MRC Senior Fellow Can't Stop Lying About Margaret Sanger Topic: CNSNews.com
For a guy who's a "senior fellow" at the Media Research Center, Allen West is utterly uninterested in doing even the most basic research.
In July, we caught West spreading long-discredited lies about Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger. In his Sept. 10 column at MRC "new" division CNSNews.com, he repeated those lies and added a couple more:
Then we have the amazing tale of two organizations, comparing the NRA with another organization, Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood was founded by a person that was a white supremacist, a racist, someone who referred to blacks as “weeds” and “undesirables.” Sounds a lot like “deplorables” doesn’t it? And yes, there is a correlation, since the person who referred to some Americans as deplorables is a recipient of the Margaret Sanger Award, the founder of Planned Parenthood.
Again: Sanger was not a "white supremacist" or a "racist." And as we've also documented, Sanger never called blacks "weeds." We've found no evidence that Sanger ever called blacks "undesirables" -- she did refer to "undesirables" in a speech, but it was in reference to the "breeding of defectives and insane" (a reflection of her belief at the time in eugenics) and no racial reference was made.
West also ranted that Sanger was "someone that wanted to exterminate – yes, strong words, but true – the black community." Again, not true.
West then huffed:
The first Roy Innis Memorial Award will go to an American black man, a former soldier, someone who stood up against the tyranny of being unarmed, Otis McDonald of Chicago. Yes, the same Otis McDonald for whom the Second Amendment case,McDonald v. City of Chicago, is named. And who was it that stood with Otis McDonald? It was not Planned Parenthood. It was the nation’s oldest civil rights organization, the National Rifle Association. Hmm, how many blacks have been awarded the Margaret Sanger Award?
NEW ARTICLE: Another Month, Another WND Funding Crisis Topic: WorldNetDaily
Joseph Farah spent his August begging for money "to make ends meet" at WorldNetDaily. He still won't talk about the fake, conspiracy-laden WND content that helped bring him and his website to that point. Read more >>
MRC Runs The Playbook Against Kavanaugh's Accusers Topic: Media Research Center
Like its "news" division CNSNews.com, the Media Research Center proper is in heavy spin mode regarding the sexual misconduct allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.
First order of business: minimize and dimiss the allegations. Gabriel Hays sniffed that it was "one paltry allegation of sexual assault" and whined that "Hollywood liberals have taken to social media to blast Kavanaugh for his alleged abusive past (if one unsubstantiated allegation can be called a past), because it’s the only thing they’ve got to delay his confirmation." When another claim of sexual misconduct surfaced, Hays declared it to be "flimsy," adding that "rabid lefties seek to annihilate his reputation and humanity before he’s found guilty of anything" -- apparently oblivious to the fact that he's a member of the brigade trying to destroy the reputation and humanity of Kavanaugh's accusers, in part by blithely dismissing their claims.
Next order of business: Beat up on Anita Hill (again). Nicholas Fondacaro asserted that one reporter "rewrote history and implied that Hill’s claims were credible," citing as evidence that, "according to polls done at the time, more people believed [Clarence] Thomas than Hill after the hearings were held." Gee, we weren't aware that public opinion polls were an accurate mesaure of one's credibility.
Geoffrey Dickens, meanwhile, complained that (while, yes, citing an opinion poll claiming more people bellieved Thomas than Hill) the media was using the same "playbook" against Thomas that it is purportedly using against Kavanaugh. It's more accurate to claim that the MRC is using the same playbook against Kavanaugh's accusers that it did against Hill.
(MRC boss Brent Bozell and underling Tim Graham have already denigrated Hill as "the Janet Cooke of sexual harassmsent.")
Third order of business: getting offended when anyone brings up the shameful history of sexual misconduct of Trump administration officials and conservatives in general when talking about Kavanaugh. Curtis Houck huffed that MSNBC host Katy Tur -- a longtime MRC target -- engaged in "skullduggery" that was "ghoulish at worst" in airing "a video mash-up comparing Kavanaugh to other men such as the late Roger Ailes, Corey Lewandowski, Roy Moore, and Rob Porter because they too were firmly defended by President Trump as they faced their own allegations of sexual impropriety." Houck also made sure to reference the first order of business by calling the claims against Kavanaugh "flimsy."
Fouirth order of business: equivocation. Ryan Foley touted how "Laura Ingraham pointed out the hypocrisy of Democrats, who 'howl for answers from Brett Kavanaugh in an opaque charge' while not 'asking the same of DNC co-chair Keith Ellison,' who faces credible abuse allegations from a former girlfriend." Foley didn't mention that Ellison, unlike Kavanaugh, is not upu for nomination to the Supreme Court, nor did he discuss the hypocrisy of himself and his employer obsessing over Ellison while downplaying the accusations against Kavanaugh.
Fondacaro combined a couple of the approaches in another post:
Despite the fact that the latest sexual misconduct allegation against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh was so full of holes it looked like Swiss cheese, CBS Evening News actually scoffed at the notion that the accusations against him were part of a smear campaign during their Monday broadcast.
The scoff was intoned as CBS chief Congressional correspondent Nancy Cordes was leading into her critical report. “In fact, they strongly reiterated their support for Kavanaugh today and suggested that these women might somehow be working together to smear the nominee,” she declared acting as though the Democrats weren’t the ones to dig up the newest accusation as has been reported.
Fondacaro didn't explain how he was able to read Cordes' mind to determine she "scoffed."
Judge Brett Kavanaugh is being accused of sexual assault and therefore is claimed to be unfit for confirmation to the Supreme Court of The United States (SCOTUS).
How many times have we witnessed Democrats miraculously and implausibly, at the 11th hour, unearth a phalanx of women who just happen to have been assaulted, harassed or raped by a Republican their party opposes for election or an appointment, as in this instance, to the SCOTUS. This tactic is as predictable as it was that the New York Yankees would bring Mario Rivera in from the bullpen to face the last three batters of a game. But if that’s where they want to go, let’s talk about it.
This accusation is balderdash. The only thing missing is Gloria Allred parading the woman before the cameras.
No women came forward to defend Bill Clinton, as he was being held accountable for rape, sexual battery and sexual molestation. No women classmates from Oxford University came forward to say Clinton was a man of impeccable moral character who was respectful and treated women with dignity, as he was being expelled from Oxford. Shouldn’t Clinton have been deemed unfit for office?
Alleged classmates don’t remember Obama at any of the schools he supposedly attended. Shouldn’t that fact, coupled with his having paid millions to have his records sealed, disqualified Obama from office? Shouldn’t the sworn revelations of Larry Sinclair, the homosexual who “outed” Obama, have been taken seriously by Democrats?
Where was this woman when Judge Kavanaugh was appointed to the various other courts?
It’s time for Republicans to cease playing along with Democrats. There is no need to delay voting on Judge Kavanaugh. Feinstein tried to sabotage the proceedings. Now let her eat cake.
Brett Kavanaugh fully denies the allegation of misconduct by him at a party 36 years ago, when he was merely 17 years old, and this issue is not something senators should be taking seriously today. On the verge of his confirmation to the Supreme Court, this politically motivated, last-minute smear against him should be laughed off the stage.
Only in the fantasyland of the U.S. Senate, where Clarence Thomas had to endure a similar ordeal in 1991, does fiction replace fact so easily. Accusations about teenage conduct in 1982, even if Kavanaugh were at the party, should not change anyone’s vote concerning his confirmation to the Supreme Court.
The confirmation process for Supreme Court justices should have sensible limits on irrelevant testimony when considering nominees. It is time to repudiate untestable #MeToo allegations that were never reported within the statute of limitations, and it is time to draw the line before politics descends further into the theater of the absurd.
Most schools would not even punish a student for such behavior at a party, even if true, let alone expel someone for it. It is beneath the dignity of the Senate to give credibility to an accusation about silly teenage behavior at a drinking party, as though that has any bearing on the abilities and character of an adult more than three decades later.
President Trump was elected to blow the whistle on this kind of circus that too often dominates D.C.
Just when it looks like a conservative might attain a high position, like a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court, all of a sudden come accusers out of the woodwork, alleging something that supposedly took place even decades ago.
This is reminiscent of last-minute allegations of sexual harassment against Clarence Thomas, who decried the “high-tech lynching” the left attempted against him at that time to block him from sitting on the high court.
These are the same people who for more than 20 years gave Bill Clinton a pass.
Too often the left has begun to take the principles of that Machiavellian Marxist community organizer from Chicago, Saul Alinsky (1909-1972) and apply them to virtually every position of political power.
Senate Democrats are pure evil, but like the devil, no one will deny that they are smart. At the 12th hour they have succeeded in throwing a monkey wrench into the confirmation of Supreme Court appointee Brett Kavanaugh by having a woman, Christine Blasey Ford, whom they extracted from the woodwork, to accuse this Republican establishment jurist of attempted rape when he was 17 years old and in high school, almost 40 years ago! Sound familiar?
Given the upcoming midterm elections, which at a minimum will decide control over the House of Representatives, the Democrats and their tool, Ms. Ford, have checkmated the party of Lincoln.
Let’s get this straight. A woman from almost 40 years ago claims that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh groped her at a high school party in 1982. She made no complaints about it at the time, not even to any close friends or to her parents, and then waited 36 years to say something. No rape. No intercourse. Teenagers. The accuser is from California, a Feinstein supporter. Raised in Maryland. California and Maryland, along with Massachusetts, are the most liberal states. Democrats.
She cannot remember when it happened or where it happened. She cannot remember who was at the party except for Kavanaugh and his friend Mark Judge, who says it never happened. Kavanaugh says it never happened. The accuser cannot remember how she got to the party or with whom, or how she got home or with whom. No one vouches for her story. Was she drinking? Using drugs? Did the party ever really happen? So what was she doing at such a sordid party? Why did she go into a bedroom with two drunk teenage boys? And why did she wait until now to sound the alarm about it?
Wow. Can you imagine this? High school. Thirty-sex years ago. Teenagers. No witnesses. No date nor location. And maybe not even true. What has America become?
Voters, beware this November! Remember what Democrats are doing with their Alinskyite “ends justify the means” strategy.
So what is in your high school year book? Welcome to a Brave New World … or is this Orwell’s “1984”? Even Ruth Bader Ginsburg thinks this confirmation process has been a sham. Voters beware!
Our legislators have been at their worst over the Supreme Court confirmation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh. What a shameful display: condescending, arrogant, showboating senators questioning him in a manner reminiscent of the Grand Inquisitor. The only things missing from this B-grade movie were the rubber hoses and interrogation lights. Some of us remember that you could count on one hand the “nay” votes for the confirmations of ACLU attorney Ruth Bader Ginsburg and known-conservative Antonin Scalia.
This last-ditch effort to derail Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation is more than mere political theater; the interrogators are immoral and beyond hypocritical. The “Lion of the Senate,” Ted Kennedy, killed a woman; former Senate Majority Leader Robert Byrd was an exalted cyclops in the Ku Klux Klan; and we all know about President Clinton. But that’s OK; their lapses in judgment were somehow worth our compassion and forgiveness.
Imagine if these political hacks were in charge of your medical care.
I am again amazed at the craven cowardice of our politicians and even so-called conservative pundits. If I hear one more time from Fox News commentators that we must take Christine Blasey Ford’s accusation seriously, I will barf. Would they take it seriously if it were directed at them?
Even the fascist left would be outraged if such charges were leveled at them. The difference is, the left would ignore it if it involved one of theirs.
Ford’s charges are not only outrageous, they are evil. Why do I say that?
This woman is not a dingbat; she is obviously bright and therefore knows the allegations she made are not provable – that the truth absolutely can never be known. She also knows no sane legal authority would take such a case, 36 years old, in which the accuser does not know the year or place it happened, and in which all three people she claims were present as eyewitnesses deny her allegations. Therefore, knowing this vile and unprovable allegation could destroy a man and his family, why did she do such a thing?
The answer is abortion on demand.
The left hates and fears Kavanaugh because he is a Catholic and seems to practice his faith, unlike some judges. Plus there are cowards on the Republican side who are anxious to harm Trump.
Now they’re attacking the president’s Supreme Court nominee, Judge Brett Kavanaugh.
The evil #MeToo movement unearthed a pro-abortion participant of the Dirty Women’s March – a liberal California psychology professor. This evil liar emerged from the gates of hell to accuse the judge of “attempted rape.” She chose the setting for her story about 36 years ago when both were minors, allegedly at a house party. (Judge Kavanaugh says he didn’t even attend the drunken party in question. Why did she?) Of course she provided zero evidence.
In 1991, everybody knew that Anita Hill was lying against Justice Clarence Thomas. (Today, Anita Hill is a far-left, liberal, black feminist, “social justice” professor who teaches about Obama.) Similarly, no one believes this pro-abortion professional, Professor Christine Blasey Ford, who’s accusing Judge Kavanaugh.
Even the old wicked Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who kept the accusation secret for months, admitted, “I can’t say everything’s truthful.” But the Democrats and children of the lie mindlessly chant, “I believe her.” The younger generations of leftists are worse than than the old! Evil grows when you don’t deal with it.
This attack on Judge Kavanaugh is an attack on all men. I warned after the lynching of Bill O’Reilly that feminists hate all men. Liberal males won’t escape, nor the sons of these angry, God-hating women. Wherever men are weak, there is no love – and destruction reigns. Thank God that President Trump continues to stand strong for good men.
Men, it’s okay to be a man! To all good men and women, it’s okay to say, “I don’t believe her!”
For me, incidents of immoral behavior or poor judgment in a person’s past aren’t enough to disqualify him or her from public service, or even from being worthy of role-model status. I know that there isn’t a person alive who has a perfectly clean, pure moral record. I also know that people can and do grow and change.
So while immoral behavior is not “OK” and should not be glossed over or ignored when it occurs, neither should it be, in most cases, an absolute, eternal bar to public service. To insist otherwise is to steer us toward delusion and hypocrisy, and to ultimately disqualify every honest leader from service.
Instead of looking for moral perfection, we should look for honest, humble leaders who can acknowledge their flaws and failures while demonstrating an upward moral trajectory. For me, claims of moral purity since birth trigger suspicion and distrust. But a frank acknowledgment of imperfection, a willingness to confess and repent, and a demonstration of moral growth and maturity just might be the marks of a leader I can trust and respect.
The only crimes Brett Kavanaugh is guilty of is being a white male who is religious, conservative and pro-life. The left couldn’t careless whether he’s guilty or not of the crime alleged by Christine Blasey Ford and his latest accuser, Deborah Ramirez. All they care about is keeping him off of the Supreme Court by any means necessary. Damn his reputation, family and career.
The left isn’t concerned about true justice; they have a larger goal in mind – social justice, also known as collective justice, which is no justice at all. True justice requires equality before the law – blind justice based on evidence not accusations, regardless of one’s race, sex, faith or socio-economic status. In America, we are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Under social justice, however, if you belong to a certain race of people or belief system, you can be found guilty in the court of public opinion before you ever get your day in court. Such is the case with Brett Kavanaugh.
Lastly, the FBI has no jurisdiction over a 36-year-old local crime. Ford, doesn’t deserve special treatment under the law for an uncorroborated attack. Sadly, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley has done a grave disservice to the Senate by allowing this spectacle to continue for so long.
We are currently witnessing an attempt by the left and leftist-driven media, liberal politicians, celebrities, rabid pro-abortionists and ignorant masses to dismantle our biblical, legal and political due process. The new “progressive” standard is that sexual-assault allegations must be accepted as true merely for having been made, especially if they are made by a woman.
To date, not a single alleged witness provided by professor Christine Blasey Ford has corroborated her charges against Judge Brett Kavanaugh. And until Sunday night, not another woman had come forward with any charge of any kind. Now, however, that other woman has emerged, also claiming improper behavior by Kavanaugh, this time when he was in college. How do we sort this out?
The entire public testimony of Kavanaugh’s professional life has been virtually without blemish. That’s why pundits like Dennis Prager urge us not even to consider whether Kavanaugh misbehaved while in high school 36 years ago. In Prager’s view, even if Kavanaugh were guilty, that’s not who he has been for decades, and we should appreciate the man he is and has been for so many years.
David French also reminded us that, in contrast with prominent men like Bill Clinton or Donald Trump, there is not a long line of women echoing the charges of abuse or impropriety. Because of this, he suggested, Kavanaugh has more of a presumption of innocence.
Then there is the seriousness of bringing a false accusation, something that could destroy someone’s career, family, or even life. Do we take that lightly? How can we?
An article on National Review notes that thousands of men have been falsely accused of sexual misconduct and crimes. Many have even spent years in prison although innocent.
How CNS Is Covering Kavanaugh Accusations: Bias By Omission, Stenography Topic: CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com reported on Brett Kavanaugh's Supreme Court nomination in the wake of accusations of sexual misconduct they way you'd expect: with lots of biased stenography and omission of inconvenient facts.
A Sept. 19 article repeated Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's lament that the accusastion was made public "right at the end" of the process -- even thoughthere's no hard-and-fast rule regarding how long the process must take -- and that "it's pretty obvious this is all about delaying the process." Jones didn't mention that McConnell was all about delaying the process in 2016 when he stopped President Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court from even reaching the hearing process. He even said that "One of my proudest moments was when I looked Barack Obama in the eye and I said, 'Mr. President, you will not fill the Supreme Court vacancy.' "
CNS managing editor Michael W. Chapman touted how Juanita Broaddrick tweeted that if the FBI investigates the allegations Christine Blasey Ford made against Kavanaugh, then it should "investigate my RAPE allegations against Bill Clinton, too." Chapman the recounted the story of how Broaddrick "has long maintained that Bill Clinton, when he was the Arkansas Attorney General, raped her -- a 'forcible, brutal rape' -- in a hotel room in Little Rock, Ark., on April 25, 1978."
But Chapman curiously forgot to report that not only did Broaddrick spend 20 years denying that any such "rape" occured, she made a sworn affidavit to that effect to the Ken Starr independent counsel investigation of Clinton.
Chapman also wrote that "President Bill Clinton apparently has never denied Broaddrick's rape allegation. His attorney, David Kendall, has denied it on Clinton's behalf." But if Clinton's lawyer is denying it on his behalf, that means Clinton is denying it.
(Weirdly, this is the second time in recent years that someone at the Media Research Center, which runs CNS, has tried to argue that the statement from Clinton's lawyer doesn't count as an actual denial because it didn't come from Clinton personally.)
A Sept. 19 article by Melanie Arter reported that "The brother of Christine Blasey Ford, the woman who accused Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault, worked for a law firm that hired Fusion GPS, which produced the fake dossier on President Donald Trump." But Arter somehow forgot to report that Ford's brother left that law firm in 2004 -- seven years before Fusion GPS was even founded and several more years before its involvement with the dossier (which, by the way, is not "fake").
In addition to Jones' retro attack on Anita Hill that we've already highlighted as part of the MRC's continued obsessive loathing of the woman, CNS also reprinted Clarence Thomas infamous "high-tech lynching" speech in response to Hill's allegations against him.
In other words, CNS' editorial policy in a nutshell.
Newsmax's Gizzi Does A Weird Tribute to Paul Manafort's Dad Topic: Newsmax
The news that Paul Manafort has decided to cooperate with special counsel Robert Mueller prompted Newsmax reporter John Gizzi to do a little mstiy-eyed reminiscing. About Manfort's dad. No, really.
From Gizzi's Sept. 19 article, deceptively headlined "The Paul Manafort I Know":
Official Washington was jolted Friday by the news that former Donald Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort had decided to cooperate with the Department of Justice—including Robert Mueller’s probe of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.
The sartorial splendor of Manafort, his vast collection of horses and luxury homes in New York, and his schemes to avoid paying taxes on his foreign income—all will probably be rehashed in the media when the famous political consultant’s name comes up in the weeks ahead.
But, for those of us who are older and grew up in or near the Hardware City of New Britain, Connecticut, the name “Paul Manafort” evokes other memories.
Paul Manafort, namesake-father of the current Manafort, was the three-term Republican mayor of New Britain. Growing up next door in a close suburb, New Britain was an urban mecca to me — blue collar, industrial, and ethnic.
In 1981, Manafort’s name appeared in headlines when he was charged with two counts of perjury. He had insisted he did not know that an envelope he was given by New Britain’s personnel director contained answers to exams for promotion to sergeant on the city’s police department (which two Manafort family friends were vying for). A jury subsequently acquitted the former mayor.
When Paul Manafort died in 2013 at age 89, that final black mark on his life of public service was barely mentioned in obituaries. His funeral was one of the biggest New Britain had ever seen.
Today the name Paul Manafort evokes a lot of negative feelings. But to this reporter, who grew up on the New Britain border, it generates quite different memories.
Gizzi made no mention of what exactly Manafort the younger did to generate those "negative feelings."
MRC Reacts To Kavanaugh Accuser By ... Smearing Anita Hill (Again) Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center has been in full spin mode defending Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh and attempting to discredit allegations by a woman who said he had sexually assaulted her during a party during high school. One of the ways it's doing so is going back to an old trope: attacking Anita Hill, who had made accusations of sexual harassment against another conservative Supreme court nominee, Clarence Thomas.
The MRC has been bashingHill for more than a quarter-century, and the Kavanaugh story is giving it yet another excuse to do so. The MRC's Tim Graham and Brent Bozell rant in their Sept. 21 column:
Anita Hill, perennially painted as the "Rosa Parks of sexual harassment" by the national press, is back on the scene as the media push the unproven teenage-groping accusations against Brett Kavanaugh. The New York Times asked her to write an op-ed on how we can get these next Kavanaugh hearings "right." The Boston Globe put Hill on the front page, lecturing about a better protocol in Congress for sexual harassment claims.
Asking Anita Hill how to get a fairer congressional hearing is like asking Janet Cooke how to get better newspaper reporting. If you're too young for the analogy, Janet Cooke won a Pulitzer Prize for selling a fraudulent story in The Washington Post in 1980 about Jimmy, an imaginary 8-year-old heroin addict who "lives for a fix."
On ABC, George Stephanopoulos sympathetically asked if the prospect of hearings for Kavanaugh's accuser Christine Blasey Ford was meant as an intimidation tactic. Yes, that's right — the same Stephanopoulos responsible for running "bimbos" into the political ditch for Bill Clinton.
Donald Trump could tweet it: Anita Hill's 1991 accusations of sexual harassment against Clarence Thomas were "fake news." The American people sided with Thomas. Even The Washington Post editorial board sided with Thomas. Her stories were never proven. But to this day, the media treat her as if her accusations were precious jewels of truth.
Even after her million-dollar book deal — after she pledged she would not cash in on her story — she is still portrayed as the victim, not the victimizer.
Graham and Bozell provide no evidence that Hill willfully lied about anything a la Janet Cooke. Yet they continued to rant about Hill's "feminist fictions" and that "the accusers of Thomas and Kavanaugh have been 'weaponized' by liberals to spread lies about offenses that never happened."
Meanwhile, over at the MRC's "news" division, CNSNews.com, Susan Jones penned a Sept. 19 piece attacking Hill and drawing parallels to Kavanaugh's accuser:
Anita Hill and Christine Blasey Ford -- the only two women to bring sexual accusations against nominees to the U.S. Supreme Court -- have certain memory lapses in common. And for what it's worth, they both hold degrees in psychology.
Christine Blasey Ford has accused Judge Brett Kavanaugh of sexually attacking her in a bedroom at a party some 36 years ago, when both were in high school.
Yet Ford told the Washington Post she doesn't remember how the gathering came together; at whose home the party took place or exactly when it happened; how she got there; or how she got home after she fled from the house.
Questioned about that one-on-one dinner with her alleged tormenter, Hill could not remember the restaurant where the dinner took place; what type of food was served at the restaurant; whether she had a drink; or how either one of them got home.
"I took the subway home, if I recall correctly," Hill said in response to a question. "As I am recalling -- I'm not sure how I got home."
Even though Jones purports to be a objective reporter, she was seething with right-wing bias as she concluded:
Meanwhile, liberal media outlets are full of the "lose-lose" scenario for committee Republicans -- all white men -- faced with an alleged sexual assault victim in the "#MeToo" era, just weeks before the midterm election. And Judge Kavanaugh, even if he is confirmed, will have an asterisk attached to his good name, just as Clarence Thomas has, in what could be nothing more than a replay of an old, dirty trick.
Like her MRC bosses, Jones provided no evidence that Hill or Kavanaugh's accuser have lied.
UPDATE: Curtis Houck chimed in as well, responding to a cmmentator's claim that women who accuse powerful men of sexual harassment "don't benefit from this. Their lives are ruined. They are threatened. They are chased out of their homes" by retorting: He must have neglected to mention Anita Hill receiving a million dollar book deal, a job at Brandeis, commencement addresses, and celebrity status in liberal political circles." As with every other MRC employee who made the claim, Houck offers no evidence to back up his claim that Hill made her accusations against Thomas specifically to get a teaching gig and a book deal.
Farah Hasn't Given Up On Bitcoin-Like Promotion To Save WND Topic: WorldNetDaily
It seems we spoke too soon when we said that WorldNetDaily's attempt to woo donors by giving away a dubious cryptocurrency was not going over well. We assumed that after WND failed to promote it for months after initially announcing the giveaway that it had given up on the deal.
WND editor Joseph Farah touted it anew in his Sept. 12 column:
We’ve come up with a support program that can benefit you and WND so that we don’t have to bow down to the “Speech Code Cartel” – so that we can remain emboldened and empowered to pursue the truth and nothing but the truth.
At the same time, we’re offering what I believe is an exciting gift for those who can commit at least $100 to the cause today.
For perhaps a very limited time, those who contribute $100 or more to WND will receive – as a gift, a payback, a tangible thank-you – some of the latest cybercurrency about to explode upon the financial scene from AML Bitcoin, with patented anti-theft technology that promises to revolutionize this medium of exchange.
While the purchase of cybercurrency has been red hot, sophisticated hackers – including professional money-launderers, rogue governments like North Korea and even international terrorists – have played havoc with the bitcoin business, prompting government regulations for safeguards. The first company to emerge with the technology and security measures built into its cybercurrency to address this problem can be expected to emerge as the leading provider – not just to individuals like you and me, but for major corporations and even governments.
AML Bitcoin is positioned to do just that – benefiting you and me with cybercurrency that has demonstrated its ability to grow in value over time.
Would you like to get in on the ground floor of this opportunity – or at least get your feet wet in this promising new digital currency?
Not only do I believe you will be happy you did, but it could provide WND with a sustainable future of growth and independence, so we can remain steadfast and strong guardians of the truth without fear or favor.
What am I asking?
I’m asking you to make the largest donation you can to WND – at least $100 – and receive a gift back of AML Bitcoin proportional to your donation. It’s that simple. I believe what you receive could – no guaranties of course – become more valuable than your contribution to America’s guerrilla freedom fighters inside the media.
But as we've documented, AML Bitcoin is not actual bitcoin that's worth thousands of dollars -- it's a separate cryptocurrency variant that, as near as we can tell, has still yet to be officially introduced after months of futures trading and ethically challenged hype by its backers. The value of the currency is currently hovering around 28 cents as of this writing.
Farah went further into huckster mode in his Sept. 19 column:
Those of you who took me up on our offer to send you 10 AML Bitcoins for every hundred dollars you donated to WND may be wondering when they are going to show up in your electronic wallet.
The answer is that they have – for all those who followed our instructions, sent us by email your AML Bitcoin “wallet ID” and confirmed our efforts to send you what I am certain will soon be your valuable cryptocurrency.
If you are among those who have not followed those steps yet, please do so and email us at AMLBitcoin@wnd.com if you have any questions. (You can download your free AML Bitcoin “wallet” here.)
As you may have heard in my previous announcements recently, the patented hack-proof cybercurrency has opened trading on several exchanges, the long-awaited development that was necessary before we could secure them and send them on to those who took us up on the offer. We’re eager to send them all out, but we need your cooperation. The only way we can do it is with your safe, secure “wallet ID.”
But there’s more good news.
WND is not done with this AML Bitcoin premium offer to its subscribers and donors.
or a limited time, now that you can monitor the price of this new cryptocurrency on the exchanges, WND has updated its offer – making it possible for you to secure even more units of this hot new addition to the cryptocurrency exchanges.
It’s possible that your contribution to WND will in the future pay for itself and then some. In fact, I’m counting on it!
I see the day, in the not-too-distant future, when that little premium token will be worth more than your donation to WND – perhaps lots more.
It's not often we've seen a Farah column that ends with a disclaimer, but there is one at the end of this: "Disclaimer: All donations made in response to this offer are non-refundable. It is the responsibility of the donor to provide WND with an accurate, unique wallet ID downloaded from AMLBitcoin.com within 30 days of the donation to receive the premium offer. By taking part in this offer, you agree to read and accept AML Bitcoin’s terms and conditions." That takes you to a lengthy statement that basically explains how few rights the holders of AML Bitcoin have and that it's not secured by anything.
So, the bitcoin-esque giveaway continues. Despite Farah's hucksterism -- he has yet to disclose the methods and terms under which WND obtained all this AML Bitcoin to give away -- none of his donors should count on it to get rich.
CNSNews.com's Susan Jones trumpet the right-wing pro-Trump media's latest narrative in a Sept. 11 article:
“For months, we’ve seen evidence suggesting FBI/DOJ leaked to the media for their own purposes. TODAY, we have a new text,” Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) tweeted Monday night.
Meadows said the newly released texts from former FBI Agent Peter Strzok to former FBI attorney Lisa Page suggest a “coordinated effort” by FBI and Justice Department officials to leak information potentially harmful to President Donald Trump’s administration.
In a letter to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein on Monday, Meadows released the following April 2017 text exchanges, saying they would lead a “reasonable person” to question whether the FBI’s goal was to investigate wrongdoing – or to place derogatory information in the media to justify the ongoing Trump-Russia probe.
The accusation centers on a text from Strzok to Page referencing a "media leak strategy." But Meadows' interpretation, which Jones presents at length and effectively without challenge, is a bit on the bogus side.
As a real news outlet, the Washington Post, reported, Strzok's attorney pointed out that the "media leak strategy" reference was to an internal Department of Justice attempt to stop media leaks. the Post continued:
By itself, the text is difficult to interpret. Attorney General Jeff Sessions and then-FBI Director James B. Comey had vowed to crack down on leaks, and investigating such disclosures if they contained classified information would have been a part of Strzok’s job as a counterintelligence agent. Aitan Goelman, Strzok’s attorney, says that is what Strzok was referring to.
“The term ‘media leak strategy’ in Mr. Strzok’s text refers to a Department-wide initiative to detect and stop leaks to the media,” Goelman said in a statement. “The President and his enablers are once again peddling unfounded conspiracy theories to mislead the American People.”
Rep. Elijah E. Cummings (D-Md.), the ranking member on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, and Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, released other text messages from the same day, which seem to show Page and Strzok having a broad discussion about the Justice Department’s regulations on media leaks. The lawmakers accused Republicans in Congress of selectively publicizing messages “to fabricate conspiracy theories to protect President Trump.”
Because Jones' assigned job is to protect Trump and attack his perceived enemies, she gave that defense the shortest of shrifts: "Strzok's lawyer said Strzok and Page were discussing a strategy to stop media leaks, a response that drew scoffs from Trump defenders." Jones elaborated no further about what Strzok's lawyer (whom she couldn't even be bothered to name) said, nor did she detaial any of the "scoffs" she claimed took place.
The next day, CNS published a column by the Heritage Foundation Hans von Spakovsky reinforcing Meadows' conspiratorial narrative, with no mention at all of the context those memos appeared in or the rebuttal offered by Strzok's lawyer.
CNS has recently been sending out links on Twitter to its "news" articles with the statement, "Stay informed and on top of the news. Read the latest from CNS News." But if CNS is more interested in pushing right-wing conspiracy theories, it's not keeping its readers "informed."
What Happened To Gina Loudon's WND Column Defending Teen Daughter's Relationship With Much Older Man? Topic: WorldNetDaily
Onetime WorldNetDaily columnist Gina Loudon popped up again in the media lately when she appeared on Fox News to declare that President Trump is "the most sound-minded person to ever occupy the White House," according to the "science and real data and true psychological theory" she uses in her new book.That wild claim prompted the Daily Beast to discover that despite the promotional copy on her book, Loudon does not hold a doctorate in psychology (it's in "human and organization systems").
You might remember Loudon making an armchair psychological diagnosis of another president: She used her WND platform to declare that President Obama is a "psychopath," citing as evidence that Obama took too much vacation, his "mysterious and shady past," and his purported "lack of substantive remorse" about the deaths of Americans in Benghazi. That, along with her history of spreading lies and smears, indicates that the psychopathy is on Loudon's side rather than Obama's.
The biggest evidence that something is amiss in Loudon's psyche is a July 2014 column about her then-teenage daughter's relationship with a 57-year-old actor. In this bizarre attempt at damage control and capitalizing on the sensational publicity, Loudon not only defended the relationship by insisting she believes her daughter when she says she "has remained (and remains) pure until marriage," she felt the need to illustrate the column with a decidedly sultry-looking photo of her and her daughter.
When we tried to open the column at the WND website, it now returns a "Error 404 -- Page Not Found" message, which means it was deleted -- presumably at Loudon's request as she raises her public profile as a rabidly pro-Trump surrogate.It has also disappeared from her WND column archive, which jumps from her July 20, 2014, column to her Aug. 3 one and omitting the column that was published on July 27.
Fortunately, the Internet Archive forgets nothing, and it shows that the column was live at WND as recently as September 2017.
Meanwhile, Accuracy in Media's Brian McNicoll devoted an article to insisting that Loudon really is a doctor, insisting that the school that granted her doctorate is fully accredited and that "The chair of her dissertation committee was Marie Farrell, Ed.D., MPH, RN, FAAN, ACC, an adjunct professor at Harvard for 16 years who has worked extensively with distance learning students."
MRC Was Much Harder On CBS Chief's Sexual Harassment Than Fox News Chief's Topic: Media Research Center
How did the Media Research Center cover the sexual harassment allegations that ultimately forced Les Moonves from his position CEO of CBS? In short, with glee:
Kyle Drennen claimed the network was in "damage control" and asserted that one reporter "tout[ed] the company line that the accusations may just be a case of 'corporate hardball' as CBS fights off an attempt to re-merge with its former parent company Viacom."
Scott Whitlock sneered that CBS host John Dickerson showed "no self awareness as to the people he’s worked with" when he talked about how "one test of a person’s character is if they do the right thing when they don't think anybody is looking," claiming that "The network that, for years, employed alleged sexual harassers Charlie Rose and CEO Les Moonves decided to lecture Americans."
Whitlock cheered that "CBS This Morning co-host Gayle King on Tuesday launched a preemptive strike against her own network. She attacked top officials for not showing transparency in an investigation of ex-CEO Les Moonves, a man now accused of sexual harassment and assault.
When CBS "60 Minutes" exective producer Jeff Fager was ousted amid similar allegations though, apparently, ultimately because of a not-so-veiled threat he made to a CBS correspondent covering the allegations, Nicholas Fondacaro praised how the correspondent did "her due diligence as a journalist" and how "CBS Evening Newsanchor Jeff Glor delivered a heartfelt message to his colleague" after reporting the story on his show.
Tim Graham and Brent Bozell wrote a column bashing Moonves as a "shameless hypocrite, claiming that "Moonves seems similar to Bill Clinton, who struck women as very warm and charming... until he made unwanted advances – to say the least! – and wasn’t getting what he wanted." They went on to grumble: "Over the years, CBS has championed a commitment to expose sexual harassment, even as inside its studios, it was doing the opposite. They wanted to punish Republicans from Donald Trump to Clarence Thomas, whether the accusations were true or not. All along their executives were harassing and assaulting dozens of staff. This wasn’t a casting couch. It was an entire living-room set."
Let's recall how Bozell, Graham and the rest of the MRC provided a much different tone of coverage regarding allegations of sexual harassment against the head of its favorite news channel, Roger Ailes, its top anchor, Bill O'Reilly, and other Fox News hosts and executives, shall we?
Graham made light of the accusations against Ailes by quipping that "If these claims of sexual harassment are true, Ailes seems more like Bob Packwood than J. Edgar Hoover."
One NewsBusters blogger insisted that Ailes shouldn't be blamed for the pervasive culture of sexual harassment at Fox News, and another claimed it was "liberal bias" for anyone to even discuss Ailes' sexual harassment issues.
Whwen Ailes died a year after his sexual harassment was exposed, Bozell gushed that "The good Roger did for America is immeasurable" while completely ignoring the harassment claims. Meanwhile, his MRC attacked every media outlet who referenced thte sexual harassment while reporting on Ailes' death.
Graham and Bozell issued a perfunctory denunciation of O'Reilly ("If all the charges of sexual harassment are true, his case is indefensible"), then spent the rest of their column attacking O'Reilly's critics as guilty of "rank hypocrisy," dismissing the allegations as old news and portraying O'Reilly as the victim of a hypocritical "liberal media."
The MRC touted O'Reilly's appearance on NBC in which he denied any harassment without offering any evidence to back him up and insisted he was the victim of a "hit job, a political and financial hit job."
Bozell touted in an intervew how Fox News viewers would ignore the accusations and that “They’re not going to stop watching Hannity because of Roger Ailes. ... I don’t think they connect the two of them at all.”
Graham attacked one of Ailes' accusers, Gretchen Carlson, suggesting she made the accusations only to get a big out-of-court settlement and to promote her book. Graham also insisted that ex-Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly was making too much money in her new gig at NBC to complain about harassment from her former employer.
Given their double standard-laden record, perhaps Bozell, Graham and the rest of the MRC should refrain from acting so high and mighty the next time an employee of a channel they loathe faces sexual harassment charges.
CNS Cheers Conservative Comedian's Mocking of Kavanaugh Accuser Topic: CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com blogger Craig Bannister wrote disdainfully of a Democratic congressman for mocking Republican Sen. Susan Collins' claim that she's receiving threats related to the battle over confirming Brett Kavanaugh as a Supreme Court justice by claiming she has Secret Service protection as a senator and that she didn't mention that the woman who has accused Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting her in high school has also received death threats. After the congressman apologized, Bannister typed that up too, adding that the congressman "deleted his offensive tweet."
But a few days earlier, Bannister was cheering those who mock -- when the target is Kavanaugh's accuser. Bannister approvingly writes in a Sept. 17 post:
“You can talk to me,” comedian Terrence K. Williams jokes in a video mocking Christine Blasey Ford’s last-minute allegations of sexual assault against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.
In a video posted on social media Monday, the comedian, actor and conservative commentator chides Ford for waiting decades to make her claim, since Kavanaugh has “been a judge for almost half his life:
“Girl, so you gonna wait 30 years to speak up? Huh? And, not only that, y’all were in high school. And, you claim he assaulted you at a high school party, and you just now speaking up now, 30 years later?
“And, I find it quite funny that you speaking up now that he is a Supreme Court nominee. But, this man been a judge almost half his life. Well, he’s been a lawyer, a judge…why you didn’t say nothing 10 years ago, 15 years ago?”
Williams jokes that someone in the anti-Trump media or Democrat Party must have put Ford up to making the accusation and that – if she just tells him who it was – she can trust him to keep it just between them:
“Who paying you? Is it CNN? I won’t tell nobody. Is it the New York Times? Who paying you? Is it Hillary? Obama? I won’t tell nobody. You can talk to me.”
Forgive us if we think that Bannister's outrage over Collins being mocked is more than a tad hypocritical.
WND's Zumwalt Pretends That Flynn Pleaded Guilty To Something He Didn't Do Topic: WorldNetDaily
James Zumwalt makes a valiant effort in his Sept. 12 WorldNetDaily column to paint Michael Flynn as an innocent victim of the Robert Mueller prosecution machine:
Probably next to be sentenced will be an American hero – Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn – who briefly served as President Donald Trump’s national security adviser before getting caught up in Mueller’s witch hunt. Mueller’s team manipulated Flynn in hopes he would become a lynchpin into proving collusion. His team was wrong. Charged with lying to the FBI, Flynn, ironically, was basically forced to lie about having lied as investigators simply would not accept the truth.
Flynn’s prosecution or, more appropriately, his persecution, was reminiscent of that suffered by French military officer Alfred Dreyfus over a century ago. Wrongly convicted of treason – largely due to his Jewish heritage – he was sentenced to life in prison in 1894. It was a sad outcome for an honorable patriot who found himself caught up in the political influences of the day. While Dreyfus had truth on his side, it mattered little for those for whom truth was immaterial.
While a noticeable difference between Dreyfus and Flynn is that the former always asserted his innocence and the latter admitted guilt, numerous pressures plagued Flynn. These were pressures he could only escape by lying about lying.
It should be kept in mind the pressures to which Flynn was subjected were applied by those to whom truth, even as a matter of law, need not be considered. Few people realize what a special counsel’s investigative powers allow. He enjoys tremendous flexibility in charging a witness with lying during an investigation. Where two people tell two different stories, making it difficult to determine which version is true, this poses no dilemma to a special counsel, who can choose whom to charge and whom not to. The obvious tendency here is to select the bigger fish to so charge in hopes of manipulating a witness in furtherance of the investigation’s main focus. Thus, the power is exercised as part of a ploy to obtain leverage over a party powerless to stop an investigator’s steamroller.
It was this trap that ensnared Flynn. Having found someone telling a story contrary to Flynn’s, Mueller could accuse the general of lying. We need then to understand the pressures Flynn was under.
Zumwalt's revisionism is endemic among right-wingers who are seizing on claims that some investigators didn't think Flynn lied intentionally. But Zumwalt ignores that Flynn was being investigated on other charges of making false statements, particulaly regarding his lobbying for Turkey. In his plea agreement, Flynn pleged to cooperate with Mueller in exchange for the rest of the charges against him being dropped.
Nevertheless, Zumwalt continued to insist that Flynn "was forced to lie about having told the truth" and rant further about the "slash-and-burn" tactics of the Muller investigation "destroying the careers of honorable men, like Flynn."
MRC's Yoder Again Repeats The 'Fungible' Lie About Federal Funding to Planned Parenthood Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's Katie Yoder is a repeatoffender in spreading the never-proven myth that federal funding to Planned Parenthood is "fungible" and, thus, somehow pays for abortion in violation of federal law. Yoder does it again in a Sept. 13 post attacking new Planned Parenthood leader Lena Wen:
Wen again insisted Planned Parenthood was right: “There are no federal taxpayer dollars that go towards abortions.”
That’s incorrect. The Hyde Amendment, a legislative provision approved annually by Congress, bars federal funding (aka taxpayer funding) for abortion, but not in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother. Wen also refused to address the argument that that money is fungible, or that Planned Parenthood could offset costs with public funds to free up other resources for abortion. Another point highlighted by pro-life groups.
But once again, Yoder never proves that it's "incorrect" to claim that federal funding to Planned Parenthood is "fungible." On the words "money is fungible," Yoder simply links to an old post of hers making the stupid and irrelavant analogy in which we are told to "imagine giving your teen $20 to use specifically for gas. Although he can’t buy beer with that $20, he can now use his own $20 to purchase alcohol since the gas was covered by you." As we pointed out at the time, that's not how federal funding works, and the teen can't legally buy alcohol.
For the rest, Yoder uses weasel words like "could offset costs" and "highlighted by pro-life groups" -- there are no definitive statements of fact.
WND's Farah Regurgitates An Attack On A Fact-Checker Topic: WorldNetDaily
Joseph Farah's Sept. 11 column is a lengthy tirade against fact-checker Snopes. It reads a lot like a December 2016 WND article on Snopes; both are based on a UK Daily Mail article and obsess over lurid details of the private lives of Snopes' founders and some of its employees, which have nothing to do with its veracity in fact-checking. Nevertheless, Farah tries to link this to "the question of whether Snopes can be trusted to be fair, balanced and unbiased."
That's rich, since the last thing anyone expects from Farah and WND is fairness, balance and a lack of bias.
Farah then regurgitated a post from an obscure blog attacking Snopes for purported double standards and whining that Snopes found thatthe Clintons did not "steal" thousands of dollars of furniture, china and art when they left the White House because intent could not be determined, huffing that "If taking things that do not belong to you is not 'stealing,' then we need a new definition of the word." Strangely, Farah didn't link to that blog post or to any of the Snopes articles it attacked.
Ultimately, bias is in the eye of the beholder, but even David Mikkelson admits most often it is conservatives and Republicans who detect bias in Snopes reports.
Is that surprising after learning the history of this enterprise?
And what does it tell you about the worldview of Snopes’ new partner – Facebook?
The fact that Farah and WND have a right-wing Christian worldview has not stopped them from publishing fake news and highly biased journalism -- which makes Farah a bad messenger for the idea that Snopes' "worldview" somehow makes it unreliable as a fact-checker.