MRC Proves NY Times Right About Conservative Use of 'Fake News' to Bash Media Topic: Media Research Center
Clay Waters devoted a Dec. 27 Media Research Center post to complaining that the New York Times wrote an article about the fact-checker Snopes, complaining that it was designed to counter Snopes' purportedly "liberal reputation" amid "allegations of hypocrisy." Waters also grumbled that the article "accused conservatives of crying 'fake news' to discredit the mainstream media."
Waters cannot credibly counter that claim.The MRC is so dedicated to blaming fake news only on the "liberal media" that it actually reached back to 1980 to rehash the Washington Post "Jimmy's World" hoax as evidence "the liberal media elite" put out fake news.
Indeed, after quoting the offending passage, Waters does exactly what he complained about being accused of:
Rolling Stone and The Washington Post are not immune to bogus reporting. The Times went all-in on the made-up liberal narrative of racist Duke lacrosse players guilty of raping a stripper. One more recent example of “fake news” from the NYT: Its utter gullibility (and failure to follow up) in swallowing the claims of YouTube hoaxer Adam Saleh, allegedly removed from a Delta plane in London for speaking Arabic on his phone, a tale which conveniently played into the paper’s narrative of Islamophobia but which has been declared false by -- guess who? -- Snopes.
Waters is self-discrediting in another way: by admitting that Snopes debunked a New York Times, he undid his claim of Snopes' "liberal reputation." Whoops.
Waters also takes offense to the article noting "efforts by highly partisan conservatives to claim that their fact-checking efforts are the same as those of independent outlets like Snopes." He offers no evidence to rebut the claim, only mockingly references "pristinely objective fact-checkers at Snopes" and whining that "apparently only Snopes and the liberal media are allowed to fact-check," unlike "Sean Hannity and Michelle Malkin."
Waters cites no alleged "fact-checks" done by Hannity or Malkin, let alone an instance in which they ever found a fellow conservative in the wrong.
For a "news" organization that professes to despise fake news, WorldNetDaily sure publishes a lot of it.
WND serves up another dose of it in a Dec. 29 article by Chelsea Schilling screaming "CALIFORNIA DEMOCRATS LEGALIZE CHILD PROSTITUTION." In it, Schilling treated as fact assertions by a Republican California state lawmaker, Travis Allen -- originally published by the right-wing Washington Examiner -- that a new law designed to protect youths involved in child prostitution by steering them to help instead of treating them as criminals was a legalization of child prostitution:
“[T]eenage girls (and boys) in California will soon be free to have sex in exchange for money without fear of arrest or prosecution,” Allen wrote in a column published by the Washington Examiner.
Allen acknowledged that Democrats sincerely believe the law will help child sex victims, but he issued a dire warning about the “immoral” consequences of decriminalizing child prostitution.
“Unfortunately, the reality is that the legalization of underage prostitution suffers from the fatal defect endemic to progressive-left policymaking: it ignores experience, common sense and most of all human nature — especially its darker side,” Allen explained.
“The unintended but predictable consequence of how the real villains — pimps and other traffickers in human misery — will respond to this new law isn’t difficult to foresee. Pimping and pandering will still be against the law whether it involves running adult women or young girls. But legalizing child prostitution will only incentivize the increased exploitation of underage girls. Immunity from arrest means law enforcement can’t interfere with minors engaging in prostitution — which translates into bigger and better cash flow for the pimps. Simply put, more time on the street and less time in jail means more money for pimps, and more victims for them to exploit.”
While Schilling devoted a mere two paragraphs of her article to a token defense of the law, the vast majority of her 17-paragraph araticle is devoted to Allen's attack and other criticism of it.
Because Schilling has no interest in balanced reporting or even facts, she failed to ttell the full story behind the bill and how it does not, in fact, legalize child prostitution, perhaps explained best by Wonkette:
Wow! So, we have to punish child victims in order to make things tougher for those who victimize them? No! We do not, actually, because the law still allows for sex-trafficked minors to be taken into custody or be declared a dependent child of the court. Meaning that these children can still be taken off the street, but they can’t be punished and thrown in jail themselves.
Additionally, this measure actually helps fight child sex-trafficking, and takes away the leverage pimps and sex-traffickers have to keep these minors in line — the “If I go to jail, so will you” leverage — and may result in trafficked minors seeking help from the police rather than avoiding them for fear of going to jail. Ta-Da!
This legislation is the result of a combined effort from the McCain Institute and the Human Rights Project For Girls, the “There’s No Such Thing As A Child Prostitute” campaign, designed to put the blame where it belongs in cases of child sex-trafficking, treating the pimps as criminals and the minors as the victims of sexual abuse that they are.
Pilot programs in Compton and Long Beach boasted great success and, rather than boosting the income of high-profile exploiters, resulted in their arrests. A similar measure in Los Angeles passed with bipartisan support.
It’s actually a really great program, and includes a new Law Enforcement First Responder Protocol for dealing with child victims of sex-trafficking that will hopefully become the national model. It encourages providing victims with community-based services and actually helping them, rather than treating them like criminals.
Sometime after Dec. 30, though, Schilling's byline was removed and that headline was detuned to "Lawmaker: California Democrats 'legalize child prostitution.'" Near as we can tell, the content of the article was not changed; however, this marks the second time in a month that a WND article was revised after publication to the point that the original author's byline was removed. Like previous offender Joe Kovacs, Schilling appears to still be a WND employee despite her history of misinformation and falsehoods.
But the first, sensational headline is the one that sticks. And mindshare -- even if it's not true -- appears to be all that financially struggling WND cares about these days.
CNS' Jones Takes Another Snide Swipe at Liberals Topic: CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com morning managing editor and snide reporter Susan Jones endeavors to interject bias into her articles any way she can -- whether it's slavish stenography for conservatives or snarky asides for liberals.
That explains Jones' Dec. 21 article, which telegraphs her partisanship right in the lede: "In these waning days of the Obama administration, the Department of Housing an Urban Development announced on Tuesday that it has awarded a record $1,953,210,272 to thousands of homeless assistance programs across the nation, including some in Puerto Rico, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands."
Does HUD awarding this money have any connection to "these waning days of the Obama administration"? Jones never explains. But it's a setup for her third-paragraph zing:
More than half of the money is going to programs in the 20 "blue" states plus the District of Columbia that voted for Hillary Clinton in November.
Excluding Puerto Rico, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, the total amount going to the 50 states and the District of Columbia is $1,933,264,877. And of that total, 59.00 percent -- $1,140,698,805 -- went to states won by Clinton.
But does that have anything to do with anything? Nope, as Jones concedes: "The awards have nothing to do with Clinton, but they do indicate that homelessness is more of a problem in blue states, some of them large and some of them small."
Shorter Jones: Just kidding! Suck it,b lue states!
And CNS' parent, the Media Research Center, has the gall to criticize other reporters for bias? The MRC should clean up its own house first.
WND's Jihad Against Keith Ellison Topic: WorldNetDaily
As a Muslim member of Congress, Keith Ellison has been a regulartarget of the ConWeb. Now that he's under consideration for Democratic National Committee chairman, the attacks are ratcheting up.
A leader of this is WorldNetDaily's chief Islamophobe, Leo Hohmann. He rants in a Dec. 25 article:
Evidence is mounting in support of the allegation that U.S. Rep. Keith Ellison, the nation’s first Muslim congressman and a leading candidate for chairman of the Democratic National Committee, is a Muslim Brotherhood operative and has been for years.
As a mouthpiece for that subversive organization, which Congress is considering declaring a terrorist organization, nothing Ellison says should be taken at face value, experts on the Brotherhood told WND.
This explains how he could speak before Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated groups like the Islamic Society of North America and later claim he has no relationship with the group. In fact, he was scheduled to address the annual convention of another Brotherhood offshoot, the Muslim American Society or MAS, on Tuesday but his name has suddenly disappeared from the list of convention speakers, reports the Investigative Project on Terrorism.
Hohmann's so-called "experts on the Brotherhood" are all Muslim-haters like him -- Chris Gaubatz, Mark Christian and the Investigative Project on Terrorism. And at no point does Hohmann prove Ellison is a "Muslim Brotherhood operative" -- all hedoes is note tangental links between Ellison and groups he claims are purportedly "affiliated" with or have "ties" to the Muslim Brotherhood.
Also, at no point does Hohmann explain what exactly the Muslim Brotherhood is or why he's using it as a bogeyman by trying to attach it to Ellison.
Hohmann goes on to conveniently claim that Ellison is not allowed to defend himself because Muslims should be presumed to be liars:
Given his ties to an international brotherhood whose stated goal is the spread of Shariah across the globe, can Ellison be taken at his word when he speaks to the media or on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives?
In fact, everything about Ellison’s public life, his support for far-left causes such as same-sex marriage and abortion on demand through the later stages of pregnancy, might be a smokescreen.
At best, he is a confused individual who doesn’t square his spiritual life with his political stances, which seem to be at odds with each other. Unless you understand Islamic law.
When his life is inspected under the lens of Sharia, maybe Keith Ellison isn’t such an enigma after all, says a former Islamic imam and expert on the Muslim Brotherhood.
To understand Ellison you have to understand Shariah, says Dr. Mark Christian, who converted to Christianity in 2005 and changed his name from Muhammad Abdullah, leaving behind a comfortable life in Egypt as part of a prominent Muslim family.
“So, does Sharia allow you to accept some stuff that is not Islamic in order to further the political agenda of Islam? Absolutely it does,” Christian told WND. It is based on a teaching that is called the code “necessity.”
“It is put upon any Muslim to make the decision to abide or not abide with any Islamic rules or regulations based on if it’s going to serve the cause of Islam,” he said. “If it’s going to protect the life of a Muslim, or protect the person himself, you have the right to make changes to the rules if you are going to protect yourself or your family or another person who is part of your brotherhood as a Muslim in this non-Muslim country, or if it is going to protect and advance the cause of Islam itself in this society.”
Hohmann's record of Muslim-hatred and rampantdishonesty gives us a much better basis to similarly presume Hohmann is lying than the presumption he gives to Ellison.
MRC Restarts the PR Machine For Upcoming Anti-Abortion Film Topic: Media Research Center
We've documented how the Media Research Center enthusiasticallyshilled for the crowdfunding campaign for Phelim McAleer's film about rogue abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell -- shilling for which McAleer appears to have paid the MRC, which bought its silence about where the money came from for McAleer to buy a billboard mocking one crowdfunding website for cutting off his campaign.
Well, that film is close to being release, which means the MRC must crank up the publicity machine once again.
Thus, we have a Dec. 2 article by Katie Yoder touting this "record-breaking abortion movie." But how can it be a "record-breaking" film if it hasn't been released yet? She's apparently referring to it being "the most successful crowdfunded movie on Indiegogo."
Yoder uncritically quotes McAleer making suspiciously evidence-free assertions about the film, such as how it purportedly hasn't found a distributor because it's "too controversial" ("Because of non-disclosure agreements, the producers didn’t name names," Yoder writes, but why would McAleer be contractually obligated not to reveal who's not distributing his film if there's no contract in the first place?) or that the film "has scored off the charts at test screenings. ... Test audiences in their feedback have cried and praised the storytelling but also praised the movie Gosnell for its accessibility."
Naturally, this leads to a conspiracy theory about why Hollywood won't touch his movie when it will make other films about abortion: "This is continuing the media cover-up – they don't want anything that asks difficult questions about abortion," McAleer is quoted as saying.
McAleer and Yoder don't broach the possiiblity that "Gosnell" is simply an amateurish, terrible film. Rewire saw an early version of the film, and notes that its apparent goal is to suggest that all abortion doctors are Gosnell wannabes:
Like any crudely made horror movie, the film seeks to achieve these ends by using the most gruesome aspects of an egregious crime to inflame passions. Sensational footage of “baby parts,” filthy conditions, and untrained assistants all are part of a movie that seeks to implicate abortion providers in the crimes of a felon whose practices were unquestionably and undeniably horrific and do not comport with standard or accepted medical practice of any kind, nor do they have anything to do with the clinics in which legal abortions are performed.
Like any good PR shill, Yoder makes sure to plug the ancillary products, noting that McAleer has written a companion book and "Regnery Publishing will release the book for sale on January 24th, although it is already available for pre-order on Amazon, Barnes & Noble and Books-A-Million."
McAleer is so invested in putting ideology first by turning Gosnell into a anti-abortion bogeyman that he's not going to tell the truth about the safety of the abortion prodecure, or that the vast majority of abortions take place before the 12th week and, thus, have nothing whatsover to do with the contents of his film.
Yoder, as McAleer's loyal stenographer, will continue to tell that story, because that's what she's getting paid to do -- either as part of her MRC job or by McAleer himself.
NEW ARTICLE: WND's Chief Islamophobe Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily reporter Leo Hohmann has been peddling hatred of Muslims with misleading and biased reporting, at one point effectively asking: Why should police investigate a crime when we can simply make assumptions if the perp is Muslim? Read more >>
CNS' Managing Editor Still Hates Gays, Loves Franklin Graham Topic: CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com managing editor Michael W. Chapman is perhaps known for two things: keeping CNS as biased as possible and an obsessive love for the hateful words of Franklin Graham. It's been a while since we checked in on his biased work, so we thought we'd take a look at his output over the last three months of 2016.
To nobody's surprise, Chapman's Franklin Graham obsession is still alive and well, with 15 of the 102 articles he wrote during that time dedicated to regurgitating Graham's words (and an additional post quoting Graham's father, Billy Graham).
The bigger surprise, though, is Chapman's embrace of virulently anti-LGBT rhetoric, with 13 posts quoting right-wing ministers and activists attacking gays and transgenders (two of which quoted Franklin Graham). A sampling:
Chapman's veering to the far-right fringe is perhaps best illustrated by two posts that uncritically quote the Zionist Organization of America, a far-right group that tolerates no criticism of Israel or its supporters and may be best known for promoting boycotts against its perdceived enemies that seem to have the unintended consequence of hurting Israel.
In a Nov. 23 post, Chapman highlighted how the ZOA demanded an apology fromHoward Dean for calling right-wingerand Trump adviser Steve Bannon "anti-Semitic." Chapman didn't mention ZOA's ideological bent (though he and the rest of his CNS employees are quick to identify the ideological leanings of liberal groups), nor did he mention that Bannon's ex-wife reportedly quoted Bannon during their divorce hearing as saying that Bannon didn't want his children "going to school with Jews." Bannon has denied this, but it's pertinent enough to this particular discussion that Chapman sould have mentioned it.
A Dec. 29 post by Chapman uncritically quoting ZOA ludicrously asserting that President Obama and U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power "have anti-Semitic hatred for Israel and the Jewish people" for failing to veto a U.N. Security Council resolution criticizing Israeli settlements in disputed areas of Jerusalem.
Trump's victory means we can expect CNS, under Chapman's leadership, to pull further to the right -- and since Chapman cares nothing about journalistic balance, it will pretend even more that non-right-wing opinions don't matter.
WND Columnist Digs Up Old Fake Child-Sex Scandal That Predates Pizzagate Topic: WorldNetDaily
Bradlee Dean doesn't mention Pizzagate in his Dec. 22 WorldNetDaily column, but he may as well have.
It starts off as his usual homophobic rant, irresponsibly and maliciously equating homosexuality and pedophilia while huffing that "National Geographic took the time to dare the justice of God by boasting of the confusion (Daniel 9:7) that is being laid onto the backs of America’s children through the exploitation of a 9-year-old boy on their front cover."
After more ranting about pedophile rings, Dean writes this Pizzagate-esque blather:
The widespread acts of pedophiles committed against our children by both corrupt clergy and corrupt politicians are rampant and unthinkable (Leviticus 18:22; 20:13; Matthew 18:7-9; Romans 1:24; Jude 1:7).
“Conspiracy of Silence” is a documentary that exposed a network of religious leaders and Washington politicians who flew children to Washington, D.C., for orgies. Many children suffered the indignity of wearing nothing but their underwear and a number displayed on a piece of cardboard hanging from their necks when being auctioned off to foreigners in Las Vegas, Nevada, and Toronto, Canada.
At the last minute, before airing, unknown congressmen threatened the TV Cable industry with restrictive legislation if this documentary was aired.
Almost immediately, unknown persons, who ordered all copies destroyed, purchased the rights to the documentary. A copy of this videotape was furnished anonymously to former Nebraska state senator and attorney John De Camp, who made it available to retired FBI Agent Ted L. Gunderson.
On May 3, 1994, the video embedded below was scheduled to air on the Discovery Channel. Influential members of Congress applied pressure to the cable industry to stop the airing of the program and destroy all copies.
It was already listed nationwide in the April 30th-May 6th edition of “TV Guide” and newspaper supplements.
The Discovery Channel and Yorkshire Television were reimbursed for the one-quarter to one-half million dollars in production costs.
The so-called scandal Dean is talking about came up as a side issue in the collapse of a credit union in Omaha, Nebraska. As the Wikipedia article on these allegations summarizes, the child trafficking allegations were found by local and federal grand juries to be a hoax possibly perpertrated by a vindictive employee fired by Boys Town, the refuge for troubled youths based in the area.
The story has perpetuated itself in part because, as an article at Medium explains, the mother of a 12-year-old boy who disappeared in a time frame convenient to the sex trafficking story believes it to be so and has surrounded herself with people who try to keep the story alive.
We could find no independent or reliable evidence to support Dean's claim that the "Conspiracy of Silence" about the alleged scandal was ever scheduled to air on the Discovery Channel or that its producers were ever reimbursed production costs, but since Dean embeds a YouTube video of the film in his column, the claim is a tad moot.
The scandal Dean writes about was Pizzagate before Pizzagate -- and just as discredited.
Russia and Putin Have A New ConWeb Friend in AIM's Kincaid Topic: Accuracy in Media
WorldNetDaily isn't the only ConWeb outlet that's been coming to Russia's defense over alleged U.S. election hacking. Vladimir Putin has another ConWeb friend in Accuracy in Media's Cliff Kincaid.
In October, the usually staunchly anti-communist Kincaid actually cheered Russia's intervention in the election -- as long as it shared his own goal of electing Donald Trump and stopping Hillary Clinton. But as accusations of Russian meddling continued to mount, Kincaid's defense of Russia got more aggressive.
On Dec. 12, Kincaid asserted that the CIA confirming Russian meddling in the election meant that it -- the CIA, that is -- was "out to get" Trump. He huffed: "Clearly, having an “intelligence” connection doesn’t mean you are intelligent or have good judgment. Making “America First” is not a requirement for serving in the CIA and other intelligence agencies. You can have numerous skeletons in your closet and even be a transgender." Kincaid further complained:
After he takes office, Trump should immediately clean house in the CIA and other intelligence agencies. But it may be the case that the charges being directed against him at the present time are designed to prevent just that. If Trump cleans house, he will be accused in the press of trying to purge intelligence officials with evidence of a Russian plot to elect Trump!
We know that the media picked sides in the presidential contest. Now we are seeing more evidence of how the CIA picked sides, to the point of engaging in what is an obvious effort to bring down the Trump presidency even before it begins.
The next day, Kincaid continued his blame-the-messenger strategy:
Common sense tells you that Moscow was perfectly content to let Hillary win, and probably thought she would win. After all, Hillary sold out America to Moscow’s interests with a Russian reset that failed and opened the door to more Russian aggression. Her State Department also sold American uranium assets to Moscow. She was the perfect Russian dupe.
This whole discussion in the media about the Russians backing Trump is fake news.
The obvious conclusion is that Brennan is on a mission to overturn the election through propaganda and disinformation. This is not only the last gasp of sore losers but represents corruption of the intelligence process.
If the purpose of the Russian hacking was to undermine confidence in the American democratic process, as some “experts” originally thought, Brennan’s CIA is doing a good job of that.
We suspect Kincaid would not have a problem with the CIA purportedly trying to overturn an election if Hillary Clinton had won.
In a Dec. 18 column, Kincaid went deeper into conspiracy mode:
Could it be that CIA Director John Brennan fears that Trump as president could order an investigation into what the CIA has been up to under President Obama? What could that be? Could the CIA have been interfering in foreign elections, and if so, could such efforts have provoked Russian retaliation?
The CIA will want to hide its hand, not because the evidence may implicate Russia in election interference, but because the evidence we do have demonstrates that the CIA is currently interfering in the results of the 2016 U.S. presidential election. That’s the story that cannot be told, and the one which threatens our democracy. The Times and Post are vehicles for this insidious effort.
We do know that CIA Director Brennan is a far-left extremist—just like Obama himself—who once voted for a Communist Party candidate, and whose sympathies for radical Islam are well-known. Questions persist about whether Brennan, an alumnus of Catholic Fordham University, converted to Islam and why he took his oath of office on a copy of the U.S. Constitution and not the Bible.
As we'venoted, there's no evidence whatsoever that Brennan has converted to Islam, and those who are peddling the claim, like John Guandolo, have no credibility.
On Dec. 22, Kincaid defended Trump's national security adviser-designate Michael T. Flynn for allegedly meeting with "a leader of the Austrian Freedom Party": "It would be a dereliction of duty for Flynn not to meet with such a figure and try to understand the nature of the political upheaval in Europe." Kincaid makes sure not to mention that the Austrian Freedom Party is a far-right party founded by former Nazis.
Kincaid then rants: "Liberal Democrats have been so busy accusing Donald J. Trump of being a Russian agent that they have missed the real Russian agent on the international scene—Germany’s Angela Merkel. Her pro-Muslim immigration policies have not only destabilized Europe and increased terrorism but have also facilitated the rise of the right-wing political parties our media have expressed alarm about."
Kincaid continued to attack Merkel by defending Russia:
More than two years ago we asked, “Is the German Chancellor an Agent of Russia?” Among other things, she had made Germany more dependent on Russian oil and gas by terminating Germany’s nuclear energy program. The refugee crisis adds to the suspicions about her real agenda.
Commentators who don’t want to face up to the evidence against Merkel instead claim that Putin is trying to undermine her.
Trump, for his part, would like to stop the refugee flow and stabilize the Middle East. He seems to think he can work with Russia. But Merkel and the Russians have other ideas. Trump’s military advisers such as Lt. Gen. Flynn have to understand the correlation of forces they are facing. That’s why Flynn’s meeting with the leader of the Austrian Freedom Party is necessary and important.
In his Dec. 26 column, Kincaid whined that the Obama administration hasn't released sufficient proof of Russian hacking, declaring its evidence so far "very weak and vague in key respects." (We figure that, just like the birthers, no amount of evidence would be sufficient for Kincaid.) He pushed another conspiracy theory, that "the Obama administration decided to blame the Russians only after Trump won the election, perhaps for the purpose of complicating the foreign relations priorities of the President-elect."
But as others have noted, Obama did bring up Russian hacking before the election, but if Obama had been more forceful on the issue before the election, he would have been accused of interfering with the election -- something Kincaid would undoubtedly have been at the front lines on.
To sum up: Kincaid will always bash Obama and defend Trump -- even if he has to praise a foreign dictator to do it. That's how messed up Kincaid's loyalties are.
WND Keeps Coming to Russia's Defense Over Election Hacking Topic: WorldNetDaily
Did financially struggling WorldNetDaily get bought by the Russians while we weren't looking? Because WND has sure been heavily covering for Russia over allegation of meddling in the U.S. presidential election.
Garth Kant's Dec. 30 WND article on President Obama expelling several Russian officials from the U.S. over the hacking insists that Obama "has presented no evidence that it happened." He also tries to muddy the issue by claiming that "Not only has the administration produced no evidence Russia ever tampered with the actual vote, no one in the intelligence community ever even claimed that happened" -- ignoring the fact that nobody is claiming Russians tampered with "the actual vote."
Jerome Corsi goes the change-the-subject route in a Dec. 30 article:
President Obama’s punishment of Russia for allegedly hacking the emails of Democratic Party operatives to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election ignores at least two important facts.
For one, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, whose hacktivist organization released the thousands of emails that shed damaging light on Hillary Clinton and her allies, denied the Russians were the source.
In addition, the Obama administration has developed a reputation for manipulating intelligence for political purposes.
Corsi offers no reason why Assange should be trusted by anyone. He also doesn't mention that back in 2010 friends of WND like G. Gordon Liddy wanted Assange dead.
Leo Hohmann tried to dismiss Russian meddling as 1) unknowable and 2) normal business between countries in a Dec. 31 article:
Whether Russia truly did try to influence U.S. presidential elections in November, as President Obama, Hillary Clinton and several high-profile Republicans claim, may never be known.
But, if it did happen, it wouldn’t be the first time the government of one country tried to influence the elections of another, and rarely do these interventions result in sanctions of the type Obama has imposed on Russia.
In fact, Obama himself has been accused of such meddling on at least two occasions involving elections in Israel in 2015 and the U.K’s Brexit vote in June.
On the flip side, Obama’s severe reaction to claims of Russian “hacking” are in stark contrast from his treatment of China, whom he accused last year of being the culprit in a massive hack of a U.S. government database containing personal information on 4 million current and former federal workers. No sanctions there, only a brief verbal reprimand for China.
There is concern that some of the information that was tapped could be used to aid the espionage operations of China, “which quickly emerged as the likely source of the hack,” reported CBS News on June 5, 2015.
But first, let’s look at the Obama administration’s interventions in the internal politics of Israel and Britain.
The "intervention" into Israel Hohmann cites wasn't one at all -- just the old misleading story about the State Department funding funding a technological infrastructure for a Israeli group's campaign to support peace negotiations between Israel and Palestine that was later used in a campaign to unseat right-wing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu -- which Hohmann dramatically and laughably declared to be "Obama’s assault on the integrity of the Israeli elections." As we pointed out, no laws were violated, the organization did not violate any conditions of its deal with State, and no State Department money went toward funding the anti-Netanyahu campaign.
The other "intervention" example Hohmann cites is an Obama speech in London opposing the Brexit campaign. No, really -- Hohmann thinks a speech is the same thing as Russian hacking of campaign emails.
MRC Defends False Fox News Attack on Food Stamps Topic: Media Research Center
The headline of Nicholas Fondacaro's Dec. 29 Media Research Center post complains, "MSNBC Analyst Smears Conservatives as Racist for Caring About Food Stamp Fraud." He complains further:
MSNBC’s Ari Melber was up in arms Wednesday night, as he filled in on The Rachel Maddow Show, at Fox News for daring to report that food stamp fraud was up to roughly $70 million in 2016. But the outrage at Fox gave way to outrage at the white working class for falling for the racist “dog whistle” of caring about said fraud. “Why is this all coming up again now,” he inquired to his radical leftist guest Joan Walsh from The Nation.
“Well, why now is because we have Fox News, which is awaiting a President Donald Trump by rerunning their greatest hits,” she declared, “I mean, Fox has done this before. They did it under Obama. They chased this idea of food stamp fraud.” Walsh completely wrote off the facts and pretending like the fraud was not happening, while smearing everyone who brought it up as racist:
Ironically, the whole discussion was started when Melber claimed that Fox News had lied about the $70 million in food stamp fraud. Melber claimed that MSNBC called the Agriculture Department and were told they didn’t know the origin of the number. He cited the radical leftist website Mother Jones as a “fact checker” who found “There's zero evidence that fraud is at an all-time high.”
But according to a Washington Post piece criticizing the Fox News report, the number is not an issue but arguing it requires the end of the program is.
Actually, according to an update of that Washington Post article, the number is, in fact, an issue. The Post's Erik Wemple reports that the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which administers the food stamp program, was seeking a correction from Fox News because the $70 million number seems to have been plucked out of nowhere.
And as Wemple also points out -- but Fondacaro doesn't admit because it destroys his attack on Mother Jones as a "radical leftist website" who can't be trusted -- food stamp fraud is not at a record. The latest numbers available show fraud is around 1 percent of the program, down from 4 percent in the 1990s.
The USDA got its correction: Fox News has admitted the $70 million number is incorrect and that "nationally food stamp trafficking is on the decline." Will Fondacaro do the same by admitting by defending Fox News, he's defending a false claim?
WND's Loudon Credits Trump for Saving Christmas Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily columnist Gina Loudon has been more than a DonaldTrumpfangirl -- she has seen him in near-messianic terms, once declaring that "Donald Trump is the candidate we have been waiting for all these years since Ronald Reagan."
Trump's election victory has sent Loudon into new heights of idol worship, even as she spends part of her Dec. 25 column denying that she does such a thing. Witness Loudon discrediting her own defense of herself:
I detest sycophants. I don’t even like fans. I don’t worship people. I love my children and my husband, but I don’t idolize any of them. I have never been star-struck meeting a Hollywood A-lister or even Charles Krauthammer or Phil Robertson!
I am ethnically Jewish, so traditions are sacred to me. I serve a living Savior, Jesus Christ, and I celebrate His birthday every day, and especially at Christmas time. I don’t care if it’s the “right day.” I got over legalism a long time ago, too.
All of that is why I hesitate to say what I want to say in this column: Thank you for restoring Christmas, President-elect Donald Trump.
I was shocked by his humility in person, and his thoughtful answer to my questions. But more than that, I was shocked that he stayed much longer than any other candidate to mingle with press and people. He didn’t limit his rope line to the elite media, like the rest did. He stayed until the last blogger got his question in, and until the last small-town radio reporter had his mic touched unknowingly by the breath of a future president.
It was in that moment that I had what was tantamount to a vision, as best I can describe it. I realized that any of the other primary candidates, no matter how much I liked them, would need to sell their souls to accrue the money it would take for the establishment elite to “let” them have it. As the wife of a former senator from Missouri, I knew the deviousness of the establishment all too well. Trump’s independent wealth could, well, Trump that.
Then I thought of the guttural honesty Trump seemed unable to avoid. How refreshing I found him to be, even when he made me bristle. Honesty was something I thought was lost on American politics forevermore. But he was saying what many were thinking, and even though his political neophytism was glaring, he seemed to be learning at breakneck pace. As a university teacher and a homeschool mom of five, I recognize a “teachable spirit,” and I saw it in Mr. Trump.
Loudon concludes by suggesting that Trump really is the Messiah:
This Christmas, there are a few Trump Tower shopping bags under our tree, and a special spring in our step as we celebrate a God so infinitely capable of moving His hand if we will only humble ourselves, and pray, and seek His face (II Chronicles 7:14).
That is our plan this Christmas. It has never felt so good to say Merry Christmas, because I believe now that the overreaching government won’t take it from us and replace it with something agnostic or satanic.
Thank you, Mr. Trump, and the Trump family and staff, and to all of you who sacrificed to elect this president to restore our hope this year. Thank you to my family and friends, who fought and waited and waited and fought. And thank you most of all to the One and Only True God, who uses the weak to confound the wise, and the flawed to reprove those who believe they are blameless.
“For you see your calling, brethren, that not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called. But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty; and the base things of the world and the things which are despised God has chosen, and the things which are not, to bring to nothing the things that are, that no flesh should glory in His presence” (1 Corinthians 26-29).
“For unto us is born this day, in the City of David, a Savior who is Christ the LORD!” (Isaiah 9:6). Amen.
Merry Christmas, in every way!
This is the level of Trump-fluffing we have to look forward to from WND and its writers over the next four years.
Move over, transgenders. There’s a new kid in town.
Huffington Post reported that Billions will make “TV history” for featuring the first gender non-conforming star in a mainstream show. Showtime, Billions host network, has a history of pushing boundaries with its leading characters. Season seven of Shameless included a major character who was transgender, played by a transgender actor.
Billions new star is the next politically correct step for the network. Asia Kate Dillon, from Orange Is the New Black and Master of None, has been cast as Taylor, the new intern at the hedge fund run by billionaire Bobby “Axe” Axelrod. In addition to, and probably more importantly than, her prowess at navigating the financial world, Taylor identifies as gender non-conforming.
From Law & Order, Chicago Med, Star, and others, the networks have been following the Hollywood agenda and making transgender characters an ordinary occurrence onscreen. If normalizing non-gender characters are the subsequent item on the to-do list, one can only wonder who (or what) will be next.
McKneely does not explain why transgenders and the gender non-conforming must be denounced in the media as abnormal.
The transgender child on the cover of National Geographic resulted in predictable outrage from Melissa Mullins:
Transgender, cisgender, gender nonconforming, genderqueer, agender, or whatever name you want to call it, this “fluidity” seems to be the trending topic covered in the media these days – and although it may appear an unlikely outlet for such a topic, National Geographic is the latest to jump on the bandwagon by featuring a nine year old transgender girl by the name of Avery Jackson on the cover of its upcoming issue. If you are unaware of the aforementioned names, no worries – the upcoming issue comes complete with a glossary of more than 20 terms redefining gender.
Mullins went on to huff that despite national Geographic being absorbed into Rupert Murdoch's empire, "the magazine can still be a progressive darling….even as its claims to respect 'science' go up in smoke in the pursuit of political correctness, declaring gender is a 'spectrum.'" Mullins doesn't explain how "science" doesn't show that gender is not a spectrum.
The Washington Post easily proves it's a secular liberal newspaper at Christmas time. On Friday, the Post promoted a "dragapella" quartet mocking Christmas (and the incoming administration) in two different sections of the paper, in the Style section and in the Weekend tabloid. In Style, theatre critic Celia Wren hailed the Kinsey Sicks and their show "Oy Vey in a Manger!" at the D.C. Jewish Community Center.
Yes, it seems Graham really had nothing better to do on Christmas than complain about this.
Sarah Stites was upset that a story about a transgender boy who's being prohibited from joining the Boy Scouts is getting media attention, whining, "The fact that Boy Scout membership is limited to males has not always been newsworthy. However, in the current media landscape, such a 'controversial' claim garnered three minutes of network airtime and copious online news coverage."
Stites further fretted that the Boy Scouts of America may "buckle from the pressure of media and activist groups." She's also worried that Scouts for Equality, which "was partially responsible for pushing BSA to lift its national bans on gay scouts and leaders in 2015," is weighing in on this issue and will "force" BSA to make a decision on the issue.
And Graham and Brent Bozell ranted about non-straight people in the media in their Dec. 31 "cultural winners and losers" column:
Winner: Transgender propaganda products. The Danish Girl, a fictionalized account of the first man to undergo a sex change operation, led to an Oscar for Alicia Vikander, who played the man’s supportive wife. The Amazon web show Transparent was showered with TV awards again. ABC’s Modern Family made “history” by featuring an eight-year-old girl (“transgender boy”) to raise our awareness of “gender fluidity.”
Leave it to LGBT-haters like Graham and Bozell to insist that portraying transgender people as actual humans and not freaks is "propaganda."
More Fake News: WND Misleads About Obama's Executive Orders Topic: WorldNetDaily
Bob Unruh rants in a Dec. 20 WorldNetDaily article:
Barack Obama, who once threatened, “I’ve got a pen and I’ve got a phone” to impose executive orders, is telling his soon-to-be successor Donald Trump that he really shouldn’t be using executive orders that much.
In fact, in an interview with NPR, he went on and on about it.
Fox News described Obama, who repeatedly has turned to the executive pen to impose major changes across America, such as a rule requiring that building owners allow men to use women’s restrooms when they say they are women, and more, as “pen-happy.”
What Unruh curiously fails to do: tell readers exactly how many executive orders Obama has issued and how that stacks up with previous presidents, despite ambiguously stating far down in his article that "statistics reveal that Obama has not issued significantly more executive orders that other recent presidents."
Turns out that's false. As of December 20, Obama has issued 266 executive orders. By contrast, George W. Bush issued 291 executive orders. If Obama's numbers stay steady, Obama will have issued the fewest executive orders of any president who served two full terms since the 19th century and slowest pace of executive order issuance since William McKinley.
The only concrete number Unruh bothers to serve up is an irrelevant claim that "Over the years, Republican presidents have issued 7,122 executive orders, and Democrat presidents 8,337." But that number is skewed by the fact that one president, Franklin Roosevelt, issued 3,721 executive orders durng his presidency, which spanned a little thing called World War II.
(If we wanted to play the same game WND is by selectively counting votes for Hillary Clinton to paper over the fact she got more votes than Donald Trump did, we could point out that if you don't count FDR, Democratic presidents issued only 4,616 executive orders, far less than Republicans.)
In other words, the entire premise of Unruh's article lacks a foothold in reality. But what else do you expect from a top fake-news provider?
CNS censored the fact that a poll it touted feating results friendly to anti-abortion activists was condicted by an anti-abortion group and a right-wing polling firm run by Trump campaign manager Kellyanne Conway.
CNS censored a statement by President Obama on persecuted Christmas because it contracted its partian agenda of attacking Obama for purportedly not caring enough about Christians.
CNS attacked Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer's criticism of Senate Republicans obstructing President Obama's final Supreme Court pick but censored the fact that Schumer's suggestion of a similar obstruction to a potential Bush pick, but censored the fact that Schumer was speaking hypothetically and that Repubicans attacked Schumer's suggestion just as Shumer criticized Republicans' obstruction.
CNS touted a Republican congressman's denouncing of the purported findings in the Center for Medical Progress' misleadingly edited attack videos on Planned Parenthood, but censored the fact that the congressman knew about the videos weeks before he spoke out about them.
CNS censored the Josh Duggar sex scandal when it first broke, later covering the scandal involving the right-wing-friendly family only when the story became too big to ignore.
CNS censored flaws in a study attacking immigrants to the U.S, then censored arguably racist statements by one of the study's co-authors.
CNS touted the Benghazi movie "13 Hours," but censored the fact that the film tanked at the box office.
Too bad CNS isn't so sick of censored news that it can be moved to do anything about its own.