Borrowing several of the tropes from the Democrats, writing an op-ed in The Washington Post, the house journal of the liberal establishment, Romney virtue-signaled his approval of some of the president’s policies, but curiously lambasted Mr. Trump’s failure to live up to the "mantle" of the presidency.
Romney cited Trump's "words and actions."
Sen. Romney was rather unspecific in his smearing of the president, though he did claim that "A president should unite us and inspire us to follow 'our better angels.'"
The implication seemed to be that Donald Trump has not done this, but one sympathetic to the president and his promise to "Make America Great Again," along with his administration’s superb economic accomplishments, could certainly see where the Lincolnesque appeal to "our better angels" was a part of Trump’s appeal.
Say what one might about Donald Trump, he does follow the rules. He has not ignored adverse court rulings or administrative pronouncements, and he has only sought to implement his policies through adherence to the traditional prerogatives of his office, and working with Republicans in Congress to obtain his legislative goals.
Romney’s op-ed made clear that he cannot be counted on to aid this president’s efforts.
By now seeking to cast obloquy on Mr. Trump, Sen. Romney has not only engaged in the kind of mendacity routinely employed by the President’s Democratic critics, but he seems to be putting his own desire for notice and purported integrity ahead of his loyalty to his party and his president.
Blind adherence to a leader is, of course, not always wise, but where, as is true of President Trump, he is doing the very things he promised.
Where those very things gained him an Electoral College majority, one would think the senators of his own party would support him, as Lindsay Graham, R-S.C., and Rand Paul, R-Ky., former senatorial critics, now appear to be doing.
Mitt Romney’s op-ed is profoundly disappointing, unwise, and disloyal. It can only please Mr. Trump’s enemies.
CNS Obsesses Over Congresswoman Using Swear Word In A Bar Topic: CNSNews.com
When newly elected Rep. Rashida Tlaib declared of President Trump at a party at a bar with other activists that she'd like to "impeach the motherfucker," CNSNews.com was ON IT.
Susan Jones kicked off the tsk-tsking in a Jan. 4 article noting that the "consensus" at CNN was that Tlaib "had gone too far." She also cited an op-ed Tlaib co-wrote discussing the need to impeach Trump in which she asked, "This is not just about Donald Trump. This is about all of us. What should we be as a nation? Who should we be as a people?" Jones lectured in response: "Tlaib has made it clear that she and others who agree with her should be the ones to answer those questions -- not the voters who elected Trump."
The same day, Craig Bannister lamented that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi "said she has no intention of trying to limit the vulgarity of her party."
Two days later, CNS seemed to have settled on a strategy on referencing Tlaib's comment about Trump in the headline and/or lead paragraph of every story it published on her.
An anonymously written Jan. 6 article had to go back seven years, to a 2012 speech she made as a Michigan state legislator, to find something to attack Tlaib with in addition to her Trump comment. The headline reads "Rep. Tlaib Who Called Trump ‘Motherf*****: ‘Stop Having Sex With Us, Gentlemen. Find Somebody Else to Do It With’," and the lead paragraph restates that Tlaib is "the newly elected congresswoman who last week called President Donald Trump a 'motherf****r'."
A Jan. 7 article by Patrick Goodenough again restated that Tlaib is "the new congresswoman from Michigan who last week called President Trump a 'motherf****r'." The same day, an anonymously written article broke with the pattern by not referencing the Trump statement at all but, rather, highling that she "told the New York Times in August that her 'Allah is she.'"
That's five articles in four days after Tlaib made her Trump statement. But CNS wasn't done.
On Jan. 8, Bannister highlighted how Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin claimed to offer an apology to "all Americans" for Tlaib's "deplorable" comments.
An anonymously written Jan. 11 article resumed the pattern by carrying the headline "Rep. Rashida—Trump’s a ‘Motherf*****’—Tlaib Gives First Floor Speech—on Drunk Driving" and stating in the lead paragraph that Tlaib is "the newly elected congresswoman who stirred controversy by calling President Donald Trump a 'mother*****.'" -- even though that had nothing to do with the subject of the article, which summarized her first House floor speech on the subject of drunk driving.
And yet another anonymously written article, on Jan. 14, carried the headline "Rep. Rashida (Trump’s a ‘Motherf*****’) Tlaib Says ‘Congress Will Never be the Same’ With Her in It" and stated in the lead parafraph that Tlaib "gained significant publicity for declaring President Donald Trump as “mother*****.'"The anonymous CNS writer didn't note that this was the seventh article CNS had published since that remark was made -- six of which referenced the remark and five of which put the remark in the headline even though most of those article were not about the remark.
In other words, CNS itself is going out of its way to give Tlaib's remarks "significant publicity." It's hypocritical for it to complain about that.
By contrast, CNS was much more deferential to a Republican politician to similarly used a swear word. After President Trump reportedly used the term "shithole countries" in reference to other countries from which immigration is purportedly undesirable, Jones uncritically repeated a statement from Trump denying he used the word, and later claimed that "not everyone is distracted by the president's poor word choice," citing Fox News host Tucker Carlson's assertion that "Trump said something that almost every person in America actually agrees with."
NEW ARTICLE -- Slanties 2019: Into the Slantie-Verse Topic: The ConWeb
As the web the ConWeb weaves continues to spread under new writer Donald Trump, it's time once again to highlight the worst ConWeb reporting and craziest ConWeb opinions of the year. Read more >>
MRC's Acosta Derangement Syndrome Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center absolutelydespises CNN correspondent Jim Acosta. So it's no surprise that it spend the end of 2018 and the beginning of 2019 nurturing that hate.
The MRC's leading Acosta-basher, Curtis Houck, served up a year-end article on the "worst Acosta moments of 2018," unprofessionally sneering in the headline, "Jimmy, Jim, Jim" and rehashing thte MRC's cheering on attacks on Acosta by the Trump White House and attendees at Trump rallies.
In a Jan. 8 post, Nicholas Fondacaro huffed that it was "obnoxious" for Acosta to point out that, in reference to President Trump's prime-time address calling the situation at the souther border "a crisis of the heart, a crisis of thte soul," the Trump administration's policy of jailing children seized on the border was heartless and soulless.Fondacaro further whined: "CNN has become so entrenched in their Trump Derangement Syndrome, that they’re 'fact-checking' whether or not the President has feelings and emotions like a normal human being."
On Jan. 10, P.J. Gladnick insisted that Acosta underwent a "hilarious self-owning" by pointing out that there were parts of the U.S.-Mexico border that did not have a steel-slat fence and there was no "national emergency" there.Gladnick concluded: "Exit question: How long before @realDonaldTrump retweets Acosta accidentally making the case for why a border wall (or steel slat fence) is needed?"
Gladnick got his wish, and pathological Acosta-hater Houck couldn't have been happier, unable to stop gushing:
A day after a trollish tweet for the ages that united people across the right side of the aisle against the media for a day-long dunk squad session, President Trump responded to a question Friday afternoon from CNN chief White House correspondent/carnival barker Jim Acosta by telling him “good job” on his Twitter videos on Thursday in McAllen, Texas that inadvertently made the case for a border wall.
Houck concluded of Trump's bashing of Acosta: "Oh snap!" Is such juvenile ranting and derangement any way for a professional "media researcher" to behave?
UPDATE: We missed one bit of Acosta derangement from Houck last week. Under the clickbaity, hyperbolic headline "BOOM! Kellyanne Conway Nukes ‘Smart***’ Jim Acosta When He Delivers Low Blow," Houck declared:
Speaking to reporters Tuesday afternoon on the West Lawn of the White House, near to where the networks have their cameras setup for live shots, White House counselor Kellyanne Conway demolished CNN chief White House correspondent Jim Acosta for being a “smartass most of the time.”
This came in response to when, instead of continuing to ask questions about the President’s primetime address, Acosta went personal and attacked Conway by chiding how Trump doesn’t have an “alternative facts problem like you do.”
Interesting that Houck doesn't think Conway's insult of Acosta was a "low blow," and that Acosta didn't "nuke" Conway by accurately pointing out her "alternative facts problem." That's what Acosta Derangement Syndrome does, apparently.
In addition, CNS published twoposts touting the merger of Levin's CRTV with Glenn Beck's The Blaze (though without mentioning controversial CRTV hosts like Gavin McInnes and Eric Bolling), as well as Levin receiving an "Impact Award" from the right-wing group United in Purpose, which was so important to CNS that it reported this a day before before reporting on its publisher, Brent Bozell, receiving the same reward.
What LGBT Stuff Is The MRC Freaking Out About Now? Topic: Media Research Center
The anti-LGBT freakouts at the Media Research Center keep on piling up.
Annie Piper complained that the Thanksgiving episode of "This Is Us" "was a heartwarming Thanksgiving episode - that is, until one head-turning scene." That would be when, according to Piper, a 10-year-old character apparently came out as gay, though all that actually happened was that an adult said to the girl that she's growing up and could talk to her about her "first boyfriend," to which the girl responds, "or girlfriend."
Nevertheless, Piper went into freakout mode: "It isn’t enough for TV shows to push the LGBTQ agenda on adults, now they’re pushing it on kids who really shouldn’t be trusting their inhibitions and feelings at such a young age."
Gabriel Hays got all huffy over Angela Ponce, the transgender contestant from Spain at the Miss Universe Pageant: "Regardless of how anyone feels about Ponce’s gender-bending campaign, betting on her is probably a smart move, considering the showbiz industry is doubling down on an LGBTQ agenda by the hour. Ponce herself has claimed that such a whirlwind victory would be of utmost importance “to promote gender diversity and equality.”
When Ponce failed to place, Karen Townsend was around to complain not only that she "was awarded her very own segment during the show" but that it wasn't fully in English, as apparently all meaningful TV is supposed to be: "Plus size supermodel Ashley Graham narrated a segment about Ponce’s time in the spotlight and subtitles were used as Ponce only spoke in Spanish. It’s all about diversity and acceptance, y’all."
Townsend then lectured: "Contrary to what Miss Spain claims, a person’s body at birth does indeed determine the sex of a child. It’s all pretty basic science. You might even say that this science is settled. There are only two sexes of human beings. An operation that mutilates body parts doesn’t change that."
But the MRC still wasn't done whining about Ponce: Brad Wilmouth intentionally misgenders her in complaining that one show "took the time to celebrate the first time that a transgender contestant has gotten to participate in the Miss Universe pagent even though he ended up losing."
Wilmouth later complained that "On NBC Nightly News on Christmas night, the show devoted a full report to the story of a lesbian couple in Illinois whose gay pride flag was stolen from outside their home." That's pretty much all there is to that, though Wilmouth does go on to whine that this story was covered while "ignoring the story of a Muslim who is also black committing a hate crime."
The mysterious Jay Maxson was outraged that a writer criticized Chick-fil-a's sponsorship of the Peach Bowl because it supports, in Maxson's words, "organizations devoted to God’s design for sexual intimacy through the context of marriage." Maxon then huffed that the writer thinks "Chick-fil-A's sponsorship of the Peach Bowl and events like the Pittsburgh Marathon represent a sports world that puts money over the well-being of a demographic whose suicide rate and rate of self-harm should be alarming to everyone. As if Chick-fil-A is responsible for the individual decisions made by people who choose not to follow biblical values."
First, when you watch the video, it’s immediately clear that the customer is a man who identifies as a woman. He is “sir” by birth, even if he now identifies as female.
Listen to his voice and look at his face.
He can take hormones and grow breasts. He can surgically alter other parts of his body.
That still does not make him “ma’am.”
This is not to deny that some men have very feminine characteristics, by nature, and that some women have very masculine characteristics, again, by nature.
It is just to say that this transgender woman is not a biological female. This “sir” is not “ma’am.”
Of course, there are women who carry guns and women who start fights and women who say, “Let’s take this outside!”
But when you watch the video from the game store and when you watch the Ben Shapiro video, once thing is abundantly clear. These are males, not females, as their chromosomes and cells will attest.
As we come to the end of 2018, it’s good to remind ourselves of these realities.
As much as we have compassion on those who genuinely struggle with their gender identity. As much as we do not minimize their pain. As much as we want them to find wholeness. We do not collaborate with social madness.
Surgery that alters one’s appearance doesn’t change a person’s sex – it changes their appearance. Putting on a wig and a dress doesn’t change one’s sexual identity any more than putting on a baseball uniform makes someone a baseball player.
Therein is the damnable lie of transgenderism. A person can undergo surgery, butchering his or her body to falsely shape it into that which it was not created, but that doesn’t change what they were born. It only changes the way they look. Trying to walk, talk and adopt behavioral characteristics of the sex you were not born is an effort in futility. It makes one a pretender; it doesn’t change sex.
We need not do anything to remain as we were born, but to alter our appearance into something else requires surgery, massive amounts of drugs, prosthetics and psychological counseling. It requires learning how to pretend to be what one was not born, from speech to walking and sitting.
A man wearing women’s clothing or a woman wearing men’s clothing cannot dictate that you or I reference them as what they clearly are not. A woman wearing men’s clothing and making every effort to conceal her breasts is still a woman. A man altering his voice, wearing makeup and women’s clothing is still a man. There can be no law that threatens you or me with legal action because we refuse to engage in others’ psychosis.
Ergo, threatening me or anyone else with bullying tactics intended to advance this false narrative is worthy of condemnation in the strongest possible terms.
Transgender activists are pushing what amounts to nothing less than an assault against you, myself and everyone else who refuses to embrace the lie that a person either by surgery or irrational thought can change the sex he or she was born. They are attempting to use judicial terrorism to force us into recognizing their deviancy as normal.
CNS Managing Editor Omits Crucial Info In Contraceptive Article Topic: CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com managing editor Michael W. Chapman does his best to ramp up the dread in a Jan. 2 blog post:
Grace Marwick, a former law student and now insurance claims handler, revealed that she developed a blood clot on her lung as a result of taking the contraceptive pill and, if the doctors had not uncovered the problem when they did, it could have caused her to suffer a stroke or killed her, reported the New York Post and several British papers on Jan. 1.
Marwick was a law school student in Ipswich, Suffolk, about 80 miles north of London in 2015. In May of that year, the doctor's office at the school prescribed her the pill Gederel 30/150 as a form of contraception.
Chapman obviously seized upon this item to indict all contraception as harmful. Just one problem: Marwick's story doesn't actually fit Chapman's narrative.One hint of that is Marwick's message about her experience, which Chapman waits until the final paragrapf of his host to note: "I just want to warn other women and encourage them to be careful and to go straight to the doctor’s if they have any unusual symptoms at all."
But the key piece of evidence is something Chapman ignores completely. Both the New York Post and Daily Mail articles to which Chapman links make this important note: Marwick is now taking a different contraceptive pill, which she says "seems to be fine."
In other words, Marwick's incident was an unfortunate side effect of a specific pill -- indeed, packaging for Gederel 30/150 lists a slightly elevated risk of a blood clot as a possible side effect.
Chapman's attempt to implicitly smear all oral contraceptives as dangerous by withholding crucial information from his readers shows that he cares more about advancing a right-wing agenda than telling the truth.
WND Touts 'Neo-Nazi Lawyer's' Frivolous Lawsuit Against SPLC Topic: WorldNetDaily
The headline on the anonymously written Jan. 3 WorldNetDaily article sure sounds ominous: "SPLC sued for targeting, destroying lawyer's career." The lead paragraph goes even further: "The far-left Southern Poverty Law Center, which recently paid out millions of dollars to a target of its 'anti-hate' campaigns, has been sued by a lawyer who claims SPLC paid for stolen documents in an attempt to get him fired and destroy his future work prospects."
After that big beginning, things get strategically vague. There's a lot of ranting about "stolen documents" regarding the lawyer in question, Glen K. Allen. It's not until the eighth paragraph that WND gets somewhat close to identifying the issue at hand:
PJMedia reported Allen previously had purchased books published by the National Alliance and made donations to the group, but “he firmly disavowed the National Alliance.”
The report said he defended the group’s legal rights because “consistently with our American traditions of free expression, freedom of association, and the rule of law, is entitled to legal representation, like other unpopular groups, and should be encouraged to seek it.”
But he denied he is racist and pointed out he’s done considerable work for individuals and groups involving all races.
SPLC also accused him of being a “neo-Nazi lawyer” and insinuating that the lawyer’s work for the city of Baltimore was racist.
At no point in the article doees WND explain what the National Alliance is, or exactly why Allen is denying he's racist or the whole "neo-Nazi lawyer" thing (the rest of the article is mostly a rehash of right-wing attacks on the SPLC). As the SPLC details, the National Alliance is an aggressively neo-Nazi group whose founder wrote a book called "The Turner Diaries," which inspired Timothy McVeigh to blow up a federal building in Oklahoma City.
The lengthy PJ Media article does a somewhat better job than WND of tying all this together (albeit remaining one-sided and unbalanced). In short: An accountant for the National Alliance gave the group's records to the SPLC, which included the fact that Allen was a dues-paying member of the National Alliance for years, donated at least an additional $500 to the group and purchased a Holocaust denial DVD and entry to a Holocaust denial conference held by the group, and that at one point he was identified as the group's lawyer. Allen contends that the membership information is stolen property and his association with the group should have remained confidential, and that the revelation of the link has effectively ended his career as a lawyer. Allen also insists that his association with the National Alliance was a "mistake" and denies he's a racist, though PJ Media never presses him on his Holocaust denial beliefs; instead, it whitewashed (as it were) his record by touting how Allen has done work for black youths and tried to volunteer "for a pro bono project to help Holocaust victims obtain compensation."
But PJ Media got strategically vague as well. Of Allen's association with the American Eagle Party, it wrote that the SPLC "also slammed the American Eagle Party as racist, which the lawsuit denounces as a 'fraudulent characterization.'" In fact, the SPLC describes the American Eagle Party as "an offshoot of the racist American Freedom Party" that embraced conspiracy theories but was also "promoted heavily on Stormfront."
So. basically, Allen is not denying his neo-Nazi leanings -- despite his protestations that he's not a racist and that his "present outlook... is a mixture of Ron Paul Libertarianism, First Amendment advocacy and civil debate," his apparently still current American Eagle Party ties appear to belie that -- but, rather, he's mad that they were made public and he can't get a job as a lawyer as a result. Of course, if you're a neo-Nazi and a lawyer, "neo-Nazi lawyer" is not an inaccurate descriptor.
In most cases, the truth is an absolute defense. Allen doesn't seem to understand that, and WND cares only about using Allen's lawsuit to launch a dubious attack on tthe SPLC.
MRC Roots Through Reporter's Instagram Account To Attack Him As 'Socialist' Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's Tim Graham was in fine whining mood in a Dec. 23 post, ranting that a Washington Post profile on Adam McKay, director of the new movie about Dick Cheney, "Vice," was somehow another example of the paper publishing "the most embarrassing laudatory dreck supporting its favorite socialist elites," because McKay considers himself a democratic socialist.
But it wasn't enough for Graham to attack a newspaper or a person it featured. He then went needlessly personal attacked the article's author, Jeff Weiss. Graham declared that "Weiss is such a socialist he posted a happy picture of himself posed with statues of his heroes Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels at the Marx-Engels forum in Berlin, created under the East German communist regime."
Graham apparently spent no small amount of time rooting through Weiss' personal Instragram accounty until he found the photo. Graham provided no other evidence that Weiss is a "socialist" -- indeed, Weiss' Instragram feed shows him to be a music obsessive rather than a political ideologue -- and seems to have discounted the possibility that Weiss was merely a tourist who posed ironically with the statues.
This is how terrible a media critic Graham is -- he has to smear a journalist based on a single Instagram photo in order to own the Washington Post.
CNSNews.com has closely following President Trump's rhetoric in playing down the effects of the government shutdown. Now, managing editor Michael W. Chapman is directly attacking the furloughed workers themselves.
Chapman's Jan. 4 blog post first complains that the furloughed workers have jobs to return to, unlike regular folks who get fired or laid off (emphasis in original):
The partial government shutdown, now in its 14th day, affects an estimated 800,000 federal workers, nearly all of whom will receive their back-pay when the shutdown ends. In the private sector, however, more than 1.5 million Americans are laid off or fired every month and most of them do not get to return to their jobs.
Simply, nearly twice as many private sector workers lose their jobs every month compared to the federal workers who are temporarily inconvenienced for a few weeks during the shutdown.
Of course, virtually none of those who were fired or laid off were being used as pawns in a political argument, but Chapman isn't going to mention that inconvenient fact.
Chapman then attacks the furloughed workers -- who, again, are not being allowed to work and earn a paycheck through no fault of their own -- as lazy people who are "essentially on vacation" (with a bonus potshot at Sen. Chuck Schumer for defending federal workers):
To put it in perspective, over the last 12 months, more than 18,000,000 Americans lost their jobs; in the shutdown, 800,000 federal workers either worked without pay temporarily or they stayed home, and they will get paid when the shutdown ends.
Yet the liberals, big government hangers-on, and the leftist media complain because a National Forest worker is essentially on vacation. They rarely ever complain about private sector layoffs. They claim that it's part of the nature of capitalism. But when government employees have to stay home, the sky is falling, according to liberals.
Sen. Schumer (D-N.Y.) saidtoday that "food safety inspectors ... are working without pay ... American farmers can't get loans from the USDA" and "our National Parks are suffering."
Welcome to tightening your belt, Sen. Schumer, regular Americans do it every single day.
(Schumer, incidentally, has worked in government on the taxpayers' dime since he was 25 years old -- 43 years now.)
To drive home the whole "vacation" thing, Chapman includes a stock photo of a beach, despite offering no evidence that any furloughed government worker is vacationing at a beach this very moment.
Chapman sure is judgmental about how others make their money for a guy sponging off wingnut welfare -- that is, other people's money.
WND Cranks Up The Anti-Vaxxer Conspiracies Topic: WorldNetDaily
We've noted WorldNetDaily's recent return to pushing anti-vaxxer conspiracy theories following a brief attempt at falsely blaming Muslims for hating vaccines. The conspiracy continues in an anonymously written Dec. 30 article that rehashes the old trope about vaccines causing autism:
A video in which two parents tearfully tell the story of their tragedy – triplets all becoming autistic within hours of getting a vaccination at the age of nine months – is getting a second life.
And it’s at least partly due to the continuing controversy over the alleged link between vaccinations of infants and autism – an issue put in the news just days ago by a newly elected congressman.
It was Tennessee U.S. Rep.-elect Mark Green who explained at a town-hall event that he thinks vaccines may cause autism.
That would be contrary to what the federal Centers for Disease Control have claimed.
Green, a medical doctor, questioned data from the CDC and other institutions that purport to disprove the vaccine link.
“Let me say this about autism,” Green said. “I have committed to people in my community, up in Montgomery County, to stand on the CDC’s desk and get the real data on vaccines. Because there is some concern that the rise in autism is the result of the preservatives that are in our vaccines.
“As a physician, I can make that argument and I can look at it academically and make the argument against the CDC, if they really want to engage me on it,” Green said.
Jane Orient, M.D., former president of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, says the real problems are a lack of adequate research and the medical industry’s apparent effort to conceal any link between vaccines and autism.
“We just really don’t know [the causes] and we’re not doing the research” that is needed, she told WND.
The video of the triplets allegedly becoming autistic is hosted on a video platform called Brighteon; it has an Infowars channel, which tells you all you need to know about the kind of content that exists there. WND couldn't be bothered to find any independent verification of the claims -- then again, we could find none ourselves.
Meanwhile, supposed medical doctor Orient, as befits her longtime association with the anti-vaxxer AAPS, is being irresponsible and borderline fraudulent by claiming no research is being done on the alleged link. Plenty of research has been done to disprove the link, and the one piece of research claiming such a link has been refuted and retracted.
Rather than offering any actual scientific proof, WND lets Orient rant about "thousands of case studies" and "the medical industry's shot agenda." Giving space to such factually deficient rants without the same space devoted to debunking it belies WND's claim to be "credible" (as does much of WND's existence, but that's beside the point).
MRC Mocks Coverage of 'World's Most Racist Haircut' Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Reserach Center's Bill D'Agostino devoted a Dec. 27 post to bashing "liberal media outlets" for reporting on a incident in which a (black) New Jersey high school wrestler getting a ringside haircut of his dreadlocks on orders of a (white) referee. He sneers that this was "the world's most racist haircut," then tries to pretend there's no issue here:
There’s just one problem: such occurrences are fairly commonplace in high school wrestling.
Wrestling is a heavily regulated sport, and participants are subject to very specific standards of decorum and dress. Before matches, the athletes are checked for skin lesions and have their hair and nails inspected to ensure that they are the proper length – that is, very short.
The NFHS (National Federation of State High School Associations) 2019 rules interpretation booklet says the following about “non-abrasive” braided hair: “If the hair in its natural state is longer than allowed by rule, then it must be contained in a legal hair cover. (4-2-1)”
For unknown reasons, the referee determined that the young wrestler's hair covering was not legal. Liberal reporters then concluded with alarming certainty that that determination was not only unjust, but also motivated by grotesque racial bias.
Yet for all the outrage it caused, the video of the incident itself is remarkably tame. A coach talks excitedly as the teenager has his hair trimmed by an athletic trainer, and another wrestler walks by to give his teammate an encouraging pre-match high five. Notably absent from the video is any hint of outrage or discomfort on the faces of those observing the scene.
Not only does D'Agostino provide evidence that ringside haircuts are "fairly commonplace," he also omits a couple of inconvenient facts in recounting his version of the story. Notably, the lawyer for the boy's family stated that the boy had wrestled the week before without any incident. Referees are also expected to report any possible rules violations before thte start of the meet, but the referee arrived late and missed the weigh-in period when such things would be addressed.
Instead, D'Agostino mockingly noted that one reporter "shrewdly observed that the teenager had been given no such trouble for his hair during matches earlier in the season. That's certainly a strike against the referee in question – unless, of course, the student’s hair had grown since then, as hair sometimes does."
D'Agostino did concede that "the same referee previously was accused of using a racial slur at a social gathering [in] 2016," so that's something.
Fake News: WND Pushes False Claim Obama Favored Muslim Candidate in Nigeria Topic: WorldNetDaily
An anonymously written Dec. 29 WorldNetDaily article states:
The former president of Nigeria, a Christian, is charging in his new book that President Obama was involved in “facilitating” the persecution of Christians by prodding voters there to adopt a Muslim-led government.
The Muslim, Muhammadu Buhari, was, in fact, elected, and he is being blamed for allowing “the persecution of Christians,” reports Breaking Israel News.
Goodluck Jonathan was Nigeria’s president from 2010-2015, and writes in his new book, “My Transition Hours,” that, “On March 23, 2015, President Obama himself took the unusual step of releasing a video message directly to Nigerians all but telling them how to vote … In that video, Obama urged Nigerians to open the ‘next chapter’ by their votes. Those who understood subliminal language deciphered that he was prodding the electorate to vote for the [Muslim-led] opposition to form a new government.”
Since WND can't be bothered to tell the other side of the story, its readers won't know that Jonathan's claim is false.
Obama's video did not advocate for one candidate over another; he asked "all leaders and candidates to make it clear to their supporters that violence has no place" in the election process, and he urged "all Nigerians from all religions, all ethnic groups and all regions to come together and keep Nigeria one."
Further, Russell Brooks, an officer at the U.S. Consulate in Nigeria, pointed out that Jonathan mischaracterized what the Obama administration for Nigeria, that the 2015 elections were, in fact, free and fair, and that the U.S. supports the democratic process, not a particular candidate.
WND, in its current decimated state, made the mistake of relying the right-wing Breaking Israel News for its claim, specifically a highly biased article by anti-Muslim Raymond Ibrahim ranting about a "genocide" of Christians in Nigeria and that Buhari is "facilitating jihad." While one Christian group declined to endorse Buhari for re-election later this year, another Christian group has endorsed him.
WND also uncritically repeated Ibrahim's claim that nomadic Fulani Muslims are killing Christian farmers in the country in the name of jihad; in fact, the Fulani themselvesinsist the conflict is about cattle, and one imam helped to save the lives of Christians in the conflict.
WND still hasn't learned that publishing bogus claims doesn't help fix its credibility issues.
It's pro-Trump rah-rah time again with December's employment numbers at CNSNews.com. Susan Jones gushed in her lead story:
Amid concerns about trade with China and rollercoaster stock markets, the final employment report of 2018 counts as good news.
The Labor Department's Bureau of Labor Statistics said on Friday the economy added an impressivve 312,000 jobs in December, which was a month of strong retail sales; and the nation's unemployment rate increased two-tenths of a point to 3.9 percent, which is still an 18-year low.
The number of employed Americans has now set a 14th record under Trump:
When Trump became president in January 2017, 152,076,000 Americans were employed. Last month, that number grew to a record 156,945,000, a gain of 4,869,000 in two years.
By contrast, when writing about December 2016 employment numbers under President Obama, Jones obsessed over the labor force participation rate, waiting until the seventh paragraph to report that the number of employed Americans had reached a new high.
CNS editor in chief Terry jeffrey not only served up his usual sidebar about manufacturing jobs under Trump, he wrote a second one proclaiming that "The U.S. economy added 284,000 manufacturing jobs in 2018, according to the employment report released today by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. That is the largest increase in manufacturing jobs in the United States in 21 years."
We also got a sidebar from Craig Bannister touting how "The national seasonally-adjusted unemployment rate for Hispanics and Latinos in the U.S. labor force hit itslowest level on record in December of 2018." CNS' Media Research Center quickly exploited that in an anonymously written MRC Latino piece complaining that Spanish-language networks weren't reporting this.
Additionally, CNS published a column by Mickey Levy gushing over the "exceptional" employment numbers and how "labor market performance surpassed expectations in 2018."