MRC Gives Another Pass to Pro-Trump Propaganda At Fox News Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center has always had the marching order to never criticize Fox News (unless Mark Levin is, then just quote Levin). With Donald Trump's ascent to Republican presidential nominee, he's off limits now as well. So Fox News' pro-Trump bias will continue to go unremarked upon at the MRC, no matter how ridiculous.
Megyn Kelly's May 17 hour-long interview with Trump turned out to be a bust, filled with softball questions and promotions for Kelly's upcoming book. The reaction from the MRC? Silence, though the day of the interview, it touted Kelly declaring that the New York Times should be "shamed" into covering "Bill Clinton’s problems with women."
Greta Van Sustseren's May 26 Fox News special on Trump and his familiy was so fawning and obsequious that many conservatives mocked its ridiculous tone. The Michelle Malkin-founded Twitchy said of it: "It essentially is 'Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous,' but with just a tiny dash of political hardball thrown into the mix for spice."
At the MRC? Zero, zip, nada. No mention at all.
Yet, in between all that, the MRC did find space for anonymous coward "Bruce Bookter" to be outraged that an ESPN-affiliated website used a picture of Obama in the header of its Twitter page. No, really.
CNS Columnist Takes A Dig At 'Hitlery," For Some Reason Topic: CNSNews.com
The Media Research Center is picking up yet another WorldNetDaily trait: columnists who save their really crazy, hateful stuff for other outlets.
Eric Metaxas is a regular columnist for the MRC's "news" outlet CNSNews.com and author of a book on anti-Nazi spy Dietrich Bonhoeffer whose main gig is hosting the radio show "BreakPoint," succeeding the late Watergate felon-turned-Christian Charles Colson. He usually serves up conservative Christian homilies in line with the bias of CNS management.
Yep, in true WND-emulating style, he referred to Hillary Clinton as "Hitlery" and suggests that Trump is somehow not the ideological demagogue making Nazi-esque appeals to nationalism and against foreigners.
Metaxas later claimed the poll was a joke, and also "complex teasing sarcasm humor." He seems not to be aware that there are a surprisingly amount of people -- check the comments section of any right-wing political site -- who use "Hitlery" unironically, not to mention folks like Don Feder, who CNS uncritically promoted last year.
The headline of a June 3 WND article by Leo Hohmann reads, "Amnesty International defends pimps and traffickers." He writes:
The human rights organization Amnesty International is drawing fire from other human rights activists for a new document it released favoring the “full decriminalization” of prostitution.
Amnesty, in the document, “calls for the decriminalization of sex work based on evidence that criminalization makes sex workers less safe, by preventing them from securing police protection and by providing impunity to abusers.”
The National Center on Sexual Exploitation, or NCOSE, immediately denounced the policy as one that “ignores the brutal experiences of prostituted persons and empowers pimps, sex buyers, and sex traffickers.”
While Hohmann's article does include a link to the statement, which states "Read Amnesty’s entire document calling for full decriminalization of prostitution," it's clear that neither Hohmann nor anyone else at WND actually read it, because the document explicitly condemns exploitation and trafficking.
The document states that "Exploitation within commercial sex takes different forms and can encompass a wide range of actions extending from labour violations (for example relating to health and safety regulation), up to and including very serious forms of exploitation involving servitude-like practices and forced labour. States have a range of obligations to protect individuals, including those involved in sex work, from exploitation and abuse. Amnesty International considers that there is greater scope for sex workers to benefit from labour-based protections from exploitation where sex work is not treated as a criminal activity."
In other words, according to Amnesty International, if sex work is decriminalized, pimps would not be able to thrive. The document goes on to ask that "States must ensure that sex workers can access adequate legal protection from the range of other forms of exploitation that do not constitute human trafficking."
The document also specifically condemns human trafficking and insists that it be prosecuted:
Human trafficking amounts to a grave human rights abuse and states have an obligation under international human rights and international criminal law to ensure that it is recognized as a criminal offence. Amnesty International supports the criminalization of human trafficking and calls on states to guarantee effective legal protections against it. States must investigate, prosecute and bring traffickers to justice and guarantee victims access to justice and reparation, including with all necessary levels of support. Trafficking victims should not be criminalized.
Sex work (which must be between adults and consensual in order to be considered sex work) is distinct from human trafficking. The conflation of human trafficking with sex work can result in broad and over-reaching initiatives that seek to eradicate all commercial sex as a means to end trafficking. Such approaches work in practice to violate sex workers’ human rights, and in general can make sex workers and people who have been trafficked more vulnerable to violence and harm. Additionally, there is a lack of evidence to suggest that such approaches are successful in addressing trafficking (in terms of preventing, identifying and protecting victims and supporting prosecution of perpetrators).
So WND is blatantly lying by claiming that "Amnesty International defends pimps and traffickers."
While Hohmann claims to quote "human rights activists" criticizing Amnesty International's statement, they are nothing of the sort. The National Center on Sexual Exploitation is an anti-pornography group formerly known as Morality in Media that's much better known for protesting things like Sports Illustrated swimsult issue covers and seemingly blaming mass shootings on gay rights.
The other "human rights activist" Hohmann quotes is Judith Reismann, the anti-Kinsey obsessive with her own history of playing fast and loose with the facts. So, no, these are not "human rights activists" by any normal definition of the term -- they are right-wing activists with a specific agenda.
Oh, and those first two paragraphs contain the only direct quotes from the Amnesty International statement in Hohmann's article. The rest of the article presents Reisman and NCOSE's Dawn Hawkins providing their interpretations of the statement as accurate. Needless to say, Hohmann couldn't be moved to contact Amnesty International to get its reaction to these right-wing attacks.
Hohmann and WND build on a blatant falsehood with dishonest agenda-driven reporting that blatantly misrepresents what Amnesty International actually stated and makes no effort to address the issue fairly. That's why nobody believes WND -- and why fewer people even bother to read it anymore.
MRC Defends Trump's Intimidation of Judge Topic: Media Research Center
Yes, it really was just a month ago that the Media Research Center was complaining that media coverage of Donald trump wasn't negative enough. Now the MRC is looking for ways to excuse and defend Trump's sleaziest tactics.
In a June 2 post, Nicholas Fondacaro complains that Trump is being held accountable for attempting to intimidate a judge, Gonzalo Curiel, that is presiding over a fraud case involving his Trump University. Slandering a judge is perfectly OK, Fondacaro argues, because President Obama did it first:
Interesting, because President Barack Obama did just that in 2010 when he angrily rebuked the Supreme Court for their decision on Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. The President’s heavy handed criticism came during a fiery State of the Union speech where he claimed the Justices, in a 5-4 decision, “reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections.” This was the State of the Union where Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito famously mouthed the words “not true” to the President.
Except the two situations are not alike at all. Obama did not criticize the Citizens United decision until after it was made -- not while the case was still in the legal system, as is the case with Trump -- and he did not personally attack any of the judges involved, whereas Trump is specifically and personally attacking the judge in the Trump University case.
MRC director of media analysis Tim Graham, meanwhile, takes a side step from bashing CNN's Jeffrey Toobin to defend Trump's attacks on Curiel, totally buying into Trump's argument that because Curiel has a Mexican background, he is obviously biased against Trump:
This same Jeffrey “Not a Big Deal” Toobin was freaking out to Anderson Cooper on Thursday night that Trump would say Latino judge Gonzalo Curiel has a conflict of interest in his Trump University case because he belongs to (and was honored by) the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association, which advocates against racial profiling and for “undocumented” immigrants and has a political action committee.
Toobin proclaimed this was just a "social organization," somehow nonpolitical. "It is not a conflict of interest. Donald Trump can say what he wants, but what he is saying about the judge is completely wrong under all of the current rules of ethics."
By contrast, the MRC was upset in 2000 at calls that then-Florida Secreatary of State Katherine Harris, a co-chairman of George W. Bush's presidential campaign in florida, should recuse herself from supervising election activities involving the extremely close vote between Bush and Al Gore, and MRC chief was mad that anyone would dare question Harris' integrity.
In her May 29 WND column, Gina Loudon doesn't even bother to defend Trump's proposed policies or respond to concerns about his credentials and truthfulness; her idea of a logical argument is to scream "Hillary!":
We hear lots of excuses like Trump is “a liberal,” or “he lies,” or he is “not a Christian,” or “he is a threat to conservatism.” Blah, blah, blah. They insist that not voting for Trump is equally not voting for Hillary. Right.
The only reason I can even imagine a conservative would prefer Hillary is if Trump were a megalomaniac. But in this case, Hillary is that megalomaniac, viciously attacking anyone in her way, never hesitating to use any government agency to do her bidding. People die as a result of her foreign policy inaction and action and even, dare I say, in her inner circle.
How can any Republican, any thinking American – considering the fullness of who Hillary is – possibly vote or “non-vote” to give the keys to power to someone like Hillary?
Clinton’s track record of tyranny would make King George blush.
“But wait, Dr. Gina. Trump used eminent domain. He clearly hates the Constitution.” Whatever.
As we commemorate this Memorial Day weekend and remember those who served, let’s consider the families of those Hillary left behind in Benghazi and elsewhere, the families of those soldiers dying because of mechanical failures resulting from the Obama-Clinton military budget cuts. How will their families be voting?
For you remaining #NeverTrumpers, consider the “dead list” of at least 40 people close to the Clintons, including many witnesses or potential witnesses in criminal investigations involving the Clintons. How would they vote? Considering the zeal for Democrats to actually vote dead people, they may be the only ones recounted here who will be joining you in supporting Hillary.
That's right -- the entirety of Loudon's defense of Trump consists of "Blah, blah, blah" and "whatever," and then ranting about the utterly discredited "Clinton body count." How compelling.
MRC's Bozell Hypocritically Passes Judgment on Telemundo's 'Staged' Footage Topic: Media Research Center
It's so cute to watch the Media Research Center pass judgment on media ethics.
This week, the MRC has been freaking out about how, as NewsBusters' P.J. Gladnick put it, "Telemundo believes it is perfectly alright to stage events and film them as authentic." So what did this "staging" actually consisted of? A Telemundo cameraman telling a protester holding a Mexican flag upside down to turn it around.
So, yeah, not exactly rigging crash results, but generally frowned upon in the news business. The fact that Telemundo did not even use the purportedly "staged" footage on the air did not stop the MRC outrage machine, as Brent Bozell quickly blundered in:
Telemundo should be commended for not using the clip, but this doesn't change the fact that there is evidence of a deliberate attempt to stage the news -- a clear case of advocacy replacing journalism on the campaign trail. Telemundo must immediately apologize to Donald Trump, fire the cameraman and anyone else involved in order to retain their viewers’ trust and confidence. No one trusts any supposedly fair media outlet that chooses one side or one candidate over another.
Funny we don't recall Bozell offering an immediate apology -- or an apology of any kind -- or his resignation after it was revealed he staged his own fake twice-weekly news event for more than a decade: perpetuating the fiction that he wrote his own syndicated column.
Address the issue of your own honesty first, Brent. Then you might have a little moral authority to pass judgment on Telemundo.
UPDATE: Bozell appeared on Fox Business (of course) to talk about Telemundo and actually said, "I don't understand how the press simply cannot make itself apologize when it does something wrong." You first, Brent.
Claiming A Financial 'Existential Threat' to WND, Farah Begs Readers For Money Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily editor Joseph Farah sent a letter to WND's mailing list on June 1 admitting that WND is in financial trouble and "faces an existential threat." Farah claims he has kept the fact that WND "is in a sizable hole" hidden from the public until now because "I have been afraid to fail."
Naturally, this is all somehow President Obama's fault, not Farah's:
I won't go into all the details for a number of reasons. Some might sound like excuses. Others have to do with the very troubled Obama economy. But I will say this in all honesty: Barack Obama's early years were good for WND – even until three years ago. WND was an important opposition voice. People clung to it. They wanted to hear the truth. And they still do.
But, not enough people listened to that voice, because Obama was returned to office in 2012 and his policies have continued to ravage the very fabric of America's economy. Many businesses, including other media businesses, have also been hurt badly – some of them much bigger than WND. And just think of all the billion-dollar retail businesses that have collapsed in the last few years under Obama. We've dubbed it "The Retail Apocalypse," and that's no exaggeration. It's affecting everyone.
Farah carefully avoids the core issue: While readers do want to hear the truth from the media, that's not they're getting from WND. This is a website, after all, that went all in on hating Obama -- it was paying off handsomely early in his presidency, as Farah admits -- then went even harder on Obama-hate for the 2012 election by publishing sleaze and lies about the president and refusing to admit its anti-Obama birther crusade was completely discredited.
Live by Obama-hate, die by Obama-hate. Farah is learning that lesson now.
Indeed, the fact that Farah and WND have been so desperate to destroy Obama on a personal level that they stopped caring about journalism or facts is one key reason nobody believes WND. Remember, Farah is weirdly proud of the fact that his website publishes misinformation, and even a press-release mill decided that WND was not "credible" enough to promote.
Perhaps even more shocking is how little WND has done to repair its credibility after its 2012 debacle. It rebranded itself as "the largest Christian website in the world" in an apparent attempt to build itself with that audience, despite the fact that the only segment of Christianity WND genuinely cares about was right-wing homeschooling types. It hired a couple reporters with recent experience in actual journalism (if working for the still-Moonie-associated Washington Times counts as such), but Cheryl Chumley and Douglas Ernst were as prone to slavishly push WND's right-wing editorial agenda as its regulars. (Ernst, meanwhile, quietly left WND in April, judging by the date of his last byline, and has returned to the Washington Times.)
Oh, and as we'veproven, the "retail apocalypse" Farah and WND want so badly to blame on Obama has causes that vary for each troubled retailer, none of which WND has been able to trace to any specific Obama policy.
Farah admits two of WND's key revenue sources are way down:
Retail sales have been a major part of WND's revenue stream. We've seen them decline precipitously in recent years. (If you're beginning to get the picture, please consider visiting the WND Superstore, which, for the last two years, quite honestly, hasn't been so super.)
Advertising, another mainstay for big online companies like WND – one of America's top news sites, and in the top 350 of all websites nationwide – has also taken a huge hit in the Obama economy. Like some other media companies, we're down millions from a few years ago. But we've attempted to weather the storm without diminishing in any way the news services and products we offer the public – most of it for free.
Of course, lack of advertising is due in no small part to WND's lack of credibility, whether Farah wants to admit it or not. And because WND has fewer readers, there are fewer eyeballs to lure to its online store. But the crashing of sales there, even as online retail has been growing immensely overall, strongly suggests that WND's mix of right-wing books and films, biblically based diet plans and prepper supplies (Russian gas masks, anyone?) is out of step with the retail environment. That's WND's fault, not Obama's.
Naturally, Farah's answer to all this is to send him money, in the form of buying from the out-of-touch online store, subscribing to its Whistleblower magazine or just giving WND money directly for apparently nothing in return.
Farah concludes: "We at WND would love to be here for you for many more years to come. But today, I am lifting my hands up, forsaking my pride, and just asking you for help." Yet, strangely, he's apparently not so bereft of pride that he will apologize to his readers and seek repentence for the years of false claims, dishonest reporting and vindictive attacks masquerading as journalism that played no small role in landing him and WND in their current dire situation.
MRC Is Mad TV Show Paints Country Music Fans (Not Without Cause) As Homophobic Topic: Media Research Center
Erik Soderstrom turns in his Media Research Center hate-watching work by complaining in a May 27 post:
As promised during last week’s episode of ABC's Nashville, gay country star Will Lexington finally got his showdown with the show’s conservative caricature, leading straw-woman: Cynthia Davis. And as you probably guessed, Davis wasn’t portrayed kindly in the episode "Maybe You'll Appreciate Me Someday." Instead, the “conservative” talker is portrayed as a bloviating, incompetent homophobe who can’t string a coherent thought together to save her life.
Davis is also a coward, at first refusing to interview the man she lambasted for not making public appearances just one episode ago. She only relents when he stages a concert outside her studio. (Side note: it’s impressive that Will Lexington was able to muster so many fans when Nashville has repeatedly depicted country fans as homophobic bigots who would never listen to a gay artist’s music.)
Soderstrom, however, is only complaining that this is being depicted; he doesn't deny that there's truth behind it. Perhaps because he can't. Perhaps he can tell us the last time he heard Ty Herndon or Billy Gilman on country radio. And another gay country star, Chely Wright, says she's effectively been frozen out of Nashville (and, presumably, off country radio) after coming out.
Soderstrom also seems to be pretending there are no issues whatsoever with gay-related subjects coming up in country songs. In fact, Kasey Musgraves' "Follow Your Arrow" was largely blacklisted from country radio in part for a lyric advising the girls to "kiss the boys" and then to also "kiss the girls if that's what you're into," and ittle Big Town's "Girl Crush" was similarly blacklisted by country radio simply for appearing to be gay (the song is actually about being jealous of an ex-boyfriend’s new love).
So, yeah, the idea that homophobic is rampant in the country music industry and among fans appears to have a pretty solid base in reality. Not that Soderstrom will ever admit that, of course.
NEW ARTICLE: WND's Trump Fanfiction Writer Topic: WorldNetDaily
Theodore Roosevelt Malloch manages to liken Donald Trump to God, Jesus and Aristotle -- then claims his fanboyism is "moderate and reasoned." Read more >>
AIM's Kincaid Joins Right-Wing Game of Abusing Vince Foster's Corpse Again Topic: Accuracy in Media
WorldNetDaily isn't the only ConWeb component overjoyed at Donald Trump bringing up Vincent Foster conspiracy theories to attempt to smear Hillary. Accuracy in Media's Cliff Kincaid is just as gleeful:
Donald J. Trump has brought up the case of the mysterious death of former Clinton aide Vincent Foster, calling it “fishy.” Trump is right. Foster is the man who knew too much. He had knowledge of various Clinton scandals, including Travelgate, the Waco tragedy, and possibly some illegal activities involving national security. His body was found in a Virginia park on July 20, 1993, and the media accepted the verdict of suicide.
But as AIM founder and late chairman Reed Irvine and I reported on the case, there were so many anomalies that the Special Division of the Court of Appeals ordered an appendix added to Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr’s report on the death of Vincent Foster. The appendix exposed serious flaws in the report that cast strong doubt on the suicide finding.
Yes, something was, and is, very fishy in the case of the death of Vincent Foster. Media attacks on Trump are a diversion from the media’s documented unwillingness to thoroughly investigate the case. Irvine said at the time, “The cover-up is so transparent to those familiar with the facts that it is maddening to see those responsible make America look like a nation of dolts. Not that we haven’t tried to make the truth known, but the brilliant men and women who decide what’s fit to print and to air in the traditional media need to have their closed minds pried open.”
Irvine’s comments are even more appropriate now.
Like WND, Kincaid also cites former Starr investigator Miguel Rodriguez (and makes sure not to mention that he's apparently transgender now) and gives a special shout-out to fellow conspiracy-monger Hugh Turley "for assisting with this article." Which tells you all you need to know about Kincaid's prejudices.
Meanwhile, Foster's sister wrote a Washington Post op-ed who denounced "irresponsinble" and "cruel" people like Trump (and Kincaid) who cravenly use her brother's death for "political advantage." Both Kincaid and AIM have ignored her thus far,depriving us of an opportunity to see them deny their cruelty and cravenness.
Paul Bremmer writes in a May 26 WorldNetDailiy article:
Now that the 2016 presidential race appears to be a contest between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, some people have said Christians should stay home on Election Day to avoid voting for the lesser of two evils.
Award-winning journalist and WND Managing Editor David Kupelian is fed up with people telling him they refuse to vote for “the lesser of two evils.”
“We’re all evil, guys,” Kupelian said during a recent appearance on American Family Radio’s “Today’s Issues.” “Sin is evil. Every president who’s ever lived, including George Washington and Ronald Reagan, has had some evil, some sin in them. Knock it off with ‘the lesser of two evils.’ The lesser of two evils is the greater good.”
Finally! Kupelian tells the truth about himself!
Well, not quite, of course; Kupelian is simply rehashing his morally bankrupt rationalizations to vote for Trump in order to perpetuate his (and WND's) image of Hillary Clinton as, appareantly, Cthulhu in the flesh.
Indeed, much of the rest of that interview involves Kupelian repeating attacks on many of his favorite targets: liberals, antidepressants, colleges.
Which makes it funny that the next day, the very angry Kupelian -- in a column originally "featured by the Washington Times in its “Wilberforce Weekend” special supplement sponsored by the Colson Center for Christian Worldview" -- is telling us to rise above anger:
In considering the Wilberforce Weekend themes of “promoting good, resisting evil and restoring brokenness,” one big thing comes to mind that’s essential to accomplishing all three: giving up anger.
There’s no need to itemize everything wrong with being mad, resentful, hostile, judgmental, impatient, irritated, fuming and brooding. It’s no coincidence the word “mad” can mean both angry and insane – since becoming very angry can amount to a sort of temporary insanity, wherein we think, speak and act very differently than when we’re calm and centered.
Our anger hurts our children, breaks up families, poisons relationships, undermines businesses and wrecks our health. Truly, a great deal of evil enters this world through the portal of angry minds.
Kupelian doesn't admit that "mad, resentful, hostile, judgmental, impatient, irritated, fuming and brooding" is the essence of coverage of Clinton and President Obama at WND, the website he's the managing editor of. But you don't need to look any farther than partner-in-crime Joseph Farah's May 25 column expressing his immature glee that Obama will soon be leaving office:
I’m an eternal optimist, but, let’s face it, there’s not a lot of good news out there these days.
I encourage my editors to search for it. I would like to bring everyone at least one positive story every day so that we can all have a reason to smile.
But some days, it’s really tough.
Today is not one of those.
I’ve got some good news, if you haven’t already considered it.
Barack Obama will no longer be president of the United States in less than eight months.
This column meant to bring some cheer to your life today, yet, with Obama still around, even the silver linings come with dark clouds – sometimes mushroom clouds.
Anyway, for what it’s worth, the countdown to ecstasy has begun.
In 240 days, it will be “No more Obama, no more Michelle, no more transgendered bathrooms, except maybe in hell.”
Cheer up. The end is near.
So giddy is Farah, in fact, that he has apparently forgotten that a year ago he spent a lot of time speculating that Obama wouldn't leave the White House come 2017.
But never mind -- Farah must continue to act childish about this. His column two days later began: "I don’t know about you, but I can’t keep my mind off the post-Obama era. Every time I hear news about life after Jan. 20, 2017, I feel a tingle up my leg." He then perpetuates the old Obama-is-a-Muslim smear by noting that the Washington home Obama reportedly plans to live in after leaving office (which, again, Farah was casting doubt on just a year ago) is "only a block away – walking distance! – from the Islamic Center of Washington."
But then, Kupelian has never taken any of the advice he dishes out to others. Why would he start now?
MRC's Double Standard on Donations Influencing Reporting Topic: Media Research Center
Tim Graham and Brent Bozell complain in their May 25 column about National Public Radio accepting money from "large left-wing funders" and purportedly influence reporting, in particular attacking the Ploughshares Fund for funding national security coverage on NPR, including reports on the U.S.-Iran nuclear negotiations. "There is no transparency," Graham and Bozell rant (though they do immediately cite a example of the transparency they claim doesn't exist).
This might be a devastating accusation if the organization Bozell and Graham run didn't engage in the exact same behavior they're railing against.
We'vbe documented how the Media Research Center has received millions in donations from oil and fossil-fuel interests -- to the point that MRC vice president Dan Gainor also holds the endowed-chair title of T. Boone Pickens Fellow -- and how, coincidentially, the MRC's "news" division, CNSNEws.com, offers favorable, uncritical coverage of the oil and gas industry.
CNS' oil and gas sycophancy -- presumably funded by those MRC donations -- hascontinuedapace, most recently with CNS publishing an armada of op-eds defending a right-wing think tank from a subpoena demanding documents showing how it worked with ExxonMobil to suppress evidence that climate change is driven by fossil fuels and undermine the scientific concensus that reached that conclusion.
And that's just the most obvious connection. Who knows what other biased CNS reporting is bought and paid for by right-wing donors? We don't, because Bozell and the MRC have disclosed absolutely nothing about it.
So Bozell and Graham want full transparency of donations from outside groups that could influence reporting? You first, guys. Either that, or change CNS' name to Cybercast Propaganda Service.
Obama's Transgender Appointee Makes WND's Head Explode Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily's abject hatred for all things Obama and transgender are pretty obvious. Put the two together, and even that hatred goes up a few notches.
Thus, Obama's appointment of transgender woman Barbara Satin to the president’s Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships tripped that trigger. A "news" article on the appointment by WND lackey Bob Unruh couldn't even make out of the second paragraph before quoting a screed by an obscure right-wing blogger decdlaring that Satin is "mentally sick." Unruh somehow neglects to mention that the writer of said screed also referred to Obama as "Barack Hussein Obama Soetoro Sobarkah," so you know his credibility is completely unassailable.
Unruh's article is oddly accompanied by a completely unrelated photo of a smiling, if not smug-looking, Obama -- an obvious and dishonest attempt to convey WND's view that his appointment of Satin is a screw-you to WND readers:
Judging by the 1,400-plus comments accompanying the article, WND's message was received as intended.
Lest anyone think WND's hatefest doesn't come straight from the top, WND editor Joseph Farah followed up with a column continuing the mindless hate:
It gets wackier and wackier.
Barack Obama last week named a transgender man named Barbara Satin to be a member of his Advisory Council on Faith-Based Neighborhood Partnerships – another obvious poke in the eye at America’s Bible-believing community.
I call him Obama’s “Satin Doll,” but, of course, I don’t know if “Barbara” pronounces his name that way. I will leave it to your imagination on the alternative.
You can hardly keep up with the White House freak show in Obama’s closing days.
Satin, by the way, never went under the knife, so to speak. He’s still got all his male parts. He admits being attracted to women, was married and fathered three children. So this is an example of the kind of person who is free to use the same public bathroom at Target as your daughter. Keep that in mind.
This action, of course, follows Obama’s stunning and tyrannical decision to order public schools throughout America to allow transgender students to use the restrooms of their choice – threatening to withhold federal aid to any school district that balks.
What is Obama going to do next to top this?
Is Michelle going to come out of the closet as a transsexual?
Yesa, Farah apparently believes Michelle Obama is transsexual, like Alex Jones (who also thinks Joan Rivers was murdered in order to keep it secret), on whose even more conspiracy-obsessed show Farah is a (perhaps not-so) surprisinglyfrequentguest.
So, leave it to MRC "news" division CNSNews.com to perpetuate the bogus meme with a May 25 article by Patrick Goodenough, under the headline "Obama’s Japan Visit Starts With Apology–Although Not For Hiroshima."
What a fundmentally dishonest headline. CNS and Goodenough surely know that at no point did Obama ever claim he would offer an apology to Japan while visiting the site of the U.S nuclear attack on Hiroshima during his visit to Japan (and he did not). But it's clear that pandiering to right-wingers is more important to CNS than reporting facts -- a disturbing attitude for a self-proclaimed "news" operation.
Goodenough's actual article isn't much better, as he too is eager to amplify a false right-wing meme:
President Obama has said he will not offer an apology when visiting Hiroshima this week, but his trip to Japan began on an awkward note and expressions of regret, after Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe opened a press appearance by sternly lecturing him over a murder allegedly perpetrated by a former U.S. Marine on Okinawa.
In his response Obama briefly addressed the Okinawa case, but reprised his remarks by stressing the importance of a bilateral alliance which he said has “helped to fortify peace and security throughout the region.”
He then said he had expressed to the prime minister his “sincerest condolences and deepest regrets” over the incident – the killing of a 20-year-old Japanese woman on the island.
Obama gave assurances that the U.S. would continue to cooperate with the investigation and ensure justice is done under Japan’s legal system.
Note that nowhere in Goodenough's reporting of Obama's remarks is any mention of the apology the article's headline claims and his own introduction suggests. Condolences and regrets over a crime are not apologies.
Goodenough caps off the article by quoting a writer from the right-wing Heritage Foundation (whose ideology he does not disclose) complaining that "Obama’s trip will appear to affirm the oft-expressed Japanese view of itself as victim due to its unique status as the only country to have suffered an atomic attack." Goodenough made no apparent attempt to seek out an alternative, non-conservative viewpoint.
Goodenough is capable of fair reporting when he wants to be, but in recent months he's taken the lazy way out by being content to put right-wing memes over facts, such as he work on Syrianrefugees and anti-U.S. propaganda in Iran.
She is seen as dishonest. She is not likable. She has no accomplishments – in or out of politics – to cite. She’s not even scoring high among women.
The Trump versus Hillary matchup will be a very tough campaign. Who do you think is better positioned to slug it out? Has Hillary demonstrated an ability to win a national campaign? In 2008, she had everything going for her. The entire Democratic establishment was behind her then, too. But she couldn’t beat a new face with bigger promises. This year, she has struggled against Bernie Sanders, heretofore seen as a fringe old face.
With her eyes bulging wildly, grotesque contorted facial expressions, and a cackle Margaret Hamilton (the Wicked Witch of the West in “The Wizard of Oz”) would envy, Hillary Clinton attacked Donald Trump, saying that being president “shouldn’t be about delivering insults but about delivering results.”
Delivering results juxtaposed to delivering insults is something in which Hillary is well versed.
Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton is on her way to the Democratic presidential nomination, and no one has laid a glove on her yet. The Republicans are too busy fighting each other – all of them, establishment and non-establishment alike.
This is not good.
Tell me one policy difference between Lucifer and Hillary Clinton.
I’ve known women who have been drunks, drug addicts, liars and worse. I’ve known a woman who was herself a complete train wreck and intentionally turned her child into the same so she could have company. I’ve known women who have thought themselves to be clever when in fact their cleverness was consistent with an empty soup can. I’ve ministered to women who were in prison for murder.
But I’ve never known a woman as treacherous, calculating and outright evil as Hillary Clinton.
At this point, Democrats had better hope the FBI does its job of purging Hillary Clinton before it’s too late, because the party bosses haven’t yet shown the courage. She should not be allowed anywhere near the Oval Office again.
The Hillary campaign and its labyrinthian tentacles must be really concerned about me.
Why do I say that?
Because its surrogates in the media – namely the George Soros-backed Media Matters, the Daily Beast and the chattering class that follows such outlets – are busy weaving conspiracy theories about me and Donald Trump while labeling me as … a conspiracy theorist.
You know how that Saul Alinsky tactic works – accuse others of what you do.