WND Pushes False Anti-Hillary Story Topic: WorldNetDaily
Bob Unruh breathlessly writes in an Oct. 11 WorldNetDaily article:
There long has been evidence of Hillary Clinton’s sense of entitlement – the stories of her ordering Secret Service officers to carry her bags, her unabashed demands for hundreds of thousands of dollars for speeches, her insistence on specific travel accommodations and much more.
Now there’s evidence of exactly what she thinks of the average American who works hard and pays taxes to support the Washington establishment.
“I know she has begun to hate everyday Americans,” wrote her campaign manager, John Podesta, in an email.
Hillary for prosecution, not president! Join the sizzling campaign to put Mrs. Clinton where she really belongs
The email has surfaced in a WikiLeaks dump of Podesta’s emails. Infowars’ Paul Joseph Watson noted the email, sent by Podesta on April 19, 2015, was a discussion about what “talking points Hillary should use in framing her candidacy for president in order to get a good head start.”
“I know she has begun to hate everyday Americans, but I think we should use it once the first time she says I’m running for president because you and everyday Americans need a champion,” he wrote. “I think if she doesn’t say it once, people will notice and say we false started in Iowa.”
Her director of communications, Jennifer Palmieri, responded, “Truth.”
“To emphasize,” Watson wrote, “John Podesta, Hillary’s campaign guru, is in black and white admitting that Hillary Clinton hates everyday Americans. This is huge.”
In fact, that's not true at all. As Media Matters explains, there is context to that email that Infowars -- the Alex Jones conspiracy website -- and Unruh ignore. The reference was to the "everyday Americans" slogan that Clinton used when she first launched her presidential campaign; when Podesta says "I know she has begun to hate everyday Americans," he's saying she hates the phrase in relation to her campaign.
Watson's original article has apparently been removed from the Infowars website and sister site Prison Planet, presumably because it's utterly false. As of this writing, Unruh's article is still live.
Unruh and WND are getting what they deserve for considering Infowars to be a credible source of information.
We know WND will publish any anti-Hillary claim it thinks it can get away with, regardless of its factual accuracy. It's already had to remove at least one false article from its website -- never apologizing for publishing that false information -- and it has published lies about Hillary it won't retract.
MRC Pretends Trump Didn't Actually Threaten to Jail Hillary Topic: Media Research Center
Donald Trump made a highly problematic statement during Sunday night's presidential debate, asserting that if elected he would appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Hillary Clinton's emails (despite the fact they have already been investigated). When Clinton noted that it's "awfully good that someone with the temperament of Donald Trump is not in charge of the law of our country," Trump retorted, "Because you'd be in jail."
To most observers, that looked like a plan for malicious prosecution and jailing of a political opponent, something usually seen in countries with authoritarian dictatorships. Which means the Media Research Center had to work extra hard to spin that away.
Nicholas Fondacaro went first, complaining that CNN 's Wolf Blitzer "falsely" said that Trump is "going to put her in jail if he’s elected president of the United States," even though it's not an unfair reading of Trump's words. Fondacaro tried to spin even more pedantically:
CNN’s Chief Political Analyst Gloria Borger described Trump’s comment as Nixonian and falsely quoted Trump as saying ""I’d put her in jail."" Borger also took exception with Trump calling Clinton a liar and claimed that he called Clinton “the devil multiple times,” even though he only called her the devil once. Borger and the panel went on to argue that these statements about Clinton are turning Trump off to voters, even though people don’t think she’s trust worthy.
Clay Waters followed by ranting in an Oct. 11 post that the New York Times "went way overboard fear-mongering over a quip Donald Trump made to Hillary Clinton during their debate Sunday night in “Pledge to Put Clinton in Jail Gets Experts Thinking of ‘Tin-Pot Dictators.’” Waters groused: " the media (and some Republicans as well as Democrats) aggressively misrepresented it to liken Trump to a dictator. One wonders where this concern about careful rhetoric and the rule of law was when the left howled for war crimes tribunals for President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney."
Waters then dismissed Trump's "jail" threat as merely "a throwaway line at a debate," then turned to right-wing writer Noth Rothman who insisted that Trump's threat was a "quip" that "was pretty unremarkable."
Reminder: Trump Is WND's Candidate Topic: WorldNetDaily
If ever we needed a reminder that Donald Trump was the kind of person WorldNetDaily wanted to run for president, Joseph Farah provided one in his Oct. 6 column. He starts out his column of advice for Trump for the then-upcoming debate by stagting:
I suppose I could call this column in to the campaign managers for Donald Trump.
Most of them have been friends of mine for between 10 and 30 years.
Which means the Trump campaign comes by its birtherism (and disowning of same after it stopped working as a political attack) and Clinton derangement honestly -- they're just as obsessed as Farah, Jerome Corsi and WND are.
MRC, As Expected, Bashes 'Pushy' Debate Moderators Topic: Media Research Center
It was all but guaranteed that the Media Research Center would not like the performance of the moderators at Sunday's presidential debate, because they do not work for Fox News. And so, the MRC commenced with the grim task of denouncing ABC's Martha Raddatz and CNN's Anderson Cooper.
Scott Whitlock kicked things off by going a little sexist, calling Raddatz "pushy" in the headline of his post-debate item. He complained that "Raddatz frequently interrupted Donald Trump and sparred with the businessman over media bias and fairness during Sunday’s debate.
In his friendly Fox Business appearance in which he also joined Trump in the mud, MRC chief Brent Bozell huffed of Raddatz: "She showed utter contempt for Donald Trump on a national stage. She dismissed his answers. She even argued with him about his answers. She actually entered into the debate Candy Crowley-style. So I don't blame Donald Trump at all for saying it was a one-on-three debate." Bozell didn't explain why a man who talked in such a vile manner about women that even Bozell himself conceded was "disgusting" did not deserved to be treated with the "utter contempt" he claims Raddatz showed him.
While this utterly predictable right-wing bashing of Raddatz was going on, the MRC's Kyle Drennen was unironically complaining that "the liberal media predictably celebrated the moderator’s biased performance."
Rich Noyes followed his boss to Fox Business for a softball appearance, where he similarly complained about Raddatz and Cooper: "Yeah, it was about 2-1. You know, about 20-something interruptions, you know some of those might be multiple interactions, to fewer than a dozen for Hillary Clinton. But it was more than interruptions. You know, they were challenging Donald Trump. They were pressing him in a very adversarial way. They asked her tough questions but not in that challenging adversarial way." He also expressed his anger at Cooper for pushing Trump to answer questions about the vile video: "Anderson Cooper's questions at the beginning of the debate about this inside-- Access Hollywood tape where he pressed him over and over and over again to get the answer he wanted."
Yes, how dare Cooper press Trump to answer a question about something Noyes would be praising Cooper for doing were the subject not a Republican.
Remember: The main goal of the MRC's criticism of debate moderators is not to advance the cause of journalism but to advance the agenda of the Republican Party -- no matter how vile the Republican presidential candidate is. That's why, as the Daily Beast's John Avlon memorably explained to the MRC's Tim Graham (in such a direct manner that the MRC won't let its readers sees it), the MRC has no credibility on such things.
WND Censors Trump's Threat to Jail Clinton Topic: WorldNetDaily
Paul Bremmer (who works in marketing and is not an actual reporter, though he was an intern at the Media Research Center) writes in an Oct. 9 WorldNetDaily article:
Donald Trump made a bold move during the first half hour of Sunday night’s presidential debate, declaring that if he is elected, he will appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Hillary Clinton’s email scandal.
“I didn’t think I was going to say this, but I’m going to say it, and I hate to say it, but if I win, I am going to instruct my attorney general to get a special prosecutor to look into your situation, because there has never been so many lies, so much deception,” Trump said to his opponent’s face. “There has never been anything like it. We’re going to have a special prosecutor.”
Trump’s declaration came in response to Clinton’s call for Trump to apologize. The Democratic nominee noted Trump never apologized for his past remarks about the family of U.S. Army Capt. Humayun Khan, Judge Gonzalo Curiel of Indiana or the “racist lie” that President Obama was not born in the United States.
“He owes the president an apology, he owes the country an apology, and I want him to take responsibility for his actions and his words,” Clinton said.
Trump responded first by saying Clinton is the one who owes Obama an apology, because her 2008 presidential campaign first looked into whether Obama was eligible to be president. Then he pivoted to the ubiquitous email scandal.
“But when you talk about apology, I think the one you should really be apologizing for and the thing that you should be apologizing for are the 33,000 emails that you deleted and you acid washed, and then the two boxes of emails and other things last week that were taken from an office and are now missing,” Trump charged.
Trump said people he speaks to around the country are furious about Clinton’s destruction of her emails – after those emails had been subpoenaed, no less.
“So we’re going to get a special prosecutor and we’re going to look into it, because you know what?” Trump asked. “People have been destroyed, their lives have been destroyed for doing one-fifth of what you have done. It’s a disgrace, and honestly, you should be ashamed of yourself.”
As you'd expect from an article by someone who works in marketing, there's some news missing here -- namely, what happened after Bremmer cut off Trump. Here's the exchange that followed shortly after the excerpt Bremmer wrote about:
CLINTON: ... I told people that it would be impossible to be fact-checking Donald all the time. I'd never get to talk about anything I want to do and how we're going to really make lives better for people.
So, once again, go to HillaryClinton.com. We have literally Trump -- you can fact check him in real time. Last time at the first debate, we had millions of people fact checking, so I expect we'll have millions more fact checking, because, you know, it is -- it's just awfully good that someone with the temperament of Donald Trump is not in charge of the law in our country.
TRUMP: Because you'd be in jail.
Apparently, a candidate threatening to throw his opponent in jail if elected was not news to Bremmer, even if it was to pretty much every other actual news reporter. Either he didn't bother to even put it in, or it was removed from the article by someone else later in the editorial process.
Regardless, WND censored news that made its preferred candidate look bad.
MRC Joins Trump In The Mud: Handwaves Vile Remarks, Brings In The Clintons Topic: Media Research Center
Like WorldNetDaily, the Trump supporters at the Media Research Center were loath to to acknowledge Donald Trump's taped vile misogyny. NewsBusters, which surrently serves as the front door to much of the MRC's content, didn't acknowledge it until more than a day after the remarks were made public -- and then only in a post by Matthew Balan complaining that "purported excerpts from some of Hillary Clinton's speeches to corporate audiences" didn't get as much news coverage.
And on cue, Rich Noyes trotted out an article complaining that "ABC, CBS and NBC offered relentless coverage of the just-disclosed audio of Donald Trump in 2005 talking about his attempted sexual conquests" while there was comparitively scant coverage of Clinton's "hacked e-mails" with the purported speech excerpts. Noyes didn't explain why he thought the two vastly different stories deserved the exact same amount of media coverage, but he did have a snazzy bar graph:
Then, Jack Coleman previewed the MRC's defense for Trump -- the Clinton Equivocation -- in a post criticizing NBO's Bill Maher for being vulgar about Trump's vulgar remarks:
That really happened -- the guy who was president grabbing them by the p****?! That it did -- and his name was Bill Clinton. By bizarre coincidence, he's married to the Democrats' nominee for president, Trump's opponent. And it was Hillary Clinton who led the pushback to destroy the reputations of women who accused her husband of grabbing them wherever and whenever the impulse seized him. One of the women was named Monica Lewinsky and she now devotes her life to a crusade against bullying. And back in the '90s, it was the Clintons and their hacks who bullied her the worst.
Curtis Houck tried to muddy the issue with the patented MRC "The liberal media reported on X but completely ignored [thing the MRC wants covered to advance its partisan agenda]" in a post complaining about the lack of coverage of some obscure Clinton campaign aide tweeting an F-bomb at Trump. Curiously, Houck censored all mention of the fact that said obscure aide apologized for his "inappropriate" language shortly afterwards.
But leave it to MRC chief Brent Bozell to simultaneously join Trump in the gutter and go on a conspiracy theory tear. In another friendly appearance on Fox Business, Bozell rants about the excess of coverage of Trump's remarks by echoing Trump and going there on 20-year-old tales about Bioll Clinton's sex life:
BOZELL: If you're going to object, let's object this way. We did a little bit of analysis, and what is more important: whatever Donald Trump said, which is disgusting, or the allegation, the eminently believable allegation, that Bill Clinton raped Juanita Broaddrick and Hillary Clinton subsequently threatened Juanita Broaddrick?
You cannot argue Donald Trump is more important, yet in 17 years, you did not get as much coverage of Juanita Broaddrick as you got on Donald Trump in 48 hours. Here's another one, here's another number -- you're going to like this one. 103 minutes given about Donald Trump this weekend. How much time was given to Paula Jones when she filed a lawsuit that said that the President of the United States took his pants down in front of her and told her to kiss it? 103 minutes on Donald Trump, 16 seconds, Paula Jones.
That little tidbit came from the end of Noyes' comparative-coverage item. The Jones coverage Bozell and Noyes is from February 1994 -- 22 years ago, making this the ultimate apples-and-oranges comparison. Tim Graham helpfully repeats the complaint in a post issued after Bozell's appearance, in which he also touches on his longtime obsession with potraying Anita Hill as a liar about Clarence Thomas and that she made her accusations only to advance her career: "Why was there no outburst of outrage [about Jones in 1994] from the same media which made the unsubstantiated Anita Hill a heroine in 1991 and turned sexual harassment into a grave political sin?"
The conspiracy theory came when Bozell asserted that NBC was sitting on the Trump tape to damage Trump just before the election:
BOZELL: It's an insult to the intelligence to suggest that they just found this. This is October surprise time, and this won't be last one. There will be more that will come out of it, and for them to say they just came across this when this has been in the record, when they've had access to it since the very beginning, really is an insulting statement. No, they've had it, they did it deliberately, the timing was deliberate, and this is -- by the way, I expected this, this was going to happen, and more will come out.
Bozell doesn't mention that, as the Washington Post explained, NBC's entertainment division, producer of "Access Hollywood," the show where Trump's remarks were uncovered, is separate from its news division. While NBC hasn't said when its news division first found out about the Trump clip, the news division did say it was in the midst of vetting the clip when a tipster alerted a Post reporter to its existence, which then forced NBC to release it.
Bozell's reference of more vulgar things from Trump to come out is an apparent reference to more off-color things Trump has allegedly said in outtakes from the NBC show "The Apprentice." But NBC doesn't own the rights to the show, which was produced by prolific reality TV producer Mark Burnett. He's married to Roma Downey, bets know for her acting role on conservative-fave show "Touched By an Angel," and they run a production company that specializes in religious-themed films. The MRC has defended Burnett and Downey and even touted the religious background of the actor who played Jesus in one Burnett-Downey production.
Variety reports that Burnett has been curiously silent about Trump throughout the campaign and notes that standard employment contracts for his shows include a $5 million fine for leaking material about them.
So, no, there does not appear to be a NBC-led conspiracy to destroy Trump. That won't keep Bozell from continuing to claim there is, however.
WND Dithers, Then Excuses Trump's Vile Misogyny Topic: WorldNetDaily
After the news of Donald Trump's vile sexual remarks broke on Oct. 7, WorldNetDaily first responded only with an article it stole from the Washington Post that it didn't even place in its front-page breaking-news carousel. What did make the carousel, however, were twoarticles trying to portray Bill Clinton as a sexual predator -- a blatant attempt to distract from the news of the day.
It was almost a day before WND posted an original article about it, focusing on Trump's apology, baselessly portraying him as "humbled." For at least part of that day, however, WND promoted that article in its carousel without a photo, leaving just a headline in a black box:
When it came time for today's WND columnists to opine, though, all who wrote were willing to overlook Trump endorsing sexual assault. WND editor Joseph Farah went the boys-will-be-boys route, insisting that Trump is just a "cad," and quickly going the shame route (on voters, not Trump):
But choosing not to vote for Trump because of his shameless misbehavior 11 years ago, caught on a covert video conveniently and coincidentally withheld until one month before Election Day, is not smart. It’s not the right thing to do for your country, for our economy, for our national security, for the righteous revolt Trump has led this year against the permanent, bipartisan political establishment that has already come dangerously close to destroying America’s heritage of liberty, justice and prosperity.
Experience more of Joseph Farah’s no-nonsense truth-telling in his books, audio and video products, featured in the WND Superstore
If I thought Trump were in this race for his ego only, it might be different. I don’t. I think he genuinely wants to do something for his country. And I think he may be the only person who can do that at this time – and certainly he’s our only choice with a month left I the race.
That’s the choice we have. And guess what? I think the choice is crystal clear.
So, what’s it going to be America? Vote for a cad or a criminal?
Count on my vote for the cad.
Farah is also unclear on who the Democratic candidate is, asserting: "It’s sad to say, but your choice boils down to sending a cad to the White House or returning a rapist, one who was actually impeached in connection with a series of serial assaults and lying under oath about them." Farah doesn't mention that Trump has been credibly accused of rape.
Trump true believer Gina Loudon, meanwhile, dismissed the whole thing as mere "locker-room-style banter" and is mad not that Trump said such vile things, but that more will be coming out because "the Democrats have turned to the page in the leftist playbook that tells them to dig up dirt and assassinate the character of their opponents because they must distract from the issues." Loudon has bought Trump's alleged apology hook, line and sinker because she insists he's now a better man:
Times like these are when Donald Trump shines, and he now has a unique opportunity to turn this into a win.
Mr. Trump has a chance to connect even further with the American people on a personal level because of this controversy. Every American voter has said something in private that they regret. If he gives a contrite apology and talks about his transformation on the campaign trail, he can turn these attacks into a big win.
Pamela Geller, meanwhile, not only handwaves Trump's "naughty" words ("This is much ado about nothing. It’s how guys talk"), she -- and we are not making this up -- praised Trump's "decorum" in his sleazy conversation, and went full Clinton Equivocation:
The uproar over Trump’s remarks is manufactured and opportunistic outrage. For example, I was actually surprised by the decorum in Trump’s conversation. He was respectful of the married woman’s refusal. He was surprised that if you’re famous, you can get all the sex you want. He was unashamedly heterosexual in his desires. Though he said he wanted to grab p—-, he didn’t force someone’s head “down,” a la Bill Clinton. He appreciates “beautiful” and wants to kiss her face, not have her immediately perform oral sex a la Bill Clinton, and he wants to be pleasing to her with Tic Tacs for his breath – very considerate. A pass, a kiss, is not rape. For that, you’d have to ask Juanita Broaddrick.
Geller conludes with a dab of Hillary derangement: "It’s the end of us – the end of freedom – if Hillary Clinton becomes president."
CNSNews.com keeps doing the unemployment shuffle, with Susan Jones' article on September's job numbers fixated as usual on the labor force participation rate, which is meaningless as an indicator of employment since most of the people who aren't employed are retired or students.
That's something Jones once again fails to explicitly acknowledge in her reporting. This time, though, she serves up a bland dictionary definition: "The labor force participation rate is the percentage of people in the civilian noninstitutionalized population, age 16 or older, who are either working or actively seeking work. People who are no longer looking for work, for whatever reason -- retirement, school, family, or they've just given up -- are not participating in the labor force."
Farther down in her article, Jones offers up further elaboration:
[Federal Reserve Chair Janet] Yellen told Congress last month that the participation rate is feeling "significant downward pressure" from the aging of the population, as more and more Baby Boomers retire and leave the labor force.
"Aging of the population maybe one factor," Rep. Andy Barr (R-Ky.) told Yellen at the hearing of the House Financial Services Committee. "The other factor is that unemployment is coming down, not for a good reason, but for the wrong reason -- namely, that there's a frustrated workforce out there that's completely given up looking for work."
But this doesn't appear until the 13th paragraph of her article, while the second paragraph asserts that "94,184,000 Americans were not in the labor force in September, 207,000 fewer than in August, and the nation's labor force participation rate" without elaboration.
Is it too much to ask for Jones and CNS to explain the truth about the labor force participation rate in a straightforward manner early in the article, when it counts? Apparently so.
WND -- Which Loves Likening Obama to Hitler -- Is Shocked Some Are Likening Trump to Hitler Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily is shocked -- shocked! -- that anyone, let alone five writers published by the Washington Post over nine months, would liken Donald Trump to Hitler. Managing editor David Kupelian huffs in an Oct. 5 piece: "What can one say to a newspaper that repeatedly compares a gutsy, outspoken billionaire businessman-turned-presidential candidate to a mass-murdering monster?"
Well, one could start by posing this question to Kupelian: What can one say to a website that repeatedly compares the first black presidential candidate to a mass-murdering monster?
Because that's exactly what Kupelian's WND did to Barack Obama.
In 2008, WND gave ample space to Hilmar von Campe, a former Hitler Youth who apparently didn't forget what he learned about the Nazis' Big Lie technique in likening Obama to Hitler:
"Socialist Hitler destroyed free society in a few months. Socialist Obama is close to his steppingstone." -- Oct. 28, 2008
"Germany at the beginning of the ’30s was in deep economic trouble with about 6 million unemployed. Hitler became the savior for millions of miserable people who adored the likeable deceiver but did not have the slightest idea what he was up to. The same is true for America now in the worst economic and financial crisis ever. Obama appears as a savior without people analyzing his character and record." -- Nov. 15, 2008
"There was another Nazi organization that had the same task as all other institutions, namely to keep people under control and influence their thinking. It was the Service to Work (Arbeitsdienst). Young men had to serve half a year before entering into military service. It seems that Obama likes this Nazi feature because he has proposed, in addition to the idea of a civilian national security force, a plan to create a national community service program. ... His plans point to where he wants to lead the American nation: onto the same road Germany took in 1933. Americans, do you want to go in that direction?" -- Nov. 25, 2008
WND even defended von Campe's smears by asserting that "As a person who survived the nightmare of Adolf Hitler, von Campe believes he carries a sober responsibility to warn Americans how quickly free society can be destroyed through socialist ideology."
WND has published numerous other Obama-Nazi comparisons, as well as columns defending them.
Kupelian also quoted right-wing blogger Jeff Dunetz denouncing the Trump-Hilter comparisons. Dunetz noted that unlike Hitler, Trump hasn't "forced people to tattoo numbers on their arms," "murdered people, cremated their remains and buried them in mass graves," "wrote a book called 'Mein Kampf' in which he spoke of his hatred toward Jews and previewed his 'final solution,'" "conducted horrible, painful medical experimentation on humans," nor did he "round up people he doesn’t like, force them into box cars like cattle and deliver them to concentration camps." Dunetz added: "Until there is evidence of the above, any comparison of Donald Trump to Hitler and/or the Nazis is not only false, inappropriate, and an example of careless writing."
Guess what, Mr. Kupelian? None of those things apply to Obama either, yet you and your published numerous instances of likening Obama to Hitler and other Nazis. Which makes you an utter moral hypocrite for denouncing others for engaging in behavior you condoned and promoted.
One final consideration. There were at least 16 different plots to assassinate Adolf Hitler, including most famously “Operation Valkyrie” (the so-called “20 July Plot”), which was made into a blockbuster movie starring Tom Cruise as the heroic German army officer, Col. Claus von Stauffenberg. Even the revered Lutheran pastor and theologian, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, was executed by German authorities for his role in this particular plot. The people who attempted to assassinate Hitler – to slay a psychopathic monster, to stop a genocide, to end a terrible war – are rightly regarded as patriots and heroes.
So, what does this say about the Washington Post – and others in the “mainstream media” who consider themselves America’s arbiters of truth – continually comparing Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump with Hitler? Does such “journalism” legitimize threats and violent attacks on Trump and his supporters?
If someone, God forbid – convinced he is a modern-day von Stauffenberg, heroically attempting to rid the world of this generation’s Hitler – were to shoot Donald Trump, would the Washington Post deserve any of the blame?
I say yes.
Does that mean we could assign some of the blame if some would-be modern-day von Stauffenberg, heroically attempting to rid the world of this generation’s Hitler, were to shoot Obama? We say yes -- just like we say WND has some actual blame for Anders Breivik's massacre of dozens in Norway (Breivik cites WND six times in his manifesto) and Dylann Roof's massacre of nine African-Americans in a Charleston, S.C., church (he parroted WND's racially charged, pro-apartheid rhetoric).
To The Lazy MRC, Rob Reiner Will Always Be 'Meathead' Topic: Media Research Center
Rob Reiner has done a lot of things in the nearly 40 years since his acting stint on "All In the Family" -- namely, being the director of popular and acclaimed films -- but that doesn't matter to the Media Research Center. It's much easier for them to go for thecheap, lazyinsult and call him "Meathead" every time he say something they don't like.
The latest to lazily insult Reiner is Callista Ring, who complains that Reiner accurately notes that there's a "serious strain of racism" that runs through the followers ot Donald Trump. Her headline references "Meathead Rob Reiner" and and huffs, "Like Hillary Clinton, Rob Reiner would toss an awful lot of Americans into a 'basket of deplorables.' Or in Meathead’s case a bunker of Archies."
Ring doesn't really bother to disprove Reiner, instead whining that Reiner was "reeking of liberal elitism" and writing things like "What a surprise, another liberal accusing people of racism simply for not agreeing with him."
That's kneejerk right-wing ranting that's just as lazy as insisting on calling Reiner by the name a character he hasn't played in 40 years.
Am I saying there’s no chance Hillary Clinton will win? Not at all, though I think it unlikely. Between her devoted media harpies, her team of around-the-clock doctors and a campaign staff well versed in the practice of propaganda and cover-up, there’s always a chance they might just literally carry her over the finish line to victory.
Still, it remains my humble prayer that this past week signals the beginning of the end for Hillary Clinton’s political aspirations. Even so, I also pray she might live a long and healthy life in the private sector – a life with plenty of time to bounce cute little grandkids on her knee.
Despite mounting evidence that Hillary Clinton is hiding serious health problems, she will press on in her campaign because of a crazed lust for power, which ultimately will propel her to self-destruction, contends a longtime critic.
That’s the dire prediction of someone who has been following Mrs. Clinton’s progress from the beginning, “Billy” Clinton’s childhood friend and former romantic partner Dolly Kyle, the author of “Hillary The Other Woman.”
“I really think she has been ’cruisin’ for a bruisin’, as we say in the South, because she’s such an angry person and so driven by this inner rage,” said Kyle. “People like that eventually break down, physically.”
“What’s even more absolutely clear is that she is not psychologically fit to be president. She is mentally unfit. I wouldn’t hire her to babysit my grandchildren. I wouldn’t trust her with matches in the kitchen. She doesn’t have the ability to think through a situation and come to a logical conclusion. She proved this in Benghazi when she couldn’t respond to legitimate requests for help. She had all the resources of the United States of America, and she turned over and went back to sleep.”
The real issue is why, in this age of widespread acceptability of the gay and lesbian lifestyle, and as Hillary asks for the vote of gays, lesbians and transgender people, would she, by material omission, continue to appear to hide her sexual preference? Is she ashamed of it, and if so, is she worthy of claiming to be the champion of gays, lesbians and transgenders?
I do not endorse any candidate for elective office and never have. But gays, lesbians and transgenders have to wonder why Hillary would call Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump a “racist” against people of an alternative lifestyle, and then continue to lie about her own sexuality. For gays, lesbians and transgenders, this is an affront to them personally. This continued deceitful hypocrisy by Hillary has to call into question her own commitment to gay, lesbian and transgender rights.
You cannot be weak with evil. You must deal forcefully with the wicked as God himself stands with you.
Donald Trump knows Hillary Clinton is an evil woman. But in their first debate, he held back on her. Now is not the time to be “nice.” We are at war with crooked Hillary, lying media and corrupt politicians, for the future of this country. You’ll notice Hillary does not hold back on Trump.
Hillary and her media’s vicious attacks on Donald Trump are a distraction from reality – they focus on “problems” that don’t exist, like “racism” and “sexism.” He must be strong and wise to defeat the lie.
Last month, I gave you a long list of reasons Hillary Clinton does not deserve to become president.
You can reference those if you like.
Personally, I think that column would make a good handout if you want to influence your friends and family members before Election Day.
But today I’d like to focus on one good reason to say no to Hillary in 2016.
It’s called “Clinton fatigue.”
If you’re like me, you are just plain sick and tired of this woman. You find her annoying, insufferable, unbearable, DEPLORABLE, detestable, arrogant, intolerable, haughty, imperious, pompous, presumptuous, shrill, cold, calculating, contemptuous, self-important, autocratic and lacking any appeal whatsoever.
Do I have that about right?
And the big question I have for every American – from those already supporting Donald Trump to those who supported her opponent, Bernie Sanders, in the Democratic primaries – is this: Can you even imagine enduring four years of this witch as president?
I’m sorry, it’s that personal for me.
I don’t really care about her health. I care about mine.
Trump cannot make this point for us. Catholics have to convince their believe-as-you-please brethren, including their priests, of one salient fact: A vote for Tim and the Alinskyite Hillary is a vote for that “first radical,” the demonic fellow Alinsky so openly admired.
MRC Research Too Thin to To A Proper Ref-Working on VP Debate Moderator Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center really wanted to do some serious ref-working on CBS' Elaine Quijano before the Oct. 4 vice presidential debate. When she was chosen as debate moderator, Tim Graham admitted that "the MRC doesn't have a thick file" on her; evidence of that lack of thickness was Graham trying to present as "classic anti-Tea Party tilt" a Quijano report that noted the indisuputable fact that there was "small but passionate minority" in the tea party movement that was "voicing what some see as racist rhetoric."
So bereft of material was the MRC that Graham had to resort to guilt by association, using a Sept. 29 post to attack Quijano because the husband of a CBSco-worker of Quijano's was prepping Tim Kaine for the debate. But even Graham had to concede that there was no there there, admitting that "There is no allegation of suspicious coordination between Quijano and the Barnett-Braver household. But the perception of what Dan Rather would call 'tick-tight' CBS associations creates a perception problem."
Funny, we don't recall Graham being concerned about the "perception problem" when Fox News' Greta Van Susteren had a husband who was working as Sarah Palin's lawyer.
After the debate, of course, MRC chief Brent Bozell trotted out yet another "the moderator is biased" press release that he probably drafted before the debate even began:
Elaine Quijano is given the honor of a lifetime and she can only muster one tough question for Sen. Tim Kaine, the Democrat? Miraculously, she was able to craft EIGHT challenging questions to Gov. Pike Pence, the Republican.
Once again, it's one standard for the Democrat, a different one for the Republican. This is a broken record. Softballs for Democrats, curve balls for Republicans.
Did no one inform Elaine Quijano that the role of a moderator is to ask questions and take a step back while the candidates DEBATE? Quijano and Virginia’s over-caffeinated senator repeatedly challenged and interrupted Gov. Pence. By the looks of it, he didn't mind the 2-1 disadvantage.
When are Republicans going to learn that the network media are just Democratic Party operatives with press credentials?
The idea that debate moderators should not correct false claims during a debate is part of the MRC's war against facts, a tactic made necessary because Trump seemingly lies all the time.
Somebody should tell Bozell that partisan ranting is not "media research." (Oh, wait, somebody did, but the MRC censored it.)
Meanwhile, rest assured that the MRC is working the refs for the next debate: it has a new article up on "the worst examples" of the "liberal bias" of the next debate moderators, ABC's Martha Raddatz and CNN's Anderson Cooper.
CNS Managing Editor Gives A Forum to Spokesman for Rabidly Anti-Gay Group Topic: CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com managing editor Michael W. Chapman loves to give a platform to gay-bashers like Franklin Graham. He does it again in an Oct. 3 post:
World Congress of Families spokesman Don Feder, during a discussion on Kenya's Crosstalk program about the LGBT agenda in Africa and the United States, said that civil society cannot allow homosexuals "to be the role model" because it is "dangerous" and, he added, "if Africans look seriously" at how homosexuality is affecting the United States, "they should be horrified." What's happening with transgender bathroom policy "is absolutely insane," he said.
“The problem is this is a way people are living and they’re demanding that it be respected," said Feder in reference to LGBT persons in America on the Sept. 28 edition of Crosstalk, an affiliate of TBN. "They’re demanding that all of society be changed for their comfort and their convenience."
"We’re not saying that these people have to be persecuted," said Feder, an author and former Boston Herald columnist. "We’re not saying that you can’t have compassion for them -- of course, you can. But you can’t let this be the role model. And you can’t allow Christians and other religious people to be persecuted because they refuse to go along with this agenda.”
“You know, other people have demanded minority status based on their religion, based on their race," said Feder, a graduate of Boston University Law School. "This is the first group that demands minority status based on what they do in their bedrooms. And that’s what makes it so dangerous."
"And if you look at the United States, I mean if Africans look seriously at the United States, they should be horrified by what’s going on," he said.
You might rembember the fundamentally dishonest Feder from a few years back when he was promoting a film about "demographic winter"-- fear that white Christians aren't having enough babies and will soon be overrun with brown Muslims.
His current gig is being spokesman for the World Congress for Families, a notorioiusly anti-gay group. For instance, it supported a Russian law banning homosexual "propaganda" -- that is, anything positive about homosexuality.
While Chapman noted that Feder was in Kenya, he didn't say why. That occasion was the African Regional Conference of Families in Nairobi, which was designed to perpetuate discrimination against the LGBT community -- note Feder's statement that "We’re not saying that these people have to be persecuted," which does not explicitly rule out persecution of gays.
As Right Wing Watch notes, Kenya is hardly in need of encoragement on the anti-gay front: "Same-sex intimacy is currently illegal in Kenya, though there is an active movement to change that. Nigeria enacted a harsh anti-gay law in 2014 that has sparked vigilante violence; some American Religious Right groups backed that law or have spoken out against the Obama administration’s efforts to oppose similar legislation around the world."
Will WND Defend Birtherism From Racism Claims? Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily used to be very sensitive to the charge that birtherism was racially motivated. In 2009, for instance, WND editor Joseph Farah huffed that it was a "smear" to make the claim, as Farah interprets it, that to say Obama "should be held to the same standard as previous presidents and his opponent with regard to establishing constitutional eligibility to serve" is racist, ranting, "They think their job is to label anyone who doesn’t close their eyes, lie down and enjoy the rape of America as a racist." He then declare, "I will never be intimidated into ceasing to stand up for the Constitution and for America."
Now, the "racist" claim is flying around birtherism -- and now there's some science to back it up. Vox has highlighted a survey conducted by political scientist Philip Klinkner, which found that a stronger belief in birtherism correlated tightly with increasing levels of racial resentment. Vox continued:
It’s possible the correlation was coincidental: The study acknowledged that whiteness, Republicanism, and racial resentment all tend to correlate, so maybe this really reflects that partisan beliefs, not racial resentment, drive birtherism. But when Klinkner put all of these factors through a statistical control model, he found that racial resentment significantly correlated by itself with birtherism.
To prove this, Klinkner also looked at Democrats who believed Obama was born outside the US. He found, “Among those with the lowest levels of racial resentment, party had little influence as both Democrats and Republicans had a low probability of believing in birtherism. As racial resentment increased, however, the probability of birtherism increased for both Democrats and Republicans, but more among the latter.” So partisan beliefs did play some role, but racial resentment played a significant role as well.
So an all-white Fox News panel may disagree, but birtherism really was driven, at least in part, by race and racial attitudes.
The Vox article came out last week, but WND is been silent about it. Is it because WND concedes the racism aspect? (WND does like to fantheflames of racial resentment, after all.) Or is it just trying to shut up about birtherism in order to help chief birther Donald Trump get elected? (WND didn't really want to talk about it after the subject came up during the first presidential debate.)
But you know what they say: silence equals assent.
MRC Complains That Yet Another Historic Event Is Described As Historic Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center continuestobemad that historic events are called historic in the media. Kyle Drennen grouses in a Sept. 22 post:
On Thursday’s NBC Today, co-host Matt Lauer proudly announced that the network had received an Emmy award for its biased coverage of the Supreme Court’s 2013 ruling legalizing gay marriage across the country. Lauer told viewers: “By the way, the News and Documentary Emmy awards were held last night and NBC News and MSNBC picked up this one for our live coverage of the Supreme Court's landmark decision on same-sex marriage.”
He continued: “As always, we are very proud of the people who work here and the efforts that they put forward on a daily basis.” Co-host Savannah Guthrie chimed in: “Proud of the whole team.”
Lauer, Guthrie, as well as correspondents Chuck Todd, Peter Alexander, and Pete Williams were all named in the presentation of the award for “Outstanding Live Coverage of a Current News Story - Long Form.” In addition, MSNBC anchor Thomas Roberts and legal correspondent Ari Melber were included for the cable channel’s reporting.
During a live NBC News special report on the day of the court decision – June 26, 2013 – the Today hosts, along with Todd, celebrated the ruling as one that “has potential to go down in the record books...[with] the significance of something like Brown versus Board of Education.” Later in that same one-sided coverage, Alexander gushed that the outcome of the case was “very personally satisfying” for President Obama.
That kind of liberal cheerleading helped guarantee the network’s Emmy win.
How, exactly, is it "liberal cheerleading" to acknowledge the historic nature of the same-sex marriage ruling or note that Obama supported the ruling? Or how that supposedly garnered NBC the Emmy? Drennen doesn't explain -- he's just speculating and imposing his own right-wing bias on news he doesn't like.