It was the height of Russia’s meddling the 2016 election, when news broke that President Barack Obama spent taxpayer money, to the tune of $350,000, on an Israeli organization that was mobilizing against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, during the 2015 election. The news was largely ignored by the liberal media and was omitted by the broadcast networks.
Except that's not what happened. As we documented when WND latched onto it, the money was given by the State Department to an Israeli organization called OneVoice for a project that was unrelated to the 2015 elections, and the funding stopped months before the election. OneVoice later used infrastructure paid for by the grant in its anti-Netanyahu campaign. A Republican-led Senate report found that OneVoice fully complied with the terms of the grant, no grant money was used for the anti-Netanyahu caompaign, and the State Department placed no limits on the post-grant use of those resources.
So Fondacaro is lying when he claims Obama gave that money specifically to target Netanyahu. The story was "largely ignored" because it wasn't a story -- unless, like Fondacaro, you're a member of the right-wing media desperate for any bit of Obama dirt, no matter how dubious.
Nevertheless, the very next day, Fondacaro's MRC co-worker Curtis Houck huffed that "the Obama administration’s dislike of Netanyahu and the role an Obama adviser and U.S. tax dollars played in (unsuccessfully) working to defeat him in 2015," adding that "a report from the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigationsthat a non-governmental organization with ties to Obama used taxpayer funds to oust Netanyahu." Houck vaguely wrote about the situation to make it less false, but the Washington Times article to which he links falsely claims that the grant money was spent directly on the anti-Netanyahu campaign.
Houck then gritted his teeth and invoked a onetime ideological ally turned enemy: "Don’t believe NewsBusters? Well, let’s allow the despicably false and smarmy Jennifer Rubin give you the lowdown here." But even Rubin admitted that OneVoice complied with the grant's provisions and did nothing wrong.
WND's Latest Argument For Conversion Therapy: It's A Free Speech Issue! Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily has tried various tactics to downplay anti-gay conversion therapy -- uncritically repeating claims from right-wing anti-gay activist groups -- at one point trying to rebrand it as "gender-confusion counseling."
The latest attempt is an Aptil 14 article that parrots right-wing legal group Liberty Counsel's efforts to overturn a ban on conversion therapy for minors in Boca Raton, Fla., by framing it as "a significant free-speech case in which liberal activists are pressing states to censor viewpoints with which they disagree." How? Liberty Counsel is representing conversion therapists who use talk therapy.
The only note of opposition noted by WND is a distorted claim that "Critics claim it’s injurious to children to hear that they can address same-sex attractions that could be the result of abuse or dysphoria." WND cited no named source making that specific claim. WND also cited another anti-gay group as asserting that a “campaign of outrageous lies sand misinformation” is behind the anti-conversion therapy effort -- and again, no evidence is provided. By contrast, an actual news outlet reporting on the story noted that a study found that "LGBTQ individuals whose parents had sent them for the counseling as teenagers had a high rate of attempting suicide."
MRC Rewrites A Press Release From Its Favorite Anti-Abortion Filmmaker Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center was huge promoter of Phelim McAleer's anti-abortion "Gosnell" film -- and why wouldn't they be, given that it appears that McAleer appears to have paid the MRC to help him raise money to make it. So, it's no surprise that an April 11 MRC post by Gabriel Hays is little more than a rewritten press release from McAleer himself:
In an act of solidarity with the pro-life community, the White House has announced that it will be screening anti-abortion film Gosnell: The Trial of America’s Biggest Serial Killeron Friday, April 12.
The film’s co-producer Phelim McAleer provided a press release announcing the exciting news and thanking the movie’s supporters for pushing it to such a high-profile premier. He wrote, “We have some wonderful news to share. We have been invited to screen the Gosnell Movie at the White House this Friday.” McAleer added, “It’s sending a very powerful message. We couldn't be more grateful to our nearly 30,000 Indiegogo supporters who made this movie a reality.”
McAleer also noted that this was the “first political movie to be screened in the Trump White House- our supporters have helped make history.” Well that’s pretty powerful stuff and a good reminder, amidst all the constant, negative Trump press, that his administration is still committed to the pro-life cause.
Hays's sycophantic gushing never stopped:
The film committed itself fully to the truth of the Gosnell story. LifeSiteNews reported that it was “based “very heavily on actual court transcripts,” “dozens of hours of interviews” with Gosnell himself, and the case’s grand jury report.
One of the most effective themes in the film, was the fact that the mainstream media wants nothing to do with controversial abortion cases. Here was a doctor that was on trial for the murder of a couple young women via botched abortion procedures and almost no reporter was present at the scene. It was one of the most confounding and powerful shots in the film — that completely empty courthouse on the day of the first hearing.
At least the Trump administration recognizes the importance of such a powerful film. In his press release, McAleer urged pro-life Americans to thank the president for his support. “But what we really want you to do is to go on Twitter and THANK @realdonaldtrump for recognizing the importance of this movie for the country right now.”
Actually, it's questionable how fully committed to the truth McAleer really was. The judge who presided over Gosnell's trial sued McAleer over what he believed was a defamatory portrayal of him in the film and an accompanying book, pointing out that McAleer was "shamelessly exploiting for profit the morally divisive issue of abortion" and operating with a "predetermined agenda." That suit was settled out of court, but McAleer never explained how.
If McAleer really was committed to the truth of this story, he would be more transparent -- and Hays should have demanded that transparency instead of being an emarrassing suck-up.
CNS Lets Loopy Rabbi Suck Up To Trump Again Topic: CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com knows it cancount on loopy rabbi Aryeh Spero to offer a sycophantic pro-Trump take on a given issue. Thus, CNS gave Spero an April 16 column to over-effusively praise Trump for bashing Rep. Ihlan Omar's "some people did something" remark (which was plucked out of context to maliciously portray her as anti-American):
Omar trivialized 9/11, referring to it in a cavalier fashion. The President correctly demonstrated via his video the enormity and the devastating catastrophe of 9/11. It has nothing to do with racism, rather the correct response to a disrespectful statement made by Omar against this country, demonstrating her gross indifference to the suffering of Americans.
Those that impute racism to the President’s tweet are living in a make-believe world or, worse, themselves are trying to incite an issue of racism where such is not the case. People of truth and historical awareness cannot remain silent out of fear that their opposition will fabricate claims of racism.
Thankfully we have a man of President Trump’s candor, who is willing to fight against the rewriting of history and who is willing to protect the free speech of Americans defending their country. He has made an Executive Order protecting free speech from the politically correct censorship prevalent on campuses and is, similarly, by example, giving support to all those who wish to exercise their right to tell the truth.
Note that Spero didn't mention the actual content of Trump's anti-Omar tweet -- a video that edited Omar's out-of-context remarks into footage of the 9/11 attacks.
What LGBT Stuff Is The MRC Freaking Out About Now? Topic: Media Research Center
Rebecca Downs thought that the TV show "God Friended Me" was "pretty well behaved" until it introduced a lesbian character who was the daughter of a Episcopal pastor, and was upset that the show used "the ever increasing acronym to describe the movement" -- the offending letters being LGBTQIA. Downs then complained that the Christian denomination in question is actually gay-friending, sneering that the show "was so eager to lecture about the issue of homosexuality in the Christian church that they didn't even bother to look into it. Perhaps the show should have accurately addressed that, rather than adding all the extra letters to the LGBT acronym."
Gabriel Hays expressed his freakout by invoking LGBT stereotypes as he got all huffy about the "Queer Eye" stars visiting Capitol Hill and mocking the Democrats who met them as substance-free:
Famous gay DIY style gurus, theQueer Eye for the Straight Guy boys hit the D.C. circuit on Thursday April 4, hoping to meet some of our nation’s great legislative leaders. They settled for Alexandria “Three Chambers” Ocasio-Cortez, and Nancy “Clapback” Pelosi.
Our Republic may be suffering, but at least we know the Instagram photos are sure to be fabulous. (This second version ofQueer Eyestreams on Netflix.)
Huffpost was all aglow with the knowledge that TV’s greatest queens were getting a tour of the nation’s capital from Democrat queens.
For her part, Ocasio-Cortez thanked the Queer Eye crew and chirped her agenda: “Thank you for visiting and helping us push for the #EqualityAct, & be there to watch Congress pass the Violence Against Women Act & War Powers Resolution to end U.S. involvement in Yemen.” Like we said, style really beat up on substance that day.
Karen Townsend complained that the new season of "Chilling Adventures of Sabrina" invoked "the transgender agenda" by... having a "gender non-conforming" female now identify as a boy.Townsend didn't explain howmerely having a transgender character equates to pushing an "agenda" (does a TV show that has a Christian character mean it's pushing a "Christian agenda"?), but she went on to whining that "Normalizing transgender teens... should not be seen as normal for impressionable teens. High school is hard enough as it is."
Speaking of whining, Tim Graham was mad that a Catholic priest refused to hate Pete Buttigieg for being gay and, thus, "heretical" to conservative Christianity:
CNN loves "progressive" Christians like openly gay Mayor Pete Buttigieg and his insistence that he's a "devout Christian," while Vice President Mike Pence is all wrong. On CNN Friday, Brooke Baldwin brought on two guests to repeat all the "progressive" talking points. Sadly, one of them was a Catholic priest, CNN commentator Fr. Edward Beck.
Wouldn't viewers expect a Catholic priest to explain why traditional Christians who follow the Scriptures believe that homosexual behavior is sinful? Instead, Father Beck, fresh from a Buttigieg interview, just repeated all of Mayor Pete's talking points like a press secretary.
Hays returned to spew more mocking anti-gay stereotypes as he melted down over the thought that Marvel is creating superheroes that aren't heteronormative:
Phase II of the Marvel comic book cinematic universe is going to involve a few less of our classic superheros in favor of a bold new array of diverse and inclusive characters. Yes, Marvel’s going a lot more ethnic, and a lot more gay because what’s cooler than finding out that your new favorite Avenger enjoys his skintight latex suit for far more than just crime-fighting purposes?
Marvel is already in pre-production on another film, The Eternals, starring Angelina Jolie, and super lefty Kumail Nanjiani. Feige’s ideas for finding something “really different and special” involve wrangling up “a gay Asian male lead in what will be their first openly gay character.”
Where is "super lefty" on the MRC's spectrum? Is it farther to the left of "left wing" and "far left"?
Gays Are 'Morally Compromised,' WND's Erik Rush Rants Topic: WorldNetDaily
Last November, WorldNetDaily columnist Erik Rush peddled right-wing conspiracy theories against newly elected Colorado Gov. Jared Polis, smearing him as an "ugly gay guy with highly questionable politics and a dark back story."
I am convinced that millions of Americans voted for Barack Obama in 2008 for no other reason than in so doing, they were able to count it as definitive proof that they were not bigoted. Forever after, such people will be able to counter any accusation of racism with the fact that they voted for a black man as president.
Similarly, I am convinced that hundreds of thousands of voters in the state of Colorado voted for former Rep. Jared Polis as their governor in 2018 for no other reason than in so doing, they were able to count it as definitive proof that they were not homophobic.
Between the marketing that goes on during political campaigns and the ideological bent of the establishment press, in both cases, voters remained blissfully unaware that these men were two of the most subversive ever to seek office in America.
In the case of Polis, there is an even more insidious and dangerous dynamic at work here: Countless Americans have accepted the notion that homosexuality does not represent one being morally compromised because they’ve been told that harboring such a belief would make them bigots (as well as hurting homosexuals’ feelings). Coloradoans’ summary denial that homosexuals are a morally compromised lot has effectively allowed a morally compromised individual to run their state.
We don't recall Rush ever describing the current president, a thrice-married adulterer who has paid hush money to porn stars, as "morally compromised."
MRC's Double Standard on Awards Being Taken Away, Tim Graham Division Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's Tim Graham complained in a April 3 post:
From the "Brian Stelter Won't Report This" file, Paul Bedard at the Washington Examiner reports that "complaints from media critics of the Trump administration" prompted a leading hostage-rights group to withdraw its “Freedom Award” to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo for his (and the president's) efforts to free political prisoners around the world.
The James W. Foley Legacy Foundation, named for an American journalist and political prisoner beheaded by ISIS in 2014, announced its intention to give Pompeo the award. Not only did they withdraw the award, they also disinvited Pompeo from the event "due to protests from angered media members who threatened to disrupt the event."
Instead, the foundation gave Pompeo’s award to Brett McGurk, the diplomat who recently resigned from the government over Trump's announcement of withdrawal from Syria. McGurk helped win the release of Americans from Iran, includingWashington Postreporter Jason Rezaian.
Interestingly, Graham failed to emphasize that Bedard's sources are anonymous -- indeed, Bedard cites only "knowledgable sources" and offers no on-the-record confirmation of his claims.This is important because Graham regularly rails against the "liberal media" for using anonymous sources; in a 2017 Fox News appearance, for instance, Graham huffed that "the news media today gets to use these anonymous sources, and the anonymous sources can say all sorts of terrible things about Trump," insising that the use of anonymous sources allow "Trump's powerful enemies to be presumed as all-wise and nonpartisan, even patriotic, when no one knows their identities or motives."
In other words, Graham has contridicted himself because Bedard's anonymous sources are tellilng a story that fits neatly in the conservative victimization narrative. (Graham also failed to disclose the conflict of interest that the MRC has had a promotion deal with Bedard since 2012.)
(UPDATE: Graham's boss, Brent Bozell, also weighed in, calling the claim of the award withdrawal "cowardice." And like Graham, he was silent on his apparent reversal on being critical of claims made by anonymous sources.)
But that's not the only double standard happening here. Just six days later, Graham was cheering the withdrawal of another award for political reasons -- from a journalist, by the Trump administration's State Department, led by, yes, Mike Pompeo:
Washington Post "fact checker" (and former State Department reporter) Glenn Kessler tweeted it was "an embarrassment and an outrage." The Trump administration rescinded a "Women of Courage" award at the State Department for Finnish journalist Jessikka Aro, and two reporters at Foreign Policy magazine found the usual Anonymous Source claiming it was because someone on Team Trump read her Twitter feed and had second thoughts.
Unaddressed in this liberals-upset-for-other-liberals story: Why would you want an award from the Trump administration if you hate them so much? If you #Resist them in your Twitter feed, why not take this denial as proof of your successful #Resistance? It doesn't really take courage in today's media to oppose Trump. It seems like a pre-requisite.
This could be another motto for The Washington Post: "Vocal Critics of a Notoriously Thin-Skinned President." It's less obnoxious than that Democracy Dies drama-queen routine.
Of course, Graham was much more thin-skinned (and much more of a drama queen) six days earlier, something he doesn't reference in this post.
That's five articles on Barr's pre-release presser. By contrast, CNS published only one article taken from the actual contents of the Mueller report on the day of release, a piece by Susan Jones narrowly focusing on a finding that "Russian officials, including Russian President Vladimir Putin, weren't sure how to get in touch with Trump to congratulate him on election night." That was joined by a blog post featuring one of the Republican members of Congress CNS called upon to pre-spin the report justifying Trump's anger over the Mueller investigation.
The next day brought more articles on the report's contents -- apparently needing the extra time to figure out how to best spin things for Trump. Jones spun the hardest, insisting that Trump's reported statement on learning Mueller's investigation had started -- "Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked." -- was really about how "he feared he wouldn't be able to get anything done as president with the cloud of investigation hanging over him.," lecturing: "Various liberal media outlets have seized on the President's "I'm f****d" remark to make it appear that he knew he had something to hide. A full reading of the paragraph suggests otherwise."
Jones also framed the no-obstruction narrative by highlighting how the president largely failed to obstruct the investigation because "Trump was unsuccessful in getting his subordinates to carry out his will."
Patrick Goodenough seized on a claim that "Weeks before President Trump took office, he and his transition team tried energetically to thwart a major U.N. Security Council resolution condemning Israel," thus demonstrating "a foreshadowing of what would became a signature policy of the Trump administration’s dealings with the U.N., where strong defense of Israel has been a high priority."
Jones did an article on one negative claim from the report -- that Trump ordered then-White House counsel Don McGahn to fire Mueller, then asked him to create a false record that he never asked such a thing -- but spun it her president's way, leading not with the claim but, rather, with Trump alluding to the note-taking McGahn by calling his claims "fabricated" and "bullshit."
The coverage concluded with another rant from Levin denouncing the report post-release (though it's unclear how much he actually read before launching said rant).
MRC's Bozell & Graham Are Triggered By The Dictionary Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's Tim Graham and Brent Bozell spend an entire April 12 column raging at ... the dictionary because it added the term "white fragility." No, really:
One of strangest developments in today's Internet culture is how website dictionaries, which one might presume to be objective, have dabbled in "woke" leftist politics as a way of drawing clicks.
USA Today reporter Jessica Guynn, who explains that her job is to explore how the digital world can "amplify bias and widen disparities," delighted in reporting how the term "white fragility" has been added to dictionaries as a result of racial discussions on social media.
Sociologist Robin Di Angelo, one in the endless line of perpetually bored, arrogant and/or ignorant "experts" on race, coined the term "white fragility" in 2011. It was overlooked initially (and for good reason: It's stupid). But naturally, it has picked up steam along with the political career of Donald Trump. After Trump won the presidency in 2016, the Oxford Dictionaries put the term on its short list for word of the year. Last week, it was added to Dictionary.com, defined as "the tendency among members of the dominant white cultural group to have a defensive, wounded, angry, or dismissive response to evidence of racism."
For the love of God. Really?
The two then act out some of that white fragility:
White men can never challenge "academic data" about racism in diversity training sessions, or anywhere else. "Oppressed groups" are always presumed to have the upper hand with evidence ... because they're "oppressed." The left is always trying to stack the deck and smother debate, and crying racism is a huge favorite.
The time has come, another expert told USA Today, where people are "interrogating the concept of whiteness." Somehow these people have no idea that they are driving voters right into Donald Trump's camp with their constant accusations of racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia and the whole dictionary of bigotries.
The only way out is to renounce your whiteness. We officially declare ourselves to be American Indians (like Sen. Elizabeth Warren) and identify as oppressed.
Thus proving that the concept is real and deserves to have a dictionary term to describe it.
WND Advances Conspiracy Theory That Notre Dame Fire Was Terrorist Act Topic: WorldNetDaily
After the fire at Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris, WorldNetDaily was happy to mock YouTube for an "algorithm designed to combat fake news and conspiracy theories [that] equated the Paris catastrophe with the 9/11 New York City terror attacks," adding that "there is no indication that the devastating fire at the iconic Notre Dame is related to terrorism."
But even though there remains no indication of a terrorism link to the Notre Dame fire, WND has embraced the idea that there might be, likely committed by Muslims.
An April 15 article regurgitated a right-wing blogger who counted "the names of Facebook users who responded to a video of the fire with a laughing emoji. The names included Yusuf Mohammedzai, Mohamed Hiadi, Mohamed Bensalem and Abdelhakim Noui Oua."
An anonymously written April 16 WND article stepped in that direction by highlighting "the surge of attacks on Christian symbols in Europe." While it did concede that "French authorities believe the blaze that destroyed the roof of the 850-year-old Notre Dame Cathedral was accidental," it also highlighted that "ISIS followers online called the Notre Dame fire “retribution and punishment” from Allah.
Another April 16 article complained, as the Media Research Center did, that Fox News anchor Shepard Smith shut down a guest who tried to link the Notre Dame fire to other attacks on European churches, then rehashed Rush L:imbaugh's conspiracy theory that it was "head-in-the-sand denial" not to raise the specter of a link.
WND columnist Barbara Simpson went fully into conspiracy territory in her April 21 column:
The big question then, is the same big question now: How did the fire start? While there has been a wild attempt by worldwide media to show the pictures of the inferno and the damage caused, there is a concerted effort to avoid making any conclusions as to HOW the fire started – or, perhaps, WHO started it.
It’s not too far-fetched to say that media and authorities are in the midst of a total avoidance of possibly accusing any person(s) or groups as being responsible for the conflagration.
The truth is, a building the size and age and cared-for as Notre Dame does not “just” burn down – not especially with the heat, speed and totality of the flames.
The allegation is the wood roof was just so flammable that even a simple spark would set it all off. Nonsense. The 850-year-old roof was built with whole trees, many more than a 100 years old when they were cut. It would take more than a spark to set them ablaze with the speed and destructiveness of that fire.
What is left of the structure is so fragile at this point, that NO authorities have been allowed inside for inspections … yet there are media reports that a “short circuit” set off the blaze. The contractors who were doing the remodeling say that is not possible, yet the media persist and officials support them even though NO investigators have done any inspections.
Speaking of the media persisting, they’re also avoiding – with every bit of their ability – to even consider that perhaps anti-Catholic feeling was responsible for the fire.
The big “no-no” is to even suggest there might be Muslim involvement in the Notre Dame fire. This, despite reports in Islamic media, that Muslims are cheering the destruction.
She was followed by Oliver Melnick, who basically argued that it would be irresponsible not to speculate:
We might never really know the source of the Notre Dame fire, but the situation is such in France and much of Western Europe that at least it makes it possible for one to speculate and leave the door open for a terrorist attack. The soil is fertile to allow more hatred to grow and choke Christianity and Western civilization. As a matter of fact, ISIS, which didn’t claim responsibility for the fire, threatened to start another one to finish the job. They were not involved, but they were quick to rejoice and post photos of the burning structure on social media, with the caption: “It’s time to say goodbye to your oratory polytheism.”
Notre Dame’s fire didn’t have to be a terrorist attack to draw the attention of those who promote Christianity and Western values. There is a track record of the destruction of Christianity in Europe that has existed for a while now. Lovers of freedom and democracy ought to be really concerned.
And that's how WND keeps its reputation of being conspiracy-mongers.
CNS Editor Still Has Trouble Blaming Trump for Rising Federal Deficits Topic: CNSNews.com
We've documented how CNSNews.com editor in chief Terry Jeffrey loves to fret about rising deficits and national debt, but is much more reluctant to pin the current situation on President Trump Republicans than he was about blaming Democrats when the president was named Obama. That reluctance hasn't really stopped, despite the occasional dose of reality.
A March 26 article by Jeffrey fretted: "The federal government spent $1,822,712,000,000 in the first five months of fiscal 2019, the most it has spent in the first five months of any fiscal year since 2009, which was the fiscal year that outgoing President George W. Bush signed a $700-billion law to bailout the banking industry and incoming President Barack Obama signed a $787-billion law to stimulate an economy then in recession." Even though that spending occurred under Trump, Jeffrey never blames him or his fellow Republicans -- indeed, rather than a picture of Trump, his article is illustrated with a shot of Obama and Bush.
And Trump is mentioned only in passing, in the second-to-last paragraph of the 25-paragraph article, when Jeffrey paraphrases a government official who justified lower corporate tax revenue -- one key reason why deficit spending is up -- by stating that "the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act signed by President Trump in December 2017 was understood to be frontloaded in that corporations early on would take advantage of the new expensing rules to build their businesses."
Jeffrey similarly stated in an April 10 article that "The federal government spent $2,198,468,000,000 in the first six months of fiscal 2019 (October through March), which is the most it has spent in the first six months of any fiscal year in the last decade, according to the Monthly Treasury Statements." This time, however, Jeffrey doesn't mention Trump at all, despite this massive deficit spending happening under his watch. The accompanying picture, meanwhile, is not of Trump but a stock photo of Democrats Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer and two other unidentified politicians. Jeffrey did not explain why the photo includes people who weren't directly responsible for the situation he's complaining about.
The tagline at the end of both of Jeffrey's articles reads: "The business and economic reporting of CNSNews.com is funded in part with a gift made in memory of Dr. Keith C. Wold." If Jeffrey is making dishonest points with his funded reporting, it would seem that that gift money is being wasted.
Newsmax Touts Trump's Not-Yet-Existent Donation to Notre Dame Topic: Newsmax
John Gizzi proclaims in an April 17 Newsmax article:
President Donald Trump is soon expected to make a personal contribution to the rebuilding of the Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris.
Two White House sources told Newsmax on Wednesday afternoon the president "was seriously considering" sending his own money to repair the storied Cathedral that sustained a major fire two days ago.
The same sources said the president had a long conversation Wednesday morning with Pope Francis and assured him there would be American assistance in its rebuilding. So far, French citizens have pledged what in U.S. currency would be more than $750,000 to refurbish the famed cathedral.
Since becoming President in 2017, Trump has declined the President's annual salary of $400,000 and donated it to various charities, including government entities.
The headline on Gizzi's article reads "Trump Will Make Personal Donation to Notre Dame" -- which is inaccurate because at no point does Gizzi claim that the donation will actually happen. While he claims Trump "is soon expected" to make a donation, his anonymous sources said only Trump "was seriously considering" it.
Gizzi, meanwhile, didn't tell his readers about Trump's highly dubious record on charitable giving. The Washington Post reported in 2016 that of a list of 4,844 alleged charitable donations by Trump provided to the media during the 2016 presidential campaign, precisely none of them involved Trump's own money -- they were made by Trump's charitable foundation to which Trump himself donated relatively littie of his own money, many of them were free rounds of golf at Trump-owned courses, and the largest "donations" were land conservation easements.
Gizzi's story reads like a "beat sweetener" -- a flattering story written with the goal of getting a methphorical foot in the door for future access to the Trump White House.
MRC Complains About 'Mud' (a.k.a. Accurate Reporting) In Media On Moore, Cain Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's Julia A. Seymour spends an April 9 post complaining that The media have outdone themselves slinging mud" at President Trump's Federal Reserve Board of Governors nominees Herman Cain and Stephen Moore. Seymour first defended Moore,huffing that media reports focused on Moore's ugly divorce:
Moore holds a masters degree in economics, yet a USA Today editorial compared Moore to a 1980s soap opera doctor who hawked cough syrup in commercials. But the ugliest attacks of all were about “personal baggage” surrounding Moore’s divorce. The divorce details dominated many stories including roughly two-thirds of the words of a lengthy CNBC story, even though it had nothing to do with Moore’s suitability for the Federal Reserve.
But as the USA Today editorial pointed out, Federal Reserve governors "typically have Ph.D.s in economics and years of experience as bank regulators. Or they are high-level business executives, preferably in finance, with real world experience in how companies are affected by Fed policy" -- none of which applies to Moore, who was an editorial writer before joining the right-wing PAC Club for Growth. Seymour's portrayal of Moore's divorce as irrelevant to his qualifiactions leaves out details of his vindictiveness toward his ex-wife, refusing to pay alimony and child support untiil a contempt ruling and threat of arrest forced him to -- by which time the tab had surpassed $300,000. There's also an outstanding $75,000 tax lien against Moore. His own personal money management issues don't inspire confidence he can help manage the country's monetary policy.
Seymour then defended Cain, first touting how he was "a successful businessman who turned around struggling Burger Kings before transforming Godfather’s Pizza from 'financial ruin' to profitability: -- never mind that was decades ago -- then deflected the years of sexual harrassment allegations against him, huffing that "all but one were anonymous and unspecified."
As we documented, the MRC was a fierce defender of Cain during his 2012 presidential campaign -- MRC dhief Brent Bozell is a close friend -- and similarly fought to dismiss those harrassment accusations, even though Cain has never disputed the fact that the National Restaurant Association reached monetary settlements with two women who filed complaints against Cain when he headed the group in the 1990s. The MRC's Dan Gainor and Matt Philbin, meanwhile, smearred Cain's accusers as gold-diggers seeking abook deal.
(In fact, the named accuser made no money from her claims. As far as we know, Gainor and Philbin have never apologized for never false, malicious attacks.)
Seymour did attempt a minor conflict-of-interest disclosure that Cain "served on the Business and Media Institute advisory board as its national chairman (Business and Media Institute is the former name of MRC Business)," but omitted that he is a personal friend of Bozell, or that the MRC's "news" division, CNSNews.com, publishes Moore's weekly column.
Cain ultimately withdrew from consideration for the Federal Reserve post, offering the ridiculous, face-saving excuse that the job didn't pay enough. Last we checked, Seymour has had nothing to say about that.
Jesse Lee Peterson's All-Purpose Tirade Topic: WorldNetDaily
Jesse Lee Peterson crams most of his usual hobbyhorses in the first three paragraphs of his April 7 WowrldNetDaily column:
America is a Christian nation, but that fact has been under attack by the children of the lie. The left has pushed immorality to the point we have so-called “same-sex marriage” and “transgender” nonsense trampling the rights of Christians. “People of color” and “women” join the attack on freedom of speech and our rights to self-defense. Good people are accused of “hate speech,” punished for telling the truth in public – or even in private!
Christians, men and especially white people are under attack. Christians are forced to bake “gay cakes” for homosexuals pretending to get “married.” Men are falsely accused of “sexual harassment,” “sexual assault” or of being “child molesters” – and they’re not allowed to say the women are lying! Children are abused by women, even killed in the womb, and the man can’t do anything to protect his children. White people are called “racist” just for loving their country, for telling the truth about “people of color,” or for standing up for white people.
A decade ago, the fallen messiah Barack Obama claimed America is “no longer a Christian nation.” He pushed homosexuality and transgender madness, and took up for Muslims at every opportunity. He was the first “feminist” president, and loved abortion.
After all that ping-ponging around on his hate playbook, -- at one point channeling his inner white supremacist by delcaring that "The straight, white, conservative, Christian man of power built this country" -- Peterson eventually settles on hating gays, particularly those in politics:
The city of Chicago recently elected a black lesbian for mayor. She’s pretending she will end the corruption in the city. But she herself is morally corrupt – she has no values. She’ll go after the Christians, white people and men, and only further destroy the city.
There are homosexuals who are stuck in that lifestyle but know it’s wrong. But this new mayor-elect, Lori Lightfoot, is promoting wrong as right. Similarly, Pete Buttigieg, a homosexual millennial mayor of South Bend, Indiana, is trying to run for president. The corrupt liberal media love him for being shamelessly homosexual. The former mayor of Houston, Annise Parker, is a lesbian with a pretend “wife.” Females on the Supreme Court and in Congress have conducted so-called same-sex “weddings.”
In Ireland, they have a homosexual prime minister who brought his gay “partner” to America for an official event with Vice President Mike Pence. This man, Leo Varadkar, gave a slap in the face to Christians, speaking against “discrimination.” The radical homosexuals are allowed to discriminate against Christians, but not the other way around. There is no freedom.
Peterson seems to have forgotten the inconvenient fact that Christians have discriminated against "homosexuals" for centuries with impunity.
MRC Mad Fox News' Smith Shut Down Fact-Free Speculation About Notre Dame Fire Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center hatesShepardSmith for being the only person at Fox News who reports straight news and doesn't veer off into the right-wing bias that pollutes the rest of the channel. In an April 15 post, the MRC's Scott Whitlock actually got mad at Smith for shutting down a guest's speculation that the fire at Paris' Notre Dame Cathedral was set by Christian-haters:
Fox anchor Shepard Smith on Monday melted down when a French guest attempted to explain the ongoing attacks, violence and vandalism against French churches. Talking about the fire engulfing Notre Dame, where the cause is unknown, guest Philippe Karsenty began, “For the past years, we've had churches desecrated each and every week all over France.”
Just seconds after his guest was introduced, Smith immediately jumped in and reprimanded, “Sir, sir, sir, we're not going to speculate of the cause of something that we don't know! If you have observations or you know something, we would love to hear it.” After Karsenty attempted to respond, Smith shut down the whole interview: “No, sir. We’re not doing that here. Not now. Not on my watch! Philippe Karsenty, it’s very good of you to be here.”
Twenty minutes later, Smith came back to concede the point about violence against French Christians, allowing, “There have been a number of attacks on Catholic churches in the Paris area. But those two things [the Notre Dame fire and past incidents], we are not connecting at this moment.”
Whitlock then lectured that incidents of church vandalism in France "doesn’t mean, in any way, that’s what is happening in Paris. And people shouldn’t recklessly speculate. But neither should Smith decide a guest is unlistenable simply because he tries to inform an American audience about what's going on in France."
But the guest was trying to baselessly link two things that, as further investigation is showing, are not connected at all. In short, Whitlock is mad for not giving space to a conspiracy theory -- hardly responsible "media research."