CNS' Pro-Trump Bias Descends Into Parody Topic: CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com has always had a pronounced pro-Trump bias, but former FBI director James Comey's testimony before Congress has sent the Media Research Center "news" operation into new heights of pro-Trump fervor (if only to distract from the growing scandals around Trump).
After Comey released a copy of his opening statement, chief Trump fangirl Susan Jones served up a hilariously creative interpretation of it -- presented as "news" -- that portrays Trump as a victim, claming that Comey's statement "shows that President Donald Trump became increasingly frustrated by the ongoing Russia investigation, not because he had anything to hide, but because the leaks and media speculation were interfering with his ability to get things done for the country."
Jones counterfactually insisted that "Comey's statement does not back up the liberal media speculation that Trump may have obstructed justice by asking Comey to drop or back-off the Russia investigation or the investigation of Michael Flynn." Jones also referenced the notorious Trump dossier claiming that "Trump had engaged in perverted sexual acts with prostitutes during a trip to Russia"; Jones called the dossier "unsubstantiated and frankly ridiculous." We'll agree with the former; the latter is opinion not backed up by reality that has no business in a "news" article.
Jones followed that with a pre-hearing screed -- also falsely presented as "news" -- under the headline "Liberal Media That Are Out to Get Trump Run Eager Headlines on Thursday":
With the Comey circus in town on Thursday, Washington is a-quiver with anticipation that the former FBI director might/could, will-he/won't-he (please-oh-please) hand investigators evidence of criminality on the part of President Trump.
Former FBI Director James Comey's written statement to the Senate intelligence committee, released on Wednesday, drew cries of somber outrage from Democrats -- "Obstruction of justice!" "Crossing a line!" "Unethical!" "Unprecedented!" "Inappropriate!" -- but no calls for handcuffs just yet.
Several Democrats on Thursday morning stopped short of saying Trump's conversations with Comey amount to obstruction of justice. They told cable news shows they'd leave the legalities to federal prosecutors.
Here are some of the headlines and front-page blurbs from newspapers and cable channels that have been trying to undermine Trump since his election:
Jones used yet another purported "news" article to whine: "As Congress and the liberal media chase Russia-Trump conspiracy theories, the people’s business languishes."
CNS was on post-hearing spin patrol as well, focusing heavily on doing stories that claim to clear Trump and make Comey look bad:
Jones then passed the ridiculously-biased-commentary talking stick to blogger Craig Bannister. First, he parroted a Republican congressman's silly parsing of Trump's reported statement that he hoped Comey would drop the FBI investigationinto former national security adviser Michael Flynn, cheering that the congressman "got Comey to admit that 'hoping' is not a crime - yet." But as observers less slavishly devoted to protecting Trump have noted, a threat does not have to be explicit to be clear, and people have been convicted of obstruction charges for making an "I hope" statement.
Bannister followed that up with a crude smear job relying on out-of-context words to portray Comey as an incompetent FBI director:
In Senate testimony Thursday, James Comey portrayed himself as someone who was “confused,” “stunned,” lacking “presence of mind” and not “strong” enough during his tenure as FBI director.
Comey also pleaded ignorance, declaring “I don’t know” on 45 different occasions during his appearance in the Senate Intelligence Committee hearing looking into his dealings with President Donald Trump regarding Russia and the 2016 election.
While Comey repeatedly said he was “confused” by his firing, he painted a picture of himself as an FBI director who was unsure of himself while in office. Nine times in his testimony, Comey referred to himself as “confused.” Twice, he called himself “stunned,” and he twice said he didn’t have the “presence of mind” to do his job properly.
Surprisingly, CNS did not play this as "news" but as a blog post. But as we've seen, that's a diestinction without a difference at CNS.
Hypocrisy: WND Praises Christians for Forcing Schools To Accomodate Their Religion -- Then Bashes Muslims For Doing Same Thing Topic: WorldNetDaily
We've detailed how WorldNetDaily freaks out when Muslims use the same religious discrimination laws its praises Christians for using. That hypocritical double standard has extended to school accomodations for religion.
Muslim-hater Leo Hohmann intones in a June 4 WND article:
High schools across America are being pressured to offer time off school, in-school prayer rooms, and special dietary demands by Muslim students observing the Islamic holy month of Ramadan.
One campus in Brooklyn has agreed not to serve food at its prom until after sundown while another school in upstate New York is setting up prayer rooms to satisfy the demands of students who observe Ramadan.
Among the Muslim groups agitating for special privileges for Muslim students are the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the Muslim Student Association and Sound Vision.
But the day before Hohmann's article was published, WND's Bob Unruh was praising a right-wing Christian group for forcing a school to make time for Christian instruction:
A public school district that dropped a plan allowing students to be excused from school for a short period for religious teachings now has reversed course.
WND reported last month the practice of “released time” is authorized in Michigan state law and has the endorsement of both the Michigan Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court, but the district in Fremont, Michigan, was banning the activity.
Mlive.com reports, however, the district has changed direction.
WND reported the Alliance Defending Freedom had written a letter to the Fremont, Michigan, school districtabout the cancellation.
“Public schools shouldn’t defy the law simply to appease an ill-informed person’s complaint,” Timothy Denney, the author of the letter and one of nearly 3,200 attorneys allied with ADF, wrote at the time. “If a parent provides a permission slip, release of a student for religious instruction is mandatory, not optional.”
Hohmann went on to bring his fellow Muslim-haters to attack schools for accomodating Muslims:
The advancement of Islam in public schools is not going to slow down unless non-Muslim parents take an active stance against it, says anti-Shariah activist Pamela Geller.
“We need to hit this on all fronts. This should be a multi-pronged effort,” Geller told WND. “I hope the Trump administration will get involved, but we will never overcome this without energetic grassroots activism.”
University and college campuses have long been compromised and bought off with jihad millions. Now grade schools, junior and senior high schools are in the sights of the enemy. Common Core proselytizes for Islam, and the real history of jihadi wars, land appropriations, annihilations and enslavements is scrubbed from school textbooks. High schools offer senior electives called “Islam and the Modern World,” requiring students to purchase the notorious Islamic apologist John Esposito’s The Straight Path.
Robert Spencer, author of the Jihad Watch blog for the David Horowitz Freedom Center, agrees that short of greater parental engagement with school officials, the Islamization of American schools will march forward.
Meanwhile, WND is actively encouraging the Christianization of public schools. Just last month, Unruh was cheering that a substitute teacher "fired for giving a student a Bible" got his job back.
WND's hypocrisy would be appalling if it weren't so despressingly routine.
MRC Admits 'Far-Left' Label Unfair, Designed to Smear Topic: Media Research Center
You gotta love it when the Media Research Center inadvertently gives away the game. Tim Graham does just that in a June 5 post when he complains that "Liberals generally avoid any reference to a 'far left,' since that would unfairly make Democrats sound synonymous with communists."
Unfairly making Democrats sound synonymous with communists, though, is precisely the point of the MRC's promiscuoususe of "far left" to label anything and everything it doesn't like.
Ironically, in addition to coming after he had already labeled the Southern Poverty Law Center "far-left," Graham's complaint comes in the midst of whining that NPR is doing the same thing the MRC does in alleged overuse of a descriptor: "NPR had no problem using 'far right' to describe murderous white nationalists on Sunday and the 'Texas Freedom Caucus,' a group of conservative Republican state legislators in Austin, on Saturday."
Of course, Graham never explains the difference between conservative (in further irony, a label the MRC has also railedagainst) and "far right," or why the Texas Freedom Caucus is not the latter.
If Graham did that, he would then also have to explain why the MRC insists on labeling any remotely non-conservative person or group "far left." But he's a terrible media critic, so he doesn't want to have to defend his methods -- or explain why he's hypocritically bashing someone else for something he himself does.
WND Columnist Mad Some Are Doing To Trump What He Did To Obama Topic: WorldNetDaily
Erik Rush writses in his May 31 WorldNetDaily column:
An aspect of the political left’s modus operandi that has been articulated by conservatives for quite some time is that of their inability to be forthright regarding their true agenda. The reason for this is the fact that such candidness would result in all but their most ideological supporters heading for the proverbial hills; in such a scenario, Democrats would have a very difficult time getting elected anywhere, at least at the national level.
By way of an object lesson, one can handily point to the spate of preposterous allegations leveled against President Donald Trump by liberals on an almost hourly basis since his election last November. From the utterly baseless claim that the Trump camp colluded with the Russian government to fix the election, to the alleged significance of a tweet by the president that contained a typographical error, it is clear that the left is prepared to glom onto absolutely anything that has the potential to diminish Trump in Americans’ eyes.
Preposterous allegations leveled against the president? Rush knows all about that, since he spent the past eight years making preposterous allegations against President Obama. We remember when Rush likened Obama to a "cellblock rapist," insisted that Malcolm X is Obama's real father and claimed that Obama himself orchestrated the attack on Benghazi.
So, yeah, Rush is projecting bigly here. But he's not done:
Like the Nazis, Soviets and other oppressive regimes, the political left (liberals, progressives, socialists) knew they had to rely on abject falsehoods and other dirty tricks their political opponents were too principled to employ in order to advance their malignant designs.
So, how can those on the left reconcile using such patently immoral tactics “in good conscience”? It is because they possess a deep-seated belief that their political opponents (conservatives, libertarians, constitutionalists) are so fundamentally evil that any and all measures must be employed to neutralize them.
Just this year alone, more than 50 people have been killed protesting the heartbreaking malpractice of Venezuela’s socialist dictatorship. According to the IMF, inflation will surpass 700% this year, while unemployment will hit 25%; shortages of necessities such as food and medicine are rampant. The socialist president has cracked down on any opposition, and used the Venezuelan Supreme Court to nullify the election of an opposition-controlled Congress.
Yet the Big Three evening newscasts have tried to pretend this crisis does not exist, offering virtually no coverage as the situation has deteriorated over the past four years. A new study by the Media Research Center found that from March 2013 (after the death of strongman Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez) through May 29, 2017, the ABC, CBS and NBC evening news shows have aired a mere 25 stories, totaling 28 minutes, 39 seconds of coverage — barely 30 seconds per month — to the rapidly worsening situation in Venezuela. In this same time period, approximately 50,000 individual news stories on other topics aired on these broadcasts (our Bias by the Minute database shows a little more than 1,000 stories per month, and the time frame looks at slightly more than 50 months).
The networks have also been reluctant to attach the “socialist” label to Venezuela’s government, and have utterly failed to criticize liberal politicians and celebrities who have praised the Chavez and Maduro regimes.
Despite calling himself a "research analyst" for the MRC, Ciandella apparently failed to do the most basic bit of analysis for this piece: whether socialism is, in fact, to blame for the crisis in Venezuela.
As we've pointed out before when the MRC made this argument about the increasingly dire situation in Venezuela, actual economic experts say that the fault lies more with a plunge in oil prices in an economy based on oil exports, a mismanaged economy and rampant corruption and cronyism in the Venezuelan government than with socialism in and of itself.
Ciandella offers no evidence to back up his contention that socialism is the sole cause of the Venezuelan crisis. Instead, he seems to think that because the government there called itself socialist, it must be and, thus, must be the reason it failed.
Ciandella is simply assuming that his very narrow selection of media failed to sufficiently mention "socialism" in regard to Venezuela because it's biased. Since Ciandella failed to do his basic homework for this study, he does not consider the possibility that they did and, thus, they know that socialism is not the sole cause.
And that is how the MRC uses its kneejerk right-wing bias to botch another "study."
WND Is In The Non-Story Phase of Its Seth Rich Obsession Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily's cynical, politically motivated exploitation of Seth Rich's death has now reached the non-story phase, where WND is trying to play up anything -- no matter how devoid of news value -- just to keep the conspiracy going. And WND reporter Alicia Powe has been the responsibility to flog this story into the ground.
First up, Powe was apparently forced to bulk-email members of Congress for comment on the Rich non-story:
WND has asked 125 members of Congress to weigh in on the unsolved murder of DNC staffer Seth Rich, and not a single representative has agreed to address the case.
Only five members replied to WND’s request for an interview. All five declined.
The next day, Powe wrote of a White House petition in which "nearly 50,000 Americans are now urging President Trump to press for an official investigation into the unsolved murder of DNC staffer Seth Rich. Powe makes sure to point out that 100,000 signatures are needed to get a response from the White House, and her article is littered with links to the petition.
The petition, by the way, says it was "created by J.F." Is that WND editor Joseph Farah? He's not above doing such self-promotion.
In her latest article, Powe writes a second story whining about the fact that Rich's hospital records are sealed under federal law and that no matter how much she harasses local hospitals about it, they won't tell her where Rich was treated after the apparent botched robbery attempt that killed him. Still, Powe is in full conspiracy mode anyway:
It’s perhaps the simplest question in the Seth Rich murder mystery that everyone involved in the case won’t answer: What hospital admitted and treated the DNC staffer before a physician pronounced him dead on that fateful morning of July 10, 2016?
Now emergency responders, along with police and two local hospitals, are refusing to answer that basic question.
And the D.C. Office of the Chief Medical Examiner has reportedly refused to release Rich’s autopsy report.
Because it's none of your business, Alicia. You (and your bosses) don't seem to undersdtand that basic fact of privacy.
Local officials' refusal to violate federal law in order to placate malicious conspiracy-mongerers is not a story, and Powe and WND should stop pretending otherwise.
MRC's War on Reza Aslan Continues, Now With More Ranting Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Reserarch Center is still raging at CNN host Reza Aslan for criticizing Donald Trump, sending out tweets every hour on the hour demanding that CNN fire him. (As we've detailed, the MRC was much more chill about Rush Limbaugh being just as vulgar toward Sandra Fluke.) But manufacturing outrage just isn't getting the job done, so the MRC has decided to be even more shrill.
A June 5 post touts how the MRC's Tim Graham made a "must-see joke" -- touted on the front page of NewsBusters as a "funny joke" -- about Aslan and CNN's failure to capituate to the MRC by immediately firing him during an appearance on (of course) Fox Business. Pro tip: If you have to sell your joke by telling people that it's "funny," it probably isn't. Indeed, we watched the segment and didn't laugh once.
Meanwhile, MRC chief Brent Bozell gets all ranty again in an open letter to CNN president Jeff Zucker:
For CNN to continue to do business with someone so vile as Mr. Aslan after Kathy Griffin's sickening stunt is tantamount to announcing to conservatives that you consider them nothing more than a basket of deplorables. If, Mr. Zucker, you want to do the right thing and correct this notion, you must immediately end CNN's relationship with Mr. Aslan and apologize for the disgrace he has brought to your network.
Bozell didn't make any similar appeal to dignity to Rush Limbaugh's syndicator.
Graham and Bozell then combine their rantiness for a June 7 column rehashing their previous rants and whining that Aslan "really doesn't like conservative Republicans." Limbaugh doesn't like liberal women, but Graham and Bozell are totally down with Limbaugh being vile toward them.
CNS Managing Editor Pushes More Anti-Gay Hate Topic: CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com managing editor Michael W. Chapman just loves to write blog posts spewing hatred at gays for, well, existing. Well, he's at it again.
In a May 26 post, Chapman regurgitates right-wing minister Franklin Graham's rant attacking the New England Patriots for sponsoring a team in the "Gay Bowl" flag football tournament. Chapman then adds, without attribution or proof: "The clear agenda of the Gay Bowl is to promote homosexuality, lesbianism, and transgenderism and endorse the gay way of life. Through flag football, sports, this agenda is easily targeted to children and families."
The same day, Chapman wrote another post touting how "strong majorities of male adults, weekly church goers, conservatives, and Republicans" think no new laws to protect the LGBT community are needed.Chapman then served up his own biased definitions of transgender-related terms:
Birth gender refers to the biological, anatomical sex of a person at birth, male or female. Gender identity refers to the gender a person chooses to follow regardless of biology and genetics. A transgender is a person who believes they are the opposite sex of their biology, e.g., Bruce "Caitlyn" Jenner, a biological male who thinks he is a woman and has had breast implants, hormone treatments, and had his genitalia surgically altered to look like a vagina.
Chapman doesn't explain why he's so obsessed with Jenner's genitalia.
On June 1, Chapman published a post dutifully highlighting the anti-gay rantings of tennis legend Margaret Court, who complained that "tennis is full of lesbians" and that gays are "after our young ones" and "behind that bullying program in schools." After noting "gay critics" of Court like Billie Jean King and Martina Navratilova," Chapman parenthetically added: "Court beat Billie Jean King in four Grand Slam finals, and beat Martina Navratilova in two other matches."
This sort of stuff makes Chapman the face of the gay-hating right at the Media Research Center (not to mention a lead example of why CNS has no credibility as a news organization). Apparently, he's quite cool with that.
WND Columnist Rants Against Early Voting Topic: WorldNetDaily
Brent Smith devotes his May 29 WorldNetDaily column to a tirade against early voting:
Still, the early-voting craze did not catch fire until the contentious presidential race of 2000, between George W. Bush and Earth’s best friend, Al Gore. Democrats from Gore down to the state and district level in Florida did their best to steal the election, but they just couldn’t pull it off.
It was said by some on left that the 2000 election was proof that Election Day-only voting was just too chaotic. It would wiser to allow for early voting. As liberal Paul Gronke, a professor of political science at equally liberal Reed College and founder and director of the completely partisan Early Voting Information Center said, early voting would reduce “the pressures on election officials on Election Day” and “the likelihood of long lines or polling place problems.” It was after that when states began to enact laws to allow for early cheating, uh, I mean, voting.
In 2016, 37 states and the District of Columbia allowed early voting, and over 36 percent of voters (and others) took advantage. In some cases votes were cast almost a month ahead of time. As we just witnessed in Montana – a lot can happen in that month’s time, leading some voters to regret the decision to vote early.
We constitutionalists have never been fans of early voting. It promotes opportunities to cheat and otherwise game the system, which is why Democrats are all for it. My personal view is that you have two years, minimum, to plan to vote on Election Day. Most polls open at 7 a.m. and stay open until 8 p.m. If you can’t find the time to stumble into a polling place on that day, frankly, you don’t deserve to vote.
Strangely, thouygh Smith insists that early voting is "cheating" and "promotes opportunities to cheat and otherwise game the system," he provides no actual evidence that any cheating or system-gaming has ever happened because of it.
Instead, he offers up only "that's the way we've always done it" and potential "regret." Those similarly empty claims are merely proof that Smith doesn't have an actual argument to make.
MRC -- Which Gave Limbaugh's Vulgar Slurs A Pass -- Attacks Reza Aslan Topic: Media Research Center
In 2012, when conservative darling Rush Limbaugh spsent three days hurling every denigrating, sleazy insult he could think of at Sandra Fluke for committing the alleged offense of advocating for birth control in public -- including "slut" and "prostitute" -- the Media Research Center gave him a pass, insisting that we should just accept Limbaugh's meager, self-serving apology and just move on. The MRC even rewarded Limbaugh's foul-mouthed tirade of misogyny by building an "I Stand With Rush" website, even as Brent Bozell's employees were doing their best (or worst) Limbaugh imitation by tossing their own slurs at Fluke.
All of which makes the MRC's current jihad against CNN host Reza Aslan -- part of its revenge campaign to cover up the fact that others do much better media campaigns that it does -- utterly cynical and hollow.
The MRC is upset that Aslan tweeted -- not said on CNN's air, tweeted -- that President Trump is a "piece of shit" for exploiting the weekend's terror attack in London to push his travel ban. The MRC post by P.J. Gladnick on Aslan's tweet left out that context, instead bizarrely attacking Aslan for purportedly lacking "the slightest hint of sympathy for the victims of the June 3 terror attacks in London."
It’s up to CNN President Jeff Zucker to cut ties with Mr. Aslan and ensure he will no longer have a show on CNN, which still lists him as a host on its website. We will call on him to do so and report back to the public what CNN’s formal position is. Certainly, Mr. Zucker would sever ties if a CNN host had said the same thing about President Obama. The Media Research Center continues to put all media personalities on notice: we will publicly call out your media outlets -- and the decision makers at those outlets – in the event of any personal, character assassination attacks.
Remember: Bozell had no problem with Limbaugh's personal, character assassination attacks on Fluke. He merely lamented that Limbaugh "crossed a line," and he did not call for Limbaugh to be fired. To the contrary: He insisted the real issue wasn't Limbaugh's words but, rather, "about roaring hypocrisy and about censorship."
Indeed. Bozell's rant can't be heard of the roar of his hypocrisy. And it's painfully clear that the MRC wants to censor Aslan for the offense of criticizing Trump. It's not about vulgarity because he found nothing wrong with Limbaugh's.
(Bozell, by the way, has no problem with the vulgarity that spews forth from his own mouth; he did, after all, liken President Obama to a "skinny ghetto crackhead.")
The MRC is so desperate to hurl anything it can at Aslan that it's rooting around his Twitter account for other tweets it deems offensive. It complained that Aslan once tweeted that right-wing author Dinesh D'Souza is an "adulterous piece of sh*t felon." Of course, it's indisputable that D'Souza is an adulterer and a felon -- from which one can easily and reasonably deduce Aslan's final descriptor.
The MRC is not disputing the accuracy of anything Aslan tweeted. It's pretending to be outraged that he said them, and it badly wants to shut him up.
WND's Lame Attacks on Former CIA Director Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily is still trying to distract from Russia's meddling in the U.S. presidential election. The latest example is a rather lame atttempt to discredit former CIA director John Brennan, whose testimony about Trump and Russia has Bob Unruh so upset that, as is clear from his May 23 article, he would rather talk about anything else:
Former CIA Director John Brennan told a U.S. House committee Tuesday that Russia was “brazen” in its attempts to influence the 2016 presidential election in the United States, and while he was unable to determine whether there was “collusion” between the Russians and members of the Trump presidential campaign, he was “aware of information and intelligence that revealed contacts and interactions between Russian officials and U.S. persons involved in the Trump campaign.”
He was convinced, he explained to members of Congress, those indicators were “worthy” of a formal investigation.
However, neither Brennan nor the House Intelligence committee discussed accusations that he, himself, had colluded with Russia on behalf of Hillary Clinton’s campaign.
Nor was his admission to having voted for a Communist Party candidate in the 1976 election ever mentioned.
Nor was his refusal to use a Bible, as tradition prescribes, when he was sworn into office.
Nor was his graduate thesis in which he denied the existence of “absolute human rights” and said government censorship of speech was an appropriate management tool.
Nor was his insistence that people not use the word “jihadist” to describe terrorists.
Nor was his lying to Congress.
Unruh doesn't seem to understand that those things were not discussed becasuse they had nothing whatsoever to do with Trump and Russia.
Indeed, the rest of the article is dedicated to attacking Brennan for all of these purported offenses and completely ignores the actual news of Trump and Russia.
At the same time, WND is twisting the Brennan testimony that Unruh couldn't be bothered to report on to claim there's no evidence of "collusion" between Trump and Russia -- which is apparently where the right-wing media have moved the goalposts to.
In a May 24 article, WND's Garth Kant ranted about "Democrats pushing the bizarre notion there was a cover-up, even if there was no crime," citing as evidence how Brennan "testified before the House Intelligence Committee Tuesday that he did not know of any evidence of collusion, coordination or conspiracy between Trump and the Russian government."
Kant conveniently ignores the fact that Brennan stepped down as CIA director in January and, presumably, is not privy to anything that has happened with any CIA investigation since his departure.
Unruh manages to combine both contradictory memes -- Brennan's an untrustworthy liar, but he also said there's no evidence of collusion so we'll take him at his word -- in a May 31 article:
Did the Democrats’ orchestrated attempt to catch the Trump administration in a major scandal with Russia just blow up?
The Washington Times reported it was President Obama’s CIA director, John Brennan, who prompted the investigation into claims the Trump campaign had inappropriate contacts with the Russian government.
But that’s the same John Brennan who, like other top Democrats, has stated he has seen no evidence of collusion with the Russians, and the same John Brennan who, among the other indiscretions, was caught lying to Congress.
But if Brennan is the irredeemable liar Unruh says he is, why should we trust his statement that he saw no collusion (even though, again, he probably doesn't know what has happened in the investigation since he left the CIA)?
Unruh never explains; instead, he just copies-and-pastes his previous attacks on Brennan. Lame!
Shocker: CNS Leads With Bad News About Unemployment Under Trump Topic: CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com has finally found some bad economic numbers that it ss couldn't bury.
Aswe'vedocumented, CNS' relentlessly negative tone about jobless numbers under the Obama administration became aggressively positive once President Trump took office. But the one cherry-picked statistic CNS obsessed about during the Obama years -- the labor force participation rate -- was bad enough that even CNS reporter and Trump stenograph Susan Jones couldn't spin it.
Not that she didn't try, though. Still, the tone of her June 2 article is a bit resigned:
A disappointing report from the Labor Department’s Bureau of Labor Statistics on Friday: The economy added 138,000 jobs in May, fewer than analysts were expecting; and after setting three straight monthly records, the number of unemployed Americans dropped by 233,000 to 152,923,000.
The unemployment rate ticked down a tenth of a point to 4.3 percent, near historic lows.
But the number of Americans not in the labor force – meaning they are neither working nor looking for work – increased by 608,000 to 94,983,000 in May, close to the record high of 95,102,000 in December 2016. The not-in-the-labor-force number includes retirees, students, homemakers, the disabled, and others who have stopped looking for work for whatever reason.
The nation’s labor force participation rate – the percentage of the 16-and-older civilian non-institutionalized population that is either employed or actively seeking work – dropped two-tenths of a point to 62.7 percent in May.
That explanation of who isn't working, like retirees and students, rarely placed so high, if at all, in a Jones jobless rate story under Obama.
Jones' article was joined by the usual sidebar from Terry Jeffrey complaining there are more jobs in government than in manufacturing. Missing again are Obama-era sidebars about the "real unemployment rate" and how black unemployement is higher than white unemployment. It's almost as if CNS did those sidebars for the sole purpose of making Obama look bad and doesn't want to highlight that those numbers look pretty much thte same under Trump.
CNS tried to do some after-the-fact spinning of all this by publishing a June 5 op-ed by the Heritage Foundation's Timothy Doescher, who delcared that to fix these numbers, "We need fundamental tax reform, the repeal of Obamacare—which continues to make hiring difficult for small businesses—and a serious reform of our welfare system, which rewards able-bodied people for not working and swelled to historic levels under the Obama administration."
The Manchester suicide bomber, Salman Abedi, accompanied his father and older brothers to Libya at the age of 16 for “jihad” against the secular-leaning government of Moammar Gadhafi during Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s grand plan to hand the Middle East over to the Muslim Brotherhood to “end extremism.” The CIA and Pentagon armed and trained various jihadist groups, including the Tripoli Brigade. The actual salaries of the fighters were paid for by the “Gulf States,” which translates into Saudi Arabia and Qatar.
Salman, his brothers and their father, Ramadan Abedi, fought in a unit of the Tripoli Brigade that eventually secured Tripoli from the Libyan armed forces. Ramadan Abedi was an experienced military man, having served as an officer in Gadhafi’s internal security service until the 1990s. He returned with his sons to fight in the NATO-supported overthrow of the Libyan government.
To sum up: The CIA trained and armed a group of Libyan fighters to wage war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. When they returned to Libya to fight against Gadhafi, the CIA turned against them and sided with the regime. Later, under Obama/Clinton leadership, the CIA helped empty the Libyan prisons of jihadists so they could fight against the same regime the CIA had once protected. Many of those senior jihadists became the leaders of the Tripoli Brigade that the Abedi family of the Manchester bomber fought with against the Gadhafi government.
Yeah, he's effectively blaming the bombing on the CIA. As WND does.
MRC's Double Standard on Humanizing People Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's Clay Waters whines in a May 17 post:
The liberal media will never forgive Tonight Show host Jimmy Fallon for momentarily treating Donald Trump like a normal guest when the then-presidential candidate appeared on the show last September.
In a long profile of Fallon set for the front of next Sunday's Arts page, New York Times Dave Itzkoff returned to the subject, with particular focus on the crime of Fallon playfully mussing Trump’s hair as a harmful humanization of the man, and implying that fateful incident caused Fallon’s show to be overtaken in the ratings by more left-wing ideological competition like the vulgar Stephen Colbert.
By contrast, the MRC has never forgiven the media for treating Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama like a normal human being.
Under the headline "Nets Embrace 'Did You Plug the Hole Yet, Daddy?' Anecdote to Humanize Obama," Rich Noyes grumbled in 2010 that "The White House press corps just loved President Obama's press conference anecdote meant to prove the pressure he's under and responsibility he's taking ("When I woke up this morning, and I'm shaving and Malia knocks on my bathroom door and she peeks in her head and she says: 'Did you plug the hole yet, daddy?'")."
And in September 2016, Tim Graham ranted about media outlets making "desperate attempts to keep trying to portray her as warm and human....just as they tried to convince Americans that in private that cold fish Al Gore and John Kerry were warm in private. " So convinced is Graham that Clinton is subhuman that he even grumbled about one commentator who referred to Hillary as "a funny, personable human being."
So it seems it's perfectly fine at the MRC to treat liberals as less than human.
WND Still Misleading about Confederacy, Monuments Topic: WorldNetDaily
It seems WorldNetDaily is not done misunderstanding why monuments to the Confederacy are being removed. Brent Smith first uses his May 22 column to throw out the distraction of Robert Byrd:
When I heard that these and many other monuments were being taken down for the same reason, the first thing that came to mind was the late Democrat icon Robert “Sheets” Byrd (hat tip Rush). He was, of course, a long time U.S. senator from West Virginia, but also a member of the Ku Klux Klan. And not just any member – he was a recruiter, a Kleagle.
Yet Byrd has dozens upon dozens of hospitals, parks, office buildings, community centers, federal buildings, etc. that bear his name. No one says a word about that. Of course not. He was a good liberal.
When asked, Democrats merely state that the racist Byrd should be judged on the entirety of his career – his full body of work – not just his years in the Klan.
Smith conveniently omits that Byrd repeatedly apologized for his KKK affiliation, to the point that even the NAACP praised him for supporting a civil rights agenda. Smith offers no evidence that Lee, Beauregard, et al, ever apolgized for their Confederate affiliation.
After unfairly maligning Byrd, Smith then complains that Confederate Gen. P.G.T. Beauregard was being unfairly maligned:
In fact Beauregard was not a racist. A native of New Orleans, he fought for the Confederacy because they were the home team, for want of a better term. It was well-known that he hated Confederate President Jefferson Davis – so much so that he refused to lead Davis’ funeral procession.
He was an equal-rights advocate and led the failed unification effort in New Orleans, bringing together both white and black leaders. He fought for voting rights for blacks, integrated schools, public places and public transportation, many decades before national talk of civil rights.
In a speech in 1873, Beauregard said: “I am persuaded that the natural relation between the white and colored people is that of friendship. I am persuaded that their interests are identical; that their destinies in this state, where the two races are equally divided, are linked together; and that there is no prosperity for Louisiana which must not be the result of their cooperation.”
But as the article Smith links to to support his claims about Beauregard admits, the statue of Beauregard that was taken down in New Orleans did not honor his post-Civil War work; it honored his stint as a Confederate general.
Meanwhile, Joseph Farah does what he does in his May 29 column: portray the removal of Confederate statues as some sort of liberal conspiracy:
First, you will notice that Democrats are nearly always at the forefront of this kind of activity.
Why would that be?
Could it be because they are embarrassed and ashamed of their party’s own history?
You see, Jefferson Davis, the only president of the Confederacy, was a Democrat. In fact, for 50 years after the War Between the States, the white South was dominated almost entirely by the Democratic Party. White Democrats ran the South during the war, through the Jim Crow days of segregation and right up until the early 1960s.
Not a single Democrat in that era ever suggested destroying statues of Confederate heroes, taking down Confederate flags or toppling monuments memorializing the Confederacy.
What’s more, the Ku Klux Klan would have discouraged such demolition. And the Ku Klux Klan was the military arm of the Democratic Party.
As we pointed out when Farah made a similar claim, the KKK was not the "military arm of the Democratic Party"; while many angry Southern whites during the 1860s and 1870s were Democrats and a smaller number of them joined the KKK, that doesn't make the KKK a Democratic creation.
This time around, though, Farah surprisingly concedes that today's Democratic Party is not the one of 150 years ago. Of course, that's a conspiracy too, he writes: "It was President Lyndon Baines Johnson who got the idea of the Democrat [sic] Party becoming the 'champion' of black Americans by enticing them into dependency through welfare-style programs."
Farah doesn't explain why no conservatives hike him are endorsing removal of Confederate monuments and, to the contrary, seem to be opposing it: As we've pointed out, the South has always been conservative; many Southerners started abandoning the Democratic Party starting in the 1960s after it supported integration and other equal-rights laws and shifted their allegiance over a generation from Democrats to Republicans.