You’ve probably noticed that a cultural revolution is in full swing, engineered largely by promiscuity promoters and “LGBT” advocates. It’s based on deception, depravity, subterfuge, endless dirty tricks and no treats.
So is it any wonder Halloween is their favorite, special holiday? It’s one more reason this event is something for concerned families to avoid.
And as usual, the “LGBTQ” folks have no problem using any tool, Halloween included, to corrupt children. Last fall, a homosexual website featured an article about a 9-year-old boy dressed as a “drag queen” – a transvestite – with the help of his “gay” uncle.
And is it a coincidence that in early October, a person dressed in a transvestite demon costume (with horns) read “LGBTQ” books to children as part of homosexual history month at a Long Beach, California, library?
Even we conservative Christians can’t make this stuff up. These people are truly out of their minds.
Trick-or-treating children turn into teens going to seance parties with underage alcohol and suggestive or cross-gender costumes. Parents should begin the practice of avoiding Halloween when their children are small.
Call me counter-cultural. I’m fine with that.
It’s beyond adorable tikes on doorsteps asking for Snickers bars. Christians have to know that there’s more at stake on Halloween, elements no believer needs or wants.
In today’s America, we are allowing ourselves to be deceived by the depraved demands of hardened lesbians and men in lipstick. Oct. 31 symbolizes the happy rebellion.
And many of those involved in homosexuality or gender pretense really do get this, and don’t care. They aren’t simply joining another parade and strutting an outrageous ensemble – and the drag kings and queens certainly do that. But it’s the night for permitted release of all inhibitions as they “come out” in the “spirit” of the event.
We know who that spirit is – the author of lies, the deceiver who transforms himself into an angel of light (2 Corinthians 11:14-15).
MRC's Bozell Writes Letters For His Websites To Promote Topic: Media Research Center
A couple weeks back, CNSNews.com touted how "A group of conservative leaders announced at a press conference today that they had sent a letter to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) calling on him and the other four members of the Senate Republican leadership team to step down over their failure to keep their promises."
It was a rather tepid little collection of folks -- with the emphasis on little, as Talking Points Memo's Josh Marshall pointed out:
First, it’s just five people. That’s not very many. More important is who the people are. Two of them have histories literally going back to the earliest days of the modern conservative movement.
First there’s Richard Viguerie, basically the inventor of right wing direct mail fundraising. In many ways Viguerie invented clickbait and fake news decades before the Internet. He’s 84.
Then there’s Brent Bozell. Bozell has lived his entire life in the sinecure right wing activism world, which some very unnice people are ungenerous enough to call the world of ‘wingnut welfare’. He founded the Media Research Center in 1987 – full-time yakking about ‘liberal media bias’. His father was L. Brent Bozell, Jr., partner with Bill Buckley is launching much of what we know as movement conservatism today. Among many other things he ghosted Barry Goldwater’s ‘Conscience of a Conservative’, a bible of young conservatives in the early 60s which helped launch his 1964 presidential run.
To the extent that Trump is something ‘new’ in the GOP firmament, these folks are as old as it gets. The other three all predate Trump and in key cases predate the Tea Party. Jenny Beth Martin, co-founder of Tea Party Patriots is the ‘newest’ person on the list.
Of course, the only reason CNS covered this letter is because Bozell is the head of it (not disclosed until the final paragraph of the article). Weirdly, Bozell isn't identified as being affiliated with anything until the final-paragraph disclosure; he apparently can't identify himself as head of the MRC in the context of this letter because the MRC, as a 501(c)3 nonprofit group, is highly restricted on the amount of political activity it can engaged in.
It's also an even tinier group than Marshall notes. Anotherof the small group of signatories is David Bozell, Brent's son and the head of For America, a group Brent founded and, near as we can tell, continues as its chairman -- the group's website has purged mention of anyone affiliated with the group outside of David Bozell. (For America is a 501(c)4 nonprofit, which means it can engage in more political activity.)
Most of the signatories (except for David Bozell) were among a slightly larger group of "conservative leaders" that signed another letter last week whining to the media about "the censorship of the Clinton/Russian uranium deal."
One wonders if Bozell is generating these letters solely in order to give his websites something to write about. Because they're meaningless as anything beyond a publicity stunt.
WND Columnist Gives Trump Credit for Something He Didn't Do Topic: WorldNetDaily
Andy Schlafly cheers in his Oct. 24 WorldNetDaily column:
President Trump wins more kudos for allowing the release of the JFK assassination files. Proving again why he is a welcome alternative to the Establishment, Trump has stood up for the American people in ending the 50-plus years of cover-up by government of these documents.
But Trump did nothing to make this happen. The release of the documents was ordered by a 1992 law; all Trump had to do was not stand in the way of their release. This means that Schlafly is praising Trump for doing nothing.
And even then, Trump ended up blocking the release of some documents, citing national security concerns. Will Schlafly ding Trump for doing that?
Probably not, because he immediately ran off into conspiracy la-la-land, suggesting there was a conspiracy to allow "known America-hater" Lee Harvey Oswald back into the U.S. prior to JFK's assassination. Then Schlafly went extremely obscure in his conspiracy-mongering:
For example, the federal government continues to hide evidence about other potential crimes even older than the JFK assassination. More than 200 years ago Meriwether Lewis died of a gunshot wound, either by murder or suicide, after having led the marvelous Lewis and Clark expedition to explore the Northwest.
Lewis is buried in a national park owned by the federal government, and President Bill Clinton refused requests by historians and Lewis’ descendants to exhume his body probably because Clinton did not want to set a precedent that might result in the exhumation of his deceased Commerce Secretary Ron Brown, sought around the same time. The Bush administration later approved an exhumation of Lewis in 2008, but then the Obama administration blocked it without any reasonable justification, presumably as a favor to the Clintons.
Government will hide information as long as the public allows it. Fortunately, President Trump is siding with the public.
Needless to say, Schlafly is engaging in baseless speculation -- he has no evidence that Clinton had any personal involvement in the National Park Service's refusal to exhume Lewis' body, or that Obama personally intervened to stop the exumation as a favor to the Clintons. In fact, the 2010 decision not to exhume Lewis has to do with a Department of Interior policy to not disturb graves not threatened by destruction than any of Schlafly's conspiracy theories.
but then, when have the facts ever gotten in the way of a good conspiracy theory at WND?
MRC Stays Mum On Sexual Improprieties By Another Fox Host Topic: Media Research Center
The Washington Post recently told the story of Scottie Nell Hughes, a once-prominent pro-Trump talking head whose career ground to a halt after she accused Fox Business anchor Charles Payne of coercing her into a sexual relationship with him. Hughes explained how she has been blackballed within the conservative media world and how difficult it is for a conservative woman to make allegations of sexual harassment within it:
Hughes told me that she’s found out the hard way that conservative women have a particularly hard time making sexual harassment and assault claims. Those claims often are scoffed at on the right, she said, and retaliation can be swift and brutal.
“Name me another conservative woman who has charged a male on the same side of the aisle with sexual misconduct outside of those involved with Fox,” she said.
The absence speaks volumes, she said: “Victims have been shamed into silence and it’s almost like open hunting season for sexual predators on the right.”
Almost every day, she said, she hears from women in conservative political and media circles. She gave examples of what they’ve told her: “My career would be over.” “I’m thinking I should speak up against certain people but it would ruin me.” “I internalized it for years. And hid behind work.”
Count the Media Research Center among those right-wing media outlets who have apparently declared Hughes to be persona non grata. Her last mention at NewsBusters, the MRC's main content site, came in December 2016, well before she made her accusations against Payne.
Not only has thte MRC not mentioned the claims against Payne -- continuing a double standard in which it largely ignores sexual harassment by Fox News hosts and personnel while obsessing over non-conservatives who have been accused -- the last twomentions of Payne in the NewsBusters archive are of MRC chief Brent Bozell appearing on Fox Business shows hosted by Payne, the final appearance coming just two days before Payne was suspended (he was reinstated two months later, though Hughes has now accused Payne of rape).
Again, we see that the MRC won't dare tell the truth about Fox News or Fox Business and it culture of sexual harassment, lest it possibly lose access to its highest-profile media outlet.
WND's Hohmann Targets Another For His Anti-Muslim Activism Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily reporter Leo Hohmann tried to exploit a juvenile crime in an Idaho town to push his Muslim-hating agenda. Now he has his sights set on another town where he can exploit division.
Hohmann's Oct. 19 article is headlined "Revolt! U.S. city 'ground zero' in refugee battle." The city in question is St. Cloud, Minn., as Hohmann huffs:
St. Cloud and the surrounding small cities of Central Minnesota have been the drop-off points for thousands of refugees coming from United Nations camps over the past 15 years.
This area was represented in Congress by conservative firebrand Michele Bachmann until 2015, and many of her supporters to this day believe the refugee industry tried to punish her for taking a strong stand against Muslim immigration.
In the absence of any objective data to answer that question, residents are prodding the St. Cloud City Council for an assessment of the federal resettlement program’s impact on their community.
As usual, Hohmann can't be bothered to actually talk to anyone except his fellow Muslim-haters like anti-refugee activist Ann Corcoran and Susan Tully of the anti-immigration group Federation of American Immigration Reform. He also spins a conspiracy of "Big Meat" and their "addiction to cheap refugee labor" for their meatpacking plants in the area, but he doesn't explains why the locals won't take those jobs.
Hohmann is also strangely upset that "Somali students staged a walkout at Tech High School to protest their grievances about discrimination" -- but then, Muslim discrimination and harassment is what Hohmann wants to see.
Then, in an Oct. 24 article, Hohmann railed against an "ambush" of an anti-refugee resolution before the St. Cloud City Council that was superceded by a successful resolution reiterating that St. Cloud is a "just and welcoming community." Hohmann then went on a tirade that eliminated any pretense thathe was ever a fair and honest journalist:
Of all the refugee communities brought to the United States since 1980, the Somalis have, as a community, been among the least interested in assimilating. Dozens have been arrested, tried and convicted of providing material support to overseas terrorists, while at least 40 have been confirmed by the FBI to have left the country since 2007 to fight for groups like al-Shabab, ISIS and al-Qaida.
After six more Somali youths were caught trying to leave the state to join ISIS, Minnesota’s Obama-appointed U.S. Attorney Andrew Luger admitted at a press conference on April 20, 2015, that “We have a terror recruiting problem in Minnesota.”
Then, just over a year later, the terrorism came home to St. Cloud itself, when 21-year-old Nadir Adan, a Somali refugee, carried out a knife attack at the Crossroads Center mall, injuring 10 people, two critically, after asking many of his victims if they were Muslims. Those who said no got stabbed.
That may have been St. Cloud's crossroads moment. Instead of taking the threat seriously, they backed off and swallowed the propaganda of the Council on American-Islamic Relations and Lutheran Social Services, which rakes in millions of dollars by resettling Somali Muslims in the state.
It was clear on whose side the council members, other than Jeff Johnson, were standing at Monday’s meeting.
“I think it’s important to show people this one guy bringing forth a resolution is not the voice of the city council or the voice of the people in our community,” said Councilman Jeff Goerger, who introduced the “Welcoming and Just City” resolution before his colleague’s resolution could be introduced and voted on.
Goerger stated, to a resounding applause, that the city has absorbed the thousands of Somalis “without an impact on the city budget or our quality of life.”
The families of the 10 people stabbed at the mall by Dahir Adan last year might disagree with that “quality of life” remark. And what about the family of 20-year-old Davee Duvose, who was stabbed to death at a house party by Somali refugee Muhiyahdim Mohamed Hassan in July 2015? Their quality of life will no doubt never be the same.
Hohmann then portrayed a single comment made by someone with a Muslim-sounding name posting on a comment thread to "the local newspaper" as representiove of the entire somali community in St. Cloud.Of course, Hohmann wouldn't deign to talk to an actual Muslim in person about the issue.
Hohmann's article also included a link promoting his earlier "exclusive in-depth report on the uprising in St. Cloud, Minnesota, and why it will affect every pocket of resistance in every city pushing back against refugee resettlement." However, right-wing anti-Muslim ranting does not an "in-depth report" make.
MRC Mocked Kimmel As 'Emotional,' But Defends Kelly's 'Emotional' Remarks Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Resarch Center loves to mock liberals (and those suspected of being liberal) of being "emotional" as a way to devalue their arguments. For instance, the MRC repeatedly dismissed Jimmy Kimmel's monologues about health care and the Las Vegas massacre as "emotional" in an attempt to shut him up. A NewsBusters tweet even mocked him as "Cryin' Jimmy Kimmel."
But if a conservative gets emotional, the MRC has decreed that it's wrong for anyone to criticize it.
That's the message we get from an Oct. 19 post by Curtis Houck headlined "Tasteless CNN Debases Itself by Blasting Kelly for Emotional WH Remarks":
Just when you thought CNN couldn’t cheapen itself any further. On Thursday, CNN Newsroom reacted to a powerful White House statement Chief of Staff and Gen. John Kelly (Ret.) amidst the Gold Star families controversy by noting Kelly’s personal sacrifices before lambasting him for calling out a Democratic member of Congress and attacking the media.
Right off the bat, CNN Political Director David Chalian noted that “it's hard to listen to a father tell that story and not have sympathy” before declaring that Kelly’s emotions must be separated “from the White House chief of staff going into the press briefing room to clearly try and attempt to clean up a political mess that, quite frankly, his boss largely created.”
“[B]ecause John Kelly wouldn't be part of this story and wouldn't feel the need to go to the press and address this and we wouldn't have a ton of questions if it were not for his boss who injected him into this entire episode this week,” Chalian added. That’s the thing with CNN. Network personalities might accurately claim that something isn’t political, but then disqualify themselves by going political and making any segment into an anti-Trump tirade.
White House Correspondent Jeff Zeleny was in the room for the pin-drop moment, but put aside Kelly’s message to lament how he “did not answer, what role President Trump played in politicizing this as well.”
So it wasn't tasteless and debasing for the MRC to sneeringly mock "Cryin' Jimmy Kimmel," but it's somehow tasteless and debasing to point out that Kelly was exploiting his own son's death to make a political point and extract Trump out of a politial mess?
Also, of all the epithets the MRC hurled at Kimmel's monologues, "pin-drop moment" was not one of them. Apparently, only conservatives are allowed to be emotional while making a political point.
Newsmax Makes A Play for Bill O'Reilly Topic: Newsmax
Newsmax, it seems, would like to be where disgraced ex-Fox News host Bill O'Reilly takes his talents now that he's a free agent after all the sexual harassment stuff. It's giving him a platform to do his usual O'Reilly thing, as well as rail against the sexual harassment allegations against him.
A Sept. 17 article by David Patten highlighted how "A 2015 arrest by Detroit police of a key accuser of Bill O'Reilly for giving a false report of a crime has raised serious doubts as to her credibility." Patten toutedhow "Newsmax has obtained two documents that cast doubt on Burgess's credibility" and got comments from O'Reilly about it. Three days later, an article by Greg Richter noted that O'Reilly "praised Newsmax for its report this week on his accuser's past arrest on filing a false allegation of a crime."
When news broke of the $32 million O'Reilly paid Fox analyst Lis Wiehl to settle a harassment claim, Richter devoted an article to letting O'Reilly attack the report, which also reproduced the entire statement O'Reilly's lawyer's released.This was followed by a column by Joseph A. Klein attacking former Fox host Megyn Kelly's rebuttal of O'Reilly's denials, asserting that Kelly was showing "apparent willingness to exploit allegations against a former colleague she appeared to have used to advance her career while at Fox News in order to now boost her sagging ratings on a rival network."
Patten wrote in an Oct. 24 article that "O'Reilly told Newsmax on Monday that investigators working for him had uncovered an audio recording of "an anti-Trump attorney" offering an unidentified woman $200,000 to file sexual harassment charges against then-presidential candidate Donald J. Trump." And Newsmax devoted an Oct. 28 article to highlighting that "Bill O'Reilly is seeking no less than $5 million against a former New Jersey lawmaker who detailed, on Facebook, an account of his former girlfriend's claims that the former Fox News star allegedly sexually harassed her."
O'Reilly hasmadeapperances on Newsmax TV to make his usual political pronunciations (and, of course, promote his new book), and columns he has written elsewhere, as well as appearances in other media, havebeenrewritten into Newsmax "news" articles. Newsmax even promoted how O'Reilly's latest "Killing" book "has taken over the No. 1 spot on the New York times best-sellers list, dropping Hillary Clinton's "What Happened" to No. 2."
Newsmax has also published columns defending O'Reilly. In July, for example, Michael Reagan huffed that the "sin" that cost O'Reilly his Fox News job was "being a prominent conservative. The left claims it was because of sexual harassment. But that’s what is strange about the manufactured controversy." Reagan continued to take O'Reilly's side by attacking his victims: "Since they accepted the money, one would have to assume that regardless of what O’Reilly was alleged to have done in the past the women were now satisfied and any wrongs avenged." He went on to rant that "The lesson for prominent conservatives is an attack from the left never blows over."
The peak of O'Reilly promotion at Newsmax, though, is a meaningless poll asking readers if they think O'Reilly should be on TV. It also asks readers what cable or satellite system they use -- meaning that this is a way to gauge reader interest in whether Newsmax should hire O'Reilly as well as seeing how people receive the sparsely watched Newsmax TV, which isn't on many satellite or cable providers. Remember, Newsmax has been battling satellite TV providers over carriage of Newsmax TV.
But O'Reilly isn't the only alleged perpetrator employed by Fox News that Newsmax is defending. A Aug. 14 column by Ronn Torossian (last seen here telling Chevrolet not to put same-sex couples in its ads) lamenting that allegations against Fox host Eric Bolling "has public relations pitfalls for Bolling even if he’s completely innocent. The public is asking questions and making up their minds, in most cases without having any actual facts about the incident or the case."
All of this may be for naught, however -- O'Reilly is reportedly negotiating with right-wing Sinclair Broadcast Group for his return to TV. By the way, Newsmax chief Christopher Ruddy opposes Sinclair's planned merger with Tribune Broadcasting.
WND Columnist Turns Weinstein Scandal Into Attack on Obama, For Some Reason Topic: WorldNetDaily
We're just amazed that WorldNetDaily columnist Craige McMillian somehow turned the Harvey Weinstein sexual harassment scandal into an attack on women in general, then liberals, and then on President Obama, despite Obama having nothing whatsoever to do with Weinstein. From McMillan's Oct. 13 WND column:
Did the elites cover for Weinstein because he knew their little secrets? Maybe the flicks Harvey was so kind to deliver for Hillary when he was around were just a cover for the ones he delivered for Bill. How many trips did Bill make on the Lolita Express in Epstein’s jet? 26 trips?
The sexual revolution robbed women of the once-absolute power they held over men: Creation of the next generation. In return women got hookups, recycled STDs, lame excuses and single parenthood. The state stepped in to help them raise their kids in poverty. I guess for feminists, that’s progress.
It’s easy to see why Weinstein so often got what he wanted, and so rarely wrote a check for it. The same is true for the Democratic Party. More single mothers dependent upon the state for their well-being and raising their kids meant a continuing stream of new Democratic voters. More money for public schools, which were forced to deal with broken families. More union dues into the Dems’ coffers at election time. The taxpayers? Well, bleep them!
But still it wasn’t enough. Democrats wanted the illegal vote. They wanted the dead vote. Colleges and universities signed onto the bandwagon under the promise of more and easier student loans for all comers. In return higher education generated intellectual idiots, whose grasp of the thought process is so weak they demand protection from challenges to their indoctrinated worldview. Why do these colleges and universities still have accreditation? Do the degrees they award have any meaning to anyone beyond their own accountants, who tally up the student loan income?
Do you think it’s over? God simply started with the toughest nut to crack, which was Washington, D.C. It was run by a corrupt and incompetent fraud who used the nation’s own intelligence services to spy on the rival political party and to thwart any advances toward the White House. The fraud’s goal was to hand the keys over to an even bigger corrupt and incompetent successor, Hillary Clinton, whom he knew would be good at only one thing: covering his tracks.
McMillan's evidence that Bill Clinton is an apparent pedophile is a link from Russian propaganda outlet RT. He provides no evidencebacking up his assertion that Obama is "a corrupt and incompetent fraud who used the nation’s own intelligence services to spy on the rival political party,"
MRC, CNS Overstate ACA Subsidies As 'Illegal' Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's Rich Noyes writes in an Oct. 17 post:
On Friday and over the weekend, ABC, CBS and NBC reacted with their typical anti-Trump fervor to the President’s decision to end federal subsidies of insurance companies through ObamaCare, but only a meager portion of broadcast news coverage — barely three percent — tipped viewers off to the fact those payments were unconstitutional in the first place.
From Friday morning, October 13, through Sunday evening, October 15, the ABC, CBS, and NBC morning and evening news shows aired a total of 38 minutes, 8 seconds of coverage of the Trump administration’s decision to end the illegal subsidy payments begun under the Obama administration. Only 71 seconds of that airtime — none of it on NBC! — was spent on the important point that these payments were being made without Congressional authorization, and thus unconstitutional, according to a May 2016 federal court decision.
The highly-regarded SCOTUSblog reported at the time on the “potentially crippling constitutional blow” delivered by federal Judge Rosemay Collyer. “Paying out reimbursement,” she wrote, “without an appropriation [from Congress] violates the Constitution. Congress authorized reduced cost-sharing but did not appropriate monies for it, in the fiscal year 2014 budget or since. Congress is the only source for such an appropriation, and no public money can be spent without one.”
But a single lower-court judge declaring something unconstitutional does not make it so -- the Trump administration put on hold an appeal of the ruling, meaning that its legal status continues in limbo. Indeed, the MRC has attacked lower court judges for making rulings that run counter to its right-wing agenda. In March, for instance, NewsBusters blogger Tom Blumer approvingly quoted lawyer Alan Dershowitz criticizing "district court interference in Presidential immigration policy." The judge who ruled against the subsidy payments was a U.S. district court judge.
MRC "news" division CNSNews.com joined its parent in overstating the facts. An Oct. 13 article by Susan Jones carried the headline "Trump Further Dismantles Obamacare Overnight, Ending Illegal Cost-Sharing Payments," and she later refers to "the illegal CSR payments" without even bothering to back up the claim and uncritically quotes others calling the payments "illegal" and "unlawful."
This is misleading reporting and commentary from CNS and the MRC -- the kind of sloppiness it would call out if a "liberal media" outlet had done it.
WND Tries to Deflect From Roy Moore's Questionable Dealings Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily loves Roy Moore -- former Alabama judge now running for a Senate seat -- so much, it published his autobiography in 2005, re-releasing it in paperback in 2009. So it has a vested interest in countering reporting about Moore that he (and WND) don't like.
Which is pretty much the reason for existence of an Oct. 20 WND article by Bob Unruh:
The Washington Post apparently has misfired in a political attack on former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore, now the GOP candidate for the Alabama Senate seat vacated by Attorney General Jeff Sessions.
The newspaper accused Moore of not reporting or paying taxes on compensation to which he was entitled but did not receive.
The Foundation for Moral Law, which was paying Moore as its president for the years at issue, said in a statement that all transactions and arrangements were reported fully to the IRS. The foundation then charged the reporters essentially were working on a political hit.
“For the Washington Post to state that Judge Moore secretly ‘collected’ monies he never received or that the Foundation failed to properly report its indebtedness to the IRS is false,” a statement from foundation officials charged.
The Post article, published Friday morning, stated “the promised back pay ‘was not reported to IRS as income.'”
But the foundation’s tax filings for 2011 and 2012 did report the obligation owed to Moore.
But Unruh is simply in stenography mode; he doesn't offer any documentation to back up the foundation's statements. He also doesn't link to the Post article in question, which, unlike Unruh, provides copies of the foundation's tax documents to back up its claims.
Finally, Unruh fails to disclose his employer's clear conflict of interest in reporting on Moore -- after all, it wants to make hay while the sun shines in the form of Moore's current Senate campaign by selling copies of Moore's bio .Indeed, embedded in Unruh's article are two exhortations to "Get Judge Roy Moore's autobiography!" that are linked to WND's online store.
Unruh is serving as Moore's PR shop, and WND is his retail outlet.
On Oct. 21, the New York Times reported on a previously undisclosed sexual harassment case against O'Reilly -- this time resuilting in a $32 million payment to Fox News analyst Lis Wiehl. What did Bozell and the MRC have to say about this hatest case of serial sexual harassment?
Nothing, basically. Bozell's Twitter account was silent on this, as was the MRC's NewsBusters and CNSNews.com website.
The only mention at all on any MRC website was on lower-tier operation MRCTV, where Bryan Michalek published the full statement from O'Reilly's spokesman attacking the Times story. It wasn't until after this -- in the 11th paragraph -- that Michalek gets around to noting that the O'Reilly statement falsely claims that the Times article fails to mention an affidavit by Wiehl renouncing allegations against O'Reilly, as well as a statement by Times editor Dean Baquet that the statement "addresses everything but what the story actually says."
In short, Bozell and the MRC remain utter hypocrites.
Divine Donald Watch, WorldNetDaily Edition Topic: WorldNetDaily
During an interview on the Fox Business Channel, the Rev. Franklin Graham told Lou Dobbs, “I think God intervened and put His hand on Donald Trump for some reason. It’s obvious that there was something behind this, and it was more than people understand.” And Graham added, “I just think it was God.”
Is it really possible God had something to do with it? The power of faithful prayer in times of crisis and change cannot be overestimated and, without question, the Trump administration has inherited a nation in crisis. Being surrounded by faithful prayer warriors, and repeatedly expressing his own gratitude for the men and women who joined together to offer a faithful defense through intercessory prayer, the president has been the beneficiary of a lot of fervent prayer and support. And for those who joined the effort, there can be no doubt that God put His imprint on the election and showed His favor on the nation.
Looking back, it was the willingness of evangelicals, charismatics and pro-life Roman Catholics to make the common-sense choice that made the difference in this election. According to the Pew Research Center, 8 out of 10 self-identified white, born-again, evangelical Christians said they voted for Trump, while just 16 percent voted for Hillary. This gave Trump a 65-percentage-point margin of victory among Christian voters of all denominations. White Catholics supported Trump by a 23-point margin (60 percent to 37 percent).
The critical element was that each of these communities decided to set aside their differences and disappointments to put Trump over the top. They weren’t looking for a pastor; they were looking for a leader they could trust – someone who shared their values. As Franklin Graham suggested, they voted for the only candidate who wanted to make America great again, knowing that a win by the Democratic candidate would change America forever – and would threaten religious liberty as we know it.
-- Stephen E. Strang, Oct. 17 WorldNetDaily column
CNS Obeys White House Marching Orders to Ignore Kelly's Falsehood Topic: CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com's Melanie Arter serves up her latest bit of stenography on behalf of the Trump White House in an Oct. 20 article:
The White House said Friday that the media’s focus on President Donald Trump’s phone call to the widow of a soldier who died in Niger should have ended yesterday after White House Chief of Staff Gen. John Kelly spoke on the issue, but instead, it’s the main topic of news coverage a day later.
A reporter asked White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders why Kelly felt the need to address Rep. Frederica Wilson (D-Fla.) publicly and call her “an empty barrel” instead of calling her privately like he’s done with other members of Congress who were critical of the president and why Trump felt the need to tweet about Wilson again Friday.
“I think that it's real simple: You guys are the ones talking a lot about that story, and he felt it was important to address you and all of America directly. This story has been given an enormous amount of coverage over the last 48 hours, and he thought it was important that people got a full and accurate picture of what took place,” Sanders said.
It seems Arter took Sanders' complaint as marching orders, because CNS has indeed stopped talking about what Kelly said. That's too bad, because Kelly got some key facts wrong in attacking Wilson.
In his remarks, Kelly said this about Wilson at a 2015 dedication of an FBI building in Florida:
And a congresswoman stood up, and in the long tradition of empty barrels making the most noise, stood up there and all of that and talked about how she was instrumental in getting the funding for that building, and how she took care of her constituents because she got the money, and she just called up President Obama, and on that phone call he gave the money -- the $20 million -- to build the building. And she sat down, and we were stunned. Stunned that she had done it. Even for someone that is that empty a barrel, we were stunned. But, you know, none of us went to the press and criticized. None of us stood up and were appalled. We just said, okay, fine."
A video unearthed by the South Florida Sun-Sentinel of the April 10, 2015, event preserved Wilson’s speech. While it does portray Wilson speaking animatedly and indulging in some braggadocio -- she is known as a colorful, outspoken politician with a soft spot for fashionable hats -- Kelly mischaracterized her remarks in significant ways.
Kelly said that Wilson "stood up there ... and talked about how she was instrumental in getting the funding for that building, and how she took care of her constituents because she got the money, and she just called up President Obama, and on that phone call he gave the money -- the $20 million -- to build the building. And she sat down."
However, in her speech, Wilson didn’t mention funding for the building, much less claim credit for it or tell the audience how she leveraged influence with Obama to secure it.
Wilson did describe how she helped secure legislation to name the building for two slain agents, but Kelly’s description leaves out that the FBI pressed her to make that effort and that she shared credit with several other lawmakers, including the Republican House speaker and Florida’s Republican senator. Wilson also spoke at some length about the bravery of the slain agents and the FBI in general.
We rate Kelly’s statement False.
Since CNS has acceded to the Trump White House's demand to not report this story anymore, its readers are being deprived of the truth. Sad!
WND Tries to Find A Conspiracy in Hillary's Broken Toe Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily hates Hillary Clinton so much, it refuses to take even the most innocuous information about her at face value. Take this anonymously written Oct. 16 article:
Hillary Clinton rarely wears high heels.
She says she doesn’t drink coffee.
And at nearly 70 years old, she hasn’t been known to run.
But now Hillary wants the world to believe she was running in high heels down the stairs, carrying coffee when she apparently broke her toe. And many people simply aren’t buying it.
Hillary was spotted with a special boot on her foot Monday.
“I was running down the stairs in heels with a cup of coffee in hand, I was talking over my shoulder and my heel caught and I fell backward,” she told “The Graham Nortion Show.” “I tried to get up and it really hurt. I’ve broken my toe. I’ve received excellent care from your excellent health service.”
(Curiously, Hillary told Katie Couric in a 2008 interview for “60 Minutes” that “I drink tea, not coffee anymore.”)
Hillary has canceled several media appearances due to the latest injury. She failed to show up for a BBC interview Monday during which she planned to promote her new book, “What Happened.”
But not everyone is buying her explanation.
The anonymous WND writer is creating a bit of fake news here -- Clinton did not say she was wearing "high heels" as WND claimed. This shows the malicious intent of the article (and perhaps the reason the writer did not want his or her name associated with it).
WND's idea of "many people" who "aren't buying" Clinton's story, by the way, are rabid Clinton-hater Dolly Kyle and random commenters at the right-wing Daily Mail.
This is pretty weak sauce for a conspiracy, even by WND standards.
MRC's Declaring Time Mag A 'Liberal Dying Husk' Seems A Tad Exaggerated Topic: Media Research Center
The headline on the Oct. 11 Media Research Center post by Scott Whitlock declares, "Liberal Dying Husk Time Magazine to Slash Circulation." Whitlock then goes on to called Time a "liberal dinosaur," touting how the magazine is cutting circulation by one-third. But he then goes on to contradict himself, conceding that perhaps the publication and its parent not, in fact, dying:
Writer Kevin McCoy [of USA Today] explained of Time inc (which also includes other publications), “Revenue for the quarter that ended June 30 fell $75 million, or 10%, to $694 million compared with the same period last year, the company reported. The drop reflected declines in advertising and circulation revenues.”
So, no, not quite a dying husk. Also, Time's purported "liberal" leanings have nothing to do with its circulation decline -- like many other print outlets, the Internet is taking its toll on Time. Further, digital subscriptions are helping to fill some of the slack.
Whitlock's evidence of Time being "liberal" is rather meager; it noted the economic upheaval as post-Soviet Russia moved from communism to something kinda representing capitalism, and calling Barack Obama as "Obi-Wan Kenobi" but Donald Trump a "demogogue" upon their respective "person of the year" designations.
Besides, if being "liberal" is really what's killing Time, why was the first major newsmagazine to permanently suspend its print edition the right-leaning U.S. News & World Report?