Satanic Panic: WND Freaks Out Over 'Sabrina' Reboot Topic: WorldNetDaily
WND is apparently seeing Satan everywhere these days. The latest freakout comes in the form of an anonymously written Sept. 30 article:
Back after a hiatus of 15 years, “Sabrina the Teenage Witch” is now the “Chilling Adventures of Sabrina” – leaving nothing to the imagination in a show targeted for teen girls.
It’s dark, Satanic, with plenty of blood and gore, maggots and Baphomet – just in case parents didn’t have enough to worry about.
For those too young to remember. “Sabrina the Teenage Witch” was a 90s sitcom featuring a talking cat and dumb jokes emphasized by a laugh track.
No more. Netflix decided to reboot the show from one emphasizing laughs to horror. Judging from the trailers, gone are the laughs, in is the terror – not exactly what one would expect from Archie Comics.
The story line?
“As her 16th birthday nears, Sabrina must choose between the witch world of her family and the human world of her friends. Sabrina Spellman must reconcile her dual nature as a half-witch, half-mortal while fighting the evil forces that threaten her, her family and the daylight world humans inhabit.”
Somehow the central character is still in high school after all this time, but, of course, the target audience won’t remember anyway.
There’s little question teens will be widely exposed to the world of occultic, demonic “entertainment.”
WND provided no attribution beyond a link to Netflix's page about the show to back up its claims -- not even its usual retinue of Satanic panic-mongers. Thus, it completely misses the fact that the series is based on a comic book that is a darker take on the Sabrina universe, much as the TV series "Riverdale" is a darker take on the Archie universe from which Sabrina sprung.
(You might remember that pseudonymous WND columnist "Marisa Martin" had a serious freakout over a newer Archie story in which Archie died taking a bullet for his gay friend.)
It's also weird that WND seemingly has no problem with the original '90s "Sabrina" sitcom because it had "a talking cat and dumb jokes emphasized by a laugh track," even though it's about basically the same character that leads "Chilling Adventures" -- you know, a witch. Apparently, witchcraft is cool with WND as long as it has a laugh track.
CNS Misquotes Reporter To Justify Trump's Insult Of Her Topic: CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com has no problem falsely smearing reporters to make President Trump look good. Case in point: an Oct. 1 blog post by Craig Bannister, who writes thusly:
When an ABC reporter told President Donald Trump she was “not thinking,” she was taken aback when he agreed with her.
Monday morning, Trump was touting a new trade deal with Canada and Mexico, when he called on ABC’s Cecilia Vega. Vega did not respond, prompting Trump to comment that she was “shocked” that he called on her. When Trump understood Vega to say she wasn’t thinking, Trump agreed, teasing, “I know, you never do.”
Trump: “She’s shocked that I picked her. She’s like in a state of shock.”
Vega: “I’m not thinking, Mr. President.”
Trump: “That’s OK. I know you’re not thinking. You never do.”
Vega: “I’m sorry?”
Trump: “No, go ahead. Go ahead.”
Vega then proceeded to ask, not about trade, but about the controversy surrounding Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. Trump said he wasn’t finished answering questions about trade and that he’d field her question about Kavanaugh afterwards.
But Vega didn't say, "I'm not thinking, Mr President." As an actual news outlet reported, she said, "I'm not. Thank you, Mr. President."There was no justification or pretext for Trump's insult of Vega, and it continues the pattern of Trump's belittling of people, especially women, whom he perceives as his critics.
Bannister even included a video of the exchange, which makes it clear that Vega never said "I'm not thinking." It seems Bannister didn't watch it before posting.
On top of that, Bannister's headline -- "ABC Reporter Shocked When Trump Agrees With Her That She Was ‘Not Thinking,’ Says ‘I Know, You Never Do’" -- is completely false as well. Vega did not say she was shocked, and she did not say she was "not thinking."
Meanwhile, Bannister's post is live and uncorrected, as if CNS approves of publishing false information to serve its favorite president.
WND Praises Trump For Aid in Yemen Humanitarian Crisis (Which Trump Helped To Create) Topic: WorldNetDaily
An anonymously written Oct. 2 WorldNetDaily article goes back to the well of the right-wing Gatestone Institute -- from which it got a fake-news piece last year about mosques in France that is still live and uncorrected on the WND website even though Gatestone deleted its source material -- but this time to attempt to lionize Presdient Trump's purported humanitarian leanings:
The left’s perception of President Trump is that he spends his days promoting unqualified candidates to federal courts, snubbing America’s allies by abandoning longstanding trade agreements and reversing what he can of Barack Obama’s agenda.
Charai, a Moroccan publisher on the board of directors of the Atlantic Council and several other organizations, and is an advisory member for the Gatestone Institute, explains that what’s being called the “world’s worst humanitarian crisis” by United Nations World Food Program Executive Director David Beasley, has been noticed by President Trump.
But few others.
Charai says Beasley “is not exaggerating” how bad the crisis is in the Arab Gulf country of Yemen.
“Meanwhile, the Trump administration, has quietly stepped up to the challenge. The U.S. has sent more than $854 million in aid since the start of fiscal year 2017. Through USAID and the State Department’s Bureau for Population Refugees and Migration, the U.S. has supplied food, medicine, vaccinations, emergency obstetric services, blankets, pots and pans for displaced families. Water-treatment filters and chemicals have been shipped in to shrink the spread of disease, such as cholera and hepatitis,” the report said.
“In the early 2000s, the world was moved by the sight of starvation, war, and disease in Darfur. Campuses held demonstrations, and network cameras trekked to the Sahara to record the civilized world’s efforts to prevent genocide. This time, however, the colleges and networks do not seem to notice,” Charai wrote.
“It is welcome that President Donald J. Trump has.”
WND describes the issue in Yemen only as a "civil war." Charai is slightly more descriptive, admtting that part of the issue in the civil war is "air strikes from Saudi and United Arab Emirates warplanes," though he also blames "Houthi rebels as Al-Qaeda terrorists" for committing "atrocities against civilians."
But the Trump administration is helping to cause the humanitarian crisis Charai and WND laud Trump for responding to, in the form of providing support to the Saudi Arabia-led coalition. As Foreign Policy reports, the majority of civilian casualties in Yemen in August were from airstrikes by the U.S.-Saudi coalition using U.S.-made munitions, including a busload of children. The U.S.-Saudi bombing is also making the humanitarian crisis worse by targeting critical civilian infrastructure.
Meanwhile, as Washington Post writer Ishaan Tharoor points out, the Trump adminstration has shown little interest in engaging in diplomacy to end the Yemen conflict -- which all but guarantees the humanitarian crisis will continue.
But those are inconvenient facts to Charai and WND. Trump must be praised and lionized, no matter how much such praise diverges from reality.
MRC Serves Up Bogus, Shoddy 'Research' On Kavanaugh Coverage Topic: Media Research Center
It is a day, so it must be time for another bit of bogus Media Research Center "research," courtesy of an Oct. 5 post by Bill D'Agostino and Rich Noyes:
During the past three weeks, Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh has received a deluge of news coverage accusing him of vile crimes, including attempted rape and even organizing gang rapes. Though these charges did not originate with the news media, the lack of satisfactory corroborating evidence should have caused ethical reporters to refrain from gratuitously repeating allegations that painted Kavanaugh in a monstrous light.
The media have shown no such restraint. Take CNN as a case in point. MRC analysts reviewed all of the network’s Kavanaugh coverage during an 18-day period from September 16 through October 3 and found CNN’s on-air anchors, reporters and contributors associated Kavanaugh with the word “rape” 191 times, or more than ten times per day. Note that this does not include the many other instances in which the word was used by guests, or by participants at live or replayed news events (such as the hearing on September 27). This count also excluded milder synonyms, such as “sexual assault.”
Hour after hour, the likes of Alisyn Camerota (New Day), Anderson Cooper (Anderson Cooper 360), and Don Lemon (CNN Tonight) performed laborious readings of Ford’s opening statement on their shows. These were supplemented with clips of Ford reading the statement herself, as well as a videotape in which CNN International correspondent Sarah Sidner summarized the document.
The following passage in particular was given considerable airtime: “I believed he was going to rape me. I tried to yell for help. When I did, Brett put his hand over my mouth to stop me from screaming.”
In other words, the MRC is complaining that Ford's words were accurately quoted -- that CNN is guilty of reporting.
As usual, the MRC provides none of the raw data in the form of the quotes in full context. The fact that it won't do that shows that it knows it's attacking CNN for correctly quoting Ford.
So it must distract with a good ol' Clinton Equivocation:
Nearly 20 years ago, Juanita Broaddrick accused then-President Bill Clinton of raping her while he was the Attorney General of Arkansas — reportedly leaving her with a bloody lip and the words, “You’d better put some ice on that.” In the 18 days which followed Broaddrick’s story appearing in the Wall Street Journal (February 19, 1999), a Nexis search found CNN’s on-air personalities (also excluding guests) only talked about Clinton as an alleged “rapist” 34 times, and then mostly on talk shows like CNN & Company (12 times) and Larry King Live (9 times). That’s less than one-fifth the rate at which CNN today have tarred Brett Kavanaugh with the same devastating label.
The caution with which CNN approached Broaddrick’s claims back then makes their handling of the Kavanaugh controversy appear all the more punishing.
First: Note the different search databases used: the MRC's own database for the Kavanaugh clips, Nexis for the Broaddrick clips. They're not equivalent, largely because it's unclear that CNN was transcribing its entire broadcast day for Nexis in 1999; some networks made only prime-time or branded shows available, meaning that it's likely CNN's run-of-the-mill news coverage that was not part of a branded program was never submitted to Nexis -- and, thus, making the MRC's data not necessarily an accurate reflection of what was actually broadcast on CNN.
So: we have another selectively edited piece of "media research" that ignores context to hide the fact that reporting is accurate, complete with an unreliable apples-to-oranges comparison to previous coverage and another refusal to make the raw data public.
WND's Cashill Tries -- And Fails -- To Make A 'To Kill A Mockingbird' Allusion to Kavanaugh Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily columnist Jack Cashill tries for a literary allusion over the Brett Kavanaugh saga in his Oct. 3 column:
The plot of the classic 1960 novel “To Kill a Mockingbird,” hinges on one key fact: Attorney Atticus Finch, the man liberals have historically seem as the avatar of their best selves, did not believe “survivor” Mayella Ewell.
Under pressure from her father and the society around her, Ewell had accused black handyman Tom Robinson of sexual assault. Finch believed she was lying and heroically defended Robinson in a court of law.
“The state has not produced one iota of evidence that the crime Tom Robinson is charged with ever took place,” said Finch at the trial. “It has relied instead upon the testimony of two witnesses – witnesses whose testimony has not only been called into serious question during cross-examination, but has been flatly contradicted by the defendant.”
“I have nothing but pity in my heart for the chief witness for the State,” Finch continued. “But my pity does not extend to her putting a man’s life at stake.”
In perhaps the movie version’s most dramatic scene, Finch stood on the jailhouse steps, shotgun in hand, to ward off a mob of would be lynchers.
Today, mindlessly chanting “we believe survivors,” leftist crowds around the country have abandoned the Atticus Finch model for the thrill of joining a lynch mob.
Slate's Jamelle Bouie explains why applying "To Kill A Mockingbird" to Kavanaugh is a big, dumb mistake:
By necessarily casting Brett Kavanaugh in the role of the unfairly and unjustly accused Tom Robinson, however, the comparison falls apart. Kavanaugh is unpopular, but he does not belong to a disfavored group. He is not disadvantaged by class or burdened with the weight of caste. He has lived a life of wealth and privilege, moving in and between elite spaces with little apparent friction. For five years he worked with the president of the United States. For 12 years he’s been one of the most powerful judges in the country. Robinson did not have the power to call defenders other than his court-appointed attorney; Kavanaugh is backed by nearly half of the Senate as well as a sitting American president, who has attacked his nominee’s accuser with the full force of the bully pulpit. Atticus Finch risked everything defending Tom Robinson; Kavanaugh’s defenders risk nothing. Robinson, a stand-in for the thousands murdered under Jim Crow, was fighting for his life. If Kavanaugh isn’t confirmed—if enough Republicans decide he’s too damaged to sit on the Supreme Court—he’ll return to his life of power and privilege as a federal appeals court judge.
The accusers in To Kill a Mockingbird, like those in the actual Jim Crow South, weren’t concerned with sexual violence as much as they held a libidinal desire to harm and kill black people. In real-life Depression-era Alabama, nine black Americans were lynched between 1929 and 1939; two of the victims were accused of “rape.”
That charade of justice stands in stark contrast to the #MeToo movement, a sincere effort to uncover sexual abuse, build solidarity for survivors, and hold abusers accountable. The process of allegations, investigations, and—when appropriate—criminal action is on the opposite side of the lynch mob, which tortured, mutilated, and murdered on the basis of whispers and rumors. The testimony of Christine Blasey Ford—measured, meticulous, and forthright, with no proven falsehoods—is a far cry from the breathless accusations used to justify anti-black terrorism, as is her unheeded call for a full investigation of her allegations.
To make the analogy to Atticus Finch in the context of Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court is to ignore the real pain and real suffering of actual people killed after knowingly false accusations, while obliterating vast worlds of history and context. It’s not just a bad argument. It’s an immoral one, made for cheap partisan thrills. And conservatives who make it have revealed their politics of aggrieved privilege, where the presumably “real” victims of society are those asked to account for any potential misdeeds before ascending to ever-higher planes of power.
Cashill loves his Atticus Finch analogies, though. In a 2015 column, he attacked those who criticized George Zimmerman for killing Trayvon Martin: "Has no one told them they have become the mob outside Atticus’ courthouse demanding the head of the mockingbird?" Remember, Cashill thinks Zimmerman is a saint even as he continues to prove Cashillwrong.
CNS' Spero: Not Confirming Kavanaugh Would Dishonor His Parents, Or Something Topic: CNSNews.com
Chuck Schumer, the Democrats, and their spokespeople in the Senate seem to be spooking-out certain Republicans with a threat that if Republicans vote for Judge Brett Kavanaugh they will lose the support of women in their constituency.
However, the tens of millions of women who currently have or have previously raised teenage boys, and even teenage girls, will probably be alarmed if a precedent is set in a Senate confirmation vote that would penalize or snuff out the opportunities of a fully grown man who did something foolish while yet a minor or was accused of something that was never verified with any surety.
Parents of boys and girls lovingly sacrifice their life’s energies, time, and money so that their children will have a bright future – economic, social, and familial. And all parents, since they themselves were once young, know of the mistakes teenagers make or the non-mistakes that merely involve rowdiness. What a frightening and demoralizing thing it would be to parents if after thirty years of proper and refined living and accomplishment by their children, a new American convention is established by the Senate that all lifetime achievements can be wiped away by a single instance in their child’s life. A person’s life, their child’s life, can be destroyed by an accusation, especially if it craftily summons-up whatever happens to be the politically correct, avant-garde sin of that given era.
Today’s Democrats play dirty, despicably dirty. In their quest for personal power, riches, and control over all aspects of American civic life, Democrats will equally play dirty tricks against conservative women running for office, bringing up or fabricating events from when they were once teenage girls, charging them from that full basket of the new Seven Sins: racism, intolerance, nationalism, whiteness, Christian Evangelicalism, Islamophobia, and anti-LBTG.
Judge Kavanaugh should be confirmed and not become a victim of a coordinated political attack. It is the American way to stand behind a man wrongly accused and not to buckle to a lynch mob, liberal or otherwise. The vote to confirm Judge Kavanaugh goes beyond his absolute earned place to be on the U.S. Supreme Court. It goes even beyond the obligation of the Republican Senators to, for once, worry more about the people who elect them than looking over their shoulder to people who will always reject them.
Newsmax Columnist Tries To Play the Emmitt Till Card on Kavanaugh Accusations Topic: Newsmax
As a black American, I have a particular sensitivity to the importance of the concept of the presumption of innocence and due process of law.
Few Millennials and modern journalists know of the famous Emmett Till murder case in Mississippi in the 1950’s. It was one of the first major national civil rights murder cases.
Emmett Till was a 14-year-old black boy visiting Mississippi from Chicago. He was beaten beyond recognition, shot, tied with barbed wire, and thrown into Mississippi’s Tallahatchie River.
Because of an accusation — a mere accusation — that he flirted with a white woman.
Till was only one of the more well known of the many thousands of blacks in the old American South who were tortured, castrated, burned alive, or lynched based only on an accusation of flirtation or sexual assault — they were presumed guilty.
There was no presumption of innocence and no requirement of due process!
With this despicable history as backdrop, it is more than disgusting to see Democrats in the United States Senate trample the basic principle of presumption of innocence and apply the old South standard of presumption of guilt once applied to blacks to Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.
For Kavanaugh, just as was the case for black males in the old South, there is no presumption of innocence and no requirement of due process by his enemies.
Yesterday, blacks’ enemies were Democrat segregationists and their shock troops in the Klu Klux Klan.
Today, Kavanaugh’s enemies denying him due process and presumption of innocence are progressive and liberal white Democrats and their friends on the left — who disrupted confirmation hearings — and forced Senator Ted Cruz and his wife from a Washington, D.C., restaurant.
Are there no Democrats in the United States Senate with a sense of decency unwilling to sit by while their colleagues attempt to destroy a man’s career, life, and family?
(McKee overlooks the inconvenient fact that both Kavanaugh's and Christine Blasey Ford's side got a hearing, Kavanaugh did not get lynched, and racism was not involved. Oh, and the Ku Klux Klan was never the "shock troops" of the Democratic Party, which had no military arm then or now.)
NEW ARTICLE: The MRC's Ray Lewis Hypocrisy Topic: Media Research Center
When the former NFL star started spouting conservative-friendly platitudes about God and family, the Media Research Center and its "news" division CNS stopped reminding readers about Lewis' involvement in a double-murder case. Read more >>
WND Insists Broaddrick 'Credibly Accused' Clinton Of Rape Despite Lack of Evidence Topic: WorldNetDaily
Juanita Broaddrick has apparently decided to live out the rest of her life being a professional victim. An anonymously written Sept. 28 WorldNetDaily article touts her trying to grab a piece of publicity in the midst of the Brett kavanaugh saga:
Juanita Broaddrick, who credibly has accused President Bill Clinton of raping her when he was Arkansas attorney, accused Democrats, as they were set to hear Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s accuser Thursday, of employing a “double standard.”
Speaking to media outside the Senate building where the hearing was set to take place, Broaddrick said Christine Blasey Ford’s claim that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her in 1982 at a high school party is “no comparison” to what happened to her.
Broaddrick said Ford had no evidence while she had “the who, what, when, where and how and had five people that I told, not even counting the woman who found me 30 minutes after the rape with a swollen busted lip, torn clothes and in a state of shock.”
At her Thursday news conference in Washington, she said she has “20 times more evidence for my rape by Bill Clinton than Dr. Ford has against Kavanaugh.”
Yes, Broaddrick held a press conference. Not the mark of someone who's trying to act credible.
Actually, not so much. Vox reminds us that, according to Joe Conason and Gene Lyons' book on the right-wing war against President Clinton, the FBI investigated Broaddrick's allegation and found it to be inconclusive. Even Lisa Myers, the then-NBC correspondent who interviewed Broaddrick in 1999, admited that even Broaddrick conceds that aside from her, there are no witnesses and as far as we know, no one saw Clinton enter or leave Broaddrick’s room, or even the hotel, and that two of the people she claimed to have contemporaneously told about the alleged rape reportedly had a grudge against Clinton for commuting the death sentence of their father's killer while he was Arkansas governor.
WND also quoted Broaddrick complaining that Democrats in 1999 "refused to read my deposition to the independent counsel." WND failed to report that Broaddrick also told a different story to independent counsel Ken Starr in the form of a sworn affidavit denying that anything happened.
This doesn't prove that Broaddrick is any more or less credible than Ford. But Broaddrick's eagerness to play the victim for partisan purposes -- even to the point of dismissing another woman's allegation of sexual assault because it was made against a conservative and not someone named Clinton -- does nothing to enhance whatever credibility she may have and arguably diminishes it.
By contrast, CNS had no problem publishing smears of Ford that were intended to harm her reputation.
A Sept. 25 article by CNS managing editor Michael W. Chapman touted right-wing attorney Joseph DiGenova's smear (on Fox News, natch) of Ford and her attorney regarding speculation that Ford would not testify before a Senate committee: "She really doesn't want to testify because when she does, she's going to look like the loon that she is. She may very well believe everything she's saying and that is one of the signs of lunacy, believing something that isn't real. But her lawyer is even loonier."
CNS apparently loved DiGenova's smear of Ford so much, he became CNS' favorite smear artist over the past couple weeks. On Oct. 4, Emily Ward touted another DiGenova slam of Ford:"Christine Blasey Ford, I’m sure, I think, believes everything she’s saying,” said diGenova. “But it isn’t true, it didn’t happen, she is delusional, this is a fantasy, there is nothing to corroborate her story." He added: "This woman – this is loony. This whole thing is loony. Look where we are for a nominee for the Supreme Court because the Democrats’ lust for power has made them destroy the confirmation process. Shame on them. And, you know what? They could care less. They don’t have any shame."
Ward didn't comment on the shamelessneess of a right-wing attorney viciously smearing a woman because she stood in the way of a conservative judge's Supreme Court nomination.
CNS also touted DiGenova's insults of other people as well:
WND Columnist Tries To Defend Trump Over Puerto Rico Death Toll Topic: WorldNetDaily
In his Sept. 14 WorldNetDaily column, Brent Smith tries his best to defend President Trump over his insistence that the claim that nearly 3,000 people were killed in Puerto Rico by Hurricane Maria and its aftermath that came about by "magic":
The study was conducted from September, 2017, the month of the storm, all the way through February of the following year (2018).
Now, I don’t know about you, but when I read that some “3,000 people were killed by Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico,” I don’t expect a death that occurred almost six months later to count as one of the “storm” deaths. No reasonable person would.
In fact, according to Puerto Rico’s own records, the total deaths directly caused by the storm were 64. “The official government estimate of 64 deaths from the hurricane is low primarily because the conventions used for causal attribution only allowed for classification of deaths attributable directly to the storm, e.g., those caused by structural collapse, flying debris, floods and drownings,” the report notes.
Well duh! Isn’t that what “killed by Hurricane Maria” is supposed to mean? Evidently not, but every person who reads that kind of headline will come to the same wildly incorrect conclusion.
The vast majority of deaths were mainly due to the island’s already crumbling infrastructure and pitiful disaster preparedness in a place run by leftists for decades. That and the study also included deaths that occurred during the migration of Puerto Rican residents to states like Florida even months later.
And because of this “study,” done almost entirely by computer models on the campus of GW University and where “researchers” never once ventured to Puerto Rico, history will reflect the 3,000 number – not the 64. This will make it No. 2 among the U.S. hurricanes that have taken the most lives. No. 1 is still Galveston, Texas, in 1900, which claimed 8,000 lives.
I am not belittling any of the deaths from Hurricane Maria. But whether this study by GW was politically motivated or not, it certainly has given ample ammunition to the likes of CNN, MSNBC, et al., to further their assaults on the president.
In fact, the George Washington University study Smith (and Trump) attacked was not politically motivated; it's a statistical analysis calculating the bnumber of "excess" deaths in Puerto Rico after the hurricane. That study was commissioned by the Puerto Rican government, and it accept the study's funding that 2,975 people died as a result of Maria.
Further, while Puerto Rico was facing crumbling infrastructure before Maria hit, there seems to be plenty of blame to go around, and Smith offers no proof that it was "leftist" government officials who were solely responsible.
MRC Thinks Partisan Fox News Anchor Is 'Respected' Topic: Media Research Center
It's a sad sign of the right-wing media bubble the Media Research Center lives in that it considers every Fox News anchor (who isn't named Shepard Smith, that is) to be an unchallenged paragon of fairness and accuracy.
We saw that again in a Sept. 26 MRC post by Nicholas Fondacaro, who was upset that NBC's Chuck Todd pointed out that Suypreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh's softball interview with Fox News' Martha MacCallum called into question his professed desire to be neutral and impartial, adding, "It was jarring to see him not even sit in front with the Fox News journalist, but with one of the opinion show hosts." Fondacaro huffed in response that this was "a cheap shot at the respected Martha MacCallum."
Fondacaro never explained on what planet outside his right-wing bubble MacCallum is considered "respected." Indeed, a fiew days before her interview with Kavanaugh, MacCallum was openly advocating for him, complaining: "'Sickening' was the word I heard most often this weekend to describe what is happening. Innocent until proven guilty is how we do this in America." She also mouthed a Republican talking point on Kavanaugh by complaining, "Senate duty to advise and consent has become 'Search and Destroy.'" And her interview with Kavauaugh was such a softball endeavor that she ignored several crucial issues surrounding the allegations against him.
Indeed, MacCallum has a long history of using her presence on Fox News to advocate for conservative and Republican policies. Apparently, that bias is what makes her "respected" in Fondacaro's bubble.
WND's Kavanaugh Accuser Derangement Syndrome, Part 3 Topic: WorldNetDaily
Republicans bowed to pressure and postponed Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation vote while the FBI conducts allegations against him by Christine Blasey Ford.
In their quest for power, Democrats will destroy anyone who stands in their way, and most Republicans are too weak to stop them.
Democrats unleashed hell with false allegations of sexual misconduct against Brett Kavanaugh – a man with a stellar personal and professional track record.
Christine Blasey Ford, the California psychology professor who claims Kavanaugh had drunkenly attacked her when they were high school students in Maryland in the early 1980s, is clearly a disturbed individual, but her issues weren’t caused by Kavanaugh.
The allegations leveled against Kavanaugh are baseless. His accuser’s testimony was rehearsed and phony; it would never hold up in criminal court. In fact, at least three fact witnesses have refuted Ford’s charges.
The attack on Kavanaugh has nothing to do with male versus female – it’s a spiritual battle of good versus evil and right versus wrong. The Democrats are evil and they crave power. They’re willing to destroy any decent man or woman to attain it. We must see this battle for what it is and stop giving in to evil.
It’s about the God that one serves, and the Democrats are of their father the devil.
-- Jesse Lee Peterson, Sept. 30 WorldNetDaily column
Memory is a tricky thing, explains retired University of California Irvine Professor Richard McKenzie in the Wall Street Journal. “My colleague Elizabeth Loftus was able to ‘implant’ false memories” in many people, he wrote, “by showing them an official-looking poster of Disney characters, including Mickey Mouse and Bugs Bunny.”
Many of these people “later remembered meeting Bugs Bunny on a childhood trip to Disneyland. Some of them even reported that Bugs had touched them inappropriately.”
But this was impossible, he writes. “Bugs Bunny isn’t a Disney character.”
Ford, now a 51-year-old psychology professor, had no clear recollection of what happened one summer night 36 years ago until she sought out professional help to recover her memory.
These leftists are tearing down the statues of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, and demonizing old-fashioned defenders of American individual liberty such as Donald Trump and Brett Kavanaugh, the Boy-Scout-transformed-into-villain.
Kavanaugh believes we already live in “Nineteen Eighty-Four,” where language is politically correct, the media spews an unending “two minute hate” against everything American, and history is constantly rewritten to glorify leftist Big Brother.
History – our shared memory – is being reprogrammed to praise rejected Senator Jeff Flake (Rino-Arizona), who will soon-but-briefly receive his 30 pieces of silver from CNN or MSNBC for betraying voters in the Kavanaugh affair.
We haven’t said a lot about the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation to date, as we’re waiting to hear all sides. Yet one thing has been abundantly clear from the outset of this whole thing: the spirit behind “exposing” his past (or anyone else’s, for that matter) has been to simply destroy this man, not restore him.
As Christians, we cannot fall prey to that destructive spirit. Anytime sin is exposed (in Kavanaugh’s case it’s only an accusation), we are called by God to seek restoration – to provide a redemptive way forward by helping break sinful patterns in someone’s life, not to destroy them and leave them left bloody in a ditch.
In our opinion, BK’s defense before the Senate Judiciary Committee will go down as one of the best speeches in defense of liberty and justice for all in American history.
If you haven’t seen it watch it now. If you’ve seen it already, watch it again – and send it to friends.
Can you imagine if Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., had to endure the additional week of hell he unleashed on President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, Judge Brett Kavanaugh, last Friday?
Flake couldn’t even handle being cornered in an elevator by a woman claiming to be a sexual assault survivor. Yet, because he supposedly saw the light on how Kavanaugh’s confirmation process, in view of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford’s accusation of sexual assault, was “tearing the country apart,” within hours he reneged on his word to confirm Kavanaugh on the Senate floor. Instead, he voted him out of the committee, contingent upon a seventh FBI investigation, totally acquiescing to the Democratic scheme to delay Kavanaugh’s confirmation until after the midterm elections, at any cost.
Flake may have had great intentions, but unfortunately, despite his years in the swamp, he failed to learn a valuable lesson: You can’t make honorable deals with indecent people.
If Sen. Jeff Flake were honestly concerned about how the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings were “tearing the country apart,” his request to delay the confirmation yet again sure didn’t succeed in bringing the nation closer together. All he’s done is contribute to the smear campaign of a good man, a good citizen and a good friend and father who should be applauded not scorned.
There are women across the U.S who are incensed that a man they’ve been told is a sexual predator could end up with a seat on the nation’s highest court. The spreading hysteria is proof of how dangerous this is. Across print, electronic and social media, people are throwing around the word “rapist.” But Brett Kavanaugh has not been accused of rape by Christine Blasey Ford (or credibly accused by anyone else).
More importantly, Christine Blasey Ford has produced no evidence to support her accusations. An accusation without more is not evidence.
I have not – thank God – been the victim of rape. But I have been harassed. I’ve been groped. I have witnessed indecent exposure. I’ve been slammed up against a wall (for saying no) and suffered other legitimately lifelong sorrows at the hands of predatory, abusive and/or irresponsible men. So I’ve got my #MeToo bona fides.
But I am also an attorney, trained in the Anglo-American legal tradition. Our system is not perfect; it is protracted, expensive and often frustrating. But it is nevertheless one of the sturdiest legal systems in the history of human civilization.
The question is not whether we “believe” Christine Blasey Ford (and there are many gaps and inconsistencies in her testimony). The question is whether she has proof necessary to overcome the presumption of innocence that is the cornerstone of our system: evidence, witnesses or persons whom she contemporaneously told about the alleged assault.
We cannot punish one man for the sins of others who have wronged us. We cannot countenance the abolition of the presumption of innocence. Nor can we – even out of commiseration with the victim of an alleged assault – tell her that her accusation is enough to convict someone, whether in a court of law or in the court of public opinion.
This isn’t cruel. It isn’t heartless. And it certainly isn’t patriarchy. It’s self-preservation. Women have been hanged. Women have been lynched. Women have been falsely accused and have been the false accusers.
One of many cringe-making moments in Christine Blasey Ford’s protracted complaint before the Senate Judiciary Committee – and the country – was an affectation-dripping reference to her hippocampus.
“Indelible in the hippocampus” was the memory of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulting her, some 36 years back, asserted Ford in that scratchy, valley-girl voice of hers.
With that, the good “doctor” was making a false appeal to scientific authority. Ford had just planted a falsity in the nation’s collective consciousness. The accuser was demanding that the country believe her and her hippocampus.
All nonsense on stilts.
We want to believe that our minds record the events of our lives meticulously, and that buried in the permafrost of our brain, perfectly preserved, is the key to our woes.
Unfortunately, scientific research negates the notion that forgotten memories exist somewhere in the brain and can be accessed in pristine form.
Granted, we don’t know whether She Who Must Never Be Questioned recovered the Judge-Kavanaugh memory in therapy. That’s because, well, she must never be questioned.
Suffice it to say, that the memory recovery process is a therapeutic confidence trick that has wreaked havoc in thousands of lives.
Moreover, repression, the sagging concept that props up the recovered memory theory, is without any cogent scientific support. The 30-odd studies the recovery movement uses as proof for repression do not make the grade. These studies are retrospective memory studies that rely on self-reports with no independent, factual corroboration of information.
Sound familiar? Dr. Ford (and her hippocampus), anyone?
CNS' Chapman Defends Kavanaugh's Drunken Past: Obama Did It Too! Topic: CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com managing editor Michael W. Chapman doesn't even bother to put up a facade of fairness and balance. He has been especially biased in his"news" operation's coverage of the Brett Kavanaugh nomination, directing CNS' highly biased look at the women who accused Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct and personally flaking out over Jeff Flake forcing an FBI investigation of Kavanaugh.
In an Oct. 2 post, Chapman sounds even more like he'd rather be managing WorldNetDaily than CNS by going the Obama derangement route in order to handwave Kavanaugh's heavy drinking as a youth:
While liberals express outrage over the fact that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh drank beer -- reportedly sometimes to excess -- in high school and college, they and the leftist media have largely ignored the extensive partying of former President Barack Obama, who has confessed to heavy pot smoking and cocaine use in high school and college.
Given the drinking limits being set retroactively for Kavanaugh by his leftist critics and arguments therefrom that he is not suited for the high court, it is reasonable to conclude that Barack Obama's extensive illegal drug use would preclude him from a seat on the Supreme Court, or on any federal bench.
Chapman misses the salient facts that 1) Obama ran for president, not a judicial nomination, 2) Obama disclosed much of his history in his autobiography, whereas Kavanaugh's drunken past came to light only after Christine Blasey Ford came forward with allegation of a drunken Kavanaugh attempting to sexually assault her during their prep-school years, and 3) nobody has ever accused Obama of sexually assaulting women while under the influence, then or now.
Chapman effectively concedes that second point, spending the rest of his post copy-and-pasting out-of-context excerpts from Obama's "Dreams From My Father" and another biography of Obama with all the references to drugs and alcohol painstakingly bolded. He also added a couple images form a college-era photo shoot in which he was shot smoking a cigarette.
Chapman even took a page of the anti-Obama birther handbook and referenced the idea that Obama once used his stepfather's surname of Soetoro. But Chapman misspells it as "Sotero," and it's irrelevant in this context because Obama hasn't used it since age 10 (not that Obama-haters didn't try to claim otherwise by creating a bogus college ID with that surname).
Such lazy, reflexive liberal-bashing in the service of whataboutism to defend a conservative in trouble is an increasing part of what CNS under Chapman has become.
WND's Conspiracy Theory: Ford Hypotized Herself! Topic: WorldNetDaily
Leave it to conspiracy-obsessed WorldNetDaily to latch onto the loopiest conspiracy theory regarding Christine Blasey Ford's claim of a prep-school assault by Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. And leave it WND to hide behind anonymity in promoting it, as this anonymously written Oct. 1 article does:
Some have wondered why therapist notes made when Christine Blasey Ford purportedly disclosed memories of Brett Kavanaugh allegedly assaulting her when both were teens were not released.
After all, she told Congress and the nation her story last Thursday in apparently convincing fashion, followed by Kavanaugh’s passionate rebuttal.
But there may be a reason for withholding the notes, reported the Gateway Pundit blog.
The therapy sessions may have used hypnosis, which would make any information derived from them inadmissible in court.
Her familiarity with the technique was confirmed in a 2008 research article on self-hypnosis in which she is listed as one of several authors. The article explains how it is used to “retrieve important memories” or “create artificial situations.”
Margot Cleveland, a lawyer and an adjunct professor at Notre Dame, drew attention to the paper in a tweet.
Cleveland defended herself from critics who argued the point of the research was to address depression and “processing difficult emotions.”
“She suffers from anxiety & PTSD-and using an ‘artificial situation’ to process increases risks of false memories as does hypnosis,” Cleveland explained.
As non-conspiratorial media outlets havenoted, Ford was one of 11 researchers credited on the research paper, the study is actually about treating depression using hypnosis to create hypothetical situations, and actual mentalists point out that you can't hypnotize yourself into believing a lie.
But WND never reported any of that, or that its main source, Gateway Pundit, has promoted other hoaxes about Ford. The conspiracy is apparently just too good to fact-check.