WND Takes DNC's Birther Bait Again Topic: WorldNetDaily
Art Moore begins his July 27 WorldNetDaily article by stating, "It appears the Obama family just can’t get birth certificates out of their heads." Actually, it's WND who has that problem.
For the second time this week, WND took the bait on a oblique reference to birthers by a member of the Obama family at the Democratic National Convention in order to rehash its discredited "eligibility" conspiracy theories. And Moore goes full-bore on it:
Dozens of lawsuits were filed over that issue before and after Obama’s election in 2008, and, after pressure from Donald Trump and others, the White House ultimately released a document he said was his Hawaiian birth certificate.
The only law-enforcement investigation of the issue, conducted by Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio, concluded the document is likely a forgery.
Ironically, it was Hillary Clinton who began the whole “birther” controversy by questioning Obama’s eligibility during the hotly contested 2008 Democratic race against Obama.
It’s not just Obama’s birth certificate that’s in doubt, but he also mysteriously has a Connecticut-based Social Security Number, despite the fact neither he nor his parents ever lived in the Constitution State.
As we've noted, that "only law-enforcement investigation of the issue" was a corrupt sham, with Arpaio's "cold case posse" populated with the like of biurther conspiracists like WND's own Jerome Corsi.
And, no, Hillary Clinton did not "begin the whole “birther” controversy by questioning Obama’s eligibility." As CNN and others have documented, the 2008 Clinton campaign did not pursue the issue, though diehard supporters filed the first lawsuits on the issue. The one organization that pursued the birther issue to ludicrous extents and beyond was the definitely-not-supported-by-Hillary WND -- which, of course, Kovacs fails to mention.
As for Obama's supposedly fraudulent Social Security number, the most logical explanation is that Obama’s return address was mistyped, the initial “9” typed as a “0” which would turn a Hawaiian zip code into one from Connecticut.
For an organization that (currently) insists the birther issue ended in "late 2011," WND sure likes to keep talking about it -- and taking the bait when Democrats bring it up.
CNS Buries News of Trump Inviting Russia To Hack Hillary's Emails Topic: CNSNews.com
You'd think a presidential candidate inviting a foreign power to hack the email accounts of Americans would be big news at CNSNews.com, which purports to care a lot about national security.
But that candidate is Republican Donald Trump, so it wasn't.
CNS' initial article on the press conference in which Trump said he wished for Russia to hack Hillary Clinton's email, by Melanie Hunter, failed to even mention that he said it. Hunter began her article instead with Trump's statement that "he never met Russian President Vladimir Putin but as president, he would rather be 'friendly' with Russia so both countries 'can go and knock out ISIS together' along with other allies."
Hunter was in stenography mode, as most CNS reporters are when writing about Trump, and therefore she couldn't be bothered to note that Trump previously claimed he has spoken "directly and indirectly" with Putin.
Patrick Goodenough featured Trump's press conference in an article the next day -- but didn't mention the hacking invitation. Instead, he touted how "One day after Republican Donald Trump warned that China and Russia 'have never been closer,' China's military announced on Thursday it will hold joint exercises with Russian forces in the South China Sea."
Goodenough wrote an accompanying article that showed him in full spin mode, claiing that "The Russian government may soon release texts of emails hacked from Hillary Clinton’s private server during her time as secretary of state, a respected geopolitical affairs publication reported last month, citing Western intelligence sources." It wasn't until the 13th paragraph of his article that he noted Trump's invitation to Russia to hack Hillary's email, then immediately noted Trump ally Newt Gingrich's baseless assertion that Trump was making a "joke."
It wasn't until a full day later that CNS gave the hacking invitation a bit more prominence, in an article by Susan Jones -- but she, like Goodenough, spun Trump's words in a way to bury the whole treasonous aspect of it:
"It's just a total deflection, this whole thing with Russia," Donald Trump told a news conference on Wednesday.
"In fact, I saw her (Hillary Clinton's) campaign manager -- I don't know his title, Mook. I saw him on television and they asked him about Russia and the (DNC) hacking. By the way, they hacked -- they probably have her 33,000 e-mails. I hope they do. They probably have her 33,000 e-mails that she lost and deleted because you'd see some beauties there."
Trump repeated several times that it may not be Russia who hacked the DNC: "Nobody even knows this, it's probably China, or it could be somebody sitting in his bed. But it shows how weak we are, it shows how disrespected we are."
After telling the news conference that Russia -- or somebody -- probably already has Hillary Clinton's deleted emails, a reporter later returned to the subject, asking Trump why he doesn't tell Russian President Vladimir Puting to stop interfering with the U.S. presidential campaign.
"I have nothing to do with Putin. I've never spoken to him. I don't know anything about him other than he will respect me. He doesn't respect our president.
"And if it is Russia -- which it's probably not, nobody knows who it is -- but if it is Russia, it's really bad for a different reason, because it shows how little respect they have for our country, when they would hack into a major party and get everything.
"But it would be interesting to see -- I will tell you this. Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 e-mails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press. Let's see if that happens. That'll be next."
A short time later, Trump repeated that nobody knows if the Russians were the ones who hacked into the DNC: "You know (what) the sad thing is? That with the technology and the genius we have in this country, not in government unfortunately, but with the genius we have in government, we don't even know who took the Democratic National Committee e-mails. We don't even know who it is."
Trump also said it's not about the hackers anyway: "It was about the things that were said in those emails. They were terrible things, talking about Jewish, talking about race, talking about atheist, trying to pin labels on people -- what was said was a disgrace, and it was Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and believe me, as sure as you're sitting there, Hillary Clinton knew about it. She knew everything."
Not only did Jones failed to mention the bipartisan criticism of Trump's remarks, she referred to something she called the "Democrat National Convention."That's not a mistake -- right-wingers have maliciously switched "Democratic" for "Democrat" for years.
Jones' commitment to partisan posturing over something as basic as getting names correct tells us what a hack she is -- and the lack of journalistic seriousness of her employer.
UPDATE: A July 29 article by Goodenough on Joe Biden referring to Russian premier Vladimir Putin as a "dictator" waits until the very end to note Trump's hacking invitation to Russia, but then added, "Trump later characterized the comments as sarcasm."
This means that CNS has yet to make Trump's hacking invitation the primary focus of any article. And this is a "news" operation?
Newsmax Highlights Negative News About Company It's Feuding With Topic: Newsmax
Newsmax is currently embroiled in a dispute with Dish Network for the past couple months over the terms under which Dish carries Newsmax TV, which has meant that Dish has pulled the channel off its system for now.
That seems like the proper light in which to view Newsmax highlighting a July 22 Bloomberg article -- under the headline "Dish Network Loses Record-Setting 281,000 Subscribers" -- noting that Dish Network "lost a record number of TV subscribers in the second quarter as programming blackouts and price increases drove customers to seek cheaper online alternatives."
Newsmax failed to add a note to the article that it's in a dispute with Dish, which would seem to be a relevant disclosure.
Dear CNS: Obama is Right, World Is Less Violent Than Ever Topic: CNSNews.com
On July 21, CNSNews.com published an unbylined article headlined "Obama: ‘The World Has Never Been Less Violent’." It's another bit of lazy stenography, cribbing from a speech in which Obama said that “we are living in the most peaceful” era in human history and that “the world has never been less violent.”
The powers that be at CNS are apparently going to trot that article out every time there's a terrorist attack or some other form of mass violence. CNS put it back on the front page earlier this week following terrorist attacks in Europe and adding "FLASHBACK" to the headline, though the "flashback" was to about one week ago.
But CNS won't tell its readers that Obama is pretty much correct. The World Economic Forum reports:
Last year may be remembered for barrel bombs, beheadings and the Bataclan massacre, but according to a Harvard psychologist, a remarkable long term downward trend in violence is continuing.
Wars are far less common and deadly than in the recent past, terrorism is rare, and the European refugee crisis is nothing new, said Steven Pinker, a bestselling science author.
“The news is a systematically misleading way to understand the world,” he told the Thomson Reuters Foundation in an interview.
In the past five years alone, conflicts have ended in Chad, Peru, Iran, India, Sri Lanka and Angola, and if peace talks currently underway in Colombia are a success, war will have vanished from the Western hemisphere, he said.
In his 2011 book “The Better Angels of Our Nature,” Pinker called the decline in violence “the most significant and least appreciated development in the history of our species”.
Compared to most of the postwar period, 2015 has been relatively peaceful, and dramatically so compared with earlier centuries. However, there has been a small uptick in violent deaths around the world over the past couple of years.
Pinker expanded on his view of the downward trend in world violence in an article at Slate:
The world is not falling apart. The kinds of violence to which most people are vulnerable—homicide, rape, battering, child abuse—have been in steady decline in most of the world. Autocracy is giving way to democracy. Wars between states—by far the most destructive of all conflicts—are all but obsolete. The increase in the number and deadliness of civil wars since 2010 is circumscribed, puny in comparison with the decline that preceded it, and unlikely to escalate.
Too much of our impression of the world comes from a misleading formula of journalistic narration. Reporters give lavish coverage to gun bursts, explosions, and viral videos, oblivious to how representative they are and apparently innocent of the fact that many were contrived as journalist bait. Then come sound bites from “experts” with vested interests in maximizing the impression of mayhem: generals, politicians, security officials, moral activists. The talking heads on cable news filibuster about the event, desperately hoping to avoid dead air. Newspaper columnists instruct their readers on what emotions to feel.
There is a better way to understand the world. Commentators can brush up their history—not by rummaging through Bartlett’s for a quote from Clausewitz, but by recounting the events of the recent past that put the events of the present in an intelligible context. And they could consult the analyses of quantitative datasets on violence that are now just a few clicks away.
CNS would never do that -- it's so much easier to push its right-wing agenda with misleading information.
In his July 26 WND column eulogizing right-wing author and activst Tim LaHaye, Farah writes this:
Here’s one of my favorite personal recollections.
In a former life, I made a living collaborating on books with others – including people like Rush Limbaugh, Hal Lindsey, Greg Laurie and many others.
Tim and I had discussed doing book projects together, but we never did.
One day in 1994, I believe, I called Tim with an idea for a project that had been in the back of my mind of more than 15 years. I had discussed it with other partners over the years, but it just kept getting put off in favor of other book projects.
The idea was a book called “Left Behind.”
As I was explaining it to him on the phone, he interjected, “Joseph, you’re not going to believe this, but I just signed a collaboration agreement and a publishing contract for that very title.”
The rest is history, as they say.
The book and its many sequels went on to sell tens of millions of copies and remain on the New York Times bestsellers list for over 300 weeks.
I had waited too long to make the call.
That's a weird little attempt to steal a little glory from LaHaye upon his death. Note that Farah is somewhat vague about what exactly he's stealing credit for -- he's definitely claiming having come up with the title "Left Behind," and he's sort of suggesting he may have thought of a similar plot.
Then again, Farah's fighting against the imminent failure of the business model behind WND, so someone else's financial success probably looks quite appealing.
MRC Bashes Pretty Much Anyone Who Praised Michelle Obama's DNC Speech Topic: Media Research Center
The idea that Michelle Obama's universally loved speech at the Democratic National Convention must not be praised apparently wasn't limited to CNSNews.com -- it was apparently a companywide edict at the Media Research Center.
Post after post at the MRC attacked people in the media for committing the offense of saying nice things about Obama's speech, apparently believe that it is "liberal bias" to admit that her speech went over well.
Curtis Houck complained that the TV networks "gush[ed] over her “artfully painted” address featuring “trademark...grace” in attacking Donald Trump." Houck despised Obama's reference to the fact that the White House was built by slaves, denigrating the comment by sneering parenthetically that the White House "was gutted and renovated by multiple times post-slavery." Nicholas Fondacaro similarly called out people on CNN for praising the speech.
Semi-resident MRC New York Times-basher Clay Waters (who still gets to do so there, but not as the full-time employee he used to be) predictably bashed the Times' coverage of her speech, huffing that "The reporters misleadingly sold Michelle Obama’s First Lady persona as studiously nonpolitical."
Samantha Cohen was in full rant mode, grumbling that on MSNBC's "Morning Joe," "panelist after panelist took turns gushing over Michelle Obama." Cohen attacked co-host Mika Brzezinski for her "chilling remarks" that Obama's speech was "real" and "personal," unlike the "whitewash" she heard at the Republican convention. Cohen howled:
Shallow Brzezinski must have been brainwashed by Michelle Obama last night, because one of the most moving speeches at the RNC in Cleveland was delivered by Patricia Smith, the mother of Sean Smith, who was killed in the 2012 Benghazi attacks. That speech wasn’t real? That speech wasn’t personal?
What may have been even more chilling than Brzezinski’s ignorance was co-host Joe Scarborough’s leap in likening Michelle Obama’s speech to Ronald Reagan.
Somebody should explain to Cohen the difference between "media research" and a mean-spirited personal attack. Or does the MRC not see a difference between the two anymore?
CNSNews.com reporter Susan Jones has a nastyhabit of injecting editorial comment into her supposedly fair and balanced "news" articles -- you know, the exact same thing her employer, the Media Research Center, loves to accuse the "liberal media" of doing. She's so biased, apparently, that she cannot admit the near-universal bipartisan consensus that Michelle Obama gave a very good speech on the first night of the Democratic National Convention.
Jones had to find a way -- presumably under orders from editors Terry Jeffrey and Michael W. Chapman -- to denigrate the speech in her article on it, which seems to explain her very odd opening paragraph:
Children who need protection. Bullies and "hateful language from public figures." A White House built by slaves. Black SUVS and big men with guns. Little faces pressed up against the window. And at the end of First lady Michelle Obama's speech, an admission that "right now, this is the greatest country on earth."
Huh? What does that even mean? Is Jones so desperate to avoid saying anything nice about Obama's speech that she emulated a word cloud to open her article on it?
Much of Jones' article did find her in stenography mode summarizing the speech, but she couldn't resist getting one more dig in, adding at the end: "On the campaign trail in 2008, Michelle Obama made waves when she said, 'For the first time in my adult life, I am really proud of my country because it feels like hope is finally making a comeback.'"
This negative spin contrasts with Jones' effort to put a happy face on Ted Cruz's speech at the Republican National Convention, insisting that Cruz's "powerful speech" was "well-received until the very end, when it became clear he would not endorse Donald Trump."
WND Takes Michelle Obama's Bait On Birther Reference Topic: WorldNetDaily
All the revisionism WorldNetDaily is trying to do in order to distance itself from the birther issue that defined the website for much of the Obama administration -- most recently, Joseph Farah was insisting the "eligibility" issue ended in "late 2011" even though that was the time when WND's Jerome was working behind the scenes to sleaze the incompetent and dishonest "cold case posse" into existence -- can't hide the fact that WND will go birther given the right provocation. WND did so last month when laughably tried to redefine the term "birther" as someone who debunks the "eligibility" issue as opposed to its long-established defintion as someone who perpetuates the issue in the face of all that debunking evidence (you know, what WND did for years and continues to do).
When Michelle Obama made a passing reference to birtherism in her Democratic National Convention speech, WND got suckered in again. "MICHELLE OBAMA RAISES BARACK'S BIRTH-CERTIFICATE ISSUE" screamed the headline of Bob Unruh's article on the speech, and Unruh runs with it:
Michelle Obama focused on praising Hillary Clinton Monday night at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia, insisting she was the only presidential candidate who could be trusted with the children of the nation, but she took a side trip down a path that raised old shadows.
She said one of her jobs in the White House was to teach her daughters “to ignore those who question their father’s citizenship or faith.”
She was referencing the challenges to her husband’s constitutional qualification for office as a “natural born citizen.”
Dozens of lawsuits were filed over that issue before and after Obama’s election in 2008, and the White House ultimately released a document he said was his Hawaiian birth certificate.
Get the book that blew the lid off Barack Obama’s past. “Where’s the Birth Certificate?” — now just 99 cents!
The only law-enforcement investigation of the issue, however, concluded the document likely is a forgery.
Of course Unruh won't tell his readers that the "only law-enforcement investigation of the issue" -- the Arpaio "cold case posse" is a corrupt sham, staffed by Corsi himself, that never had any intention to look at all evidence and was interested only in declaring the birth certificate a "forgery" despite never examining an actual copy of it.
WND destroyed what little credibility it had in spreading lies about President Obama, led by its full-birther, truth-free agenda, and being in a state of denial -- a state that continues to this day -- about how discredited it is. Until Unruh, Farah, Corsi and the rest of the corrupt WND crew come clean and tell the truth, WND will continue to lack credibility.
MRC Mocks Idea That Russia Hacked DNC Emails, Ignores Russia's Ties to Trump Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's Nicholas Fondacaro writes in a July 24 post:
With what seemed like the plot of the next James Bond film, or perhaps Austin Powers, CNN Political Commentator Sally Kohn accused Russian hackers of trying to sink Hillary Clinton’s campaign by leaking DNC documents. “One of the more unexplored parts of this story is that these leaks were done by Russian hackers,” Kohn noted on New Day Sunday, “And the fact that these leaks, if anything, help— seem intended maybe to help Donald Trump. So, I think first of all, we should point that out.”
Kohn relied on an argument made by Clinton’s pick for vice president, “And looking at the connections between Trump and Russia and Putin, you know, as Tim Kaine pointing out, Putin being the only person Donald Trump hasn't criticized.”
Fondacaro didn't concede that Kohn is correct about there being significant enough ties between Trump and Russia that there is at least a circumstantial case that the Russians hacked the DNC documents and scheduled them for release just before the Democratic convention for Trump's benefit. Among those ties:
The Washington Post reported that some cybersecurity experts agree that hackers working for or on behalf of the Russian government did conduct the DNC hack.
Trump has taken the position -- also favored by the Russians -- that a President Trump might not protect the (former Soviet) Baltic states that are members of NATO from Russian threats.
At WND, DNC's Grieving Moms Are 'Activists' But RNC Ones Aren't Topic: WorldNetDaily
One reason WorldNetDaily is in financial trouble is its aggressiveness in injecting right-wing political bias into its "news" articles. Take this July 24 WND article by Garth Kant, for instance.
Kant's point is to demean the mothers of children killed at the hands of police or other authorities. Each of his mini-profiles of all but one of the mothers contains a similar line; can you spot it?
"Brown’s mother, Lezley McSpadden, became a political activist."
"Fulton also became a political activist."
"Geneva Reed-Veal, Bland’s mother, became a political activist."
"Dontre’s mother, Maria Hamilton had become a political activist."
"Davis’ mother, Lucia McBath, calls herself an accidental activist."
"The dead girl’s mother, Cleopatra Pendleton-Cowley, has become a gun-control activist."
That's right -- as far as Kant is concerned, all of these women are "activists." For the one he doesn't apply the "activist" label to, Kant makes sure to note that she "wrote an endorsement for Hilary Clinton."
By contrast, he does not identify Patricia Smith, whose son died during the Benghazi attack, as an "activist,"' even her speaking at the Republican National Convention is clearly a form of activism.
Kant also talks about Idela Carey, whose "34-year-old daughter, Miriam Carey, was shot in the back and killed by federal officers near the Capitol after she made a wrong turn into a White House guard post, then tried to leave. " But in reality he's plugging the WND-published book he's writing about the incident, which WND has tried to exploit in an attempt to find any excuse to bash the Obama administration rather than any genuine interest in righting an injustice.
In their July 20 column, the MRC's Tim Graham and Brent Bozell were upset that the media would dare fact-check reliable right-wing ranter Patricia Smith, whose son died in the Benghazi attack:
PolitiFact put a picture of this angry mother on their home page with the headline "Checking Patricia Smith's claims about Clinton and Benghazi." The suggestion? Smith probably told some whoppers on the floor in Cleveland.
But the article that followed was, to borrow from [the Wall Street Journal's James] Taranto, "mere opinions on matters about which they do not know the facts." PolitiFact creator Bill Adair wrote, "We can't put Smith's claims on the Truth-O-Meter. But here, we'll lay out the case for and against the allegations against Clinton and let readers come to their own conclusion."
When the review of what the survivors of the four men lost in Benghazi said was finished, PolitiFact merely threw up its hands, claiming that none of these grieving relatives can really be trusted as reliable providers of fact.
To Politi-"Fact," Clinton's record of lying about her server doesn't tilt the scales of credibility. In another article on Monday night, the website suggested grieving relatives might have "fuzzy" memories. Adair even suggested that even if Clinton was incorrect, she might not have been lying: "If she did say something about the video, would it have been an intentional lie? It's very possible that this is one of the many conflicting pieces of intelligence that the administration was working with at the time."
Adair claimed no one can really claim Clinton lied: "There simply is not enough concrete information in the public domain for Rubio or anyone to claim as fact that Clinton did or did not lie to the Benghazi families."
Adair and his ilk aren't fact-checking in any way. They're masquerading in fact-checker costumes to engage in shameless speculation, blather and spin favoring democrats.
Yes, how dare the media demand Smith to be bound by facts? All that matters to Graham and Bozell is that she was spewing as much venom as possible at Hillary Clinton -- not whether any actual facts back up her hate.
MRC Still Flip-Flopping On How To Criticize Trump's Media Coverage Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center, it seems, still can't stop lapsing back to flip-flopping over Donald Trump's coverage in the media, which it did for much of the primary season before mostly getting in line after Trump won the Republican presidential nomination.
A July 13 post by Sam Dorman -- who has apparently parlayed his baiting of Nancy Pelosi into responding to a gotcha question while an MRC intern into a full-time gig there -- recounts how a NBC producer says that prior to running for president "Trump campaigned years beforehand on the network," even dinging usual right-wing fave Jay Leno for calling Trump "the next president of the United States" in 1999.
Five days later, a July 18 post by Sarah Stites went the opposite way, complaining that how in Hollywood "movers and shakers have taken to movies, shows and music to revile Donald Trump in whatever way possible," noting that "more than 20 TV shows have targeted him."
This means in the space of five days, the MRC has changed from criticizing the media for building up Trump to criticizing the media for bashing him. So much for consistency in messaging.
MRC's Bozell Won't Lead By Example on Right-Wing News Standards Topic: CNSNews.com
Media Research Center chief Brent Bozell surprisingly went after the standards of the right-wing media, according to the Daily Caller:
Founder of the media watchdog group Media Research Center Brent Bozell criticized bloggers in their “underwear” who write unsubstantiated stories at 3:00 am and their effect on the rest of the media.
Commenting to the division in conservative media, “I warn my fellow conservatives about this. We are very critical of the old media for all the rules that they break. But the new media, it’s the wild, wild west. There are no rules. And in the name of journalism you’ve got websites that are projecting things that are terrible [for] journalism.”
“The first rule of journalism is that if you don’t have two independent sources, you don’t have a news story,” Bozell said. “And you look at some sites, especially bloggers, and they put forward things that occur to them at 3:00 in the morning in their underwear and then the next site picks it up because it’s interesting and if it’s not true, well they just point to the blogger.”
“You can have the guy in his underwear but if you have an independent source that confirms what he said, then you got a news story.”
“So be careful. We have to all be careful,” he said.
That's a good point, of course, and it would mean something if Bozell practices what he preaches. He doesn't.
Instead of merely spouting off on journalistic standards, Bozell could lead by example by structuring and staffing CNS to be the model of the news organization it wants to see. But judging by CNS' nearly 20 years of bias, he has no intention of ever doing that.
P.S. Wasn't just a few weeks ago that Bozell's lieutenant-slash-ghost writer, Tim Graham, was insisting that right-wing media was just as good and original as the "liberal media"? Yes, he was.
One of the biggest zombie lies WorldNetDaily has refused to kill is the claim that President Obama's call for a "civilian national security force" meant that he wanted some type of police force or something other that what Obama meant (he meant the use of diplomatic "soft power" in international conflicts to complement military might). We first wrote about this in 2008.
Now WND "practical prepper" columnist Pat McLene takes a crack at reviving the zombie lie in his July 18 column. He repeats Obama's statement and immediately jumps to claiming that it meant Obama wanted a "federal police force," then tries to explain how Obama's words have been fulfilled despite the fact that Obama has never created said federal police force:
As an example, back in 2008, then-candidate Obama argued for a powerful well-funded federal police force. However when any supporter of Constitutional limitations called Obama on his desire, the SJWs attacked en masse, calling the questioner a (pick one) racist/tool of the NRA/ fascist/Nazi/all of the above. Oh, and a liar. Always a liar. “Oh yeah? Where’s his army? Where’s the federal police force? Nowhere … you racist, homophobic, sexist liar!!!”
And of course, by carefully defining and limiting the argument, the SJWs and their handlers were correct. They always are, when they use this tactic. Our government rarely goes for its desires in a single shot. Instead they’ve developed a much more subtle mechanism for achieving their goals.
They don’t make something illegal, they simply make it impossible. They don’t create a new thing, they simply task an old thing to new purposes.
So here’s how you give birth to a federal police force without calling it a federal police force:
Find a situation where a police force has had a serious altercation with a protected minority class. Create that conflict if expedient.
Mobilize the SJWs to attack those police forces as an “-ist.”
Drum up protests, get op-eds written, have political fellow-travelers demand a federal investigation.
Get or require the policing authority in question to admit a mistake or a wrong-doing.
Begin a long and open-ended Justice Department investigation, usually with specific law enforcement officers under indictment.
Appoint federal liaisons (read: controllers) to those police departments, and require those law enforcement organizations to receive training based on federal guidelines.
Make sure all new agency hires fall within acceptable federal requirements for race, ethnicity, sex and sexual orientation.
Finally, no matter what the result of the investigation shows, maintain all of the above, especially the “liaisons.”
Voilà! Another solid brick in the civilian national security force wall.
McLene's "SJW" references are about those "social justice warriors" right-wingersd like to obsess about, adding: "Barak [sic] Obama isn’t a social justice warrior. No, really, he’s not. He’s a social justice warlord. He uses regular SJWs to push his own agendas."
Somehow, McLene movves from this to a call to arm yourself to the teeth: "Get thee to the gun show right now. Head for the gun store and buy more ammunition, right now. Form a buyers club and buy in bulk. Right now. ... Past behavior is indicative of present intent, especially when a government is after your liberty. Get busy. Get armed for your self-defense. Get prepared."
NewsBusters Blogger Rants At The Onion for Mocking Trump Topic: NewsBusters
Jorge Bonilla must be the most humorless person on the planet. His July 11 NewsBusters post is dedicated to how much he hates a satirical article at the Onion headlined "‘I’m A Trump-Era Conservative,’ Says Horrifying Man 25 Years From Now." The Onion, is making "an awful descent into media self-parody" with this "unfunny and unoriginal" piece of "derivative tripe."
Bonilla's post, though, is framed in a larger conspiracy theory: that Univision, which purchased a controlling stake in The Onion earlier this year, is now dictating the website's editorial agenda, which apparently involves a mythical dictate from Univision bigwigs to mock Trump -- as if The Onion hasn't been doing that for years.
He has no proof of this, mind you, but he nevertheless rants that "This awful stab at comedy is nothing less than Univision Digital's attempts to follow the vision of boss Isaac Lee, who infamously characterized opponents of the network's agenda as 'Nazis'."