The establishment media are lashing out in the aftermath of the stunning 2016 presidential-election result, which it almost unanimously had discounted as impossible, demanding sanctions against so-called “fake news” websites.
But the hysteria may have more to do with fear of competition than with the pursuit of truth, as independent news organizations such as WND are soaring in both traffic and reader engagement. And the growth of WND is continuing even after the election.
According to Alexa, WND is now the 187th most popular site of all websites in the United States and in the top 1,500 group of all websites globally.
Actually, WND hasn't been maintaining its election-driven traffic boost. While it may have been ranked No. 187 at the time of the article, it's currently ranked No. 259 and falling.
WND immediately uses that ranking to play the victim:
Despite, or perhaps because of, this growth, WND, along with sites such as Breitbart, Red State and the Daily Wire have been smeared as “fake news” sites since the election, even though the definition seems to have more to do with ideology than accuracy.
Google and Facebook have also said they will be targeting revenue sources for so-called “fake news” sites.
The brief moment of self-criticism the establishment media engaged in after the election has ended, as outlets such as the Times now demand Facebook and other social networking titans essentially shut down competitors.
The move is coupled with a campaign to label independent journalism as “hate speech,” an accusation leveled at Breitbart and also WND.
And it wouldn't be WND if there wasn't a massive dose of self-aggrandizement to go along with this desperate self-promotion:
“WND has always – for 20 years – risen to the top of the charts for political coverage during presidential election years,” said Joseph Farah, founder, editor and chief executive officer of the pioneering alternative news site. “But this year the growth trend continues after the election. This is something we’ve never seen before. Perhaps Americans are finally getting the message: What we euphemistically call the ‘mainstream media’ is the real purveyor of ‘fake news.’ If you want to the truth, the real story, you’ve got to look for alternative sources of news. And WND, from the beginning, has been the place of refuge for real journalists with experience and values and professional standards.”
This time, it really is different. Almost 70 percent of voters believe the news media is not “honest and truthful” and almost 80 percent say it is “biased.”
With the establishment media’s credibility destroyed, Americans are turning to WND, a trusted source that has been around almost since the beginning of the Internet. Now, the facts show WND is the real mainstream when it comes to where Americans go to get the real news.
CNS Laughably Portrays Obama As 'Dictatorial Tyrant' Topic: CNSNews.com
It's pure opinion -- and a ridiculous, unsupported one at that -- but CNSNews.com portrayed it as news. Penny Starr wrote in a Dec. 2 CNS "news" article:
Conservative attorney Cleta Mitchell said on Friday that Barack Obama has acted more like a dictator than a president, and that President-elect Donald Trump should make it a priority to “restore the rule of law.”
“We have been living under a dictatorial tyrant for the last eight years,” Mitchell said at the Conservative Women’s Network event, co-hosted by the Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute and the Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C.
“And one of the most important things that Donald Trump can do as president is to restore the rule of law,” Mitchell said.
“As an attorney I’m going to tell you that the most important thing that Donald Trump can do … and that is to restore the rule of law in America,” said Mitchell, who has represented the National Republican Senatorial Committee, the National Republican Congressional Committee, the National Rifle Association and many Republican members of the U.S. Congress.
“America is a nation of laws, not of men,” Mitchell said. “But what we’ve seen in the last eight years is a president with a cell phone and a pen who has made law as though he were an emperor and a complicit liberal media that has found that completely acceptable.”
Mitchell said if Trump were to govern with a cell phone and a pen his critics would accuse him of acting as a dictator. But it is Obama, Mitchell said, who has conducted the office of the presidency in that manner.
“We have been living under a dictatorial tyrant for the last eight years,” Mitchell said. “And one of the most important things that Donald Trump can do as president is to restore the rule of law.”
Starr cites -- and Mitchell apparently didn't provide -- any example of Obama governing like a "dictatorial tyrant." The "cell phone and a pen" is a reference to Obama's decision to use executive orders and work with outside groups in the face of the Republican Congress' unwillingness to work with him on legislation. Both actions are legal and constitutional -- in other words, the complete opposite of a "dictatorial tyrant."
But Starr was once again in stenography mode, and she treated Mitchell's words as undisputed and unimpeachable. If Starr were a real reporter, she would have interviewed others at the conservative event she attended to gauge reaction to Mitchell's ludicrous statement -- but she couldn't be bothered.
But then, stenography to attack Democrats and in the service of Republicans is how CNS rolls these days.
WND's Farah Can't Prove Illegal Votes for Hillary Either Topic: WorldNetDaily
Last week, we caught WorldNetDaily trying to fearmonger about the specter of illegal voting in the presidential election -- but couldn't come up with any evidence to back it up, only a lot of speculation by right-wingers.
Now, WND editor Joseph Farah takes a whack at it in his Dec. 5 column:
Donald Trump tweeted a week ago that he won the popular vote on Election Day “if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally.”
Of course, the media went ballistic over this comment.
Even the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, in reporting his comment in a news story had this to say: “There has been no evidence of the widespread voter fraud that would have had to taken place to give Clinton millions of illegitimate votes.”
But is Trump’s statement likely true?
We may never know, but I suspect he’s right.
Personally, I would be shocked to learn that there weren’t at least 2 million votes cast for Hillary Clinton that were invalid.
In other words, he can't prove anything either.
Farah goes on to do a lot of ranting about the need for voter ID laws, asserting that "If we’re ever going to have a free and fair election again in this country, we need all states requiring proper ID." In fact, the kind of in-person voter fraud voter ID laws would ostensibly prevent is incredibly rare.
Finally, Farah declares that his utter lack of evidence is irrelevant, but the perception of illegal voting (never mind that it's a false one) does: "Even if there is any doubt about the extent of such illegal voting, it must be stopped cold to preserve constitutional integrity."
MRC Complains Media Is Accurately Reporting About Ben Carson Topic: Media Research Center
The headline of Media Reserarch Center writer Sam Dorman's Dec. 5 post reads, "Media Predictably Mock Trump’s HUD Secretary Pick Ben Carson." He goes on to huff: "After Donald Trump chose former presidential candidate Ben Carson to lead the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), journalists ridiculed the choice, mocked Carson’s beliefs and labeled him a 'scammer.'"
But Dorman's doing a lot of dishonest things here. First, he's conflating opinion writers with "journalists" -- most of the people he cites are opinion writers, not reporters.The closest he gets is Michael Powell of the New York Times, but he's a sports columnist, which means he's still allowed to voice an opinion.
Second, he actually lumps together "media figures from lefty Think Progress, Huffington Post, NBC News and others" as if they were interchangeable. And, again, all of them are opinion writers or commentators who get paid to offer an opinion.
Third, much of the criticism Dorman cites is fact-based. Does Dorman really think it's "liberal bias" to point out that Carson has no professional experience in housing or urban development.
Dorman also complained that New York magazine's Jonathan Chait called Carson a "world-class scammer," but didn't mention that Chait offered proof of that in the article to which he links in the Twitter post Dorman cites. That would be an article in The Atlantic noting how Carson's presidential campaign spent massive amounts of money paying marketing firms to raise money, suggesting that Carson was more interested in building a personal brand and a donor base than actually running for president.
Finally, Dorman doesn't actually dispute any of this -- he's only complaining that it's being talked about. Apparently Dorman has absorbed the part of MRC researcher school that teaches anything that appears in the media you don't like -- even if it's true or said by someone paid to offer opinions -- is "liberal bias."
WND: Only Christians Should Benefit From Religious-Discrimination Laws Topic: WorldNetDaily
Bob Unruh tells the sob story in a Nov. 24 WorldNetDaily article:
The situation didn’t seem that alarming. A Christian school needed to move to more economic, and yet bigger, facilities.
As such schools usually are, the Livingston Christian School in Genoa Township, Michigan, was on a tight budget, but it located a facility available at the nearby Brighton Church of the Nazarene, and made plans for the move.
The local planning commission approved the plan, the community supported it, and even experts summoned by the township endorsed the strategy.
Then the town council rejected the application, a decision that prompted a court case that now is pending before the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
The brief there, submitted by First Liberty, warns that the rejection is a violation of federal law because it threatens the very existence of the religious outreach.
This being a Bob Unruh article, it goes without saying he's not telling the full story. Indeed, as real news outlets have reported, the town's rejection of the special use permit has been upheld in lower courts because, despite its current claims, the school had an option to use another location and has acted upon it.
But Unruh also plays up how the religious school's attorneys, First Liberty, are suing the township under a federal law:
“The government is refusing to allow a Christian school to move into a building on church property or, for that matter, anywhere else in town,” Hiram Sasser, deputy chief counsel for First Liberty Institute, said. “That’s wrong. Federal law expressly prohibits the government using zoning laws to keep religious institutions out of their town.”
At the initial court hearing stage, a judge said the school’s religious liberty had not been “substantially burdened” by the town’s decision, so First Liberty advanced the fight to the appellate level, arguing that under the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, the township was essentially terminating the school’s ability to operate as a religious ministry.
The U.S. Department of Justice says that law is to “protect individuals, houses of worship, and other religious institutions from discrimination in zoning and landmarking laws.”
“First Liberty has won multiple cases using RLUIPA,” said Sasser. “We know this law well. In fact, we won a landmark case, Opulent Life Church v. Holly Springs, in the 5th Federal Circuit Court when a town used zoning regulations against a religious institution. We lost at the district court, but won at the federal appeals court. We hope for the same outcome in this important case.”
Just a month earlier, however, WND was denouncing the RLUIPA. Why? It was being invoked for the benefit of non-Christians.
In an Oct. 2 article, WND Muslim-basher Leo Hohmann complained that a different township in Michigan agreed to pay $1.7 million to a Muslim group after blocking its planned construction of a school. Hohmann is much more negative about use of RLUIPA than Unruh is:
The tentative settlement agreed to by Pittsfield Township would be one of the largest cash payouts ever by a U.S. municipality to a mosque. The deal could send shock waves throughout the nation among communities fighting to keep large mosques and madrasas out of residential areas.
The Pittsfield case, by the sheer amount of the payout, could have a chilling effect on any city or town considering a mosque location or expansion, say legal experts. Many such legal battles are in process, including a major one in nearby Sterling Heights, Michigan, reported recently by WND.
“It’s not surprising,” said Karen Lugo, a constitutional law attorney with expertise in the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, a federal statute under which the Michigan Muslims claimed discrimination.
Pittsfield Township, a community just outside of Ann Arbor, denied the construction permit saying the project would be incompatible with the surrounding residential zoning and would cause undue traffic and congestion.
But the owner of the property, a Shariah-compliant Ann Arbor mosque backed by the Council on American-Islamic Relations or CAIR, filed suit against Pittsfield Township in 2012.
The U.S. Justice Department joined the case last year on the side of the mosque, claiming Pittsfield was violating RLUIPA, a law passed by Congress in 2000 that prohibits local governments from imposing zoning regulations that “substantially burden” religious rights “unless there is a compelling government interest.”
The percentage of federal RLUIPA investigations involving mosques or Islamic schools has risen from 15 percent in the 2000 to August 2010 period to 38 percent during the September 2010 to present period, according to a DOJ report posted on July 27.
The Pittsfield Township settlement, while one of the largest ever won by a mosque against a municipality in America, is not the only large settlement in recent years. Some have included not only cash but free land, Lugo said.
It's the very same law. While WND trashes it when being used on behalf of Muslims, it cheerleads the law's use on behalf of Christians. Muslims' religious rights should always be burdened, in WND's view, while those of Christians should never be.
Another Anti-Gay Freakout At the MRC Topic: Media Research Center
Karen Townsend is one of the people the Media Research Center has recruiting for the apparent sole purpose of getting mad when hate-watching TV shows. She's particularly offended by content that isn't anti-gay: She was appalled when Smithers came out of the closest on "The Simpsons," whined about a supposedly unnecessary transgender character on "Dead of Summer" and definitely didn't like that Chelsea Handler did an episode of her Netflix show that "was an ode to all things "queer."
Now, Townsend is appalled that Dougie, a character on the show "Life in Pieces," has apparently realized she's gay. Townsend grimly reports that Dougie "asked a straight couple how to be a lesbian" -- apparently not finding the inherent humor in that -- was outraged that another female character "confesses that she has never kissed another woman, either, and her husband would be cool with it if she did" and that, yes, she and Dougie kissed.
Townsend concluded: "There is something slimy about encouraging a woman to enter into a lesbian lifestyle when she is obviously clueless about her own sexuality. Justifying straight women kissing other women while saying it isn’t really cheating on their husbands is just not something I remember hearing as a part of traditional marriage vows."
Apparently, Dougie is not allowed to figure out how to be less clueless about her sexuality, despite physical contact being one key way of doing that. Oh, and Townsend has decided being gay is not a sexuality but a "lifestyle." Got it.
This was the headline in a Politico story Friday: “Trump inherits Obama boom.”
Written by Ben White, the publication’s chief economic reporter, not I must point out, Barack Obama’s chief speech writer, the fake news story was apparently designed to persuade Americans that we are living in what he characterizes as “a fairly robust economy with the lowest jobless rate in nearly a decade, record home and stock prices and a healthy growth rate.”
For this reason, White states: “Trump instead will take office with an economy at near full employment and wages and spending rising. The economy is in such strong shape that the Federal Reserve is likely to raise interest rates again later this month to try and cool things off.”
In other words, Trump simply fooled Americans into believing their economy was underperforming and that the government wasn’t insolvent to the tune of $20 trillion – more than the annual gross domestic product.
It’s a shockingly one-sided piece of trashy propaganda that ignores one stunning FACT after another – for instance, that there are nearly 100 million adult Americans NOT WORKING out of a total of civilian adult, non-institutional population of 253 million. When Obama took office, the number of adults not working was 80 million, meaning the number has jumped by 25 percent! Meanwhile, the U.S. economy has been growing at the shockingly low annual rate of between 1 and 2 percent throughout the Obama presidency.
As we've pointed out when CNSNews.com obsesses over the labor force participation rate, a significant percentage of those "nearly 100 million adult Americans NOT WORKING" (it's actually 95 million, but who's counting?) are students and retirees, and the main reason that number is increasing is that baby boomers are retiring. Also, as even CNS concedes (when it's not trying to obscure the good news), there have never been more Americans employed than right now.
Farah also rants that the unemployment numbers are "cooked" and "literally only count those collecting unemployment checks." Farah is lying: The unemployment numbers are computed the way they always have been, and "those collecting unemployment checks" is not the only emplpoyment-related data the government issues.
Farah also complained about a New York Times article noting that white nationalists see Russia's Vladimir Putin as an example: "And who are these extremists the New York Times quotes prominently? A collection of racists, Klansmen and know-nothing wannabees, neo-Nazis and other deplorables – the kind of people you might not expect the 'mainstream media' to provide with a serious platform." Among those Farah complains the Times quoted in its article is Jared Taylor of the white nationalist group American Renaissance.
You know who else has given Taylor credibility on this issue: WND. In October, WND columnist Jesse Lee Peterson spoke admirably of Taylor's work: "If you don’t already know about rampant black-on-white crime (rape, robbery, murder and atrocious assaults), check the research of Colin Flaherty, Heather Mac Donald and Jared Taylor."
Farah goes on to complain that "The Times also buys into the unfounded, groundless conspiracy-mongering of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama about Russian involvement in the 2016 presidential election." Farah doesn't back up his claim that Russian involvement in the eleciton is unfounded and groundless -- unsurprising, given that there's plenty of evidence showing otherwise.
While Farah complained that Richard Spencer was also among the white nationalists quoted by the Times, he immediately defends Spencer later in his article:
It all started with a segment on CNN’s The Lead which quoted prominent white nationalist figure Richard Spencer as wondering if Jews were actually people. CNN host Jim Sciutto said, “of Jews Spencer said, ‘one wonders if these people are people at all, or instead soulless golem.'”
“That is an alt-right leader, Richard Spencer, talking about Jews,” Sciutto added. CNN then had a panel with RealClearPolitics’ Rebecca Berg and The Boston Globe’s Matt Viser with the chyron “ALT-RIGHT FOUNDER QUESTIONS IF JEWS ARE PEOPLE.”
Except, Spencer did not make those remarks about Jews. He made them about political consultants on television.
Farah is actually mostly correct here (Snopes says Spencer was "questioning the humanity and intelligence of members of the 'mainstream media,' not specifically that of Jews" in the specific remark CNN cited, but noted that in the same speech Spencer also referred to "Lügenpresse," a term "commonly used in Nazi-era German propaganda to describe non-party-friendly (e.g., Jewish, Communist, and foreign) news sources"), but he omits the fact that Sciutto and CNN host Jake Tapper, on whose show the segment took place, both denounced and apologized for the chyron after they learned about it.
CNS Just Can't Stop Censoring Mel Gibson's Ugly Past Topic: CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com -- in particular, blogger Mark Judge -- has beenheavilyhyping Mel Gibson's latest film projects over the past several months while being very careful not to mention his ugly personal history of anti-Semitism and viciousness toward an ex-girlfriend.
Judge did so again in an Oct. 24 post, this time touting how Gibson "recently talked about the sequel to his blockbuster 2004 film 'The Passion of the Christ.'" Again, Judge made sure to keep mum about Gibson's ugly past.
He's not the only CNS writer in the Gibson-fluffing business. A Nov. 28 column by Eric Metaxas gives a glowing review to Gibson's new film "Hacksaw Ridge," declaring it "an amazing, powerful film about one man who was willing to give his life, but whose conscience and deeply held religious beliefs would not allow him to take the lives of others." Like Judge, he too fails to discuss Gibson's past.
Which is strange, given that "Hacksaw Ridge" is seen as something of a "comeback" film for Gibson after all that ugliness. And it turns out that's still a pretty touchy subject -- he was askedabout it severaltimes in doing press for his film, and he really doesn't want to talk about, complaining at one point that "for one episode in the back of a police car on eight double tequilas to sort of dictate all the work, life’s work and beliefs and everything else that I have and maintain for my life is really unfair."
Like it or not, Gibson's ugly past is part of his history, and it's part of the story of his new film and future projects. CNS should stop censoring mention of it.
WorldNetDaily couldn't be happier that Donald Trump was elected president -- but it's fretting that he might nominate poeple other than right-wing extremists to his Cabinet.
In an anonymously written Nov. 29 article, WND attacked Elaine Chao, Trump's nominee for transportation secretary, as a "Bush administration retread" who "has deep ties to the anti-coal Bloomberg Foundation, is married to big-time Trans-Pacific Partnership supporter and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and has deep business and political links to China." WND also blamed Chao for the conservative Heritage Foundation's firing of Richard Fisher Jr., "a military analyst who sounded warnings about Chinese threats to U.S. security."
In a Nov. 30 article, Chelsea Schilling offered up the "Top 8 facts you don't know about David Petraeus," whose name has been floated for secretary of state.Schilling complained that "Petraeus signed a letter urging Congress to allow resettlement of Syrian and Iraqi refugees in the U.S.," "helped launch a gun-control group," and "led the charge to allow gay troops to serve openly in the military."
Another Nov. 30 article was a catch-all of right-wing fears about Cabinet picks, covering not only Chao and Petraeus but also treasury secretary nominee Steven Mnuchin (for having "worked with investment groups associated with leftist billionaire George Soros"), Michael McCaul, whose name has been floated for homeland security secretary (he's "setting off alarm bells for opponents of illegal immigration") and chief of staff nominee Reince Priebus (for being part of the establishment as Republican National Committee chairman).
That's not all -- WND's Jerome Corsi -- a Trump sycophant -- has freaked out about the possibility that Trump may not live up to his campaign promises.
In a Nov. 22 article, Corsi sought to assure WND readers that, despite Trump's post-election claims that he won't try to throw Hillary Clinton in jail after all, "a Trump insider tells WND the statements should be interpreted narrowly, describing them as a shrewd effort to buy time and foster a spirit of 'magnanimity' during the transition period."
And on Nov. 23, Corsi fretted over news of Trump saying he now had "an open mind" on whether to support global climate deals, running to the confort of climate-change deniers: "Defenders of Trump, such as Marc Morano at ClimateDepot.com, were quick to point out that in the meeting with Times reporters on Tuesday, Trump restated his skepticism of global warming, charging the media had 'falsely spun' his comments."
Corsi also brought up his "Trump campaign insider," who allegedly "expressed concern that Washington-based Republican Party operatives – including Reince Priebus, Trump’s newly appointed White House chief of staff, and Spicer, among others – were attempting to moderate Trump’s message to make it more compatible with the views of House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell."
Remember, Corsi was tight with the sleazy swinger Roger Stone during the campaign, so it's likely that he's the "campaign insider" Corsi is quoting.
MRC Blogger Rants: The Dictionary Is Biased! Topic: NewsBusters
The Media Research Center tends to find "liberal bias" in the strangest places. One of them, apparently, is the dictionary.
Melissa Mullins is in full screed mode in a Dec. 1 NewsBusters post:
Each year Dictionary.com and Oxford Dictionaries pick a Word of the Year that “embodies a major theme resonating deeply in the cultural consciousness over the prior 12 months.” Of all the words they could have chosen, this year, influenced by the presidential election, the words “xenophobia” and “post-truth” were given the star treatment.
Both dictionary organizations chose their specific words because they felt they both had been major headliners for (liberal) news stories in 2016, and had seen a drastic increase of word lookups after the U.K. left the European Union (Brexit) in June and after then presidential candidate Donald Trump secured the Republican nomination in July. In a blog post, Dictionary.com explained stories such as the U.K. leaving the European Union, the Syrian refugee crisis and France banning burkinis (which was later overturned) were perfect examples for the xenophobia.
Xenophobia, as Dictionary.com defines it, is “fear or hatred of foreigners, people from different cultures, or strangers. It can also refer to fear or dislike of customs, dress, and cultures of people with backgrounds different from our own.” Of course, the media and the left’s talking points tried hard to make sure the word “xenophobia” and “Donald Trump” were used in the same sentence, as if to create a subconscious kneejerk reaction (think: Trump = xenophobia).
Dictionary.com proved how liberal this selection was by making a video with ultraliberal professor (and former Clinton Labor Secretary) Robert Reich, where he lectured about how some American politicians use fear to get votes, and create atmospheres of bullying and harassment.
“Alt-right” was the runner-up to both Dictionary.com and Oxford’s “Word of the Year.” “Alt-right” is defined as “an ideological grouping associated with extreme conservative or reactionary viewpoints, characterized by a rejection of mainstream politics and by the use of online media to disseminate deliberately controversial content.” Another word the media often uses with Trump’s name.
How ironic. Both words that Dictionary.com and the Oxford Dictionary chose, in addition to their runner-up word (alt-right) all have negative connotations and have been associated with Trump, thanks to the help of the liberal media. Is it any wonder why these words were chosen as their “Word of the Year?”
Funny how Mullins won't hold Trump or other politicians on the right for making disregard for the truth and exploitation of xenophobia central components of their campaigns. It's the media -- or in this case, the dictionary -- who gets the blame for pointing it out.
That's why the MRC's constant haranguing about "liberal bias" falls flat -- and feels insincere at best -- after a while.
WND Claimed Election Was Rigged -- But Bashes Recount Topic: WorldNetDaily
Before the presidential election, WorldNetDaily was filled with claims that the election was rigged:
On Oct. 20, for example, Joseph Farah wrote: "Is there any basis for Donald Trump’s repeated claims that the 2016 election is rigged? That the question even needs to be asked, answered and defended days before the vote is somewhat astonishing." Three days later, he ranted: "Yes, the 2016 election has been corrupted. Fraud has been perpetrated on the American people and the rule of law. The multiple scandals – provable now through prima facie evidence – actually make this political year, from primaries through general campaigns, represent something bigger than Watergate!"
And the November issue of WND's Whistleblower magazine was dedicated to portraying everything as rigged. No, really: it rants that "America – once heralded as an unparalleled land of blessings and freedom, limitless opportunity and a level playing field for all – is 'rigged.' Rigged for the benefit of some, at the expense of others. So rigged in fact, in so many areas and so many ways, as to shake Americans' confidence not only in their government, schools and news media – institutions most people already consider compromised or corrupt – but also their criminal justice system, their economy, even their elections."
Of course, there's a caveat. WND never accuses right-wingers of rigging, even though there's plenty of evidence of that; it is only, in the words of WND managing editor David Kupelian, "the Clinton crime syndicate" that can possibly be to blame.
Nevertheless, one would think WND would be happy that recounts of election results in at least two states are being conducted -- after all, a recount can uncover evidence of election rigging. But WND has been bashing it.
A Nov. 28 WND article by Bob Unruh is typical. Its headline warns of "ulterior motives" behind the recounts, quotes people saying the recount would likely not result in any significant change in the vote total, and suggests the real goal is "to build support for a movement that aims to eliminate the constitutional requirement for an Electoral College."
The word "rigged" or its variants do not appear in Unruh's article.
And an anonymously written Dec. 5 article touted how Trump gained a few votes in the recount and approvingly quoting Rush Limbaugh smearing those backing the recount as "a bunch of spoiled brats unable to accept rejection." No mention of WND's previous warnings about the election being "rigged" could be found here either.
How entertaining that WND is trying to flush much of its election coverage down the memory hole. After all, an election that came out the way it wanted to can't possibly be rigged.
NEW ARTICLE: Snide Bias at CNS Topic: CNSNews.com
CNS morning managing editor Susan Jones inserts snarky editorial comments in her "news" articles bashing President Obama and Hillary Clinton -- but merely performs servile stenography on behalf of Donald Trump. Read more >>
WND's Islamophobic Reporter Writes an Anti-Muslim Book Topic: WorldNetDaily
A Nov. 19 WorldNetDaily article by Paul Bremmer is ostensibly about Jeff Sessions' nomination as attorney general but -- as one might expect from by WND's PR guy -- turned into a stealth announcement of the new bnook by WND reporter Leo Hohmann:
Hohmann’s brand new book “Stealth Invasion: Muslim Conquest Through Immigration and Resettlement Jihad,” provides an in-depth look at the plan of radical Muslims to fundamentally transform the population of the United States by establishing enclaves of non-assimilated Muslim immigrants – a process known as “civilization jihad.”
The book releases nationwide in January 2017, but it is available in e-book format now exclusively at the WND Superstore. Hard copies are also available for preorder only from the Superstore.
“In my book, I provide tons of evidence, through real-life cases, that Muslims who migrate to the United States are given special status,” Hohmann explained. “I call them ‘super citizens.’ Not only are they not required to assimilate into our society, but when they run afoul of the law they are often not held fully accountable.
“We look at cases in Georgia, Idaho and Minnesota in which Muslim refugees were involved in some pretty serious crimes and the prosecutors either charged them with misdemeanors or didn’t charge them at all, even when there were eyewitnesses to their crimes.
“Then we’ve seen U.S. attorneys in Minnesota and Idaho come to the defense of the perpetrators and actually threaten the law-abiding public, warning that any statements or social media postings that are overly critical of Islam will be met with prosecution.”
Yeah, about that. We documented Hohmann's reporting on the Idaho case, which involved him scrubbing his article to take out all the false things that had been reported about it earlier, giving an uncritical platform to anti-Muslim activists, then being so upset with the fact that the local U.S. attorney was telling anti-Muslim activsts to stop lying about the case that he approvingly quoted WND's lawyer, Daniel Horowitz, libeling the U.S. attorney as a "criminal terrorist." On top of that, he attacked a Chobani yogurt plant in Idaho for hiring Muslim refugees.
Hohmann has also fretted that Muslims who commit terrorist acts are being called mentally ill, complained that people were actually investigating violent incidents involving Muslims instead of automatically declaring that the Muslim was motivated by ISIS or whatever, freaked out about a Muslim winning a state legislative seat in Minnesota, and revived an Oklahoma City bombing conspiracy theory involving a third suspect, a "shadowy Middle Easterner."
So, yeah, Hohmann is the perfect guy to write a WND-published book about Muslims -- because he will only bash them and can't be bothered to report the full story.
Right-Wing Rabbi Defends White Nationalism at CNS, Doesn't Care Much About Facts Topic: CNSNews.com
We've called Aryeh Spero the Jewish Bradlee Dean because of his propensity to lie and mislead -- despite presenting himself as a man of God -- to further the right-wing political agenda he's pushing (that, and the shared Obama derangement).
In a Nov. 17 CNSNews.com column, Spero defends Breitbart's Steve Bannon with a bunch of ranting about the "alt-left" (whatever that is; Spero never explains what it is) and unsupported claims that ultimately go from denying Bannon is associated with white nationalists to defending white nationalism:
The ADL (Anti-Defamation League) this week accused Mr. Bannon of anti-Semitism because, in their words, he is associated with nationalistic movements and anti-Semitic white supremacist groups. I have seen no credible evidence that he is associated with any anti-Semitic groups, though he is, like me, an American nationalist. In its founding years, the ADL’s mission was to fight anti-Semitism, but in the last few decades it appears to have, like other establishment Jewish organizations, become an ideological arm of the Democrat party, carrying its water for them, and viewing all of American life through the prism of a neo-Leftist agenda no longer rooted in classical liberalism.
Thus, for them, as seen in their publications, the innocuous term “western values” becomes a code phrase for excluding non-whites, and the term America First becomes a racist code phrase. To most Americans, however, putting America and its citizens first is the most natural thing a nation should try doing— be it regarding jobs, physical security, or pride in America’s historic outlook and values, in this case our founding principles and Judeo-Christian ethos.
While the ADL considers the predilection towards nationalism a disguised attempt to exclude or persecute Jews and others, to most sane people, nationalism is pride in one’s country and her values, which in America’s case is something to indeed be proud of. Loving one’s country, its western values, or pride and comfort in one’s ethnicity or race (even if white) are not disqualifying features in a human being.
Those who see in American individuals proud of their Christian faith or their European ancestry people to be feared are themselves either very insecure or harbor a bigotry and discomfort with those in the majority. Truth be told, in liberal establishment organizational circles the feeling is that nobility and fair-mindedness resides only in minority communities while the majority, in this case Christian and whites, are automatically suspect unless they prove otherwise, with advocating liberalism and cultural self-effacement as their only redeemable option.
Spero doesn't know his history, does he? The reason why people consider "America First" a "code phrase," in Spero's words, is because that's pretty much what it was. The America First Committee was an isolationist group seeking to keep the U.S. out of World War II. But as college professor Susan Dunn writes at CNN:
Seeking to brand itself as a mainstream organization, America First struggled with the problem of the anti-Semitism of some of its leaders and many of its members. It had to remove from its executive committee not only the notoriously anti-Semitic Henry Ford but also Avery Brundage, the former chairman of the U.S. Olympic Committee who had prevented two Jewish runners from the American track team in Berlin in 1936 from running in the finals of the 4x100 relay.
Still, the problem of anti-Semitism remained; a Kansas chapter leader pronounced President Franklin Roosevelt and Eleanor Roosevelt "Jewish" and Winston Churchill a "half-Jew."
After Pearl Harbor, the America First Committee closed its doors, but not before Lindbergh made his infamous speech at an America First rally in Des Moines, Iowa, in September 1941. After charging that President Roosevelt had manufactured "incidents" to propel the country into war, Lindbergh proceeded to blurt out his true thoughts.
"The British and the Jewish races," he declared, "for reasons which are not American, wish to involve us in the war." The nation's enemy was an internal one, a Jewish one. "Their greatest danger to this country lies in their large ownership and influence in our motion pictures, our press, our radio, and our government," he contended. Booing began to drown out the cheers, forcing him again and again to stop, wait out the catcalls, and start his sentences over.
Lindbergh's unambiguous message was that Jews living in the United States constituted a wealthy, influential, conspiratorial foreign "race" that had seized "our" media and infiltrated "our" political institutions. They were the alien out-group, hostile to "us."
He put American Jews on notice that America's "tolerance" for them rested upon a fragile foundation.
Spero also repeats the malicious slander that George Soros was in "collaboration with the Nazis in Hungary during WW II."
Spero further whines that critics of Trump "have not, and will never genuinely accept the results of the election" -- ironic because it's obvious Spero never accepted the election of President Obama.
Did Rich MRC Donor Drive Bozell's Trump Flip? Topic: Media Research Center
During the presidential campaign, Media Research Center chief Brent Bozell flip-flopped from opposing Donald Trump to leading his MRC in advocating for his candidacy. And since Trump won the election, Bozell has been even more solicitous of Trump.
His (and Tim Graham's) obsequious Nov. 23 column offers advice to the president-elect, cheering his victory even though "The entire establishment was arrayed against you and did everything to vilify you" (only obliquely alluding to the fact that among them was Bozell himself). And Bozell got his stenographers over at CNS to do an article about him heaping praise on Trump's Cabinet picks: "Conservatives should be very pleased with the decisions coming out of Trump Tower."
But Bozell hasn't been very forthcoming about what caused his Trump flip. It may just come down to one very big thing: money.
A Newsweek article examines how billionaire Robert Mercer has been a guiding force behind Trump's campaign, and how his daughter, Rebekah, has been even more intimately involved, with ties to Trump campaign officials like Steve Bannon and Kellyanne Conway.
The article also notes that the MRC "gets a lot of money from the Mercer Family Foundation," and quotes Bozell slobbering all over Robert Mercer: “What will just blow you away is how smart he is…. You start listening on a conversation he’s having with someone else, and guaranteed within 60 seconds your mind is in some happy place because you have no idea what he’s talking about.”
Bozell unsurprisingly has good things to say about Rebekah as well: "She is like her dad. ... She understands issues, she understands people, she has a very good read on what’s real and what’s BS."
How much money has Mercer given the MRC? According to the Center for Public Integrity, Mercer has given the MRC approximately $13.5 million between 2008 and 2014, and the $3 million Mercer gave the MRC in 2014 made up one-fourth of all contributions that year.
As one might imagine, the MRC keeps Mercer's ties to the MRC on the down-low. A 2015 post by Clay Waters, for example, complained that a New York Times article made Mercer "sound suspicious, even sinister," but didn't disclose that Mercer is a major MRC donor (though did admit that "Rebekah Mercer serves on the board of directors of the Media Research Center").
The Newsweek article concludes on this note:
Bozell insists that the Mercers have no motive besides patriotism and that they fall outside of any D.C. oligarchy. “When you’re a billionaire or a multibillionaire, you really don’t need anything,” he says. “These people are driven by what they believe is good for the country.”