The Media Research Center (MRC) on Tuesday announced its new project Fact-Checking the Fact-Checkers. As major news outlets increasingly rely on leftist “fact-checkers” to verify the credibility of news, the MRC will ensure the fact-checkers themselves are reliable, or exposed as liberal partisans if they aren't.
While fact-checking the accuracy of news is needed, often it is used as a medium to push a political agenda. Many fact-checking groups routinely cast judgments while failing to disclose their own liberal bias, and the public is on to it. According to a 2016 Rasmussen poll, an astonishing 62 percent of American votersbelieve fact-checkers are biased.
Some of the fact-checkers the MRC will monitor include PolitiFact.com, FactCheck.org, Snopes.com, Washington Post Fact Checker, AP Fact Check & CNN Fact Check.
Fact-Checking the Fact-Checkerswill give the public the facts and bring accountability to the so-called “fact-checkers.”
Media Research Center President Brent Bozell issued the following statement on Tuesday announcing the project:
“In an era of “fake news” and inaccurate reporting, it is important now more than ever that the fact-checkers themselves are exposed for their biases. MRC routinely finds instances when fact-checkers bend the truth or disproportionately target conservatives. We are assigning our own rating to their judgments and will expose the worst offenders. Americans deserve the truth. There must be accountability across the board, and that includes these alleged arbiters of fact and fiction.”
(Of note is that the conservative-skewing Rasmussen has as its managing editor Fran Coombs, the segregationist-leaning former managing editor of the Washington Times, so maybe it's not the most accurate or balanced poll.)
If only the MRC was as concerned with the accuracy of the work on its own website as it is with those of fact-checkers.
We've documented how the MRC promoted false stories, then refused to correct the record when they were proven false -- the purportedly imminent indictment of Hillary Clinton just before the 2016 presidential election, the bogus claim that CNN was scripting questions at a CNN debate, the death of a Border Patrol agent that turned out not to be at the hands of an illegal immigrant, an undocumented immigrant arrested on smuggling charges that were later dropped.
If the MRC can't be bothered to hold its own work to basic standards of accuracy, what moral standing does it have to fact-check anyone else?
Ther thing is, this isn't about the truth -- it's about trying to score political points. As a kneejerk supporter of a constantly lying President Trump, the MRC has been trying to delegitimize fact-checkers for a while now. The posts made after the March 27 announcement of the project -- all of which are written by Tim Graham -- further prove its partisan political intent.
Graham whined about a fact-check into whether Vice President Mike Pence called his wife "Mother" because it was somehow biased and trivial: "So if you can’t prove something is factual, why write about it? Aren’t the 'fact checkers' just spreading an unverified tale, publishing clickbait for Pence haters?" He huffed "This article is unverified gossip -- hardly something 'PolitiFact' should be proud to publish."
Graham then complained that another fact-check -- on a caravan of immigrants heading for the U.S. border -- was too nit-picky because it focused on "two words in a Trump tweet." He added -- without documentation -- that "Trump's brief tweet shouldn't have to say 'Caravans' coming each year' to be recognized as factual. Multiple caravans have been launched at the U.S. border."
Graham rated both of these fact-checks "deeply distorted" -- a statement that's nebulous to the point of meaninglessness.
But that's how the MRC rolls. Real journalists check facts; partisan activists attack the fact-checkers.
WND Columnist Roots For God's Judgment Against America For Funding Obamacare, Planned Parenthood Topic: WorldNetDaily
When a nation is founded upon a covenant with God, as America was, it can be incredibly blessed, as America has been. But if it is unfaithful, acts treacherously and believes that its own prowess and military strength is the primary reason for its prosperity, God historically deals decisively in disciplining that nation. “You keep going backward so I will stretch out my hand against you. …” (Jeremiah 15:6)
For four decades I’ve promoted prayer for our presidents through the ministry of Intercessors for America. At present I’m deeply burdened that Donald Trump has erred gravely in his quest to “Make America Great Again” by majoring on military spending and neglecting the moral issue of our generation – ending abortion and eliminating taxpayer funding of its barbarism through Planned Parenthood.
What prompted this particular commentary was the recent passage by our president and Congress of the “immoral” $1.3 trillion spending bill. While military spending was increased, $500 million was slipped in for Planned Parenthood to continue dismembering one-third of a million unborn babies yearly to callously pile on the trash-heap of 60 million already aborted children (10 times those of Hitler’s Holocaust), since the infamous Roe v. Wade ruling of 1973.
There was also continued funding for Obamacare and lawless “sanctuary cities”; no real funding for the critically needed, promised “Wall”; and, putting in place $2 trillion more in deficits over the next decade.
With Republicans controlling the White House and both Houses of Congress, this is unconscionable, disgusting and inexcusable. My personal belief is that God will soon discipline our nation financially with needed judgment to jolt us into a sober time of turning back to Him.
I’m not trying to ruin your day or make you think the sky is falling tomorrow, but I am trying to awaken people to imminent discipline coming our way. Unless we honestly address and submit ourselves to a total reset, the inevitable will happen. I’m referring to a fiscal crisis that many know in our hearts has been long overdue.
WND Columnist Thinks Fringe Right-Wing Haters Are The 'New Punk' Topic: WorldNetDaily
Andrew Thorp King's March 27 WorldNetDaily column is dedicated to promoting "new right" figures he desperately tries to portray as the "new punk":
Punk rock is not a style of music. Or a philosophy. Or a political ideology. Or a style of fashion.
Punk rock is a spirit.
A spirit that goes off road and carves its own path in accordance with the dictates of its authentic promptings.
A spirit that embraces the self-directed rugged ethos of DIY to crash through the gates long-held by outdated keepers.
And I believe its the same spirit that rejected the stale Republican/Democrat duopolized presidential candidates offered up in 2016 and drove a pitchfork into the establishment with the election of Donald J. Trump.
Trump may very well be our first punk rock president – a sentiment it seems Johnny Rotten may echo, having labeled Trump “a political Sex Pistol” who “terrifies politicians.”
As former VICE co-founder, ex-punk rocker and CRTV host Gavin McGinnes proclaimed on his show “Get Off My Lawn,” “The new right is the new punk rock.”
I couldn’t agree more.
King's misspelling of Gavin McInnes' name is a theme (as well as an indication of the current shameful state of the editing process at WND that they couldn't even be bothered to fix such glaring errors). And look who's at the top of his list:
1. MILO YOUNOPOLIS – Love him or hate him, the new right’s most pronounced provocateur refuses to go away. Banned from Twitter. Fired from Breitbert. Book deals canceled. Events protested. Milo faces every wall by placing a bouncy trampoline in front of it. He pushes forward, continuing to speak his mind, staging book events and publishing not only his own book, but also those of other outlawed figures on the right, like Pamela Geller.
Another person whose name King couldn't bother to spell correctly appears as well:
6. GAVIN McGINNES – Witty, audacious and smarter than the average punk, the Godfather of Hipsterdom, Gavin McGinnes, embodies the true spirit of DIY punk rock individualism. Whether its mocking the doublespeak of pop culture, fighting the oxymoronic fascist bullies of antifa or promoting the virtues of fatherhood and entrepreneurialism, Gavin McGinnes expresses his conservatism while retaining the inherent punk rock ethos he grew up with.
Did The MRC Tell Mark Levin About Their Flirtation With Ben Shapiro? Topic: Media Research Center
Looks like the Media Research Center has a new right-wing radio love, and it is Ben Shapiro. Gabriel Hays issues what is effectively a press release for Shapiro's new radio show in the form of a March 29 post:
Popular conservative intellectual Ben Shapiro is making the switch from podcast to conservative talk radio next month. A leading voice for the younger generation of conservatives, he hopes the transition will allow him to become a fixture for all conservative listeners.
Politico reported Thursday that Shapiro will air his first official radio program on April 2. Called The Ben Shapiro Show, it will be syndicated by audio broadcast network Westwood One. A one-hour program, the production will premiere in all major markets, including New York, Washington, and Los Angeles.
The 34-year-old Shapiro sees this as the next step in a career that already has gained massive social media support. He boasts 1.27 million Twitter followers, and, on average, his podcast is downloaded 15 million times a month. The momentum he has gained as a rising star in the young conservative movement, including as The Daily Wire’s editor-in-chief, makes this an opportune time for him to step into a larger arena – one dominated by Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.
Still, he says he doesn’t want to directly compete with the conservative radio giants, but hopes that the move to radio will expand his listening demographic.
“If I’m known as the up-and-coming young conservative, at a certain point I’m going to age out of that, right?” he asked. “Being in a place where I’m seen as a leading voice for conservatism generally, not just for young conservatives is something I’d certainly like.”
How will the MRC's main radio squeeze, Mark Levin, take this flirtation with another host? We don't know, but it may or may not be a coincidence that the column this week from MRC bigwigs Tim Graham and Brent Bozell slobbers all over Levin's new Fox News TV show for being "more intellectual than anything produced on ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN or MSNBC," sycophantically adding: "It's substance over sizzle. It serves to enlighten, not to entertain. ... It takes a nanosecond for Levin to go further than today's typically superficial television interview."
Needless to say, Graham and Bozell didn't disclose their history of cross-promotional business deals with Levin, which leaves open the question of whether this column is part of that as well.
WND's Cashill Tries to Portray Terrorism Suspect As An FBI Dupe Topic: WorldNetDaily
A man named Patrick Stein is currently on trial, along with two other defefndants, for plotting to bomb an apartment building housing Muslim immigrants in the small Kansas town of Garden City. WorldNetDaily columnist Jack Cashill -- as he is prone to do when confronted with a person who is alleged to have done terrible things -- is siding with Stein.
Cashill spent his March 28 WND column to trying to exonerate Stein by portraying him as a dupe of the FBI undercover informant who had infiltrated the bombing operation. Cashill regurgitated Stein's claim that the FBI informant recruited him into the operation and was the main driver of it. Cashill then quoted a guy he called "America’s leading authority on extremist groups," who said that "many of the would-be terrorist groups on the right, if not most, are propped up by FBI informants and undercover agents. The Garden City plot would seem to be a case in point." Cashill then adds: "As the plot reveals, it is hard to tell whether the FBI’s agent provocateursare more dangerous than the losers they encourage.
Needless to say, there's another side of the story that Cashill ignores. As an actual news outlet reported:
A Kansas militia member started trying to recruit other members to kill Muslim immigrants after the 2016 attack on the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida, an FBI informant testified Thursday.
Patrick Day told jurors that Patrick Stein called him a couple of days after the attack in which a man who had pledged allegiance to the Islamic State group killed 49 people in the Florida attack. He said Stein told him he was “ready to take action” against Muslims and wanted to see who else in the militia group was with him and who wasn’t.
Day testified that Stein and Allen held two more meetings to try to recruit other members to their plot. He said Stein called himself “Orkin man,” a reference to the pest control chain, because he wanted to exterminate the Somalis, whom he referred to as “cockroaches.”
Day recounted one recruitment meeting in the living room of a militia member’s house in Lakin, Kansas, during which the homeowner, Trish Burch, adamantly refused to join them, arguing that militias are only for defensive actions.
Prosecutors played a recording for jurors in which Stein could be heard saying “better not be a f—— word said nowhere by nobody.” Day said he understood that to mean the lives of the two people who had refused to join would be in danger if they talked to anybody. Those who did not join them were not given any details of the plot.
The defense is currently advancing the idea that Stein and the others were manipulated by the FBI. But it doesn't seem to be going well; a defense attorney asked an FBI agent in charge of the case why she didn't just tell the defendants that they were under investigation and should just stop plotting to blow up Muslims. The agent responded that recordings made by the informant "showed the men to be distrustful of the government and that they had already discussed lying to law enforcement, making the FBI think a knock-on-the-door was unlikely to deter the men."
Remember: Cashill thinks these men are victims, not would-be terrorists.
CNS Frowns On GOP Budget Trump Signed Topic: CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com is normally a reliable pro-Trump lackey, but once in a while, it will throw some shade Trump's way if he strays from the CNS right-wing agenda. Most recently, CNS was upset at the Republican-generated omnibus spending bill that Trump signed.
Susan Jones lamented of the bill that "while there is much in it for Democrats to like, there is much for conservatives to oppose, as Republicans ignore campaign promises to limit spending and grow government instead." Jones also complained that the budget included money for a new tunnel between New Jersey and New York City because it is "the pet project of New York-area Democrats, including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer," even though Trump campaigned in part on rebuilding America's infrastructure.
CNS editor in chief Terry Jeffrey huffed that "Members of the House of Representatives had 1,000 minutes—overnight—to read a 2,232-page bill that spends $1.3 trillion." Jeffrey downplayed the fact that it was a Republican-generated bill. In a later article, Jones seemed unhappy that "Trump seemed OK about getting only a fraction of the $25 billion he was promised to build a wall on a southern border."
When Trump tweeted that he might veto the bill, Jones was absolutely giddy, touting the "curve ball to Congress." When Trump did sign out, though, Melanie Arter's article on it sounded disappointed at first, but she soon fell into her usual pro-Trump stenography, allowing him to spin the signing away.
But then Trump did something CNS liked, and things were back to normal.
WND's Farah Anguished More By Trump Signing Big Budget Bill Than By His History of Immorality Topic: WorldNetDaily
Joseph Farah's March 27 column carries the headline "4 things Trump needs to do after his 'stumble'." This isn't a moral stumble, though -- Farah's totally cool with Trump whoring around with porn stars.
No, Farah is much more pained by Trump signing a budget bill he thinks was too extravagent. But he's not so pained to abandon his Trump worship, conceding that like his other hero Ronald Reagan, Trump is also but a man:
It took me a few days to find the words for this commentary.
It comes down to this: President Trump was wrong to sign the $1.3 trillion omnibus spending bill.
There I said it.
Now, let me explain why that was so difficult to say.
Since Jan. 20, 2017, I have been praising, extolling, acclaiming and commending Donald J. Trump for what he has accomplished in his 14 months as president. It’s more than any other president in my lifetime has achieved in that time period – by far. It is why I started the ThankTrump.us initiative. And I have no regrets about it. Zero, zilch, nada.
Before Trump was elected, I never thought I would see another great U.S. president in my lifetime – someone like Ronald Reagan. I really began to think that was a once-in-a-lifetime expectation.
I was wrong.
But Ronald Reagan made mistakes, too. He was human. He hired some bad people. He appointed some bad judges and justices. He even signed a big amnesty bill.
Yet, at the end of the day, he was an amazingly great president. You can forget about the mistakes. You should forgive them. You focus on the great things he did.
Here’s the difference, though. Trump is just getting started. He’s got at least 34 more months in office, or, with any luck, 78.
And he needs to hear from those who love him and what he is accomplishing, especially when he stumbles.
After offering tips on how Trump can "redeem this mistake," Farah concluded: "This stumble, although real and bad, is not the end of the world. It’s not the end of the Trump dream. It’s not even close to any of those things."
Yes, Farah really thinks Trump's signing of a overstuffed budget bill is a bigger failing than his repeated adultery and other moral crimes. And he's far more anguished by the former than the latter.
The MRC Remains Angry That Shepard Smith Sullies The Fox News Experience For Them Topic: Media Research Center
The only Fox News employee to whom the Media Research Center refuses to give a pass is ShepardSmith, on account of the fact that he's a straight-news person at a channel full of right-wing ideologues, which means he's a liberal in the MRC's eyes.
When Smith gave an interview to Time magazine in which he emphasized his news-side work, as opposed to the right-wing opinionators that populate the rest of the channel, the MRC took offense.
A March 16 post by Randy Hall highlighted that Smith's statement that Fox News' opinion side doesn't "really have rules" and exists "strictly to be entertaining" has apparently "irritated" those opinion hosts, particularly Sean Hannity, who huffed that Smith is "clueless" about what his show does.
Tim Graham aimed for full derangement mode in a March 27 post, lashing out at Smith's "arrogant dismissal of his Fox News colleagues" and complaining that the Time interview "routinely -- like many media liberals -- portrays Smith as on the 'fact side,' even as they enjoy his criticisms of President Trump." Graham also complained thath "There's almost zero quotes pushing back on Smith's arrogance."
After noting that Time called Smith "despised" by part of the Fox News audience "for telling them what they don’t want to hear," Graham huffed: "We would rewrite it like this: Smith is 'despised for sounding like he's trying out for CNN or MSNBC.' It's the liberal media who describe a liberal tilt as what people need to hear." If Graham had actually bothered to prove that Smith's reporting is liberal -- as opposed to appearing liberal compared with the rest of the Fox News lineup -- he might have a point.
WND Still Trying To Spin Away Stormy Daniels Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily's attempts to spinaway the Stormy Daniels scandal -- and right-wing hypocrisy in said spinning away -- are continuing apace.
Paul Kengor plays the whataboutism card in his March 28 column, spending most of it criticizing how women who accused Bill Clinton of sexual impropriety weren't taken seriously by the media. It's not until the second-to-last paragraph that he concedes that conservatives who defend Presidnet Trump and attack Daniels, but he pretends he's different:
And as for me, for the record, I’m as troubled by the allegations in 2018 as in 1998. I’m not shrugging this off. Conservatives must stand on principle and care about and condemn such outrageously and scandalously bad behavior, especially to retain any credibility. As readers here well know, I voiced character concerns about Donald Trump during his campaign in 2016 – as I had about Bill Clinton in 1992. But my focus here is liberals, and this reality: Their hypocrisy is coming back to bite them.
Yet to our knowledge, Kengor has not devoted anywhere near the amount of ink criticizing conservatives over their treatment of Daniels as he has attacking liberals who stood by Clinton, at WND or anywhere else.
Lerry Nevenhoven spent his March 30 column telling evangelicals to ignore their consciences about Trump's immorality because he's God's president:
The major media have blasted evangelical Christians for being hypocrites for still supporting Trump in the face of his adulterous past. Some have even hinted Christians have sold their souls to Satan for the president.
Because of the continual onslaught against Trump and the questions about his dalliances, many Christians are now acting squeamish and backing off their support for him. They are saying, “If only Trump wouldn’t have done this or that, then maybe I could still stand with him.”
My advice to these whimpering believers is for them to stop and think for a moment. Do you believe God, the Creator of the Universe and the Omniscient One, failed to see President Trump’s sins 12 years ago or five years ago or even one year ago? Our God knows when a little sparrow dies and even numbers the hairs on people’s heads. Nothing escapes His eyes.
We can be confident that God noticed Trump’s sins. But if so, why did He still choose him to be president of the United States?
So, if Trump is God’s choice to lead America right now, let’s lay our rocks down and instead, bow on our knees and pray that God is able to complete the work He has begun in the president.
WND even called in unsubstantited Clinton accuser Juanita Broaddrick to spin Stormy away:
Juanita Broaddrick, who credibly has accused Bill Clinton of raping her, says of the current brouhaha over Stormy Daniels’ alleged relationship with President Trump that both cases involved women, both involved men who became president, but that’s about the extent of the similarities.
“I have absolutely no respect for her coming forward like she has. I mean this woman is a porn star. She takes off her clothes for money, and if she ever did have this agreement with Mr. Trump, it was for money. And this was consensual. Mine was a crime. There’s no comparison.”
Broaddrick told interviewer Rita Cosby, “Maybe if I’d have been a porn star instead of a hardworking nurse and businesswoman maybe I’d have gotten more attention from the media.”
She cited the complete absence of interest by the mainstream media in her allegations against Clinton.
And she explained again why she didn’t pursue action against Clinton at the time, when she was running a care home in Arkansas.
“Bill Clinton was the attorney general of the state of Arkansas. He was the police. He regulated my business. He could have shut me down the minute I opened up my mouth,” she said.
And it was the ’70s.
“It was men will be men just deal with it,” she said.
But isn't Broaddrick effectively making the same "men will be men" to defend Trump against Daniels, that what he did was OK because Daniels "takes off her clothes for money"? Sure looks like it.
NEW ARTICLE: CNS' Decade of Lying About Planned Parenthood Topic: CNSNews.com
So much for fair and balanced reporting: CNSNews.com has spent years falsely implying that federal money to Planned Parenthood pays for abortion as a justification for cutting off that funding -- and baselessly claiming that the money is "fungible." Read more >>
WND Lets 4-H Leaders Anonymously Freak Out At Having To Treat LGBT Kids Like Everyone Else Topic: WorldNetDaily
An anonymous WorldNetDaily writer tries to make things as scary as he or she can in an April 1 article:
“I am completely dismayed that 4-H would bow to a politically correct agenda like this,” says one 4-H volunteer in a small north Idaho town of fewer than 1,500 people, where several dedicated club leaders tell WND they are worried sick they will have to dissolve their recently formed 4-H chapter.
Either that, they say, or support new LGBTQ guidelines instructing the century-old, largely rural, agricultural youth organization to embrace a radical sexual/gender diversity agenda – everything from being required to use special transgender pronouns, to allowing biological men to use women’s restrooms, locker rooms and overnight accommodations, and much more.
And yet, the government agency that sponsors 4-H says it’s all a big mistake.
The article goes on to detail 4-H leaders in this "small north Idaho town" freaking out at the idea that they have to treat all children equally and are threatening to disband the chapter if they are forced to do so. The freakout is driven by a document offering guidance on the issue.
Strangely, the WND author isn't the only person hiding behind anonymity to push this story; the Idaho 4-H leaders freaking out over the idea they have to be nice to gay kids "asked that their last names and town go unnamed," and even the "somewhat embarrassed top USDA spokesman" WND contacted about the document (since 4-H works with the USDA and its name is on the doc) "asked to go unnamed in this report."
So this is a blind story promoted by gutless, biased 4-H leaders whom a WND writer hiding behind his own gutless anonymity granted permission to hide in order to spread their hate and bias.
But the fact that everyone's too gutless to go on the record with their anti-gay beliefs isn't stopping WND from pushing the freakout. An April 4 WND article -- with an actual byline this time, from managing editor David Kupelian -- ranted about the "multi-pronged, state-by-state movement to impose radical transgender policies on the nation’s 4-H youth organizations," noting that the guidelines are a discussion item in Iowa's 4-H program.
And, of course, this all has resulted in a screed by rabidly anti-gay WND columnist Linda Harvey:
So now the sexual anarchy mob is hounding 4-H clubs. Why can’t these people leave kids alone?
As a former member of 4-H, I am outraged.
Around 6.5 million American kids, mostly in small towns and rural areas, participate in 4-H, so gobbling up this organization would be a very tasty dish for the obese monster of sexual evil.
Conservative values? Rural America? It doesn’t get any better than this for the all-pervasive child corruption agenda. These activists have already made tentative inroads into the world of 4-H on a state by state basis, but the latest incidents signal a full-frontal assault.
Harvey concluded by huffing: "The only way to stop this evil is to act decisively. Let’s keep the 4-H pledge, particularly the part about “clearer thinking.” And in doing so, perhaps we can prevent these kids from becoming the latest victims of perversion promotion in America."
The fact that only rabid, professional gay-haters like Harvey are going on the record to attack this doesn't bode well for the cowardly, anonymous haters succeeding with their agenda.
Tom Blumer Hasn't Corrected His NewsBusters Post Yet Topic: NewsBusters
Tom Blumer harrumphed in a March 11 NewsBusters post:
Leftists finally think (erroneously) they have a game-changing incident involving a Border Patrol apprehension of an illegal immigrant.
A week ago, Perla Morales-Luna was arrested in front of her crying daughters in National City, California. Someone videotaped the incident. The video has gone viral. What most early press reports failed to note, or buried deep in their stories, is that the woman refused to be taken peacefully and in private. One unusual exception was a Friday evening Associated Press story.
AP reporter Elliot Spagat clearly decided not to describe Morales-Luna's alleged involvement in human smuggling as, well, human smuggling.
Blumer went on to grouse that "given the alleged crime ... it's hard to imagine that this story will change many minds."
But the facts have overtaken Blumer's superior tone. Actualnews organizations note that Morales-Luna -- who has been in the U.S. for more than 20 years and has no criminal record -- has been released from custody while her case is being processed, and federal officials are not charging her in relation to human smugging.
As has been the case with such things at NewsBusters and its parent, the Media Research Center, Blumer's post has not been updated or corrected, and no other NewsBusters post updates the story.
WND Forgets It Used To Promote Paul Ryan's GOP Opponent Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily really wants to get rid of Paul Ryan.
A March 26 WND article touted a "hot rumor" -- unsubstantiated, of course -- taht Ryan "could resign his position as speaker of the U.S. House by the end of May," adding that "Rep. Ryan still hasn’t revealed whether he intends to seek re-election this year. And rumors of a resignation have been swirling for many months."
Then, an April 2 article by Chelsea Schilling tried to ratchet uiip the pressure:
Could this be the end of the road for House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wisc.?
While recent rumors on Capitol Hill suggest Ryan is seriously considering resigning his post, the top Democrat seeking his seat is seriously raking in the dough.
In fact, Wisconsin Democrat challenger Randy Bryce is pulling in more cash than any challenger to Ryan in the last two decades.
Bryce’s campaign says it raised $2.1 million at the end of the last fundraising quarter. That makes $4.75 million in total donations. Bryce also has $2.3 million in cash on hand.
Schilling went on to repeat the earlier article's claim that "rumors of a Ryan resignation have been spreading for many months."
Unmentioned in both articles, however, is the Republican primary opponent for Ryan that WND promoted for several months last year. Yes, that would be Paul Nehlen, whose book WND also published last year.
As Nehlen turned more explicitly anti-Semitic and white nationalist, WND stopped promoting him, and it eventually pulled Nehlen's book from its online store and scrubbed it from the WND Books website. But even as Nehlen has so radioactive that even white nationalists are turning on him, WND still has not made a public statement about the state of its relationship with Nehlen.
Meanwhile, Amazon is still selling new copies of Nehlen's book, which tells us that WND apparently has not formally withdrawn it from the market.
That's a notable conflict of interest WND didn't disclose, though it's one WND keeps trying to flush down the memory hole.
March's job news wasn't all that positive -- only 103,000 jobs created -- so CNSNews.com went into cherry-picking mode to push numbers that reflect better on President Trump.
Susan Jones' main story was headlined not with the overall numbers -- that didn't get mentioned until the 11th paragraph but that a "record number of women" were employed. She couldn't quite spin it away in the article proper, conceding the total number of Americans employed dropped.
Jones also conceded something else: that CNS' obsession with the labor force participation rate under President Obama hasn't paid off under Trump, admitting that "The labor force participation rate has been stuck at or near the 62.7-63.0 percent level for the past four years."
So, CNS had to turn to Trump-fluffing sidebars to stay in rah-rah mode. Editor in chief Terry Jeffrey contributed his usual piece on manufacturing jobs, cheering that "employment in the manufacturing sector has now increased by 281,000 since December 2016, the last month before President Donald Trump took office." Jeffrey also misled by writing, "In January 2009, the month Obama was inaugurated, manufacturing jobs dropped to 12,561,000. The number of manufacturing jobs in the United States did not exceed that number until February of this year, when it hit 12,610,000." It seems Jeffrey once again forgot that there was a major recession during the Obama administration that caused manufacturing jobs to fall far below that number, and that manufacturing jobs have been on an upward trajectory since 2011.
Jeffrey also penned another fluff piece highlighting that the number of federal government jobs has dropped by 21,000 under Trump.