Benghazi Committee Fails To Destroy Hillary, And The MRC Can't Even Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center has long counted on the Republican-dominated House Select Committee on Benghazi to do what it was created to do -- tar Hillary Clinton in the midst of her presidential run -- and has been known to freak out when it failed to do so to the MRC's satisfaction.
So when the committee issued its final report June 28 that committed the offense of failing to hold Hillary personally responsible for the deaths of four Americans at the diplomatic facility in Benghazi, the MRC went into Clinton derangement mode once again.
A post by Kyle Drennen complained about accurate reporting on the report, asserting that noting the fact that the report found no conclusive evidence of wrongdoing by Hillary meant that the media was "dutifully parroted Democratic talking points." So, onceagain, the MRC proves correct Stephen Colbert's axiom that treality has a liberal bias.
CNSNews' Susan Jones went into dutiful-stenography mode by pounding out a couple quickarticles uncritically repeating its conclusions -- which, needless to say, is two more articles than CNS did on the report issued by the committee's Democrats.
Then, mysteriously, the articles disappeared from CNS' front page a few hours after their posting, even though the report was the day's big political news and left CNS without any mention of Benghazi whatsoever on its front page for much of the day of June 28.
The reason for this became clear later in the day with a Twitter post by MRC chief Brent Bozell and an accompanying CNS article by Michael W. Chapman: Bozell was throwing a massive hissy fit over the report failing to destroy Hillary like it was supposed to:
In reaction to the report released today by the House Select Committee on Benghazi, which was investigating the Sept. 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi, Libya, where four Americans were murdered, Media Research Center President Brent Bozell said it was the committee chairman’s job “to get to the truth, and he punted.”
The committee chairman is Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), and the select committee was established by Congress in May 2014. Over the last two years, the committee has spent an estimated $7.1 million investigating the Benghazi attack and the administration’s actions concerning that event.
“I am stunned by the GOP’s unwillingness to accomplish anything in Congress, which now extends to resolving investigations,” said MRC President Bozell in a June 28 statement. “Trey Gowdy’s continued admonition that it’s up to the American people to reach their own conclusions about Benghazi is an obfuscation.”
“It was up to him to get to the truth, and he punted,” said Bozell.
“Just as with the IRS investigation, the Republicans lacked the fortitude to confront those responsible,” he continued. “Who denied the multiple requests for additional security for the compound? No answer. Who is being held responsible for the deaths of these men? No answer.”
Should the Commander-in-Chief be held responsible for the multiple failures of the military?” said Bozell. “Should the Secretary of State be held responsible for the disastrous consequences of State Department decisions? Not according to this report.”
“They wouldn’t even state that Hillary Clinton lied about the video though her own emails, read by committee members, prove she had!” he said.
Bozell's demand for accountability is particularly rich coming from a man who was never held accountable for spending more than a decade lying in public that he wrote his own columns.
Cnapman followed this up with another CNS "news" article (yes, Bozell's rant was classified as "news") quoting clopse Bozell friend Mark Levin similarly disparaging the committee's findings. Chapman didn't disclose that Levin has a business relationship with the MRC or whether his article was a part of it.
CNS Columnist: Gay Marriage Is A Fad, Just Like Communism Topic: CNSNews.com
Brigham Young University law professor Lynn Wardle writes in a June 23 CNSNews.com column about how the number of same-sex marriages has leveled off following an initial burst after the Supreme Court ruling legalizing them across the country. Then he goes on to make some really bizarre conclusions from that:
In other words, there has been a novelty “blip” in the number of same-sex marriages. But in just one year, the novelty of same-sex marriage has worn off and the increase in the number of same-sex couples getting married has tapered off.
The Post notes also that the Gallup analysts predict that growth in same-sex marriages in the future will be a long-term, low-growth process because many supports of same-sex marriage are too young to marry now.
Of course, novelty fads appeal to the young. For example, from the 1920s through the mid-1950s communism was a popular movement among many naïve and young Americans. But as people mature, their naïveté usually diminishes or disappears. That is why communism never gained significant political influence in the United States. By the time young persons were old enough to vote, they saw the situation differently than they did when they were immature.
First: Wardle doesn't seem to understand that a initial burst then a leveling off is arguably the pattern for many things that, like gay marriage, suddenly became obtainable after a lengthy period of it not being available.
Second: Gay marriage is a "fad" like communism? Really?Does this mean all gays are communists? We're confused.
Wardle goes on to insist that there are "negative consequences for individuals, families and society resulting from same-sex marriage," stating: "Many abandoned opposite-sex spouses (especially wives) have been seriously harmed by same-sex marriage. Many children have been severely disadvantaged by one or both parents leaving a traditional marriage for same-sex relationships, or from being raised by same-sex couples."
But if same-sex relationships are treated as valid as opposite-sex relationships, such behavior would decrease because gays would feel much less societal pressure to enter a marriage that conflicts with his or her orientation.
Wardle's a law professor, and these arguments never occurred to him? And the bizarre ones he wrote about did?
WND's Farah Falsely Denies Christian Countries Criminalize Homosexuality Topic: WorldNetDaily
Joseph Farah devotes his June 21 WorldNetDaily column to complaining that people are waiting for all the evidence to come in on the Orlando massacre and aren't rushing to solely blame Muslims for it. Farah rants:
I’ve never seen one Big Media story suggesting that Christians should not be coerced into celebrating what they consider to be sinful behavior. Apparently, that’s not a “complicated” or “nuanced” matter at all.
To its credit, the NBC story does point out: “No fewer than 40 out of 57 Muslim-majority countries or territories have laws that criminalize homosexuality, prescribing punishments ranging from fines and short jail sentences to whippings.”
Is there even one Jewish or Christian country in the world that does this?
No. The story left out that little factoid.
Farah is wrong -- numerous Christian countries have legal punishments for being gay. And if he read his own website, he would know that.
Farah's friend, virulently anti-gay activist Scott Lively, reportedly influenced the good Christian people of Uganda -- a Christian-dominated country where homosexuality is already illegal -- to propose a law that would punish it further, even permitting the death penalty for homosexuality. WNBD has given Lively a platform to smear gays as "murderers" who have "fixed their malevolent gaze on Christian Uganda." Is it any wonder that Ugandan officials wanted the death penalty for gays after hearing such rhetoric? And that's just what Lively has said in public; we don't know viciously he has slandered gays in Uganda behind closed doors, though he's facing a lawsuit for his role in helping to incite violence against gays there.
WND has tried to distance Lively from his Uganda work, giving him an unchallenged platform to assert that he had no influence on Uganda officials whatsoever and merely urged Uganda "to become the first government in the world to develop a state-sponsored recovery system for homosexuality on the model we have in the United States for alcoholism," since he (dubiously) believes that homosexuality is "a treatable behavioral disorder."
WND also gave space for Lively to endorse a less severe anti-gay law in Uganda, who was not terribly botheredby the fact that it "retains jail terms for offenders" and stating that the U.S. should "criminalize" homosexuality in order to "prevent sex activists from advocating their lifestyles to children in the public schools or to flaunt their sins in 'pride' parades through the city streets."
Meanwhile, a commenter on Farah's column had his own way of calling out Farah's falsehood:
Why yes, glad you asked. Kenya, Uganda, Ethiopia, South Sudan, Russia, Belize, Guyana, 9 Caribbean countries. Many states in the U.S. until 2003. Ireland until 1993. Germany until 1969. UK until 1967. Christian adherents have never, to put it politely, been in the forefront of decriminalizing homosexuality in any country.
Remember, Farah is weirdly proud of the fact that his website publishes misinformation, so don't expect him to issue a correction anytime soon.
AIM's Kincaid Returns to Pushing Conspiracy Theories About Obama's 'Real Father' Topic: Accuracy in Media
WorldNetDaily wasn't the only ConWeb outlet to jump back on the Obama Derangement Express with the release of of cache of letters written by Barack Obama's father. Longtime Obama-hater Cliff Kincaid at Accuracy in Media joins Jack Cashill and Jerome Corsi in going into full conspiracy mode in a June 20 column:
Seven years into Barack Obama’s presidency, the scales may slowly be falling from the eyes of The New York Times. Could the truth about America’s red diaper baby President be starting to emerge?
In a story about papers of his reported father, Barack Hussein Obama Sr., the Times said that President Obama has shown no interest in “the newly discovered documents, which included nearly two dozen of his father’s letters, his transcripts from the University of Hawaii and Harvard University, and references from professors, advisers and supporters.” The paper added, “Nearly three years later, as Mr. Obama celebrates his last Father’s Day in the White House, the center [the Schomburg Center for Research in Black Culture in Harlem] is still waiting” for a response from the President as to whether he is interested in seeing the documents.
What accounts for this strange behavior from Obama? Could the lack of interest have something to do with the fact that the Kenyan is not Obama’s real father?
Kincaid goes on, as WND's Cashill did, to cite liar and charlatan Joel Gilbert's discredited film asserting that Frank Marshall Davis is Obama's "real father" as evidence of his conspiracy. But Kincaid's not done conspiracy-ing:
Based on all the available evidence, including the newly discovered documents, it would appear that the Kenyan Obama had been used not only for the purpose of concealing an illicit relationship between Obama’s mother and Davis, but also for hiding a Marxist agenda for America and the world.
But Obama’s cover-up goes much deeper than this.
For that "deeper" conspiracy, Kincaid cites an even more discredited Obama-hater, Ed Klein, to claim that Obama is comfortable being a Christian without renouncing his "Islamic background."
Two days later, Kincaid followed up to elaborate on his Obama-hating conspiracy:
With the release of papers associated with the Kenyan Obama, it is clear beyond the shadow of a doubt that President Barack Obama was not his son. The nation has been treated to a monumental deception. Indeed, Obama campaigned as someone he is not. One can understand some of the reasons for the deception. Davis was a communist whose illicit affair with Obama’s mother was not something to be proud of. But shame should have taken a back seat to the need for the American people to learn the truth. Obama decided not to take that route. He told the American people a whopper about his dad being from Kenya. It was a calculated political deception, much like the claim he made while campaigning for office in 2008 that he was a committed Christian. Once he was elected, he became “The Politician Without a Church,” someone more likely to be on a golf course than worshipping Christ, and a president eager to accommodate the demands of the Muslim world.
Although Obama is nearing the end of his presidency, the questions which follow proof of his lies are still relevant, since he will rally Democrats to vote for Hillary Clinton, the apparent Democratic nominee, and has several months to do more damage. Before campaigning for a woman who may be charged with being a security risk, he should be asked about the lies that he told that, if exposed in 2008 or 2012, might have convinced millions of voters that he wasn’t to be trusted with the power of the presidency. In his own way, Obama was more of a security risk than Mrs. Clinton. But as a candidate and as President, he never underwent a background security check, enabling him to decide on his own what information was “secure” and what was not.
Since Democrats are charging that Donald J. Trump is a charlatan of some sort, shouldn’t Barack Obama’s lies about his controversial background be exposed, once and for all? Isn’t Obama the real charlatan? Didn’t he conceal major aspects of his background in order to win the presidency?
If anything, Obama seems to be a much bigger charlatan. Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, is accused of making business deals that ripped people off, such as in the case of Trump University. Legal proceedings will determine the truth of these claims. Obama, by contrast, committed electoral fraud, promising “hope and change” that has turned out to be a version of the kind of socialism that is currently ravaging Venezuela. Obama’s fraud has put the entire country at risk.
Kincaid likes hanging out with liars and charlatans like Joel Gilbert, so why wouldn't he embrace Trump?
In a June 15 post, Scott Whitlock labors mightily to scrounge for a factual basis that would make a Donald Trump attack on Hillary Clinton not the lie it clearly is:
Providing an assist to Hillary Clinton, CBS This Morning’s Nancy Cordes on Wednesday flatly declared Donald Trump’s attacks on her are “unfounded.” Discussing the “political firefight” in the wake of the Orlando terror attack, Cordes parroted, “Hillary Clinton waded in, Tuesday, accusing Donald Trump of, quote, ‘bizarre rants’ on the topic and batting back his unfounded claim that she wants to abolish the right to bear arms.”
The journalist then uncritically played a clip of the Democrat insisting, “He said I'll abolish the Second Amendment. Well, that's wrong.” It’s true that Clinton never said those exact words. However, on June 5, the candidate refused to call gun ownership an individual right.
In leaked audio from a 2015 fundraiser, she declared the Supreme Court “wrong” when in regards to the landmark 2008 Heller decision. So, calling Trump’s concern “unfounded” is a simplistic explanation that offers spin for Clinton’s clear anti-gun record.
Questioning the idea that the Second Amendment does not apply to individuals -- the amendment itself makes no such assertion -- and to criticize the Heller decision -- which overturned a gun control law in the District of Columbia, and is the first time the Supreme Court discovered an individual right to firearms in the Second Amendment -- does not make one"anti-gun," let alone wanting to abolish the Second Amendment, which is the unambiguous claim Trump made.
It's now clear that the MRC will not let the truth get in the way of its new mission of getting Trump elected.
WND's Corsi Tries to Rehab Discredited Anti-Clinton Author Topic: WorldNetDaily
Jerome Corsi shills as best he can in a June 19 WorldNetDaily article:
In an interview with WND, investigative reporter and author of the 2012 book “Clinton Cash” Peter Schweizer disclosed that after writing his book, Bill and Hillary Clinton sought to discredit him as the messenger while ultimately failing to refute his message.
“The Clinton attack on my book, ‘Clinton Cash’ was the classic Clinton attack,” Schweizer said. “So, what the Clintons did, instead of refuting my message, the Clintons attacked me as the messenger.
He noted Clinton supporters sent out a 25-page dossier on him, calling him a crazy right-winger, with the goal of distracting from the material.
“Their second position – one legitimized by the George Stephanopoulos interview – was to charge that because I did not have a smoking gun, I had not proved criminal conduct,” Schweizer pointed out.
“This is another classic Clinton technique involving the creation of a ridiculous standard that doesn’t apply to anybody else. In other words, when did it become the rule that the only news regarding a controversy and scandal was when the author could prove a crime had been committed? It’s a ridiculous standard.”
Of course, promoting allegations lacking facts to back them up has been the WND reporting M.O. for years -- and, thus,the reason why it has no credibiilty and is in serious financial trouble.
But as even NewsBusters has conceded, Schweizer is a conservative activist who wrote his book as a partisan attack against Clinton and, as he himself appears to be admitting, has no actual proof to support the charges he's alleging. He also has a lengthy history of getting facts wrong.
Only in the world of right-wing journalism is it "ridiculous" have one's facts straight and prove one's allegations.
MRC Spoils Another Movie It Doesn't Like Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center occasionally likes to take revenge on films that insufficiently reflect its right-wing agenda (when it bothers toactuallysee the film prior to bashing is, anyway) by giving away major plot points that it disapproves of.
And so it goes with the new film "Me Before You." In a June 8 MRC post, Katie Yoder outlines the entire plot of the film so she can rail about the assisted-suicide plot twist in the story of a romance between a quadraplegic and his caretaker. While she conceded that "disability activists and most media reviewers slammed the plot," that wasn't enough for Yoder. A few movie critics were still moved by the tearjerker aspect of the film, so she attacked them too and huffed, "This isn’t the first time the media have pushed for assisted suicide."
But that wasn't enough ranting for the MRC. Brent Bozell and Tim Graham devoted their June 10 column to attacking the film, ranting that "The so-called 'right to die' movement never takes responsibility for its very real and very dangerous ethics slippery slope" and concluding, "This is the siren song of the culture of death."
Bozell and Graham also make sure to spoil the film -- "Spoiler alert: This isn't a love story; it's a story of a man's self-love leading to assisted suicide" -- and declared that the studio that released the film is "just plain guilty of false advertising" for failing to spoil the plot twist. No, ruining a film for others like that is obviously the MRC's job.
WND's Cashill, Corsi Go Into Conspiracy Mode On Trove of Letters from Obama's Father Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily just can't help itself. As much as it tries to put its years-long obsession with Barack Obama's parentage behind it for fear of further destroying what little credibility it has, it will still go birther at the drop of a hat.
The discovery of a trove of letters by Barack Obama Sr. set off WND's birther twitch again. Jack Cashill was first to jump into that cesspool again in a June 19 column:
In a weekend New York Times article that has gotten a good deal of attention, reporter Rachel Starnes tells how an archivist at the Schomburg Center in Harlem stumbled upon a trove of letters from Barack Obama, Sr.
What has shocked the archivists and the Times is that President Barack Obama has expressed little or no interest in the letters.
“A senior White House official said President Obama would be interested in seeing the documents after he leaves office next year,” Starnes reported, “but declined to comment on why administration officials had not responded to the letter or to follow-up correspondence.”
Actually, the New York Times article on the letters does not show anyone expressing shock over this situation -- perhaps they realize (if Cashill doesn't) that Obama is a little busy right now leading the free world. Further, the article now states that after its publication, the White House official "added that the president had not been 'made aware of the collection of writing until recently.'"
But never mind, Cashill has a conspiracy theory to rehash, that "terrorist emeritus Bill Ayers served as Obama’s muse" in the writing of "Dreams From My Father," and came up with a new conspiracy to flog:
Instead of going to Africa, Obama – or his muse – may have contented himself with going to the local library and pillaging the memoirs of longtime Kenya resident Kuki Gallmann.
The clues to this unlikely literary history may well be contained in a manuscript obtained by Gotnews.com editor Charles Johnson from Obama’s half-brother Malik.
Documentarian Joel Gilbert had earlier secured sample pages from Malik, and both Jerry Corsi and I had written about their implications.
According to Corsi, Malik had charged that Barack Obama exploited the family in Kenya for political purposes and now has abandoned them. In a similar vein, Obama seems to have exploited and abandoned Barack Obama Sr., his presumed father.
Cashill's involvement with the liar and charlatan Joel Gilbert should immediately raise questions about this endeavor, as does the involvement of Johnson, who's been called "the world's worst journalist" for his numerous false stories. It seems both Johnson and Gilbert are exploiting Malik Obama to further their own very personal hatred of Barack, and Cashill is only too happy to play along.
The Obama derangement football is then passed to Jerome Corsi who, needless to say, runs with it:
In newly discovered letters, President Obama’s Kenyan father made no mention of his son, raising further doubt about the personal narrative that helped put Obama on a rapid path to the White House.
But the newly discovered letters confirm WND’s reporting that Obama Sr. never lived with Dunham and she left Hawaii with her son only weeks after he was born.
Barack Obama Jr. said in his autobiography “Dreams from My Father” that the details of the marriage between his father and Dunham remained murky. Various biographies of Dunham, meanwhile, suggest the two were married only after she became pregnant, with Obama in “Dreams” claiming the two were married on an unspecified date in May 1960.
On Feb. 8, 1961, some five days after Maraniss claims Obama Sr. married Dunham, Obama wrote to Gordon Hagberg, the director of the African American Institute, at a DuPont Circle address in Washington different from Livingston’s address.
In the letter, the Kenyan thanked the African American Institute for the $500 “received for the second semester” and the $500 “received for last semester.”
The letter, applying for a scholarship in 1961 discussed in detail Obama’s transcript showing he was carrying a 3.7 grade point average, having just completed seven courses for 21 credit hours, receiving four grades of “A” and two grades of “B.”
But the letter, focused entirely on academic considerations, made no mention that he had married a Hawaii woman.
It’s a fact he could have referenced to obtain more funding, arguing he had taken upon himself the responsibilities of a student wife and possibly future children.
The implication here, which Corsi cleverly avoids saying in full, is that of the hoary, evidence-free accusation that Obama's father is not Barack Sr. but Frank Marshall Davis. Corsi also avoids dealing with the fact that the collection of letters is not claimed by anyone to be comprehensive and are effectively business correspondence -- they're mostly about trying to secure a study slot in the U.S. and scholarship money to stay -- so there's little reason to read any sinister meaning in the fact that the senior Obama didn't mention his wife or son.
But who needs facts when there's rampant, politically malicious speculation to be done? That's the whole point of Cashill's and Corsi's articles -- as well as a reminder that WND will never completely give up its Obama derangement.
Did you read about any of that on the front page of CNSNews.com? Not really. CNS put Lewandowski on the front page only within the context of an Associated Press article about him being hired by CNN as a commentator.
So what other direct Trump stories were deemed newsworthy enough at CNS to make it to the front page?
An AP article on the arrest of a man who claimed he wanted to kill Trump.
An AP article on late-night host Seth Meyers' focus on Trump.
Another stenography article by Jones on Trump's comments about "the United Kingdom's historic vote to leave the European Union," which somehow neglected to mention that Trump mostly talked about his golf course and other real estate interests in Scotland.
An AP article on the engagement ring Trump gavehis second wife Marla Maples going up for auction.
Another AP article on Trump walking back his stance on guns in nightclubs, "a stance even the NRA says is untenable."
And yet another stenography article by Jones on Trump apologizing to the real Pocohontas over his repeated mocking references of Sen. Elizabeth Warren as Pocohontas.
That's actually more stories that the previous week, but it ignored the big ones.
CNS has a prettybad track record so far on putting Trump on its front page. You'd think they'd want to put him there more, since he's the presumptive Republican presidential candidate and all. What are they asahmed of?
So, riddle me this: how does a company edict, that requires employees to not wade into political matter of an inflammatory nature, change from a sternly enforced rule, to all of a sudden becoming, no biggie?
Apparently, this abrupt change occurs based on whether the person wading into the “inflammatory” debate is a conservative or a liberal. In the aftermath of the Orlando nightclub terrorist attack of last week, ESPN’s Jemele Hill took to Twitter and opined on what she viewed to be the hypocritical nature of the country’s reaction to the attack:
Of course, the irony here has nothing to do with Jemele Hill’s nonsensical take equating, I guess, opposition to gay marriage with gays being executed by state sanction. Which occurs in several Muslim countries, openly. No, the irony --check that-- flaming hypocrisy here, is that Jemele Hill is still employed by ESPN after saying this. Despite the fact that this is the same company that cited its anti-inflammatory rhetoric policy when firing Curt Schilling for merely illustrating the finer points of male/female bathroom construction.
So, Schilling’s Facebook rant about how male bathrooms are built for males and female bathrooms are built for females, is blasphemy. Yet, Jemele Hill tweeting out some half-baked, whacked out comparison of American/Christian attitudes towards homosexuals vis-à-vis Muslims, in the immediate aftermath of the worst shooting tragedy in American history, is all good?
According to an ESPN spokesperson, apparently, yes.
Actually, Schilling wasn't"merely illustrating the finer points of male/female bathroom construction." He sent out an anti-trans post so offensive that even "Bookter" wouldn't reproduce it in a NewsBusters post whining about him getting fired.
That's not all. A mere 14 hours after "Bookter's" post, NewsBusters posted an item by Tom Blumer praising a political statement by a sports person. Needless to say, it didn't express a view that wasn't conservative:
Yesterday, as Major League Baseball's Los Angeles Dodgers faced the Milwaukee Brewers in LA, legendary Hall of Fame broadcaster Vin Scully, in a 20-second monologue between pitches, did more to substantively educate his audience about the tragic reality in Venezuela than most of the U.S. press has done in months (HT Twitchy):
VIN SCULLY: Socialism failing to work as it always does, this time in Venezuela. You talk about giving everybody something free and all of a sudden there's no food to eat.
And who do you think is the richest person in Venezuela? The daughter of Hugo Chavez. Hello. Anyway, 0 and 2.
Scully's statement about María Gabriela Chávez is from all appearances correct.
The reason why Venezuela is tanking is not the sole fault of mere socialism or even the main cause, as Blumer (and, apparently, Scully) believe. As actual economic experts have detailed, the fault lies more with a plunge in oil prices in an economy based on oil exports and rampant corruption and cronyism in the Venezuelan government.
Of course, if "Bookter" was at all intellectually consistent, he'd be demanding that Scully be fired, never mind that the guy's a living legend of sports broadcasting just like he did Jemele Hill. But he hasn't -- the only thing he (or she) has put his (or her) fake byline to in the past week is continuing to whine that Caitlyn Jenner received an Arthur Ashe Courage Award from ESPN a year ago.
Pat Boone appears perfectly content to continue to destroy his pleasant pop-singer legacy with his unhinged hatred for President Obama. From a June 20 Newsmax article:
President Barack Obama is a Muslim and celebrates Islamic holy days in the White House, actor Pat Boone told Newsmax TV.
Boone, a singer, actor, and TV host who appears in the recent film "God's Not Dead 2," told Steve Malzberg Monday night Obama is not the Christian he claims to be.
"He said during [his 2008 presidential] campaign, the sweetest sound in his memory is the Muslim call to prayer," Boone said. "He does make a perfunctory appearance at the presidential prayer breakfast, and he will come to a black funeral after one of these killings like Orlando, but he celebrates Ramadan in the White House.
"He is, I'm afraid, more Muslim than Christian. And he is certainly more protective of anything relating to Islam than he is anything relating to Christianity."
The fact that it's Pat Boone saying this doesn't make this any less crazy or hateful. But Boone is counting on you to think otherwise.
Hillary Derangement Syndrome, David Kupelian Edition Topic: WorldNetDaily
Last month, WorldNetDaily's Whistleblower magazine devoted an entire issue to hating Hillary Clinton to the point of portraying her as Nurse Ratched from "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest." WND has now taken David Kupelian's title essay out of the barely-read magazine and shared it on the WND website. And Kupelian brings his full measure of Hillary derangement to the endeavor:
Make no mistake, today’s Democratic Party is untethered to reality: With ISIS crucifying children overseas and mass terrorism in the American homeland on everyone’s mind, with U.S. joblessness through the roof in a disintegrating economy, with wide-open borders and absurdly reckless immigration and refugee policies transforming America in unthinkable ways, the Democrats’ most urgent national issue seems to be making sure men are allowed to use women’s bathrooms, locker rooms and showers.
But what about the woman who may shortly become president? There are some obvious parallels to Kesey’s fictional tyrant nurse: Hillary Clinton – from her days of vilifying the women victimized by her sex-predator husband, to her betrayal of brave Americans defending the U.S. special mission in Benghazi (and then lying to their grieving parents’ faces about the cause of their deaths) – has been undeniably two-faced, cold, manipulative and obsessed with power. Still, is the whole Nurse Ratched comparison, and all it implies, really fair?
Rest assured that Kupelian thinks he's being totally fair in lashing out at Hillary in this hateful, vindictive way. He rants about how much of a liar Hillary allegedly is, quoting from his own book "The Snapping of the American Mind" in delcaring Hillary (and President Obama) to be "vainglorious" creatures who disregard "any higher standard of truth," and he quotes another author, "famed Christian psychiatrist M. Scott Peck," to portray Hillary as a "malignant" narcissist who is "always phony, manipulative, calculating, blaming, deflecting – always lying," adding: "That’s Nurse Ratched. And that’s Hillary Clinton."
Which is all rather rich coming from the managing editor of a website that not only is so known for the lies it publishes that it has no credibility -- his boss, Joseph Farah, is weirdly proud of the fact that WND pubishes "misinformation," a.k.a. lies -- but is devoting its efforts to elect an even more vanglorious, malignant narcissist and rampant liar who disregards any higher standard of truth, Donald Trump.
But Kupelian is too deep in his Hillary-hating fantasy world to be concerned about the credibility of his own website, let alone logical consistency. Here's his lengthy description of the hellscape that will purportedly ensue if Hillary is elected president:
If Hillary wins in November, the sheer revulsion of the great American middle class over having to endure Bill and Hillary Clinton back in the White House – this time with the viscerally unlikable Hillary in charge – at such a uniquely crucial time in our history will result in many bad things:
First of all, just having to listen to Hillary will fry the circuitry of many Americans’ minds. As I explained earlier, we don’t fully comprehend the high stress level involved in being ruled over by someone who is literally lying to us all the time, whose whole life is a pretense, an act, a calculated manipulation – someone who never strikes any familiar chords within our souls of genuine decency, humanity and heartfelt shared values. This alone will create a baseline of constant pain, conflict and anger.
The middle class will likely sink into a state of depression, both economically and emotionally. Suicide will increase, and not just because Hillary is incapable of improving the economy or creating (non-government) jobs, but because public rage will multiply as people realize they have re-elected the delusional Barack Obama in the form of a corrupt, deceitful, power-mad old woman. The urge to chemically relieve pain will dramatically increase, and the current epidemic level of drug addiction – whether the drug source is a doctor or a dealer – will continue to skyrocket. Millions will drop out of politics in disgust, essentially abdicating rule of the country to the progressive left. Checkmate.
As with her husband Bill’s presidency, Hillary’s rule will encourage immorality, sexual anarchy and abandonment of Judeo-Christian values, but also outright criminality and mental illness. The snapping of the American Mind will shift into overdrive.
Disgust and open rebellion will overtake the U.S. military, leading to a mass exit. Same with the FBI, particularly among the over 100 agents who worked diligently on the investigation of Hillary’s private email server and her outrageous disregard for America’s national security.
In an age when evil is increasingly portrayed as good, and good as evil; when disordered and immoral behavior is imposed on the rest of society as normal and moral, and dissenting Christians are persecuted and even jailed; Hillary Clinton’s presidency will mark the ultimate reversal of values. Whereas once America was blessed with a moral and legendarily honest “father of our country” named George Washington, in Hillary Clinton we’ll have an immoral and legendarily dishonest “mother of our country.”
Most important is the message that will be transmitted to America’s youth, whose values and worldview are still being formed, by having two people with a long criminal history, and who regard themselves as absolutely above the law, occupy the White House.
What will reverberate deep in the minds and souls of the young will be much the same as the toxic message ghetto youth absorb when they observe criminals, drug dealers and pimps in their midst becoming “successful” – getting all the women, hot cars, money, power and fame they want. It’s the message of the sociopath predator: There is no law but the jungle. Lying and stealing are no problem, because everyone – including the president – does it. Sexually taking whatever I want from others is fine, too – Bill Clinton proved that. Laws are for other people, and morality is whatever I want it to be. I’m gonna get what’s mine, take care of me and my friends. If a crime family like Hillary and Bill can get into the White House and be honored by the whole world, I can ignore the law too and take whatever I can get.
For those more sensitive and deeply moral souls, many will drop out of society and live in their own world. The more troubled of these will lose themselves in drugs, addictions and suicide. America, beneath its civilized, high-tech sheen, will increasingly resemble a mental ward.
But this is the predictable outcome of elevating as a leader someone who pretends to want to take care of others, yet who secretly has contempt for them, indeed whose power is rooted in their very dependency, dysfunction and submission to her. This is the cuckoo’s nest run by Nurse Ratched, and America under the rule of Hillary Clinton.
Kupelian doesn't explain how this vision would be different under the amoral businessman he prefers as president. But, again, Kupelian's screed has nothing to do with logic and everything to do with hate.
CNS Hides Columnist's Employment By Think Tank When Writing About It Topic: CNSNews.com
We noted that in April among the armada of op-eds CNSNews.com published criticizing a subpoena against the right-wing think tank Competitive Enterprise Institute about its relationship with ExxonMobil, and that company's alleged suppression of evidence that climate change is driven by fossil fuels was one by Hans Bader, described only as someone who "practices law in Washington, D.C."
A second op-ed by Bader on the subject was published by CNS on June 16. In it, he attacked that "incredibly burdensome subpoena" that was issued to CEI and asserts that the investigation "raises obvious First Amendment issues."
CNS published a third op-ed by Bader on June 22, in which he attacks the subpoena as a "climate-change witch-hunt" and explained that "CEI filed a motion for sanctions against the attorney general who sent us that subpoena, Claude Walker of the U.S. Virgin Islands, under the District of Columbia’s anti-SLAPP law." In the latter two op-eds, Bader is again identified only as someone who "practices law in Washington, D.C."
But he's much more than that: He's a senior attorney at CEI.So of course Bader is going to criticize the subpoena -- that's what he's being paid to do.
In addition to CNS failing to disclose this clear conflict of interest to its readers, Bader himself doesn't explicitly disclose it. Given that the op-eds originated as posts at CEI (here, here and here), he really didn't need to, but he knows that CNS reproduces his posts, as we see from a an April 8 CEI post in which he cited "an earlier commentary at CNS News" that he wrote.
While Bader should have made sure CNS disclosed his CEI employment on his columns, it's ultimately not his job. CNS shouldn't have to be asked to do so, given that disclosure of conflicts of interest is a bedrock principle of journalism.
Earlier this week, the MRC was giddy that it prompted NPR to issue a correction on an item that identified a woman as less political than she actually was. Don't expect CNS to do the same -- the MRC is rarely interested in practicing what it preaches.
What was that Tim Graham, official at CNS parent the Media Research Center, was saying about conservative media outlets making quality, original journalism and are totally not aggregators? Never mind.
MRC's Graham Mad That Columnist Accurately Described the Sad State of Right-Wing Media Topic: Media Research Center
Poor Tim Graham. He still thinks there's such a thing as right-wing journalism with integrity.
In a June 25 NewsBusters post, the Media Research Center director of media analysis takes umbrage at conservative Washington Post columnist Kathleen Parker (because Parker refuses to march in lockstep with the right-wing agenda and is willing to criticize Trump, Graham sneers that she merely "is mistaken for a Republican") for correctly pointing out that "mostly to blame for the demonization of the media broadly are faux news media outlets, Republicans and their cohorts" who are also cheering Donald Trump's petulantly stripping the Washington Post of press credentials, and adding that most conservative news sources are little more than "aggregators dependent upon the mainstream media for their bread and butter" and that "Kill the messenger is their operating principle."
Unsaid by Parker: "Kill the messenger" is the operating prinicple of the MRC. Graham didn't admit that either, but that got him in a tizzy:
This only proves Kathleen Parker wouldn't know the conservative blogosphere if it invaded her computer like a virus. In her mind, there can't be a vibrant conservative media that represent the public and a "free and independent press." Only the liberal media is authentically described as original journalism. That's wildly inaccurate and arrogant.
Graham is careful to mention how Parker's description of the conservative news media fits the MRC's own "news" outlet, CNSNews.com, to a T. It's enough of an aggregator that it subscribes to the Associated Press -- which the rest of the MRC loves to bash as hopelessly liberal -- and what passes for original journalism on the site is largely cherry-picking government statistics to make Obama look bad, shilling for right-wing causes (like the oil industry) and republishing anti-gay screeds from Franklin Graham and other gay-bashers.
If Parker's critique of the right-wing media is "wildly inaccurate and arrogant," how come it looks so much like the "news" outlet the MRC runs? Graham doesn't have an answer for that. Heck, he didn't even provide a list of right-wing outlets that do anything approaching good journalism.
The rest of Graham's post is spent justifying Trump's attack on the Post by bashing other Post columnists critical of Trump, further endorsing Trump's war on the Post.
WND's Double Standard on Women in Politics Topic: WorldNetDaily
Cheryl Chumley writes in a June 15 WorldNetDaily article:
A fundamentalist Muslim imam who hosted an online seminary course attended by Orlando terrorist Omar Mateen – but who denied ties to the “gay” nightclub murderer – told Greta Van Susteren during a Fox News interview that Hillary Clinton shouldn’t be president because according to his faith’s prophet, her anger during her monthly menstruation cycle would make her a poor leader.
“As a Muslim, I object to Hillary Clinton,” said Abu Taubah, who’s also gone by the name of Marcus Dwayne Robertson, a former U.S. Marine who’s worked as a bodyguard for Omar Abdel-Rahman, the “Blind Sheik,” Breitbart reported. The “Blind Sheik” was involved in the 1993 World Trade Center attack.
The ‘Stop Hillary’ campaign is on fire! Join the surging response to this theme: ‘Clinton for prosecution, not president’
He expanded on his views of women in leadership roles, saying the idea wasn’t compatible with his religious beliefs.
“I don’t believe women should be the president of a nation. … [Our prophet] taught us that whenever a woman is in charge, is going to be problems,” he said. “What if she’s on her menses and it’s time to go to war, she going to press the button cause she’s angry? I like Bernie [Sanders].”
Chumley seems to have forgotten that for 11 years her employer had as a columnist Vox Day, who doesn't believe women should vote because "Far too many women are fascists at heart" and there's an "obvious connection between the female franchise and the West's continental drift into socialism."
Is that really any less silly than what some random "fundamentalist Muslim imam" has to say? Don't expect Chumley to admit it.