a press conference – he was asked about the Keystone Pipeline and he said, quote, 'Understand what this project is. It is providing the ability of Canada to pump their oil, send it through our land down to the Gulf where it will be sold everywhere else.' Quote: 'It doesn’t have an impact on U.S. gas prices.'"
“Let me say first and foremost, what the president said is factually incorrect,” Gerard responded, citing the U.S. State Department’s report on the pipeline, which states that, among other benefits, the project would generate more than 42,000 jobs in the U.S. during the estimated two-year construction time frame.
Actually, Gerard is the one who's being "factually incorrect" -- and Starr is too busy shilling for the oil industry to call him out on it.
As we've documented the last time Starr peddled oil industry propaganda, the Keystone pipeline will not "generate" 42,000 jobs -- the vast majority of those jobs are temporary and would last only as long as the pipeline is being constructed, and a number of them already exist. The operation and maintenance of the pipeline after construction will create only about 50 jobs.
Starr also let Gerard misleadingly suggest that Canadian oil shipped through the pipeline will stay in the U.S. -- and, thus, lower U.S. oil prices -- because "all crude oil in the U.S. – including that from Canada – is banned from export." But neither Gerard nor Starr mention that there are no limits on the export of refined oil products.
Starr is also silent on the fact that Gerard's insistence that "crude oil exports will actually lower the cost of domestic price of gasoline" flies in the face of experience with natural gas exports, which have not lowered the price of natural gas in the U.S.
We know that CNS' parent, the Media Research Center, receives funding from the fossil fuel industry, but would it kill Starr to do a little actual reporting instead of serving as a stenographer, even if that what she's being paid to do?
CNS Columnist Omits Details on Catholic IVF Lawsuit Topic: CNSNews.com
The Heritage Foundation's Andrew Kloster takes the Catholic Church's side in a Dec. 30 CNSNews.com column detailing a lawsuit by a Catholic school teacher fired after undergoing in vitro fertilization treatments. But Kloster omits inconvenient facts to make his case. He writes:
Last Friday, a federal jury awarded a former teacher in the Diocese of Fort Wayne-South Bend almost $2 million for what she claims was sex discrimination, the bulk of which was not for medical bills or lost wages, but for $1.75 million in “emotional and physical damages” she allegedly suffered.
And while the case looks narrow—was this female teacher fired when immoral male teachers were allowed to retain their jobs?—it involves a much bigger question: when can federal courts scrutinize the religious decisions of churches?
In 2008, Emily Herx, a junior high school language arts teacher at St. Vincent de Paul School in Fort Wayne, began IVF treatment. She notified her school principal about additional IVF treatment in 2010, and in April 2011 the church pastor met with Herx to inform her that IVF was morally wrong.
IVF is a multi-step procedure that usually involves stimulating a woman’s ovaries to cause multiple ovulation, collecting the eggs and fertilizing them with donor sperm in a petri dish (in vitro meaning “in glass”), developing embryos, selecting a few and implanting them back in the woman. Leftover embryos are usually frozen or destroyed. According to Catholic moral teaching, this process is objectionable in many different ways.
Kloster omits Herx's side of the story, in which she claims she endeavored to keep her IVF treatments from running afoul of church teaching, and that she had at least implicit approval from church officials before beginning the treatments. According to Slate:
According to her suit, Herx was told by Bishop Kevin Rhodes that IVF was “an intrinsic evil, which means no circumstances can justify it,” because it frequently involves the destruction of embryos. This is typically true—but not in Herx’s case. Herx has stated that she and her husband used every embryo they created and that she informed church officials of this from the beginning. Here the church’s tendency toward a black-or-white position runs afoul of complex reality. From what Herx has said, the clerical response to her fertility treatments seems to have been blanket condemnation. Herx’s claim states that the priest she consulted “relied on uninformed assumptions about fertility treatment in general” and that he “did not understand the medical treatments actually administered.” The clergy involved in Herx’s firing seemed to have been responding more to the very idea of infertility treatment than they were to the medical processes involved.
They also seem to have been responding to a concern for their own reputations. According to Herx’s complaint, her employers had no objection to her fertility treatments before they began to be more widely known. The priest who called Herx a “grave, immoral sinner” evidently also suggested, according to Herx, that she should have kept quiet so as to avoid bringing scandal on the school and the church, saying that some things are “better left between the individual and God.” And that was before she filed the lawsuit or went to the press.
The lawsuit also notes that Herx's teaching contract was renewed after she informed school officials about the IVF ttreatments, which raises questions about the fidelity of school officials to Caytholic teaching.
Kloster then echoes the church's stand that it didn't object to Herx's IVF treatments no objection to her fertility treatments "before they began to be more widely known," asking, "Why did Emily Herx seek to make her IVF treatments public? Each of these cases involves someone putting themselves in a bad situation, and then using the law as a club—each of these cases could have been avoided by exercising common sense." Kloster huffed, "Why should someone seek employment at a place where they know they cannot live up to their contract or where they oppose their employer’s moral vision?"
Kloster also echoed the Catholic diocese's claim that the court "erred in applying Title VII to the Diocese at all. It might be that the First Amendment protects the Diocese in its hiring and firing decisions for Catholic school teachers." Kloster doesn't mention that the church attempted to get the lawsuit dismissed because it claimed it was exempt under Title VII. A U.S. appeals court rejected that argument, stating that "The Diocese cites no authority for the proposition that the exemptions provide an immunity from the burdens of trial rather than an ordinary defense to liability. To our knowledge, there is none."
Kloster sneered at the idea that Herx's “emotional and physical damages” were worth $1.75 million, calling it "an absurd result." But apparently her case was compelling enough that a jury agreed with it, so Kloster seems to be a little off base.
Another housing bubble is “very likely if we don’t change our policies,” warns Peter Wallison, a former member of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission (FCIC), which investigated the "avoidable" 2008 financial meltdown.
“It’s going to happen again because we’ll have the same kind of housing market again,” explained Wallison, who is currently co-director of financial policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI).
Just six years after the overheated housing market bubble burst, triggering the Great Recession, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which are still under government conservatorship, have been told to accept 3 percent down mortgages and to turn over a percentage of every loan they process to a government trust fund for affordable housing.
Hollingsworth is so lazy that she's literally transcribing her interview, as this sentence structure demonstrates:
Didn't you write that Fannie and Freddie’s lowering of underwriting standards to help people buy houses they couldn’t afford was “the root cause” of the financial crisis? CNSNews.com asked Wallison.
How can Fannie and Freddie, which were established to stabilize the nation’s housing market, justify doing the same things that triggered a market collapse just six years ago? CNSNews.com asked him.
Since Hollingsworth is a stenographer instead of a reporter, she can't be bothered to seek out any view that contradicts that of Wallison. For instance, the fact that Wallison's assertion that Fannie and Freddie was the "root cause" of the financial crisis has been utterly discredited by actual experts. McClatchy reported:
Between 2004 and 2006, when subprime lending was exploding, Fannie and Freddie went from holding a high of 48 percent of the subprime loans that were sold into the secondary market to holding about 24 percent, according to data from Inside Mortgage Finance, a specialty publication. One reason is that Fannie and Freddie were subject to tougher standards than many of the unregulated players in the private sector who weakened lending standards, most of whom have gone bankrupt or are now in deep trouble.
During those same explosive three years, private investment banks — not Fannie and Freddie — dominated the mortgage loans that were packaged and sold into the secondary mortgage market. In 2005 and 2006, the private sector securitized almost two thirds of all U.S. mortgages, supplanting Fannie and Freddie, according to a number of specialty publications that track this data.
In 1999, the year many critics charge that the Clinton administration pressured Fannie and Freddie, the private sector sold into the secondary market just 18 percent of all mortgages.
Hollingsworth didn't mention the conclusion of the FCIC report that Wallison took part in found that delinquency rates for mortgages guaranteed by Fannie and Freddie "were substantially lower than loans securitized by other financial firms."
Further, Walliston and Hollingsworth's idea that Fannie and Freddie permitting 3 percent mortgages will somehow cause a new financial crisis (or played any significant role in the old one) are incredibly overblown. If Hollingsworth would have actually read the Bloomberg article she linked in her own article, she would have noticed this:
Laurie Goodman, director of the Housing Finance Policy Center at the Urban Institute in Washington, said Watt’s move is an important first step in expanding credit. A study of Fannie Mae data by Goodman and other researchers found that credit scores had more bearing than the size of the down payment on whether borrowers defaulted.
The study concluded that allowing loans with down payments between 3 percent and 5 percent is likely to have a “negligible” effect on mortgage risk. These loans made up only about 1 percent of Fannie Mae originations when they were previously allowed.
Most lenders will welcome the loans as well, said Dave Stevens, CEO of the Mortgage Bankers Association in Washington.
“These loans will be underwritten more conservatively and will likely come with higher mortgage insurance costs,” Stevens said. “History has shown that these loans, when properly underwritten, perform well.”
But that's what you get when you let a stenographer do reporting: politically biased stenography.
CNS Blogger Joins MRC's Heathering of WaPo Columnist Topic: CNSNews.com
A couple weeks ago, the Media Research Center's Tim Graham unleashed a fit of Heathering on conservative Washington Post blogger Jennifer Rubin for the offense of being less than hard-core conservative by criticizing Ted Cruz. Now Jen Kuznicki, a blogger at the MRC's "news" division, CNSNews.com joins the Heathering fun:
It's amazing to look at the amount of column space that is used up by a blogger for the Washington Post's so-called "Right Turn" blog that tries to demoralize and belittle conservative politicians. Lately, Jennifer Rubin, a self-described conservative who is very new to conservatism, has been attacking Cruz, but she's been just as vitriolic toward many conservative members of the House and Senate who simply disagree with her inexperienced and disjointed view of conservatism.
And so, as I read her columns, she comes off as an unhinged attack dog, who, rather than listening to conservatives who have, might I be blunt, many more Americans agreeing with them than with her, would rather try to use her space at the Washington Post to seek an outcome to election cycles rather than having a sane conversation on what is right for the country.
For the majority of Americans, the Washington Post blogger does not exist. Most people, I think we can all agree, don't really get into the kind of politics that is necessary for those who make a living commenting on it. So, either it is Jennifer Rubin's own view that the majority of people would not agree with, the people she vehemently opposes in her columns, or she's in that nasty DC bubble the rest of the nation ignores.
Kuznicki offers no evidence to back up her claim that Ted Cruz's brand of conservative is more popular than Rubin's. It seems she's just making up things to justify her Heathering.
CNS Portrays Gays As Diseased To Fight Lifting of Blood Donation Ban Topic: CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com is so unhappy with a federal decision to move toward lifting a ban on gay men donating blood that it's pulling out all the stops to portray gays as filthy and diseased.
In a Dec. 30 article noting the decision, Penny Starr makes sure to tell us that "men who have sex with men (MSM) have much higher rates of sexually transmitted diseases such as syphilis compared to heterosexual men," and that "men having sex with men are at highest risk for getting HIV and represent the largest number of new infections, as well as the higher syphilis rates and higher rates of drug use."
Starr also repeats the testimony of Family Research Council official Peter Sprigg against lifting the ban, but she doesn't mention that the FRC is a rabidly anti-gay group whose testimony can't be trusted as objective.
How dedicated is Starr to portraying gays as disease-ridden parasites? Her article includes, for no apparent reason, a picture of an alleged "skin rash caused by syphilis":
Starr does not source the picture, so it's unclear what the picture is actually of.
Starr's homophobic smear is a part of CNS' overalldenigration of LGBT issues as unworthy of being taken seriously by the federal government.