CNS Opposes Syria Airstrike -- For A While Topic: CNSNews.com
As events led up to President Trump ordering an airstrike on Syria over a chemical attack on civilians, CNSNews.com took a weirdly passive-aggressive approach to expressing its opposition to it.
First up was an April 11 column by editor in chief Terry Jeffrey headlined "An Attack Syria Did Not Do." This actually wasn't about the chemical attack --mentioned only obliquely in the final paragraph, in which Jeffrey warns "Look before you shoot" -- but, rather, the 1991 bombing of a passenger jet that exploded over Lockerbie, Scotland, in which Syria was originally a suspect until it was determined that Libya did it. Jeffrey lectured in a bit of revisionist history:
In response to the attack on Pan Am 103 — an indisputable act of war against the United States — Congress would have been justified in authorizing the use of force to overthrow the regime of Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi. Instead, the U.S. worked to isolate Gadhafi and encircle him with sanctions.
After the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003, Gadhafi gave up his weapons of mass destruction programs, paid reparations to the families of Pan Am 103 victims, restored normal relations with the United States and recognized we had a common enemy in al-Qaida.
Then President Obama used military force — not authorized by Congress — to help rebels overthrow Gadhafi.
After Gadhafi fell, the Islamic State established a foothold in Libya.
That's an misleadingly simplistic view of what happened in Libya after 9/11. Gadhafi was trying to end Libya's isolation well before the Iraq war. Further, Libya was already in the midst of a civil war in 2011 by the time NATO, with the support of the U.S. -- not Obama himself, as Jeffrey falsely claims -- led a bombing campaign leading to Gadhafi's overthrow. Despite resuming "normal relations with the United States," Jeffrey also fails to mention that Gadhafi was still a repressive dictator. (Obama has admitted that not planning for the aftermath of Gadhafi's overthrow was the worst mistake of his presidency.)
That was followed with an column that day with a byline from anotherdeadguy -- this time founding father James Madison warning that presidents need congressional approval for foreign military intervention that's not in response to a "sudden attack."
AFter the bombing attack started, CNS quickly published an article credited only to "CNSNews.com Staff" complaining that "President Donald Trump announced tonight that he had ordered the U.S. military to launch what he called “precision strikes” in Syria in coordination with British and French forces—but without authorization of the U.S. Congress."
Then -- as if it suddenly remembered its mission was to be a Trump sycophant and not to question his decision-making -- CNS shifted into its usual rah-rah stenography mode:
None of these articles reference CNS' earlier concern about Trump acting without congressional authorization.
Jeffrey did return to shade-throwing in a more explicit form in his April 18 column, highlighting a 2013 tweet from Trump that "The President must get congressional approval before attacking Syria," adding: "President Trump did not seek and did not get that authority from Congress before he launched a "limited war" on Syria. To quote him, he made a 'big mistake.'"
WND's Cashill Finds Another Dubious Character to Defend Topic: WorldNetDaily
Jack Cashill sure knows how to pick 'em.
In addition to his longtime affection for murderers who kill people he doesn't like, the WorldNetDaily columnist has been on a roll this year in defending morepeople who arguably don't deserve it.
Cashill's latest subject is Missouri Gov. Eric Greitens, who's currently embroiled in a scandal in which he is alleged to have blackmailed a mistress. He spends his April 10 column lashing out at the prosecuting attorney for "playing almost exclusively to the media" and trying to poke holes in the mistress' account of the affair. "The case against Missouri Republican Gov. Eric Greitens is almost as pathetic as the case against Donald Trump, but those who consume the state’s mainstream media do not know this and may never know it," Cashill huffed.
Unfortunately for Cashill, his column came out around the same time a report commissioned by the Republican-controlled Missouri legislature came out ofering vivid details of the coercive, abusive relationship. The woman gave sworn testimony to the bipartisan legislative committee, which found her credible. Greitens refused to participate in the committee's investigation and he denounced its findings.
Hey, at least Cashill does concede that the affair did occur and that "Greitens has admittedly done enough wrong, at least by Republican standards, that a resignation would not be out of order." So that's something.
MRC Cheers 'Chappaquiddick' Film for Bashing Kennedys, Hides How It's Flopping At Box Office Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center has long had an obsession with hating the Kennedy political dynasty -- so much so that it falsely attacks columnist Charles Pierce for a cutting remark about Ted Kennedy and Chappaquiddick that it wrongly interprets as praise for him.
So when news broke of a film that purports to tell the unvarnised truth about what happened at Chappaquiddick -- and, more importantly, make Ted Kennedy look bad -- the MRC was so giddy, it served as an unpaid (?) PR agent for the film.
In December, P.J. Gladnick cheered the trailer of the film for adhering to the Kennedy-hate that is right-wing orthodoxy: "If anybody feared that the upcoming Chappaquiddick movie would be a whitewash of Ted Kennedy, the recently released trailer should disabuse them of that notion."
Promotion of the film ramped up as its release date moved closer, led by Scott Whitlock:
Whitlock cheered the film's producer for refusing the "take the bait" from a Washington Post interviewer asking if the film had any resonance for the Trump era.
Whitlock also uncritically repeated the film producer's unsupported allegation that "powerful people" tried to stop the film (and included the film's trailer in his post).
Another Whitlock post gushed that "The movie, in unflinching terms, shows Kennedy abandoning victim Mary Jo Kopechne to die in an overturned, submerging car" and complained that a Washington Post article about the film didn't like it enough.
Corinne Weaver lamented that "liberal Hollywood" allegedly kept a proposed Chappaquiddick film from being made 40 years ago.
Tim Graham raged when a writer argued that the film shows Democrats are addressing their issues with women while Republicans still have not: "For one, not all Democrats tried to rid themselves of Weinstein money. Take the Clinton Foundation keeping their quarter-million. And trying to argue Roy Moore "nearly won a Senate seat" is proof that the GOP is Worse Than Chappaquiddick?"
Christian Toto gave Jason Clarke, who plays Ted Kennedy in the film, lots of space to offer his political opinions, mainly about how terrible the Kennedys are. We thought the MRC opposed actors having political opinions.
Tom Blumer ranted at an "insufferably liberal" writer who thinks the film's portrayal of Ted Kennedy is inaccurate: "Anyone who knows the history, dramatically retold in the movie I saw Sunday afternoon, can only hope that the actually despicable Massachusetts senator accurately portrayed in the film makes the history books."
Bill D'Agostino complained that the media wasn't following the right-wing, anti-Kennedy line by promoting the film.
Graham and Brent Bozell wrote a column promoting the film, cheering how it's "drawing favorable reviews from the movie critics." They even used Ted Kennedy as a way to ludicrously portray Donald Trump as a wonderful guy by comparison: "[M]any older voters thought liberals sounded preposterous when they suggested Donald Trump's presidential campaign should be canceled over the "Access Hollywood" tape of him boasting of grabbing women in the crotch. Kennedy had a woman's death on his resume, and it never stopped the left from boosting him as the finest presidential timber."
One thing you won't read about at the MRC: How nobody wants to actually see this film.
In its opening weekend, "Chappaquiddick" made a paltry $5.7 million despite appearing on more than 1,500 screens. At that rate, it's highly unlikely to make back its production budget, despite it not being publicly disclosed.
That didn't keep MRC "news" division CNSNews.com from trying to spin away this dismal performance. Craig Bannister found someone who predicted the film would make only $2 million in its opening weekend, so he laughably proclaimed that it "far surpassed box office predictions."
In its second weekend, "Chappaquiddick" saw its box office drop by about half. The MRC hasn't mentioned a thing about that.
WND's Farah Finally Got That Logrolling Award From His Buddy Topic: WorldNetDaily
It's a big sign of the sad state of things at WorldNetDaily that it has to rely on what few close friends it has to generate any sort of buzz about it -- and even then, it's all about editor Joseph Farah, not WND itself as it was a few years back when it latched onto a dubious "independent news organization" calling WND trustworthy (it was actually run by a cultish church for the main purpose of attacking the prosecution of its pastor on child sexual assault charges).
WND having Chuck Norris tout a book by Farah that won't be published for another six months is just one example. Another is the award given Farah by the Western Conservative Conference. It's the conference's second attempt at giving Farah an award; the first try, in 2016, was scuttled when the entire conference was canceled due to an "unfortunate medical issue."
Buyt the conference actually went forward as planned this year, and Farah got his award; originally called the "Hero of Freedom Award" in 2016, it somehow morphed into the "W. Stanton Evans Lifetime Achievement Award."
But the Western Conservative Conference was put on by the Western Journalism Center, which was founded by Farah in 1991 as a right-wing journalism-y thing that, like a lot of ight-wing journalism-y things in the 1990s, got funding from Richard Mellon Scaife. In the mid-2000s, Farah turned it over to friend Floyd Brown, who turned into a right-wing-fringe conspiracy-monger; Brown has since tried to recreate the core of the organization as a trainer of right-wing bloggers. Farah is listed as a "trainer."
In other words, this is all a big, steaming pile of logrolling and dealing between buddies.
Farah hints at it -- but, of course, does not admit it, or that he founded the organization giving him the award -- in his March 25 column made up of his speech upon reeiving the award, in which he recounts his long relationship with Brown:
Floyd Brown, the president of the Western Center for Journalism, and I were trying to figure out yesterday how long we have been conspiring together. Neither one of us is entirely sure, but I know it goes back at least to my days in Los Angeles in the late 1980s when I was still a part of what we euphemistically call the “mainstream media.”
But, I digress. When I first got to know Floyd Brown in the 1980s, I was either running the news department of the Los Angeles Herald Examiner, then the flagship of the Hearst newspapers, or I was running another Southern California daily newspaper as editor in chief and about to be recruited to run the historic Sacramento Union, then the oldest daily West of the Mississippi.
The rest of Farah's speech was a victimhood rant blaming Google and Facebook for not promoting WND links (in fact, WND's own lack of credibility is much more to blame), railing against the Southern Poverty Law Center for (accurately) pointing out WND's extremism and unironically praying to God for forgiveness "for the way we try to wage war in the spiritual realm without calling on you first for the marching orders."
The conference itself, by the way, was so unremarkable that even WND didn't cover it. Beyond Joe Arpaio once again proclaiming himself to be a birther (and, thus, utterly without credibility), the only news came from peripheral events -- an unproven claim about an employee at a coffee stand at the convention center where the conference took place who "threatened to slip estrogen hormone pills into the coffee of attendees, and conference speaker and Muslim-hating philanderer John Guandolo for calling an employee of the airline he flew to the conference a "jihadi" for no apparent reason.
CNS Reporter Uncritically Repeats White House Misinformation Topic: CNSNews.com
With very rare exceptions, CNSNews.com reporter Melanie Arter is content to serve as an uncritical stenographer for White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders and other Trump White House media representatives. That means Arter is on occasion reporting false or misleading information -- and, thus, misleading her readers.
For instance, a March 1 article features a prime bit of regurgitation from Arter:
In an effort to illustrate the “historic obstruction of Senate Democrats,” the White House pointed to acting Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Kevin McAleenan, who is awaiting confirmation by the Senate, as an example of how it affects the safety and security of the American people.
“Earlier this week, I mentioned that we were going to begin regularly highlighting the historic obstruction of Senate Democrats, an issue that threatens the safety and security of the American people,” White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said.
“As a reminder, compared to the four previous administrations, this Senate has confirmed the fewest nominees. Half of the president's highly qualified nominees are still waiting on confirmation,” she said.
“Today, we have another example. Two-hundred and seventy-six days ago, Kevin McAleenan was nominated to be commissioner of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Kevin's primary responsibility would be to help safeguard American borders, keeping both terrorists and their weapons out of our nation, all while facilitating lawful international trade,” Sanders said.
“Kevin should be preventing terrorists and contraband from entering the nation, yet he is still awaiting Senate confirmation. Senator Schumer should stop putting the safety and security of the American people at risk and immediately confirm him,” she said.
But Sanders -- and, thus, Arter -- omits a critical piece of information. A real news outlet reported that McAleenan had been scheduled for a confirmation hearing last July, but it was "mysteriously postponed" the night before. Why? McAleenan had been accused of having an affair with a subordinate and misappropriating funding. McAleenan was ultimately cleared of wrongdoing, and his confirmation process resumed in October. That's at least three months of the total Sanders (and Arter) cited that cannot possibly be blamed on alleged Democratic obstruction.
Arter served up more dutiful (and redundant) stenography in a March 16 article:
White House Legislative Affairs Director Marc Short complained Friday of Senate Democrats’ obstruction of President Donald Trump’s nominees, saying at this rate, it will take 11 and a half years for his nominees to be given an up-or-down vote.
In the last four administrations combined, the Senate held 17 cloture votes of presidential nominees compared to the 79 cloture vote in the first 14 months of the Trump administration, Short noted.
“At this point, in the past four administrations combined -- the last four administrations -- the Senate had conducted 17 cloture votes combined - cloture vote, in essence, being a filibuster on a nominee. Seventeen cloture votes in the last four administrations combined, at this point,” Short said.
“Today, the Senate has had 79 cloture votes in the first 14 months of our administration. Seventeen, over the last four administrations, versus 79 in the first 14 months of our administration. That is roughly five times the number of the last four administrations combined,” Short said.
But Arter wasn't moved to research Short's claims beyond repeating them, so she ignored what another real news outlet reported -- that a 2013 change in the confirmation process, in which a simple majority is now needed to confirm a nominee instead of 60 votes before, is likely responsible for the growing number of cloture votes:
Cloture motions on nominations aren’t what they used to be, however. Before the use of the “nuclear option” that changed the filibuster thresholds, the moves to limit debate required bipartisan support except during the brief periods where at least 60 senators were members of the majority caucus.
Legislative issues like infrastructure and immigration would require bipartisan deals to be struck before those bills could reach the floor for consideration (especially since the Senate has no appetite for going nuclear on legislative filibusters).
President Donald Trump on Thursday lashed out at online retail giant Amazon, complaining that they are putting thousands of retailers out of business and pay “little or no” state and local taxes.
“I have stated my concerns with Amazon long before the Election. Unlike others, they pay little or no taxes to state & local governments, use our Postal System as their Delivery Boy (causing tremendous loss to the U.S.), and are putting many thousands of retailers out of business!” Trump tweeted.
White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders was asked Wednesday whether the president was looking for ways to go after Amazon.
“Look, we have no announcements and no specific policies or actions that we're currently pushing forward or considering taking,” she said.
Arter didn't tell her readers that Trump's tweet is factually wrong. the U.S. Postal Service does lose money, but not because of Amazon, since the USPS is required by law to at least break even on its parcel delivery operations. Amazon also collects sales taxes in all 46 states that have one, even though it's not legally required to do so.
If Arter can't be bothered to fact-check anything the Trump White House says and merely acts as a servile stenographer, what good is she as a reporter?
WND Still Trying To Link Trump To Third Temple (And The End Times) Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily has been leaninghard into linking Donald Trump to being key to building the Third Temple in Jeruasalem (and, you know, kick-start the End Times, but WND's pretending that's not actually an issue).
The latest attempt is an anonymously written April 1 WND article:
Donald Trump might not be the most popular person inside the beltway, in California, on U.S. college campuses or in the American media, but his support is growing in Israel, with one prominent rabbi saying he believes the president is destined to rebuild the Jerusalem Temple before the coming of the Messiah.
Rabbi Yosef Berger, the son of a widely revered Hasidic leader in charge of King David’s Tomb on Mount Zion, told Breaking Israel News Trump will play this “final historic reparation for his entire nation.”
“No leader in history has recognized Jerusalem as the capital of the Jews and Israel,” Berger said. “[Trump] has already created a great tikkun (reparation) for the Christians through his unprecedented relationship with Jerusalem. Trump is the representative of Edom that will perform that final historic reparation for his entire nation by building the Temple.”
Edom is an ancient adversary of Israel, founded by Esau, the twin brother of Jacob, whose name was later changed to Israel, according to Genesis. As the slightly older brother of Jacob, Esau famously rejected his birthright for a mess of pottage or stew when he was famished after a hunting excursion. Some ancient rabbis saw Edom as a spiritual progenitor of Christians.
Berger makes a lot of predictions, apparently -- for instance, he has predicted that Jesus will return in 2022.
As befits the even-more-sorry-than-usual state of journalism at WND, this article lacks a byline for a reason -- it's little more than a rewritten version of an article that first appeared at the website Israel Today (to which WND links but still credits Breaking Israel News because the Israel Today article does as well). WND doesn't mention the End Times implications of this prediction because Israel Today didn't either.
MRC Misunderstands The Whole Alleged Presidential Mistress Payday Thing Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's Scott Whitlock complains in a March 30 post:
Given how much coverage the networks have devoted to Stormy Daniels’s claims of an affair with Donald Trump, it might be worth remembering how Hillary Clinton and ABC journalists reacted to Bill Clinton's accuser Gennifer Flowers in 1992.
Stormy Daniels received $130,000 from Trump’s lawyer before the 2016 election. Speaking of $130,000, here’s Clinton on the January 30, 1992 edition of PrimeTime Live:
If somebody's willing to pay you $130,000or $170,000 to say something and you get your fifteen minutes of fame and you get your picture on the front page of every newspaper and you're some failed cabaret singer who doesn't even have much of a resume to fall back on, and what's there, she lied about — you know, that's the daughter of Willie Horton, as far as I'm concerned. It's the same kind of attempt to keep the real issues of this country out of the mainstream debate where they need to be. -- Hillary Clinton on ABC'sPrimeTime Live, January 30, 1992.
From March 7 to March 25, ABC, CBS and NBC devoted 23 segments and 40 minutes of airtime to the Daniels controversy. On March 26, these networks offered a staggering 61 minutes to the porn star’s appearance on 60 Minutes.
Clearly, 2018 journalists are not following the advice of 1992 Clinton.
Whitlock clearly doesn't understand the difference between the two payments. Flowers was paid by a tabloid to tell her story about an affair with Clinton, while Daniels was paid by Trump's lawyer, Michael Cohen -- not a tabloid -- not to tell her story during the 2016 presidential election lest it hurt Trump's campaign.
The sources of the money means different consequences: Flowers appeared less credible by taking money from a tabloid, while Daniels' credibility was enhanced by Cohen buying her silence, effectively making her claim of an affair credible.
If Whitlock does see the two are fundamentally different things, that just exposes him as a desperate pro-Trump shill.
Jesse Lee Peterson kicked off his March 25 WorldNetDaily column with a screed against the Parkland high school studentsand the March For Our Lives they led:
The wicked have successfully brainwashed many young people to believe in phony problems and false solutions. Now they’re using children to take away our rights and freedoms.
These people support the evil that created the problems, and their “solutions” will only ever make things worse, because evil grows and does not stop until people of good stop it.
Blind people participated in “March for Our Lives” around the country, a well-coordinated effort to get rid of the Second Amendment. These people hate God and men. They pretend to be for women and children, but hurt them too; they exploit emotions, imitate logic and put people on an ego trip, motivating them to do wrong.
Underage students recently participated in a “National School Walkout” against gun rights, organized by the “youth wing” of the radical Women’s March, a pro-abortion movement supported by taxpayer-funded, baby-killing giant Planned Parenthood.
Over the weekend, indoctrinated high schoolers like David Hogg, Cameron Kasky and Emma Gonzalez, whose parents don’t love them, preached gun control, promoted by activist fake-news media. Their parents turned them over to liberalism. They’ve been paid big money to march in Washington, D.C., by the wicked Oprah Winfrey, Steven Spielberg, Obama-fanatic George Clooney and top Hollywood leftist Jeffrey Katzenberg. They’re also supported by self-important celebrities like Justin Bieber, Alyssa Milano, Amy Schumer, John Legend, Jimmy Fallon and the wolves in sheep’s clothing, Moms Demand Action.
Peterson is so filled with hatred for people who believe things he doesn't agree with that he actually went into old-man-yells-at-cloud mode to express his hate personally:
During the National School Walkout, I drove by a group of students protesting against our rights. One car in front of me honked in support. I rolled down my window and gave the kids “thumbs down.” I shouted at them, “You stupid idiots! You don’t know what you’re doing! Go back to class!” The dumb kids surrounded my car, and one girl ran up and hit my arm. Police allowed me to move along.
That's how filled with hate Peterson is. Then again, being a reasonable person doesn't get you a WND column.
It's never a good look when a leader of an organization that claims to offer "news" is caught promoting fake news.
But that's what CNS managing editor Michael W. Chapman has done. After the Parkland massacre, far-right website Squawker published a story claiming that survivor David Hogg is "a confirmed puppet for the Podesta funded Center For Amerian Progress," a post that repeated other false claims about Hogg. Chapman retweeted that story on his personal Twitter account:
The post's author, Alisha Sherron,is very much an alt-right activist. A link to Sherron's Twitter account from the Squawker "about" page shows it's suspended, and an account with Sherron's name at the alt-right chat site Gab describes her this way: "Columnist for Squawker. Proud American. It’s okay to be white."
Chapman sure picked a winner here, didn't he?
Squawker has since edited its story to remove most other false claims, but it's still bizarrely standing by the bogus claim that Hogg works for CAP. Chapman's tweet remains live at this writing.
If a top CNS editor is promoting fake news, why should anyone trust the "news" his website publishes?
WND Likens Immigrant Caravan Seeking Asylum In U.S. To Palestinian 'Terrorists' Topic: WorldNetDaily
An anonymous WorldNetDaily writer desperately tries to draw equivalence between two things are are not equal -- and display its hatred for both immigrants and Muslims at the same time -- in an April 1 article:
During Easter and Passover week, the U.S. and Israel faced border invasions from Mexico and Gaza, with a “caravan” of more than 1,000 Mexicans and Central Americans headed to the U.S. for “asylum” and tens of thousands of Hamas terrorists hurling rocks at Israeli soldiers.
Mexico has reportedly permitted the group of mostly Hondurans to drive north, mass at the U.S. border and post Facebook videos while chanting, “We are migrants. We are not criminals. We are workers.”
The caravan – organized by Pueblos Sin Fronteras, or People Without Borders – traveled through Mexico last week. Officials in Mexico have not attempted to stop the migrants, about 80 percent of them from Honduras, according to the report. The group’s intent is to provide those people a safe way to travel to the U.S.
Meanwhile, in Israel, the military warned it will Hamas terrorists if violence along the border continues. Hamas claimed 15 activists have already been killed by Israeli fire in the area’s deadliest violence in four years.
Friday’s mass marches were largely led by Gaza’s ruling Hamas group and touted as the start of a six-week-long protest campaign.
“Israel is acting determinedly and decisively to protect its sovereignty and the security of its citizens,” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said.
If WND doesn't know the difference between migrants seeking asylum and a protest, it really has no business calling itself a source of reliable information.
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.