MRC Still Falsely Spinning Trump's Old Attack on Central Park Five Topic: Media Research Center
Former Media Research Center researcher-turned-NewsBusters blogger Brad Wilmouth has a bad habit of clinging to lost causes. We've already caught him denying that Republican Rep. Steve Scalise gave a speech to a David Duke-led white nationalist group -- despite the fact that Scalise apologized for giving it.
Wilmoth's current lost cause -- as we first noted last September -- is denying that a 1989 newspaper ad placed by Donald Trump wasn't advocating for the death penalty to be applied to the Central Park Five, a group of teens accused of raping and beating a female jogger in Central Park who were cleared of the crime years later. Wilmouth insisted that Trump's ad couldn't have been referencing the Central Park Five because they weren't mentioned in the ad itself, despite the timing of the ad and the headline "BRING BACK THE DEATH PENALTY" -- and they would not have been eligible for the death penalty anyway since they were juveniles. Wilmouth also denied that despite being cleared of roles in the attack, they weren't actually exonerated even though New York City officials paid a large settlement to them.
On Sunday's MSNBC Live, host Yasmin Vossoughian repeated the discredited claim that President Donald Trump in 1989 used an ad to urge the execution of a group of underage teens who turned out to be innocent, as she even gave a forum to one of the teens, Yusef Salaam, to rail against Trump talking up "due process" for members of his administration accused of domestic violence.
At 4:37 p.m. ET, after recalling the case of White House aide Rob Porter resigning after the airing of spousal abuse charges, the MSNBC host read a tweet from Trump asking for "due process" before she then brought up the Central Park Five case:
But Trump himself has been known for making serious allegations without allowing justice to run its course. In 1989, when five African-American and Latino teenagers were accused of raping a jogger in New York's Central Park. Trump bought a newspaper ad suggesting they should be executed. The so-called Central Park Five were later exonerated.
But, in context, the 1989 "Bring Back the Death Penalty" ad came at a time when capital punishment was not a legal option in New York because the old law had been struck down by a court ruling. At the time, there had also been a movement for the state legislature to pass a new death penalty lawwhich was likely to be vetoed by then-Democratic Governor Mario Cuomo.
Because there was no death penalty option on the books at the time, capital punishment could not have been applied to the Central Park Five even if a new law were passed.
In fact, in an interview with CNN's Larry King from May 1989, Trump stated that he believed a new death penalty law should only apply to adults, contradicting the claims by liberals that the point of the ad was to advocate the death penalty specifically for the Central Park Five. Additionally, the ad only called for the death penalty for those who commit murder, and the Central Park attack victim survived.
Wilmouth overlooked the part of the Larry King interview in which he also said, according to the CNN article to which he linked, that "Trump told King his newspaper ads were not 'pre-judging' the five teens, but rather advocating for their execution if they were to be found guilty."
So, yes, even though he admitted that the death penalty doesn't apply to minors, Trump was calling for it anyway. It's a muddled message, something Trump is prone to -- muddled enough that Wilmouth should know better than to try and defend Trump over it.
But then, defending Trump no matter what is what the MRC does these days.
Remembering WND's Favorite Domestic Terrorist, Since WND Won't Topic: WorldNetDaily
Art Moore tries to work up a little indignance in a Feb. 18 WorldNetDaily article:
Employed as a communications specialist for the Council on American-Islamic Relations in Washington, D.C., police stopped Randall “Ismail” Royer for a traffic violation in September 2001.
The officers found in Royer’s automobile an AK-47-style rifle and 219 rounds of ammunition. Two years later, Royer was indicted along with 10 others for conspiring to levy war against the United States and to provide material support to al-Qaida. For agreeing to cooperate with the government, he pleaded guilty to lesser weapons and explosives charges, and was sentenced to 20 years in prison.
Now, released after serving nearly 14 years of his sentence, Royer, an American convert to Islam, says he is a changed man and rejects terrorism.
The Washington Post gave Royer space to write a column this month, noting in his bio he serves as a research and program associate at the Religious Freedom Institute in Washington. Since his release from prison in December 2016, the Post said, he has “worked in the nonprofit sector developing strategies to promote religious liberty and undermine extremist ideology.”
A feature by Quartz magazine in May 2017 said Royer’s goal now is “to fight fanatical ideologies, such as those held by extremist groups like ISIL and al-Qaeda.”
Moore goes on to pen a lengthy denunciation of Royer and CAIR.
Given Moore's lengthy screed, now is probably a good time to remind folks of WND's own favorite domestic terrorist.
G. Gordon Liddy is best known for his actions that set the Watergate scandal in motion, such as participating in the break-in at the Democratic headquarters in the Watergate office complex and being a conspirator in the break-in at the office of the psychiatrist for Daniel Ellsberg. But Liddy also plotted numerous acts of domestic terrorism that were fortunately not carried out, such as the murder of Richard Nixon's critics. He also advocated the murder of federal agents in his radio show in 1994, saying, "Well, if the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms comes to disarm you and they are bearing arms, resist them with arms. Go for a head shot; they're going to be wearing bulletproof vests."
As we've documented, WND was a good friend to this domestic terrorist. WND editor Joseph Farah appeared on Liddy's radio show numerous times as both a guest and guest host, and several WND writers made guest appearances on the show. One WND article touted Liddy (who was to appear on a WND-sponsored cruise) as a "bon vivant, raconteur and general all-around nice guy" with no mention at all of his history of domestic terrorism. Former WND writer Aaron Klein's 2007 book, "Schmoozing With Terrorists," not only offered a shout-out to Liddy in the acknowledgements section -- "looking forward to many more Mideast adventures together" -- he begins one chapter by recounting one such "adventure" with Liddy, awestruck by how damn studly the guy is, again with no mention of his domestic terrorism.
If Moore can't work up any anger about his employer being so buddy-buddy with a domestic terrorist like Liddy, he has no moral standing upon which to criticize others.
In the aftermath of the Florida school shootings, CNSNews.com knew who had to be denounced: survivors of the shooting who demanded solutions to gun violence in America. CNS also knew who needed to be protected and promoted: the National Rifle Association.
CNS reporter Susan Jones -- best known for her pro-Trump stenography -- applied those same skills onbehalf of the NRA. She devoted two articles to NRA official Wayne LaPierre's speech at CPAC, both of which highlighted his rants about socialism for some reason:
Jones also penned an article highlighting how "President Trump reached out to the National Rifle Association on Thursday, amid the unrelenting demonization of the organization in America's latest gun control debate." Jones dismissed Trump's divergence from NRA-approved position by claim that he was "apparently responding to things he watched on morning television."
CNS, this time in the person of managing editor Michael W. Chapman, also fawned over NRA spokeswoman Dana Loesch's aggressive defense of her employer in her CPAC speech:
A couple days before CPAC, Jones penned an article about an "liberal Democrat" and "anti-NRA" candidate for a seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court who failed to advance in the primary, and she touted how one of the candidates who did advance (the Republican, natch) was effectively endorsed by the NRA. But Jones glossed over the fact that the two Democratic judicial candidates got more votes combined than the lone Republican candidate, and she also ignored the fact that one possible factor in the "anti-NRA" candidate losing was not his NRA stance but that he was not a judge like the other two candidates and had tried few cases in Wisconsin courtrooms.
Newsmax's Hirsen Develops Conspiracy Theory Over Russian Indictments Topic: Newsmax
Newsmax columnist James Hirsen has a conspiracy theory to share with you in his Feb. 20 column about special counsel Robert Mueller's indictment of 13 Russian nationals for meddling in the 2016 presidential election:
The timing of the recent announcement by U.S. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein regarding the indictments of 13 Russians appears to be part of an effort to provide possible cover for the FBI, U.S. Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, and the Democratic Party-aligned mainstream media.
The hasty public release occurred via a press statement by Mr. Rosenstein on an unusual choice of days, a Friday afternoon that was a lead-in to a three-day holiday weekend.
It is highly possible that the intention was to have the public focus on the headlines coming out of the press conference rather than zeroing in on the underlying facts of the matters at hand.
In other words, there may have been an attempt to employ a frequently used technique of diversion to direct public attention away from the admitted wrongdoing on the part of government, which was rapidly taking over the social media and conventional headlines.
In this case, it would be the effort to direct attention away from the FBI’s failure to investigate warnings that the man accused of the atrocious killing of 17 high school students had expressed a desire to kill innocent people and was in possession of a weapon to carry out his threat.
Like any good conspiracy theorist, Hirsen has a sub-theory to throw in as well:
The indictments helped to eclipse another inconvenient developing story, which would be a major embarrassment for the special counsel’s probe, and that is, that former National Security Adviser Gen. Michael Flynn’s guilty plea is likely to be set aside.
The judge who originally accepted Gen. Flynn’s plea for lying to the FBI has recused himself from the case, since he was also a judge on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the very court that accepted from the Obama Justice Department the Steele dossier as evidence to support the issuance of a FISA warrant to spy on members of the Trump campaign.
The new judge assigned to Gen. Flynn’s case has ordered Mueller to release to Gen. Flynn’s lawyers any exculpatory evidence in Mueller’s possession. The judge has also directed that any information which is favorable to Gen. Flynn be submitted to the court, even if the Mueller team believes that it is not material to the case.
This means that even if Mueller claims that his evidence is classified or not relevant, it still must be provided to the judge so that the judge can decide what can be released. This takes away the ability of the prosecutor to withhold or redact evidence on his own.
Just one thing, though: the judge's order is his standard one. So there's nothing new here.
You'd think that a guy who claims to be a lawyer, as Hirsen does, would have noticed that.
MRC Censors CNN's Full Defense In 'Scripted' Question Debate Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center is so eager to destroy CNN for not being a pro-Trump cheerleader that it will embrace any claim to make it look bad.
It's in that spirit that the MRC's Nicholas Fondacaro breathlessly wrote in a Feb. 22 post:
The Wednesday CNN town hall promoting gun bans and moderated by Jake Tapper was arguably a train wreck from the beginning. Between a student saying Senator Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) reminded him of the shooter and shouts of ‘murderer’ at NRA spokeswoman Dana Loesch, it was out of control. But in the wee hours of Thursday morning, things got worse for the anti-gun network when the local Florida ABC affiliate WPLG-TV reported that CNN had been planting questions.
The whistleblower was Colton Haab, a student at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School who heroically shielded his fellow students from the bullets with sheets of Kevlar and was a member of the Junior ROTC program. “I expected to be able to ask my questions and give my opinion on my questions,” Haab told reporter Janine Stanwood.
“CNN had originally asked me to write a speech and questions, and it ended up being all scripted,” Haab added. “I don’t think that it’s going to get anything accomplished. It’s not going to ask the true questions that all the parents and teachers and students have.”
Stanwood noted that being given scripted questions was something Haab couldn’t stand for: “Colton wrote questions about school safety, suggested using veterans as armed school security guards, but claims CNN wanted him to ask a scripted question instead. So he decided not to go.”
CNN quickly responded to Haab's claim by denying it, stating that "CNN did not provide or script questions for anyone in last night's town hall, nor have we ever." But Fondacaro couldn't be bothered to update his post; instead, he whined: "The questions asked by attendees were grossly slanted for the liberal anti-gun agenda. In all, there were 23 questions asked between the two segments (politicians and spokespeople). Not included in the total were repeated questions during arguments, but follow-ups were counted. Of those 23, 17 were asked from the left, five from the center, and only one from the right." Fondacaro provided no evidence to back up this claim.
Several hours later, Fondacaro finally got around to noting CNN's response in a separate post. He again repeated his unsupported claims about tyhe purported slant of questions during the forum, then irrelevantly brought up other alleged examples in previous CNN forums. He went on to suggest that CNN was lying:
But CNN’s assertion that they didn’t script Wednesday night’s event might not hold up well under scrutiny. And when it came to their claim that they never had a scripted event or planted questions, it’s easy to discover they have a long history of planting questions and tipping the balance of discussions.
CNN can deny that they scripted the town hall this time, but saying they never scripted anything at all was going too far. In fact, given their history, their denials should be received with great skepticism.
Fondacaro's earlier post does not provide a link to this one, which tells us he's not exactly interested in fairness and balance.
After President Trump picked up on Haab's claims, CNN released the emails between it and the Haab family before the forum. They show that the Haab family released an edited version of one email to falsely support the "scripted" narrative; in reality, CNN wanted Colton to ask a question that he himself had proposed.
Fondacaro has yet to acknowledge that CNN is right.
Farah Actually Cites His Exploitation of Seth Rich's Death As A Reason WND Should Live Topic: WorldNetDaily
Perhaps indicative of the state of its campaign to raise money to raise money to stay alive by its declared deadline -- it's still about $50,000 short of the $200,000 it said it needed to raise by March 1 -- WorldNetDaily and editor Joseph Farah are getting a bit desperate in its emailed pleas to readers.
In his Feb. 21 letter, Farah basically argues that if WND doesn't get saved, Donald Trump gets it:
So again, I just need to ask the tough question: Can you imagine America without the independent media during the critical 2018 election cycle – or with a weakened independent media that is struggling to stay alive?
You know what that will mean. It will very likely mean the hapless Republican Party will lose the Congress – making it impossible for President Trump to carry out his plans to restore American greatness, secure our borders, and continue the economic recovery.
And as I have said before, we all know the very first item on the Democrats' agenda should they retake Congress will be to impeach President Trump.
That’s how big this fight is. But WND is not just about the 2018 election. We’re about changing the culture of America for the better, about restoring the magnificent pro-American, free-market, constitutional, Judeo-Christian system our founders intended. We’re about saving America’s soul and restoring its inner greatness.
Two days later, Farah tried a different appeal, one that -- to put it charitably -- backfired:
Why are the independent media so critical to the future of America?
What is it that we do that the fake-news cartel doesn’t do?
We keep truth alive.
How important it that?
Here’s just one example from earlier this week.
Who else, besides WND, has consistently kept alive the memory of Seth Rich’s 2016 murder?
It’s a good example of what we do – almost uniquely.
We take a battering for it, too. It’s expensive to do this kind of reporting. And it’s costly in other ways than money. There’s real opposition to this kind of reporting. But we do it because it’s our job – the pursuit of the truth.
True, WND's obsession with Seth Rich is "a good example of what we do – almost uniquely," though not in the way Farah wants you to think. As we've documented, WND has been cynically exploiting Rich's death and pushing baseless conspiracy theories about it solely to fuel its decades-long obsession with hating the Clintons.
The article Farah is citing, a Feb. 19 piece by Bob Unruh, is problematic as well. Its two main sources for its claim regarding Rich is the Zero Hedge blog -- a fringe blog that published a false story that WND picked up in late 2016 -- and Kim Dotcom, a con artist and fugitive from justice who's hiding in New Zealand to avoid extradition to the U.S. on fraud and racketeering charges. Of course, Unruh fails to mention Dotcom's legal troubles.
So, yes, the Seth Rich pursuit is indeed a good example of what WND does: push conspiracy theories as a tool to fulfill the personal and political vendettas of Farah and Co.
If Farah is proud to be exploting a young man's tragic death for political purposes, maybe WND really doesn't deserve to live.
CNS Deflects From #MeToo By Recounting Someone's Decade-Old Consensual Affair Topic: CNSNews.com
You know things are getting uncomfortable at the Media Research Center on the #MeToo front -- after all, it has studiously avoided talking about the sexual harassment allegations against numerous Fox News personalities even as it rants about non-conservative alleged perpetrators.
As the spousal abuse scandal involving White House adviser Rob Porter was blowing up, CNSNews.com was studiousy ignoring that too, until it got to the point that biased reporter Susan Jones whined that she had to cover it. The only other article CNS has done on Porter is a Feb. 12 piece by Melanie Arter uncritically regurgitating the Trump White House line on Porter.
In the midst of this, CNS felt the need to ... recount a decade-old consensual affair involving a current Democratic candidate for California governor. Craig Bannister grumbles in a Feb. 8 CNS blog post:
California Lt. Governor Gavin Newson [sic] (D), now running for governor, says the #MeToo movement doesn’t apply to his affair with a female staffer who was married to his chief campaign adviser.
But, addressing the scandal at a Politico event on Monday, Newsom said the #MeToo movement should focus on “deeper issues” than his sexual affair with a subordinate:
“The #MeToo movement represents "a profound opportunity to address deeper issues,'' he said, adding: ‘It’s not a political movement, it’s a cultural movement.’”
“I applaud women for coming forward” as part of the #MeToo movement, Newsom added.
One woman who has come forward – the subordinate Newsom had the affair with – agrees with Newsom that the #MeToo movement doesn’t apply to the Democrat running for governor:
So everyone agrees -- except Bannister -- that a consensual affair, however ill-advised, is not sexual harassment. But it diverted the eyes of CNS readers away from actual bad things happening in the Trump administration, so it arguably served its purpose.
WND Steals Donation Box Idea From Liberal News Website Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily has recently started running pleas for donations at the end of its articles , in a box that looks like this:
If that box looks familar, it should. It appears WND stole its layout and basic content from a very similar box used in a very similar fashion by the British newspaper the Guardian -- ironically, a liberal-leaning outlet:
WND cribs the gray background, the yellow highlighted text, the yellow bar at the top of the box, the overall typographical scheme, the random quote from a reader and, apparently, the credit card images from the Guardian's box. Even the text of WND's plea hits the same beats as that of the Guardian's -- ad revenues are falling, the desire not to impose a paywall, the attempt to flatter the reader into donating, the reference to "independent, investigative journalism."
We know that WND has laid off people due to its current dire financial situation, and that it has had problems with plagiarism in the past (not to mention the outright theft of others' content without permission or compensation that's a key part of its business model), but this is ridiculous.
WND Columnists Demand That Black Forgive Whites, But Not That Whites Apologize Topic: WorldNetDaily
A couple of WorldNetDaily columnists have gotten the idea that the way to fix what's wrong with black America is for blacks to forgive whites. Mason Weaver wrote in his Feb. 15 column:
What would happen if angry black protesters forgave white people? Real or imaginary wrongs are just as powerful. The NFL did not want black players. We forgave and now dominate the NFL. Professional basketball, baseball, boxing and other sports were discriminating, but we forgave the wrongs and started competing. What if we acknowledged the wrongs and forgave that old slave master? What if we forgave his children and grandchildren? We could compete, stop allowing racial caretakers and develop our own competitive spirit.
My first book, “It’s OK to Leave the Plantation,” outlines my journey from hatred to forgiveness and illustrates the powerful transformation I experienced as a result. It may not work for you, but it does seem to work for many. “It’s OK to Leave the Plantation” reveals that only slaves stay on the plantation. You can allow the world to define you, or you can define the world.
I know some people, both black and white, will not understand my call of forgiveness. But if we are free, if we are strong, if we are grown, what is wrong with standing tall and looking America in the eye and announcing we are here to compete and take what is rightfully ours: a place in the American Culture?
Larry Nevenhoven similarly argued in his Feb. 16 column:
Throwing more money at the inner cities in hopes of setting black Americans free from their agonies is just a splashier way of following Democratic Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s advice in his 1970 memo to President Richard Nixon: “The time may have come when the issue of race could benefit from a period of ‘benign neglect.'”
How much benign neglect can American politicians continue to pour on race issues without dealing with black Americans’ underlying problems?
Like the dream of my friend, black Americans in our nation’s inner cities are facing the back walls of their personal prisons built out of bricks of bitterness, anger and hatred. They must pivot around 180 degrees to walk out the open doors of their cells.
But like my friend, there is only one way to walk through their cells’ open doors. And that’s through forgiveness and repentance.
Forgiveness? Who do black Americans need to forgive?
Every white American. Every police officer. Every person they feel has held them back from being all they can be and all they can do with their lives.
Is this a mountain too big for them to overcome?
While both columnists demand that blacks forgive whites, neither similarly demand that whites apologize or ask for forgiveness. Weaver did try to explain why he's not asking for an apology, citing an incident in the Navy as a young man in which "a racist shipmate tried to kill me by dropping 2,800 pounds of steel and other metals on me":
Forgiveness is meant to alleviate white guilt and black anger. If America truly owes black America a debt from the legacy of slavery, then there are two choices. One is the demand for payment; the second is to forgive the debt.
I do not want anyone to confuse forgiveness with surrender. It is not a docile action; it is a powerful action. I am not saying surrender because others are too powerful. I am saying forgive because they are not powerful enough to keep you down. You cannot have racial reconciliation without racial forgiveness. And you can never have any real racial forgiveness until you have unconditional forgiveness.
I could have demanded an apology, special treatment, or punishment for the perpetrator. However, if I demanded anything from anyone, I would be dependent upon him. If I was going to be free, I would have to act like a free man. First, I had to totally forgive the hatred and attempted murder. I had to forgive whatever contributing factor I placed upon my country and white people. The real “liberation theology” was not new; it was very old – it was the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Of course, justice is a path toward forgiveness, so it's puzzling why Weaver apparently never pursued that. And while it's not healthy to hold on to anger, and sometimes one must forgive without getting anything in return, demanding forgiveness without some sort of apology to kick things off is arguably exhausting.
Add Art and Art History To The Things NewsBusters' Blumer Doesn't Understand Topic: NewsBusters
We've documented how WorldNetDaily and the Media Research Center went into a calculated freakout of a couple of paintings of women holding severed heads done by Kehinde Wiley, painter of the official portraits of Barack and Michelle Obama, refusing to acknowledge their context as reinterpretations of classic Renaissance-era art themes.
Now, NewsBusters blogger Tom Blumer feels the need to share his ignorant take on the situation:
MRCTV's Brittany M. Hughes reported Monday that Kehinde Wiley, Barack Obama's official portrait artist, previously created two paintings of black women holding white women's severed heads, making him the art world's equivalent of Donald Trump severed-head comedienne Kathy Griffin. Additionally, Wiley, described in New York Magazine as "possibly the wealthiest painter of his generation," outsources much of "his" painting to China to "cut costs." Establishment press coverage has virtually ignored these components of Wiley's background, but their descriptions of Obama's involvement in selecting him reveal his almost certain awareness of the artist's full portfolio.
Revelations that a foreign country-outsourcing portrait artist for a white president had created paintings showing severed heads of blacks would dominate the news cycle for days.
And if Wiley was the portrait artist for a white president, Blumer would be praising his outsourcing as a prime example of capitalism in action.
Blumer already doesn't understand how the media works, so it's no surprise he doesn't understand art or art history either.
Irony: Objectivity-Challenged CNS Reporter Accuses TV Host of Lacking Objectivity Topic: CNSNews.com
CNS reporter Susan Jones hufffed in a Feb. 20 "news" article:
Quivering with indignation, CNN's Alisyn Camerota "moderated" an on-air debate Tuesday morning between two Republicans with differing views on gun control.
But to Camerota, there is only one righteous side, and she defended it with all the passion of an activist.
The students have announced a "March for Our Lives" protest in Washington next month; they have a website up and running; and they are taking buses to the Florida state capitol today to discuss their agenda with lawmakers and Gov. Rick Scott. They say their anti-NRA ("baby murderers") campaign is not political, except that it is.
Camerota went to Parkland in the aftermath of the horrific shooting, where CNN and many other media outlets gave the understandably grieving students plenty of air time. They are now famous. Listen to her not-so-fair and balanced presentation on Tuesday:
How ironic that one of the most biased reporters by even right-wing standards -- Jones' pro-Trump stenography is getting ridiculous -- is huffing about someone else's purported bias.
Plus, there's also the fact that Jones' article is being presented as "news" instead of opinion -- as well as the fact that the original headline read, "Wow. Listen to This CNN Anchor Drop All Pretense of Being Objective, Right Before Your Very Eyes..." The headline was later changed to "CNN Anchor Drops All Pretense of Being Objective on Gun Control," despite the fact that Jones couldn't even bother to transcribe what exactly was not "objective" about what Camerota said.
It's clear that being an fair and objective reporter is not a condition of Jones' employment at CNS.
WND Finally Deletes Paul Nehlen's Book -- But Still Won't Talk About It Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily still can'tquite bring itself to publicly disassociate from anti-Semitic white nationalist Paul Nehlen, whose book "Wage thte Battle" WND published last year. But it's ever-so-slowly taken another step in disappearing him from its website.
Sometime in the past week -- perhaps moved by Nehlen tweeting an image of Prince Harry fiancee Meghan Markle's face photoshopped onto Cheddar Man, an early Briton recently revealed to be dark-skinned, and the Wisconsin Republican Party subsequently dissociating itself from him and Twitter indefinitely suspending him -- WND Books removed the page for "Wage the Battle" and Nehlen's author bio from its website; both URLs now return 404 errors.
WND has yet to announce whether it is formally withdrawing Nehlen's book from the market -- or make any other statement about the state of its relationship with Nehlen. Indeed, new copies of both the paper and e-book editions are still available at Amazon and Barnes & Noble, so it still appears to be available.
That's a problem. WND is indisputably tied to Nehlen; until last September, it enthusiastically touted Nehlen's campaign for the Wisconsin House seat currently held by Paul Ryan. About the time WND stopped promoting him, Nehlen was spouting anti-immigrant rhetoric and immersing himself in the alt-right movement. Those views were not that far from what WND has advocated, so it's unclear how WND came to view him as a pariah.
Because WND has no public statement on Nehlen, we don't know why WND was first attracted to him enough to publish his book, why it stopped promoting him in September, or why it's taken so long to back away from him. Our emails to WND asking for comment have gone unanswered.
WND has not handled this well, and certainly not with any sort of moral clarity. That may be another reason why it does not deserve to live.
Bozell and His MRC Are Drinking the Trump Kool-Aid Topic: Media Research Center
In a Feb. 2 post, the Media Research Center's Kyle Drennen complained that NBC's Chuck Todd 'dismiss[ed] President Trump’s supporters as members of a cult," referrinf to them as being in "his Kool-Aid orbit."
Drennen isn't about to admit that the MRC is a bona fide member of the Trump cult.
The previous day, MRC chief Brent Bozell sounded like a full-fledged cult devotee as he rhapsodized over Trump's State of the Union speedh:
Well, I think that the State of the Union was single best night of President Trump's career. Now I say this because he didn’t hit a home run, he hit three home runs simultaneously. The first home run, an extraordinary speech. He did what Donald Trump should have been doing for a year. He got off this silly narcissism and went Ronald Reagan. Talking about we, we, we, over a 100 times in juxtaposition to Barack Obama, who could only talk about himself. Bill Clinton who could only talk about himself. It was a warm, unifying, positive speech extolling great American values and the public loved it, home run number one. Home run number two, the public then saw the Democrats, sitting on their thumbs, clearly nervous, clearly disoriented, clearly not knowing what to do because they were not expecting this knowing that cameras were on them, but they could not move and they looked — they were exposed for what they were. That was home run number two. Home run number three, it became the media reaction to this.
Do you know who else was cheering watching it? The American people watching it. They were feeling very good. You showed it with your numbers. They were feeling very good about this. They were liking the commander in chief, they were liking the executive in the White House. They like the fact that he was talking to them and he was using first person plural. He was making a joint American thing. Look how many times he talked about America and then the best line of them all, saying we are dreamers too. It was beautiful.
An email sent by the MRC after the speech demonstrated even more cult-like dedication to Dear Leader (bolding in original):
Last night we watched the 2018 State of the Union Address and this morning we reviewed the liberal media’s reaction to it. And we are left with one question, “Were we watching the same speech as ABC and CNN?”
The 2018 State of the Union address was a hit, by any standard. President Trump presented a strong and united vision for America. He was alternately tough and compassionate (his tribute to the police officer who adopted the baby of a heroin addict left some in tears). He spoke directly to the American people, and to those in the balcony — highlighting the very best qualities in them.
The liberal media’s coverage of the State of the Union was ridiculous and shows just how out of touch they are with the American people.
It’s time to take action today. Take a few minutes to email ABC and CNN to let them know that they should have accurately reported the State of the Union and that their blatant bias is unacceptable.
The Kool-Aid is clearly on tap at MRC headquarters.
AIM Pushes Discredited Informant In Discredited Clinton Scandal Topic: Accuracy in Media
An anonymous Accuracy in Media writer claims in a Feb. 9 post:
A former undercover FBI agent told Congress that the Obama administration glanced over the evidence he was building against the Uranium One deal, which involved the Hillary Clinton-led State Department approving the sale of uranium to Ukraine and pro-Russian companies.
The informant told Congress that he built contacts with Russian officials, who expected that a lobbying firm would apply a portion of their lobbying payment to “provide in-kind support for the Clintons’ Global Initiative.”
Why? So the Obama administration and the Clinton State Department would approve the Uranium One deal.
The media has since attacked the controversy about the Uranium One story as an example of a right-wing conspiracy theory.
Townhall, Newsweek and Fox Newscovered the story, but this new story about the informant’s testimony was ignored by the Washington Post and other major media outlets, according to our Google search of the topic.
Perhaps that's because the informant lacks credibility. According to a letter by Reps. Elijah Cummings and Adam Schiff, the Justice Department considers the informant, William Campbell, to be unreliable because he has made inconsistent statements and has apparently lied to the FBI. The informant also never provided any allegation or evidence of illegal or corrupt behavior on the part of the Clintons, the Clinton Foundation or in reference to the Uranium One deal.
And, really, the whole idea of a "scandal" involving the Uranium One deal has been discredited.
CNS Reporter Attacks Trump Sexual Harassment Accuser Topic: CNSNews.com
Just how much of a pro-Trump stenographer is CNSNews.com reporter Susan Jones? She's attacking a woman who has accused Donald Trump of sexual harassment as a possible liar and definite publicity hound.
President Trump, in one of his Tuesday morning tweets, expressed irritation with the continuing media coverage of Rachel Crooks, a woman who's made repeated media appearances to complain that Trump made improper advances when she approached him years ago in the lobby of Trump Tower.
The Washington Post ran a front-page story on Crooks on Tuesday with the title: "Trump accuser keeps telling her story, hoping someone will finally listen." (Apparently no one has taken Crooks seriously because she's made so much out of so little so long ago.)
Crooks has "made so much out of so little so long ago"? We're willing to wager that neither Jones nor any other Media Research Center employee ever said that about, say, Paula Jones.
Jones is not done with the sneering, disrespectful attitude:
As the Post tells it: "It was just a dreadful kiss, or at least that's what she kept trying to tell herself to quiet the confusion that had grown out of that moment, turning into shame, hardening into anxiety, an insecurity until nearly a decade later when she first started to read about other women whose accusations sounded so much like her own."
The article goes on and on, portraying Crooks as a woman who suffers from an anxiety made all the worse by the publicity she has sought and the hateful responses she has received.
As for Crooks' oft-repeated lament, the newspaper says she "has to keep asking herself: Will it ever make a difference?"
Crooks and more than a dozen other Trump accusers want Congress to investigate Trump's alleged sexual misconduct.
Oh, and let's not forget this tidbit: Crooks is now running for a seat in the Ohio Legislature.
Jones' highly biased article is headlined "Enough: Trump Fires Back at Female Accuser, 'A Woman I Don't Know'." It's not clear whether the "enough" is a reaction from Trump or from Jones herself.
Jones' huffy dismissal of Crooks is right in line with how her MRC colleagues treat women who accuse conservatives of sexual misconduct. Whether it's Trump, Roy Moore, ClarenceThomas or any givenFox News personality, all conservatives must be defended no matter what, apparently.