WND Friend Colin Flaherty Smears Mizzou Football Players Who Supported Protest As 'Subliterate'
Topic: WorldNetDaily

WorldNetDaily may have had to back away from race-baiter extraordinare Colin Flaherty after his "black mob violence" obsession nearly cost it advertising revenue when Google declined to be associated with it, but it still regularly features him on the website. In June, for example, WND played up how YouTube (briefly) suspended Flaherty's video channel, and just last month WND quoted Flaherty opining about Louis Farrahkan.

So WND still has a hand in promoting Flaherty. Meanwhile, Flaherty himself has to resort to even fringier venues to vent his race-baiting rage, like American Thinker.

Which brings us to Flaherty's Nov. 10 American Thinker column on the racially charged situation at the University of Missouri, in which he makes things worse by saying, "A mediocre team of subliterate football players is now running the University of Missouri. Maybe no one will notice the difference."

Yep, he went there -- forwarding the apparent racial smear that if you're black and play football, you can't possibly be that bright.

Of course, one has to have mastered some level of literacy to play football for a major college in in the Southeastern Conference, considered among the most competitive in college football. Mizzou football is ranked third academically in the SEC, and 26 Mizzou football players landed on last fall's SEC Honor Roll.

Flaherty goes on to irrelevantly mock the Mizzou players as a "sub .500 football team," as if their support of the protesters would have more validity if the team had a winning record.

Finally, he twists things around to his favorite obsession:

The real story on and around the Mizzou campus is just the opposite of the fairy tale these Black Lives Matter wannabes would have us believe: Crime and violence in Columbia, Missouri is a big problem -- and it’s a black thing.

Just two weeks ago, a local TV station documented all the violence that exists just off campus -- with dozens of assaults and robberies in the space of just a few months in this small college town.

Some of the assaults were on a hiking and biking trail popular with students. Others episodes of violence were in the downtown area that surrounds the campus.

The reporter did not say what is easily found out in public records at the city police and campus police web sites: the predators are overwhelmingly black. The victims are not.

In the self-made video he claims douments this, he highlights a few random stories of violence near the MU campus, then compains a TV report on the incidents doesn't identify the alleged assilants as black and that MU students are "soft targets" for crimes by blacks. He also rants that "black victimization" is "the greatest lie of our generation."

This is a guy, after all, who thinks white people and dogs can take part in "black mob violence," so it's best not to take any of Flaherty's assertions on the subject at face value.

But Flaherty's branding of black football players who object to racism as "subliterate" gives away what his obsession is all about. Even WND should be able to see that.

At The MRC, Questioning A Republican Is 'Verbal Assault'
Topic: Media Research Center

The Media Research Center takes its unquestioning defense of Ben Carson's biography -- and its hatred of anyone who dares to question it -- to a ludicrous extent in a Nov. 6 post by Curtis Houck, whose headline screams that CNN's Alisyn Camerota engaged in a "verbal assault" on Carson. No, really:

What evidence does Houck have that Camerota engaged in a "verbal assault" on Carson? Not much; he asserts, but doesn't prove, that it was "an extremely tense and combative interview," and he calls Camerota a "liberal anchor" and a "liberal co-host," as if the simple act of questioning a Republican while on a network that isn't Fox News automatically makes one "liberal." Houck also complained that Camerota played a Carson video clip "from the far-left site Mother Jones," but doesn't deny that Mother Jones got the clip correct.

Houck also gives Carson's crack to Camerota that "I can't believe used to work on Fox" a pass, even though it's probably more of a "verbal assault" than anything Camerota said, as well as an indicator of the kind of softball treatment he's used to from conservative Fox News.

We somehow doubt Houck -- or anyone else at the MRC -- was concerned about any bias Camerota expressed while a Fox News employee.

 

WND's Cashill Uses Carson Controversy To Rant About Obama Memoir (Again)
Topic: WorldNetDaily

The current kerfuffle over the veracity of Ben Carson's autobiography has brought Jack Cashill out of the woodwork to rant about (what else) Obama in a special Nov. 6 WorldNetDaily column:

Politico grabbed headlines Friday with the breathtaking revelation that Ben Carson, contrary to what he either said or implied, had not been offered a scholarship to West Point.

The third paragraph contains this eye-opening revelation. “West Point, however, has no record of Carson applying, much less being extended admission.”

How does this work now? Does a reporter just write off to a college or university for data on a given student, and the university, in this case West Point, coughs up everything it has? Would that this were so.

For years the conservative media have been trying to get word one out of any of Obama’s academic institutions without success. The major media have not bothered to try.

Obama has sealed virtually all of his records for one very good reason. He crafted a persona around a series of foundational lies, the exposure of which could have doomed his candidacy in the womb.

Cashill seems not to grasp the concept that 1) Obama has privacy over his college records just like Cashill and every other American does, and 2) if a person did not attend a particular college, there is no record -- and, thus, no privacy -- to protect, so West Point is free to say Carson never applied there.

Cashill, of course, wasn't content to stop there, going on to rant about "the preposterous notion that Obama was a literary genius, a fraud [biographer David] Maraniss and every other reporter even close to the mainstream left untouched," adding, "As I learned from experience, to question any element of the Obama story was to risk being called a racist, in my case by the likes of Bill Maher and New Yorker editor David Remnick."

Cashill still seems a little butthurt that Remnick, in his book on Obama, "the Bridge," called out Cashill's baseless, never-proven insistence that Obama could not possibly have written "Dreams From My Father" for what it is -- a racially tainted attempt from the right wing's "farthest lunatic orbit" to deny Obama's legitimacy.

For all this ranting, though, Cashill has shown no interest whatsoever into deconstructing Carson's autobiography the way he has Obama's. After all, why shouldn't he suspect Carson's origin story is a fraud just as he insists Obama is?

CNS Unemployment Numbers Distortion Watch
Topic: CNSNews.com

October's employment numbers were good news for America -- 271,000 jobs created, unemployment rate dropping to 5.0 percent -- and as we know, good news for America is bad news at CNSNews.com.

Thus, a Nov. 6 CNS article by Melanie Hunter began instead with its usual cherry-picked data, telling us that "the labor force participation rate nonetheless remained at its lowest point in 38 years." The number of jobss created and the unemployment rate drop had to wait until the second paragraph to get mentioned.

Hunter's article was joined by one from CNS managing editor Michael W. Chapman emphasizing that "the black unemployment rate in October was 9.2%, which is more than double the rate of white unemployment of 4.4%." Since the point of this story is to make President Obama look bad instead of imparting useful information, Chapman doesn't bother to mention that black unemployment has always been higher than white unemployment, or that the black-white unemployment gap was much higher in the 1980s under Republican presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush.

Labor force participation rates and the black-white unemployment gap are two things that will mean a lot less to CNS if a Republican president is elected in 2016.

WND's Kupelian Touts 'Decent, Moral' Carson As He Gets Caught In Lies
Topic: WorldNetDaily

From a Nov. 3 WorldNetDaily article by Paul Bremmer:

Dr. Ben Carson’s rise to the top level of the 2016 Republican presidential field has flummoxed many observers, but author and journalist David Kupelian says he understands the retired neurosurgeon’s appeal: Americans want a good person as president.

“People are hungry to have somebody as a president who is basically a thoroughly decent, moral human being,” Kupelian told hosts Cliff Kincaid and Jerry Kenney in a recent appearance on the Roku television show, “America’s Survival TV.”

Kupelian's praise of Carson as "a thoroughly decent, moral human being" comes, ironically, shortly after Carson falsely denied a relationship with a shady supplements marketer during a Republican debate -- even the conservative National Review called his denials "bald-faced lies" -- and as CNN is finding that claims Carson made in his autobiography aren't holding up, based on interviews with Carson's acquaitances. Another conservative-oriented publication, the Wall Street Journal, has also raised questions about Carson's bio.

The real purpose of Kupelian's praise of Carson, though, is to contrast it with his visceral hatred of President Obama -- and, thus, to promote his new anti-Obama book, "The Snapping of the American Mind," as Bremmer writes:

Kupelian says Americans would trust Carson to assemble “a very good and smart team” around him to help with policy matters if he is elected. But they really want, especially after a disastrously unqualified president like Barack Obama, for the next man in charge to be a decent, smart person who embodies traditional American values.

“They want somebody who has the American, Judeo-Christian sensibilities that Eisenhower and pretty much all the other presidents going back to George Washington had,” Kupelian said.

[...]

The fact that so many college students love socialist Bernie Sanders is evidence, said Kupelian, of a broken, traumatized generation. But he made clear he is not the only one who views the young generation as broken. Psychologists have reported a "mental health crisis" among today's college students, with skyrocketing rates of anxiety and depression.

Kupelian has his own ideas about where all this anxiety and depression is coming from.

"It's coming from an insane culture that denies the existence of God, denies the existence of right and wrong, and puts forth a crazy ideology which doesn't add up and violates the laws of economics and God and common sense – and then we have a president who lies constantly, is dishonest ... and that takes its toll. It takes its toll, especially on young people."

How hilarious that Kupelian -- the managing editor of an organization that lies constantly -- is complaining about Obama's purported lies.

Also: The best Kupelian can do to promote his book is appear on a show that appears only on Roku and is hosted by fellow Obama-hater Cliff Kincaid? That's pretty sad.

Wash. Times Touts First-Ever Profit, Silent About Who Kept It Afloat For 30 Years Before That
Topic: The ConWeb

A few years back, we detailed how conservative newspapers lose massive amounts of money, staying in business only through the good graces of their deep-pocketed benefactors who made their money elsewhere. At the top of that list is the Washington Times, funded as a plaything for self-proclaimed messiah Sun Myung Moon to have entree to conservative Washington circles.

Well, last month the Times reported that "it achieved in September the first profitable month in its 33-year history, successfully transforming a traditional money-losing print publication into a leaner multimedia company with diverse revenue streams and a growing national audience."

Of course, print publications haven't been "traditionally money-losing" -- only the conservative ones have.

The Times plays rather coy about its historic financial situation, admitting that it piled up "losses that far exceeded $1 billion since its inception in 1982" and quoting Times president and CEO Larry Beasley quipping, "I know the owners can’t wait for us to pay them back."

Actually, the losses likely surpass $2 billion, a number forwarded by experts a decade ago. And there was never any expectation of a payback.

Article author Jennifer Harper also writes this:

The media landscape has been particularly unforgiving in recent years. Cutbacks, job losses and “newspaper death watches” have been the norm since 2009 as the Internet proved to be a profound game-changer in the news business. The Times went into reinvention mode, but never abandoned its original calling as a credible news source with a conservative backbone.

Harper avoids the actual history of the past few years at the Times that had little to do with the overall "media landscape" -- namely, that members of Moon's family got tired of paying the $35 million or so it took to keep the Times in business, setting off a power struggle in the Moon family and its Unification Church-linked business enterprises (not that the Times was actually run like a business, of course) that resulted in the paper being put up for sale in 2010. Ultimately, Moon himself bought the paper for $1.

Harper goes on to quote Beasley touting how the Times is "a digital-first business," but its website is so cluttered with ads and browser-clogging pop-ups that it's almost impossible to read.

Harper notes that the paper is now only by the nebulously, blandly named Operations Holdings, which appears to be a holding company for the business interests held by Moon himself when he died in 2012, an odd conglomeration of things besides the Times that include a fleet of fishing trawlers, New York's Hammerstein Ballroom and the New York TV studios where Al Jazeera -- longtime target of conservatives like the ones who run the Times for its purported closeness to Islamic terrorists -- has its New York headquarters.

Harper also repeatedly notes how "credible" a news source the Times is but she doesn't mention Moon's involvement in the paper until the 19th paragraph -- and she doesn't mention it was Moon's subsidies that kept the newspaper from feeling the effects of the free market it championed for nearly three decades.

Will WND Retract Its Now-False Exploiting Of Dead Policeman To Attack Black Lives Matter?
Topic: WorldNetDaily

When Fox Lake, Ill., police officer Joseph Gliniewicz was found dead of a gunshot wound in September, WorldNetDaily wasted little time in exploiting his death to blame blacks in general and Black Lives Matter in particular.

WND columnist Ilana Mercer invoked Gliniewicz's name to rail against a “Racial-Industrial Complex” that has been "schooling Americans in the fiction of systemic black oppression by white America."

Columnist Pat Buchanan similarly invoked Gliniewicz to complain that "Among liberal elites and the Black Lives Matter crowd, an old notion is regaining ascendancy – cops are the problem and police are all too often the oppressors."

A Sept. 6 WND article cited how Gliniewicz was "the latest law enforcement officer to become a murder victim this year," then quoted Jesse Lee Peterson claiming that he "blames much of the [anti-police] violence on Black Lives Matter itself" and asserting that Black Lives Matter is "akin to the KKK and the skinheads.” And a Sept. 8 WND article played this bit of guilt by association:

Black Lives Matter activists at the Minnesota State Fair chanted “pigs in a blanket, fry them like bacon” two days before Fox Lake, Illinois police officer Lt. Joe Gliniewicz was shot to death.

“They’re putting the lives of police officers at risk by encouraging other angry people to hate the police and target them,” said Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson, a civil-rights leader, WND columnist and author of the new book “The Antidote.” “This is an evil group.”

“I haven’t seen such hate since the New Black Panther Party started going after whites several years ago,” he told WND.

Except, as it turns out, none of that is true. Investigators have found that Gliniewicz's death was a "carefully staged suicide" designed to obscure the fact that he had been stealing money from a police mentoring program for several years, and that he tried to hire a hit man to kill a village administrator who was looking into his financial improprieties.

Will WND publicly retract its attempts to blame Gliniewicz's death on Black Lives Matter? Will Peterson publicly apologize as well for his false attacks?

Don't count on it.

Not only has WND failed so far to report that Gliniewicz's death was a staged suicide by a corrupt officer, his name remains at the top of WND's "big list" of "deadly attacks on America's law-enforcement officers in 2015."

MRC Doesn't Deny Transgender 'Bathroom Myth' Is A Myth, Is Mad Truth Was Told About It
Topic: Media Research Center

 

Kristine Marsh writes in a Nov. 5 NewsBusters post:

Since Houston voters overwhelmingly rejected the “transgender bathroom rights” law known as “HERO” Tuesday night, the media have been frantically trying to spin the story as a case of anti-LGBT, religious extremists getting their way.

NBC’s Late Night with Seth Meyers was no different, and, in a rant, the host found a way to bash both Houston voters and GOP candidate Mike Huckabee.

Seth Meyers opened the segment by boasting of the high-profile support for the ordinance from President Obama and major companies like Apple, General Electric and Hewlett-Packard.  Meyers then proceeded to trash opponents’ argument that this law would open the door for a biological male to enter a women’s restroom or locker room.

“That’s right,” Meyers scoffed. “Opponents of the law claimed falsely that the bill would allow anyone of any gender to walk into any bathroom they wanted,” he argued. “The idea is known as the ‘bathroom myth’ and the anti-HERO ads focused heavily on it,” Meyers lectured.

Interestingly, Marsh makes no effort to counter Meyers' assertion that the bill's opponents falsely portrayed it or that the "bathroom myth" is exactly that. Perhaps because she knows she can't.

Marsh then complained that "Meyers played the silliest ad he could find by opponents to mock Houston voters as fear-mongers instead of using an ad, like the one below, from FRC Action." But that ad invokes the "bathroom myth" -- which, again, Marsh refuses to prove is not a myth.

Still, Marsh pressed on:

Meyers insisted again that the majority of Houston voters were wrong. “So the ads focused exclusively on the bathroom issue even though the law had nothing to do with that,” he claimed. “There's also no evidence that this has ever been a problem in places that do have these laws,” he argued.

Apparently Meyers hasn’t heard of Hillsboro High School, where students complained and led a protest because girls had been exposed to a transgender male student in the women’s locker rooms and restrooms. Or of Springfield, MO, where voters rejected a similar bill to HERO after the city council had signed it into law.

But Marsh is just repeating objection to the idea instead of citing any problems with implementation. In the Hillsboro case, the transgender student did nothing to make the "bathroom myth" reality be engaging in anything approaching lewd behavior. The students who walked out, CNN reported, had their parents' support, which raises questions about just how spontaneous and genuine it was. Similarly, those who opposed the Springfield HERO law also pushed the "bathroom myth." 

If Marsh can't defend the "bathroom myth," she has no basis for criticizing Meyers for pointing it out. Which means Marsh is simply mad that he told the truth -- hardly a compelling bit of "media research."

Lying Preacher Bradlee Dean Lies Again
Topic: WorldNetDaily

WorldNetDaily's favorite lying preacher, Bradlee Dean, has struck again in his Oct. 29 column:

As another self-incriminating video has been released exposing Planned Parenthood’s crimes against humanity (1 John 3:12), one has only to ask himself, why is the Department of (In)Justice appointed to hunt down those who are filming the crimes of Planned Parenthood rather than arrest those who are committing the crimes? There is no coercion. The truth is coming out of the abundance of their wicked hearts (Matthew 12:34), and furthermore, Planned Parenthood has made its murderous position very clear through the group’s founder, Margaret Sanger.

Suggested Sanger: “The most merciful thing that a large family can do to one of its infant members is to kill it.”

On blacks, immigrants and indigents, Sanger said that they are “human weeds, reckless breeders, spawning … human beings who should never been born.”

On the extermination of blacks, she said, “We do not want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population.”

She then went on to say, “The minister’s work is also important and should be trained, perhaps by the Federation, as to our ideals and the goal we hope to reach.”

As we've documented, most of the Sanger statements Dean uses are either ripped out of context or, in the case of the "human weeds" statement, a complete lie.

But Dean's not done. He goes on to write:

Even Supreme Court injustice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was complicit in the murder of the innocent: “Frankly, I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”

As we've noted, this statement is also ripped out of context; in the original New York Times interview, Ginsburg said shortly after that statement that she "realized that my perception of it had been altogether wrong."

Dean returns to full-blown lying by claiming that the Southern Poverty Law Center "helped defend the Ku Klux Klan back in the 1960s." In fact, the SPLC wasn't founded until 1971.

As "evidence" for the above claim, he links to an entry on his own "Sons of Liberty" in which he claims that "Morris Dees, SPLC’s founder, did legal work for the KKK (an arm of the Democratic Party) in 1961." That's at least somewhat close to the truth; Dees did defend a KKK member who assaulted a TV cameraman at a Freedom Riders gathering in 1961, but he has said that he was more into making money than the civil rights movement at the time, and that he had an epiphany after being confronted on his defense of the KKK member that ultimately led him to focus on civil rights.

Dean's column is littered with cites of Bible verses, which seems to be intended to distract readers from seeing what an utterly dishonest and amoral man he is.

MRC's Bozell & Graham Lie About Democrats and Tough Debate Questions
Topic: Media Research Center

The Media Research Center just can't stop perpetuating the idea that the CNBC Republican presidential debate was filled with "liberal bias," despite the fact that it's unable to objectively prove it.

In thair Nov. 4 column, Tim Graham and Brent Bozell whined that "liberal journalists asked one too many deliberately snide and hostile “gotcha” questions attacking the GOP candidates and the candidates exploded in anger," declaring that "The RNC’s action to drop NBC and Telemundo and whole Comcast brand from debates  is long, long overdue."

Then they write this:

You have to go back to April 2008 to find a debate where Democrats were faced with hostile questions, when ABC hosts George Stephanopoulos and Charlie Gibson dared to ask Barack Obama one question about his ties to ex-terrorist Bill Ayers.

Actually, that's a complete lie -- Anderson Cooper asked tough questions at the Oct. 13 CNN-hosted Democratic presidential debate. How do we know? Because Bozell himself said so. And he even sent out a press release praising Cooper's "tough, probing questions":

During last night's Democratic debate, Anderson Cooper in large measure did exactly what a debate moderator is supposed to do. He asked tough, probing questions of all the candidates. Better yet, he did what most moderators won't do: when given an evasive or untrue answer, he pounced in a follow-up question, exposing the evasion or untruth. It was a breath of fresh air to see such professionalism. Give him an A- for a job well done.

Yeah, we know the "liberal bias" mantra is how the MRC makes its bread and butter, but are Graham and Bozell really so stupid as to forget a statement Bozell made just three weeks ago?

WND To Republish David Barton's Discredited Book on Jefferson
Topic: WorldNetDaily

We've documented how WorldNetDaily continues to sell David Barton's book "The Jefferson Lies" -- presumably from the stash of 17,000 books Barton himself bought from the publisher after it removed the book from the market for its numerous factual inaccuracies, all the while blatantly lying that the book was pulled because it was "so hot and so politically incorrect."

Well, WND is going one better in helping out the so-called historian Barton: It's publishing a new edition of "The Jefferson Lies."

The new edition is posted on WND Books' website, with release set for Jan. 12. WND's promotional copy for the book sounds a little defensive:

In 2012 prominent historian David Barton set out to correct the distorted image of the once-beloved Founding Father Thomas Jefferson in the best-selling book The Jefferson Lies. Despite the wildly popular success of the original hardcover edition, a few dedicated liberal individuals and academics campaigned to discredit Barton’s scholarship and credibility, but to no avail.

Barton responds to his critics in a lengthy preface to this new paperback edition in which he takes to task his former publisher and directly answers with thorough documentation the main issues his detractors registered, while also providing numerous academic endorsements of his work. This paperback version, to be released by WND Books on January 12, 2016, certifies that Barton’s research is sound and his premises are true as he tackles seven myths about Thomas Jefferson head-on and answers pressing questions about this incredible statesman including:

• Did Thomas Jefferson really have a child by his young slave girl, Sally Hemings?
• Did he write his own Bible, excluding the parts of Christianity with which he disagreed?
• Was he a racist who opposed civil rights and equality for black Americans?
• Did he, in his pursuit of separation of church and state, advocate the secularizing of public life?

Actually, Barton's "scholarship and credibility" have been thoroughly discredited. It's been more than three years since Barton's book was pulled from the market (everywhere except WND, anyway), and the long gap, along with Barton's silence on the issue in the interim, is suspcious.

WND has a long road ahead in promoting a new edition of a discredited book. It will have to do much more than empty PR blather to sell it to anyone beyond its usual clientele of gullible WND readers. For starters, how about making that "thorough documentation" widely available for all to see?

P.S. We couldn't help but notice that the promotional blurb on the cover of the WND edition of Barton's book is from Glenn Beck, who's not exactly a paragon of truth himself.

(h/t Warren Throckmorton)

Gutless MRC Blogger Hides Behind A Fake Name
Topic: NewsBusters

An Oct. 30 NewsBusters post by someone named Bruce Bookter on ESPN's shuttering of Grantland predictably degenerated into an anti-liberal rant:

Make no mistake, ESPN likely, no, ESPN definitely supports and stands behind every wack-a-doo leftist take from every one of their leftist wack-a-doo personalities. Trust me on this.

Case in point, ESPN has still not suspended Tony Kornheiser for comparing Tea Party Republicans to ISIS. Why? Because they see conservatives the same way Kornheiser does.

But you can get rid of Grantland without making declarative statements like “We’re getting out of the pop culture business.” Saying that signals a much deeper meaning than saying “Bill Simmons was a real tool, and he’s basically stealing all of our writers. So we’re shutting this puppy down.”

Look, I’m not saying conservative backlash against ESPN resulted in the network’s decision to stop trying to be MSNBC with highlight reels. Though, it could have played a part. But, do conservatives have to have caused this in order for it to be a conservative victory?

Then we get to the end and see the Bookter's bio: "Bruce Bookter is a sports journalist. This is a pen name."

That's right -- "Bookter" is a coward hiding behind a fake name, which means there's no reason to trust him.

Nevertheless, the Media Research Center thinks this fake "Bookter" guy is worth publishing (which is apparently defined by the intensity of his liberal-bashing). He's written five posts since mid-October, including the above-referenced attack on Kornheiser, and another whining that a sports website made a gay joke mocking a baseball player's anti-gay views.

At least Kornheiser and the other targets of "Bookter's" rants put their names out there. "Bookter," meanwhile, hides behind a fake name and hurls his poo. And the MRC encourages him to be a gutless coward.

A profile in courage he isn't. Put your real name on your blog post, Bookter, and maybe we can talk.

Farah Forgets There Was A Reason Romney Shunned WND In 2012
Topic: WorldNetDaily

Joseph Farah devoted his Oct. 30 WorldNetDaily column to complain about Mitt Romney highlighting how the partisan media has created a confirmation bias in which news consumers are "not seeing the other side" and "not even getting the same facts." AS he is want to do, Farah made it about himself by complaining that Romney wouldn't advertise on WND in the 2012 presidential election:

Did you know that during the 2012 election, the Romney campaign prohibited any advertising dollars to be spent on WND? On the other hand, as many of you noted with chagrin, the Obama campaign flooded WND with advertising messages.

What does that show?

Romney didn’t covet WND visitors as voters. Perhaps he felt it was a lost cause. Obama wanted them.

It shows the difference between the Democratic Party establishment and the Republican establishment. The Democrats compete for every vote. The Republicans don’t.

It also shows that the Republican establishment is actually more hostile to independent, Constitution-minded voters than is the Democratic establishment.

Farah seems to have forgotten how extreme his "news" operation was in 2012, so extreme Romney would justifiably shun it:

• WND was heavily pushing its Obama birther lies and censoring the fact that they have been discredited.
• WND's Jerome Corsi, on top of his birther activism, was spewing lies about Obama so egregious that his fellow birthers felt compelled to correct him.
• WND's columnists were frothing at the mouth with anti-Obama hate, none so frothed as Larry Klayman and Mychal Massie.
• WND had started its own anti-Obama super PAC, which turned out to be a total scam.
• WND was entering its long, hot summer of race-baiting about "black mob violence" courtesy of Colin Flaherty.
• By the end of the campaign, WND had completely destroyed what little credibility it had, and Farah himself declared that Obama's re-election is nothing short of "God's judgment" against America.

Why would any sentient being associate himself with an organization known for such extreme attacks and rhetoric? It seems that Romney was just acting prudently.

Of course, Farah could have blocked Obama's ads if he so chose, but 

Farah laughably pretends WND represents "independent" voters when, in reality, it peddled some of the sleaziest so-called journalism of the campaign. The fact that Farah refuses to repent for his sins tells us Romney was correct to shun WND.

At The MRC, White People Pass Judgment On 'Black-ish'
Topic: Media Research Center

ABC's show "Black-ish" is about a black father who questions whether his success has brought "too much assimilation," so he seeks to "establish a sense of cultural identity for his family that honors their past while embracing the future."

Who has the Media Research Center chosen to pass judgment on "Black-ish" for violations of right-wing orthodoxy? White people, of course, people who -- ideology aside -- are not the show's target audience.

The earliest mention of "Black-ish" at the MRC is a December 2014 piece by Tianna DiMartino (not black), who complained about the "racist jokes" in a Christmas-themed episode. In April, Scott Whitlock (not black) may have been amused by an episode with a "blink-and-you'll-miss-it Sarah Palin joke." In May, Kyle Drennen (not black) huffed that the show "treated Reublican African Americans as an abnormality that could not be tolerated."

This fall, "Black-ish" has gotten its own dedicated MRC show reviewer in the person of Dylan Gwinn, who in addition to not being black is actually more of a sports guy and, as we've documented, not the sharpest knife in the right-wing-media-bias drawer. All of which, apparently, makes him the ideal critic of a black-oriented show for the MRC instead of someone who is predisposed to hate-watch the thing.

We've already noted Gwinn's rant about the season opener's use of the N-word and his inability to distinguish between a fictional character using it in a Quentin Tarantino movie and Paula Deen using it in real life about real people.

In an Oct. 10 episode, Gwinn critiques references to the Tuskegee Experiment in a episode about a doctor visit. Gwinn was upset that the characters suggested that the blacks who took part in the experiment were deliberately injected with syphillis, complaining that this "is exactly the impression activists want you to have."

He then weirdly soft-pedals the experiments: he avers that it "was clearly not a 'Blue Star' moment in the history of American medicine" and that it was not "cool" that blacks with syphillis were untreated and misled about their actual condition, and he makes sure we know that the experiment's victims "had syphillis prior to the study taking place." As if that somehow makes the government's behavior less atrocious and the victims somewhat deserved what they got.

In an Oct. 15 post, Gwinn grumbled that "Blackish is not the type of show to let a little thing like the pesky network programming schedule get in the way of taking a belated shot at Columbus Day," then ranted about the show calling Columbus Day racist, insisting that the holiday's origin as a way to counter prejudice against Italian-Americans is some kind of counter to that narrative to "the left" portraying the day as a "symbol of racial genocide."

he concludes by ranting: "So, in their pursuit of taking the one holiday Italian-Americans are allowed away because it’s “racist,” the supposedly immigration-friendly and anti-racist left is continuing the traditions of 20th century anti-immigrant groups by singling out a group of people who were trying to defend themselves against racism. Progress? Not so much."

On Oct., 22, though, Gwinn shockingly had something nice to say about the show:

I must admit, when it dawned on me that ABC’s Blackish was about to tackle the issue of religion on Wednesday night’s episode, fresh off of dealing with guns, the Tuskegee experiment, and generalized racism, part of me cried on the inside.

However, I’m happy to report that my internal sadness was quite out of order. Blackish actually did a great job dealing with not only racial differences between whites and blacks, and the different kinds of churches they attend, but also just the drama and guilt that surrounds normal people and prevents them from getting to church on Sunday.

The following week, however, Gwinn was back to hate-watching, ranting again about Columbus Day and sneering that a couple dressing up as the Obamas for Halloween was "the scariest couple I have ever seen in my life."

It's almost as if Gwinn and the MRC are deliberately trying to be as culturally clueless as possible.

WND's Klein Grants Anonymity To Another Terrorist
Topic: WorldNetDaily

In one of his many, many lies, WorldNetDaily editor Joseph Farah once claimed that his reporter Aaron Klein "doesn’t use anonymous sources when he quotes senior terrorist leaders in Gaza and many of the most prominent Islamists in the world." In fact, Klein frequently grants anonymity to his alleged sources -- even when they're terrorists, whom you wouldn't think would be deserving to be cloaked in anonymity.

Nevertheless, Klein has found another terrorist whose identity he intends to protect. He writes in a Nov. 1 WND article:

Insiders in the group that represents ISIS in the Gaza Strip claimed to WND Sunday that the global jihadist group will soon release information purporting to show how it helped to bring down the Russian passenger plane that crashed in Egypt, killing all 224 people on board.

Salafist jihadists in the Gaza Strip who operate under the ISIS banner in the territory said the global jihad group was indeed involved in the downing of the aircraft Saturday morning.

They claimed it was not a missile that brought the plane down and that supposed evidence will soon be released by ISIS.

One ISIS leader in Gaza told WND that “in the Russian plane operation our brothers used their brains more than their bullets or their explosives. It was part of a brains war.”

The ISIS leader hinted to similarities with the 9/11 attacks as far as what he described as the level of sophistication of the claimed attack on the Russian jet.

Never mind that a terrorist taking credit for any given act of violence is even more rampant than the violence itself; ISIS has taken credit for lots of things it had no apparent involvement with, which makes this claim highly dubious at best, especially when no investigation of the crash has taken place.

Read the above again: Klein is granting anonymity to an operative for ISIS. The very same ISIS that is one of the most vicious terrorist groups on the planet.

Why is Klein doing this: He doesn't want to get the operative in trouble with his ISIS overlords. No, really. This is what Klein writes:

The ISIS leader spoke on condition of anonymity, citing specific ISIS instructions for all members of the global jihad group to refrain from putting out information concerning the attack for the time being.

Really, what else is there to say about a reporter who grants anonymity to terrorists just so he can selfishly have a big scoop, no matter how factually dubious? Or a "news" operation that makes such borderline-traitorous dishonesty possible?