WND's Cashill Ignores Inconvenient Facts To Fuel His Obama Obsession
Topic: WorldNetDaily

Jack Cashill's Obama derangement continued in a Dec. 27 column, in which he (and a friend) accused Barack Obama of plagiarizing another book for his memoir, then demanded that his fellow right-wingers give him credit for manufacturing the accusation:

Two weeks ago in this space I documented the good company in which Harvard President Claudine Gay finds herself as an aspiring plagiarist.

Harvard worthies Doris Kearns Goodwin, Laurence Tribe, Charles Ogletree and Fareed Zakaria have all been forced to wear the Scarlet P just in the last 20 or so years.

One Harvard plagiarist, however, has managed to escape scrutiny, at least from the mainstream media. But then again, former President Barack Obama escaped scrutiny on all fronts in his miraculously "scandal free" White House years.

Although I have documented Obama's perfidy in the past, I raise the issue again, not only because the subject is in the air, but also because others on the right have been raising it without attribution.

If I might offer friendly advice to my allies and imitators, it is wise to avoid even the appearance of plagiarism when scolding others as being plagiarists.

I worry less about credit for myself than for my informal research associate, Shawn Glasco. It was Shawn who first alerted me to Obama's pillaging of Kuki Gallman's 1994 memoir, "African Nights," for his 1995 memoir, "Dreams from My Father."

Cashill's alleged proof of this is merely circumstantial, of course, based on words that allegedly appear in both works:

Shawn Glasco, who has no Pulitzer Prize and no access to the president, figured out on his own how Obama likely got the Kenya chapter finished.

Instead of going to Africa, Obama may have spent his six-week leave from his law firm copying passages from "African Nights"

Glasco found scores of phrases and words in Obama's"Dreams" that also show up in "African Nights": Baobab (a tree), bhang (cannabis), boma (an enclosure), samosa (a fried snack), shamba (a farm field), liana (a vine), tilapia (a fish), kanga (a sheet of fabric), shuka (decorative sashes).

Both books feature women "wrapped" in their kangas and "dressed" in "rags." The women in both books wear shukas, head shawls, head scarves and goatskins, and they balance baskets on heads graced with "laughing" smiles.

Men in both books spearfish in "ink-black" waters and hunt by torchlight. Elephants are seen "fanning" themselves, birds "trill," insects "buzz," weaver birds "nest," and monkeys "mesmerize."

The books share a veritable Noah's ark of additional fauna: crickets, crocodiles, starlings, dragonflies, cattle, lions, sand crabs, vultures, hyenas, "herds of gazelle," and leopards that can hold small animals "in their jaws."

Cashill doesn't seem to realize that Pulitizer Prizes aren't given out for partisan speculation.

In his Jan. 3 column, Cashill tried to claim that Obama was "guilty of insurrection" by allegedly making sure Donald Trump's Russian ties were investigated:

According to the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, no person shall be eligible to hold federal office who "shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion."

Although all parties know the "insurrection or rebellion" clause refers specifically to recently completed Civil War, the Department of Justice argues for a much more elastic definition, all the better to hang Donald Trump with.

Yet if there were one president guilty of insurrection in recent years, that president would have to be Barack Obama. In late 2016 and early 2017, Obama knowingly conspired with others to subvert the presidency of Donald Trump.

Thanks to the zealous note taking of his once and future factotum, Susan Rice, we have documentation of this flagrant act of sedition.

[...]

"President Obama began the conversation," wrote Rice, "by stressing his continued commitment to ensuring that every aspect of this issue is handled by the Intelligence and law enforcement communities 'by the book.'"

The "issue" in question was the framing of Donald Trump for collusion with Russia. Obama had to know by this time that the collusion accusation was spawned by the Clinton campaign.

Cashill conveniently omits that there was no "framing: actually needed, given that the 2016 Trump campaign met dozens of times with Russian operatives and then-campaign manager Paul Manafort gave internal polling data to another Russian operative. But Cashill would rather rant about the Steele dossier:

In 1974, Nixon campaign aide Donald Segretti made "dirty tricks" a household phrase. The nation was scandalized that Segretti would send fake letters using the letterhead of presidential candidate Edmund Muskie. For his dirty tricks, Segretti served four months in prison.

For hers, the mother of all dirty tricks, Hillary Clinton walked away without even a scolding. The Steele dossier proved to be the most consequential dirty trick in American political history.

There is no "book" that justifies what Comey and pals did in the weeks immediately following this meeting while Obama was still president.

In fact, an internal watchdog in the Trump-led Justice Department found in 2019 that the Russia investigation was justified and did not act with political bias, and that the Steele dossier as not a factor. But who cares about facts when there is a conspiracy theory to peddle?

Did Cashill Get A Buddy To Write Fawning Review Of His Book For A Right-Wing Website?
Topic: WorldNetDaily

Woody Cozad wrote a fawning review of WorldNetDaily columnist Jack Cashill's book "Untenable" (you know, the one that's beloved by the white nationalists at VDARE) for the right-wing Manhattan Institute's City Journal website:

Our well-intentioned government—named the “Good Intentions Paving Company” by financial analyst James Grant—always seems to find itself scrambling to explain how its latest scheme for a better world has delivered us into an even lower circle of hell. Bureaucrats to the core, they’ve even developed a one-step procedure for dealing with this task: blame it on the people. The term “white flight” is a product of this procedure.

A principal benefit of this system is that the Paving Company doesn’t have to ask people—in this case, the whites who took “flight”—why they fled. It must be because they were fleeing from nonwhite people, and fleeing from nonwhite people is racist. Why would you bother consulting racists about their motives?

 Untenable, punctures this familiar white flight narrative. Cashill’s subtitle promises the “true story of white ethnic flight from America’s cities.” Cashill has learned a thing or two from his fellow descendant of Irish refugees, Ronald Reagan: damn the statistics, tell the stories. In fact, let people tell their own stories. In this book, they finally get the chance to do so.

Decades on, few have bothered asking white ethnic residents why they left the neighborhoods where they had met and married spouses, raised families, made their livings, drank beer together, cheered the home team, and gone to the movies. They (or their forebears) hadn’t left Ireland, Germany, Italy, or Poland lightly. It took poverty, starvation, tyranny, and decades of suffering, in many cases, to get them to our shores. We’re expected to believe that they dropped the fruits of a lifetime’s effort in America and decamped for the suburbs solely because some black families bought houses a few blocks away.

This certainly isn’t the story the white ethnics tell in the pages of Untenable. Their reasons for leaving boil down to two things: the rise of crime and the collapse of schools.

Which, of course, are being blamed on black people, despite Cozad's refusal to say it out loud. So, yes, there's racism involved -- why else would VDARE endorse the book?

Cozad's end-of-review bio describes him only as "a lawyer in Missouri" who has held other minor state offices and was once chairman of the state Republican Party. However, he's a lot closer to Cashill than City Journal chose to disclose. He's worked on numerous projects with Cashill: he chaired a panel about the business of law in Kansas City that Cashill moderated, he appeared in an anti-evolution video called "The Triumph of Design" that Cashill directed, and a 2017 column by Cashill touted how Cozad popped up in a Netflix video made by Robert Reich.

Seems like Cashill got a buddy of his to write a positive review of his book for a right-wing website. Doesn't seem very honest of him.

More WND Columnists Freak Out Over Removal Of Confederate Monument At Arlington Cemetery
Topic: WorldNetDaily

Even more WorldNetDaily columnists had meltdowns over the removal of a Confederate memorial at Arlington National Cemetery. Jim Darlington attempted a little Civil War revisionism in a Dec. 19 column:

Amazing! Now we are waiting to see if reason prevails or will the autocrats of our "Rich Men North of Richmond" drive the final nail into the coffin of both national and racial unity? Thankfully a stay of execution has been granted by a Trump appointed judge for the planned destruction of the Reconciliation Monument crafted by the Jewish sculptor Moses Ezekiel – a great monument meant to celebrate America's national reunification after the War Between the States and honoring those who fought and died on both sides. Why would the government desecrate Arlington National Cemetery and do such violence to our history?

Those advocating for such destruction claim that they only to want an end to racism, and to honor the South is to affirm racist values.

But was the Civil War fought over the question of slavery? As a "Yankee" who moved to Alabama, I've had to try and consider the contrary points of view. I think that for the Northerners, it's true enough. Many were willing to fight against the thoroughly demonized Southern slavers. Harriet Beecher Stowe's "Uncle Tom's Cabin" had flown off the shelves, sure enough. But I wonder if it holds true of the Southerners, that preserving slavery was enough for them to fight and die for?

[...]

Was the continuation of slavery a matter of pride for all Southerners? Maybe not. Less than 5% of them actually held slaves, and the keeping of those slaves very negatively affected the wages of the rest of Southern workers. Did Southerners see the condition of slaves, who, at least from their perspective, were fed and housed, as necessarily worse than the conditions of similar numbers of factory workers up North, who were paid less than it cost to live decently, were often under-fed and forced to live in violent and dangerous slums (sort of like the slaves' descendants do now)?

In fact, several Confederate states specifically cited slavery as a reason for leaving the Union in their secession statements, meaning that, yes, the Civil War was largely, if not entirely, about slavery. Darlington concluded by ranting that theremoval of the monument was the work of a "usurping regime,"' whatever that means:

In the end, the continuation of slavery benefited a small wealthy minority of Southerners, but a fear of the possible consequences, of its discontinuation, permeated the society as a whole.

In the end, the emancipation of the slaves was something the North celebrated and the South came, sometimes grudgingly, sometimes gladly, to accept. But the wish to become, again, the United States of America became universal.

The intended removal of the Reconciliation Monument is an assault on our unity as a nation, and yet one more declaration by the present usurping regime in Washington of the intention to divide and destroy us.

Actually, it's the monument itself that is a symbol of division and destruction, not its removal.

A Dec. 21 column by Mike Pottage invoked the monument's removal -- but didn't use the word "Confederate" to describe it -- in ranting about Democrats:

The Democratic Party has a history of calling off elections and seizing control of government. It did so in 1861 as 11 states went off on their own, resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans. The confrontation is called "the Civil War." Then, Democrats were all about "states' rights." Today, Democrats prefer the term "insurrection." What is important for people to note is the fact it was the Democratic Party then, and today it is the same Democratic Party, running away from constitutional order and plunging the nation into chaos.

Setting aside the obvious voter disenfranchisement in Colorado, Democrats of the mid-1800s were fixated on race. Nothing much has changed.

The most important aspect of the post-Civil War era was "reconciliation." And today's Democrats are roaming about Arlington National Cemetery at this very moment overseeing the removal of the "Reconciliation" monument, a symbol of one nation reunited. Why destroy unity in favor of disunity?

If enough voters figure this out, the Democratic Party will find itself on a pathway to suicide. Democrat voters ultimately may choose the nation over the party.

Both Darlington and Pottage made a point of calling the monument a "reunification" monument when it really wasn't: The cemetery's own website states that "The elaborately designed monument offers a nostalgic, mythologized vision of the Confederacy, including highly sanitized depictions of slavery," and that the only two African-American figures are stereotypical -- a "mammy"-type figure and an enslaved man following his owner to war. It was also pointed out that the monument carries an inscription of the Latin phrase "Victrix causa diis placuit sed victa Caton" ("The victorious cause was pleasing to the gods, but the lost cause to Cato") that "construes the South’s secession as a noble 'Lost Cause.'" That doesn't sound very reconciliatory.

WND also ran a couple outside articles on the monument's removal and a brief injunction against it.

WND's Lively: 'We All Know It's True' That Black Men In Big Cities Are 'Excessively Violent' Criminals
Topic: WorldNetDaily

Scott Lively started out his Nov. 20 WorldNetDaily column with a little racist ranting:

In my last column, "Why the Palestinians refuse to civilize," I put the Israel/Hamas conflict in its proper perspective as the inevitable fruit of cultural Marxism's division of all humanity into oppressors and the oppressed, with the Palestinians achieving the collective status of "most oppressed" after decades of painful and careful cultivation of that image and, thus far, winning the all-important propaganda war among the brainwashed American policy-setters with its grand prize of the right to punish and plunder their "oppressors" without limit. Today I am coining the term "Oppression Theology" to define this phenomenon more precisely as as form of Secular Humanist religious dogma and show how it functions domestically.

Sunday here in Memphis my day started with breaking news – delivered right to my cellphone in the form of a "bolo" emergency alert – that an armed and very dangerous mass murderer was on a rampage, with three killing sites already behind him. We later learned that it was a family affair, and the multiple victims were the man's relatives by blood and marriage. He was an African-American man, as are (vastly disproportional to their numbers as a minority) a high plurality if not strictly the majority of excessively violent criminals in Memphis and frankly all the deep blue cities. It's strictly verboten to point this out, but we all know it's true.

Lively offered no evidence of how we all supposedly "know it's true." He continued ranting anyway:

The problem with inner-city African-Americans isn't the "African" part as so many racist-types insist, but the "American" part, because America's Africans have been stewed and steeped in the "victim/plunder" marinade of Cultural Marxist "Oppression Theology" more than any other faction of our "multicultural" society. (After multiple African missions, I know the African-Africans are not naturally like that.) The poisonous "critical race theory" being forced upon America's schoolchildren emphasizes a "white privilege" narrative painting all whites as inherently oppressive regardless of their overt actions and paints all blacks as inherently oppressed regardless of their personal successes. 

This has, of course, created a de facto victim-based "black privilege" in our society – including both 1) the right to plunder the assets of the oppressors in the form of presumed eventual high-dollar reparations (with increasingly widespread shoplifting and looting considered by many just a deserved advance against future payments), and 2) the right to disregard any aspects of the law and customs of the oppressor's society with impunity (including most obviously here in Memphis the traffic laws). These problems are compounded wherever the Soros machine has installed its agents in the criminal justice system: "Justice" is simply redefined to serve the social goals of "Oppression Theology," which means no prosecution, no punishment and, sadly, no protection for black neighborhoods from home-grown thuggery.

Sounds like a guy who misses the days when white people had all the privilege. He then tried to work gay people into his conspiracy theory:

The next most victimization-empowered class of Americans are the "gays" whose spokesman "Michael Swift" explained the victim-plunder mentality most eloquently in his classic essay "The Gay Revolutionary" (which Congressman Bill Dannemeyer read into the Congressional Record back in 1987.)

"This essay is an outré, madness, a tragic, cruel fantasy, an eruption of inner rage, on how the oppressed desperately dream of being the oppressor. We shall sodomize your sons, emblems of your feeble masculinity, of your shallow dreams and vulgar lies. We shall seduce them in your schools, in your dormitories, in your gymnasiums, in your locker rooms, in your sports arenas, in your seminaries, in your youth groups, in your movie theater bathrooms, in your army bunkhouses. … Your sons shall become our minions and do our bidding. … The family unit – spawning ground of lies, betrayals, mediocrity, hypocrisy and violence – will be abolished. … All churches who condemn us will be closed."

There are an additional 15 paragraphs here, if you have the stomach for it, ending with this: "We shall be victorious because we are fueled with the ferocious bitterness of the oppressed who have been forced to play seemingly bit parts in your dumb, heterosexual shows throughout the ages. We too are capable of firing guns and manning the barricades of the ultimate revolution. Tremble, hetero swine, when we appear before you without our masks." This essay was called "satire" at the time, but history proves it was deadly serious – even a blueprint for "gay" victim/plunderers. [Emphasis added]

In fact, the essay was satire then and now, as the "Michael Swift" byline should denote (an allusion to Jonathan Swift of "A Modest Proposal" fame). The essay was a reaction to homophobes like Lively, who nevertheless unironically treat the satire with utmost seriousness -- though he doesn't explain why oppressed poeple, as gay people were in the 1980s, have no right to be bitter and should just take their oppression in stride.

Lively concluded by trying to tie this all together with Marxism, somehow:

Black Lives Matter is a joint venture of elite-controlled blacks and "gays," run by a pair of black openly Marxist lesbians. As I've always said, "The lives of black people matter very much but 'Black Lives Matter' is an evil Marxist cult whose far-left agenda destroys black families and their neighborhoods."

Importantly, all these victim/plunder armies are tools controlled by a globalist social-engineering elite with a heavy emphasis on breaking stalwartly self-reliant Judeo-Christian America as the necessary prerequisite to global Marxist government. I was onto BLM as an agent provocateur in this plan all the way back in 2014 as I explained in my article "Bad Moon on the Rise: Bill Cosby, Ferguson and Obama." I bolstered my case in "The Cosby Conspiracy" in 2021 with additional evidence.

Look around, America. What is the common denominator on display among all these forces breaking America down? It is, as Swift admitted, "the ferocious bitterness of the oppressed" – the fruit of Cultural Marxist religious fanaticism. We must accept this is spiritual warfare and act accordingly.

Both of those columns float the conspiracy that Cosby's history of sexual assault was exposed --or in Lively's words, "was being deliberately taken down by Obama" -- because he spoke out against violence after the police-caused death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo.

NEW ARTICLE: WND Boosts The Conspiracy Theory President (Until It Doesn't)
Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily didn't start taking a hard look at Robert Kennedy Jr.'s policies until he decided to run for president as an independent candidate instead of a Democrat -- though it still has a sweet spot for his anti-vaxxer activism. Read more >>

WND's Brown Melts Down Over Polygamy, Doesn't Explain Why It's His Business
Topic: WorldNetDaily

Michael Brown's Dec. 1 WorldNetDaily column began by rehashing a three-year-old column he wrote complaining that a TV show about people looking for a house to but featured a "throuple" -- a man and two women in a committed relationship. This led to a rant about a poll showing that more people think polygamy is acceptable:

What struck me this week was a Gallup report from 2020 indicating that acceptance of polygamy had reached 20% – meaning, 1 in 5 Americans. Back in 2006, that number was 1 in 20 Americans. That's quite a jump!

Commenting on this on the Gallup website, Frank Newport wrote in June 2020, "what fascinates me as much as anything else is the trend on polygamy. When Gallup first included polygamy on the list in 2003, 7% of Americans said it was morally acceptable, and that fell to 5% in 2006. But over the past decade, this percentage has gradually increased – moving into double digits in 2011, reaching 16% in 2015, and this year, at 20%, the highest in our history. In short, there has been a fourfold increase in the American public's acceptance of polygamy in about a decade and a half."

As of 2022 and 2023, the number had risen even further, to 23%, meaning almost 1 in 4 Americans felt that polygamy was morally acceptable. But there is no slippery slope. Of course!

I could cite many more examples, but at this point: 1) It would be redundant. 2) It would make this article into a small book. 3) You don't need me to cite polls and statistics; all you need to see is the societal embrace of Drag Queens reading to toddlers. That alone proves the point.

How did Brown get from polygamy to "Drag Queens reading to toddlers"? He didn't epxlain. He also didn't explain why how other people live their lives is any of his business, or why toddlers care about who is reading to them. Instead, he cheered that his fellow right-wing haters are involved in "pushback":

The good news is that, as many of us also predicted, the radical left has overplayed its hand and a moral, cultural pushback is at hand.

The bad news is that it's a lot harder to climb up a mountain than to slide down it.

On other hand, with God's help, all things are possible.

Meanwhile, It's apparently not possible -- not even with God's help -- to change Brown's judgmental, hate-filled attitudes toward anyone who's not as far-right as he is.

WND's Root Thinks Democrats Are 'Playing For Satan'
Topic: WorldNetDaily

Wayne Allyn Root began his Nov. 24 WorldNetDaily column ranting about "open borders" and the Biden administration releasing funds to Iraq for it to pay for electricity from Iran (which, in turn, can be used by Iran only for humanitarian purposes). Then he got really bizarre:

The thing is ...

We know exactly who is doing these terrible, evil, unimaginable things to America – Joe Biden (and his boss Obama) and the Democrat Party [sic].

Why would anyone allow this? Why would anyone commit both these heinous acts at the same time? Let's really think about this.

Are they crazy? Mentally insane? Suicide bombers? Communist traitors?

Or could they be "on the take"?

Are Democrats being bribed billions of dollars into offshore accounts to allow our enemies to poison our population, collapse our economy, murder our own people and destroy the greatest nation in world history?

I'm thinking they're all getting big bribes from Iran. And even bigger bribes from the Mexican Drug Cartels. And the biggest bribes of all from China. They've sold us out. Et tu, Brute?

There is only one other explanation.

Could Biden (and his boss Obama) and the leadership of the Democrat Party be taking orders from the devil himself? Is this Satan's vision the Democrats are carrying out? Is Satan in charge? Are we in "end times"?

It's time to really look at what is happening and why. There really is no other rational explanation for the madness of the people running our country.

Democrats must be insane, evil, self-hating suicide bombers; communist traitors; corrupt, bribed and playing for our enemies; or playing for Satan.

These horrifying choices are the only way to explain what is happening to America.

Only God and Donald J. Trump can save us now.

Root really had to invent all sorts of horrible stuff about Democats in order to make readers think that an amoral criminal like Trump would be an improvement.

UPDATE: Bob Unruh previewed Root's column in a Nov. 21 "news" article, cheering that he "openly is asking whether Satan is in charge of the Democrat party [sic]."

WND's Cashill Quick To Blame Black Students For School Violence Despite Lack of Evidence
Topic: WorldNetDaily

With his burgeoning obsession with the alleged criminality of black people, Jack Cashill is swiftly turning into WorldNetDaily's new Colin Flaherty, the race-baiter who saw "black mobs" everywhere (even when they were white or non-human). Cashill's Nov. 22 column, though, began by invoking the "Charlottesville lie" lie:

When candidate Joe Biden launched his 2020 presidential campaign, he offered events at Charlottesville, Virginia, as his rationale for running.

Biden specifically cited Trump's allegedly racist reaction to a 2017 dust-up in Charlottesville, shamelessly misrepresenting Trump's comments about the violent clash.

As we've repeatedly noted when his WND compadres tried to similarly whitewash what happened in  Charlottesville and Donald Trump's "very fine people" response to it, the group that was protesting the removal of a Confederate statue and Robert E. Lee park renaming was American Warrior Revolution, which considers itself a militia and later effectively blamed liberal counterprotester Heather Heyer for her own death in getting mowed down by a car driven by white supremacist James Fields Jr. In other words, there wasn't much actual "misrepresenting" going on.

Cashill went on to hype a sick-out by teachers at Charlottesville High School, allegedly because of incidents of student violence -- which, of course, Cashill was quick to blame on black students, despite have no actual evidence to support the claim:

The night before the sudden Friday shut down, CHS counselor David Wilkerson took to Facebook to describe the mayhem that unfolded in the school on Thursday.

"Today, we had roving bands in search of the next fight, multiple fights from which to choose, and hundreds of kids filming and cheering," Wilkerson wrote.

"We are infantilizing the kids who have neither the personal discipline nor the support from home to make healthy decisions and setting them up for horrific consequences in the near future."

CHS is about 25% African American. The absence of any references to race, and the evidence from school fight videos elsewhere, leads the savvy reader to infer that the instigators are black.

Cashill didn't explain why he thinks only black people are violent.

This then morphed into a promotion of his new book seeking to absolve white people of a racist motive in fleeing cities in the 1960s -- which has been endorsed by the white nationalists at VDARE -- and more lashing out at Michelle Obama:

This racially driven madness may be new to Charlottesville, but it is now new to inner-city America. As I document in my book "Untenable: The True Story of White Ethnic Flight from America," chaos has been the norm in many city schools for at least 60 years.

When Michelle Obama was ready to start elementary school in 1969, for instance, her parents, Fraser and Marian Robinson, refused to send her to shiny new Dulles Elementary School just a block away.

From the Robinsons' perspective, the problem wasn't the school building. It was the school's students, many of whom came from nearby housing projects.

Committing a Class C misdemeanor, the Robinsons used the address of Marian's sister in Chicago's middle-class South Shore neighborhood to enroll both Michelle and her brother, Craig, at Bryn Mawr Elementary, a 15-minute drive from Parkway Gardens.

[...]

Ignoring her own experience, in 2019 Michelle condemned a largely white audience for the sin of "white flight." Said Michelle, "I wanna remind white folks that y'all were running from us, and y'all still runnin'."

Among the things that unnerved white people, Michelle imagined, were "the color of our skin" and the "texture of our hair."

The posting of school fight videos online is making it harder and harder for race-baiters like Michelle to ignore the racial problems they and their political allies have helped nurture.

The graphic nature of these videos also make it harder for Michelle and her friends in the media to blame racial turmoil on people who flee to avoid it.

Cashill didn't explain why he thinks only black people must be held responsible for "racial turmoil."

WND's Zumwalt Raged Over Removal Of Confederate Monument At Arlington Cemetery
Topic: WorldNetDaily

WorldNetDaily columnist James Zumwalt has been fretting over the impending removal of a Confederate monument in Arlington National Cemetery for a while how. He huffed in a March 29 column:

With wokeism protesting any memorialization of those who fought for the Confederacy during our American Civil War, a magnificent memorial in Arlington National Cemetery is, like the Buddhas of Bamiyan, being slated for demolition. More than a century old, the 32-foot-high Confederate Memorial was enthusiastically promoted by an earlier Congress, three U.S. presidents and veterans on both sides after the conflict. It was specifically embraced to symbolize a unified America in the aftermath of the War Between the States.

The Confederate Memorial was actually the brainchild of Union veteran and U.S. President William McKinley; it was President William Howard Taft who spoke at the laying of its cornerstone; and it was President Woodrow Wilson who spoke at its 1914 dedication, alongside both Union and Confederate veterans. Almost half a century after a war that had so divided America, claiming 750,000 lives and the maiming of over a million more, this memorial recognized a nation's reconciliation and reunification.

Designed and constructed by Confederate veteran and internationally renowned Jewish sculptor Moses Ezekiel, he, along with three other Southerners, lie buried at the monument's base, thus serving as their headstone. It is a grave marker also for 462 other Confederates whose graves are arranged in concentric circles around it. Such a burial arrangement is an integral part of the memorial, exactly as Congress, three presidents and veterans from both sides intended.

Those today planning the memorial's destruction lack any appreciation for the emotions at play in 1914 or for the artistic value it offers. Hypocritically, woke activists, demanding those who fought for the South more than seven generations earlier be banned to the dustbin of history for failing to grasp 21st century values, fail to grasp the emotional needs existing in 1914 to honor all who served to help reunify a divided nation. They are committed to the memorial's destruction at a cost of over $100 million.

As we pointed out when fellow WND columnist Carole Hornsby Haynes tried to defend the memorial, the cemetery's own website states that "The elaborately designed monument offers a nostalgic, mythologized vision of the Confederacy, including highly sanitized depictions of slavery," and that the only two African-American figures are stereotypical -- a "mammy"-type figure and an enslaved man following his owner to war. Zumwalt's evidence that the removal would cost "over $100 million" was a tweet by a pro-monument group that said nothing about cost.

As the removal date drew near, Zumwalt spent his Dec. 8 column lashing out at Sen. Elizabeth Warren for supporting the removal and other signs of needlesslyu honoring the Confederacy:

Unless a federal judge takes the appropriate action, on De. 18 the demolition of the 109-year-old Confederate Reconciliation Memorial located at Arlington National Cemetery will begin.

The word "reconciliation" was included in the memorial as it was the intention of our 25th U.S. president, William McKinley, and his peers who had fought on the side of the Union to demonstrate the post-Civil War healing of war wounds with those who had fought for the Confederacy. The country had suffered an ideological split during that conflict but, like a bad marriage in which the parties separated only to realize later they needed each other and returned to their union, the memorial was commissioned as a testimonial to the reconciliation of North and South.

As has been reported, the destruction of the memorial, "will desecrate the graves of almost 500 Confederate soldiers and family surrounding the memorial in concentric circles who, by 1901 law, are American soldiers entitled to the same respect and dignity as any American soldier who has ever lived." In the mind of Sen. Warren, honoring those who fought for the South is insensitive as they should eternally be condemned for having honored the institution of slavery. This is contrary to the sentiment of McKinley who observed, "Every soldier's grave made during our unfortunate civil war is a tribute to American valor."

As the cemetery's website also suggested, the word "reconciliation" in the memorial's name is meaningless because it was not accompanied by the granting of civil rights to black people. Zumwalt then tried to engage in a little Civil War revisionism:

Warren and Austin ride their high horses trumpeting slavery as the main focus of the war, but such trumpeting demonstrates a lack of understanding about history and about what caused those on both sides to fight. At war's end 17 senior commanders – nine from the North and eight from the South – gave farewell addresses to those who had served under them. Those addresses were assembled in "The Last Words" – a book authored by historian Michael R. Bradley – a work that clearly destroys slavery as the "single cause myth." While the moral issue of slavery has long been given as a common explanation for why the American Civil War was fought, it was the economics of slavery, along with political control of that system and states' rights, that were mainly responsible.

Actually, several Confederate states specifically cited slavery as a reason for leaving the Union in their secession statements. Still, Zumwalt huffed that "Warren will never understand the bond of respect, despite the ideological differences, that existed between North and South."

Zumwalt used his Dec. 20 column to dishonestly liken the removal of the Confederate memorial to the Taliban's destruction of centuries-old Buddha statues carved into a rock face in Aghanistan's Bamilan Valley:

Twenty-two years after the Bamiyan Massacre by the Taliban, the U.S. is on the verge of committing its own massacre that will eradicate an important part of our history. In fact, had it not been for a last-minute restraining order issued by a federal judge, that massacre would now have been completed.

The architect of this massacre is Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., who proclaimed during her failed presidential campaign she supported removing all Confederate symbols from federal land if she were elected. Fortunately, she had to drop out of her campaign, but that did not deter her from seeking the eradication of any honors bestowed upon Confederate veterans that were memorialized upon federal lands. She sponsored legislation in 2020 to this end, which was later passed with the help of 41 Republican House members who apparently were more concerned about elections than our history.

Zumwalt then tried an appeal related to the sculptor:

Interestingly, the architect the war victors engaged to design the memorial was noted sculptor Moses Jacob Ezekiel – a Confederate veteran and the first Jewish graduate of Virginia Military Institute. One would think there should currently be some sensitivity to the appropriateness of removing this historic memorial by a respected Jewish architect due to the astonishing wave of antisemitism triggered by the Gaza war. Of course, this appears to be of no concern to Warren as she recently criticized Facebook for censoring pro-Hamas posts.

In fact, Ezekiel's descendants have endorsed the removal of the sculpture, pointing out that it's "a relic of a racist past," and that it should be put in a museum "that makes clear its oppressive history.” Nevertheless, Zumwalt continued to smear Warren as Taliban-like for wanting to address oppressive history:

Warren and the Taliban obviously drink from similar glasses of ideological extremism. The Taliban's contains an elixir of religious zeal that blinds them from accepting any culture and religion other than their own. Meanwhile, Warren's contains an elixir of progressivism, blinding her to the destructive impact she will have on our history. Sadly, she denies veterans who served on both sides during our Civil War the memorialization in history they sought in honor of America's reunification in the aftermath of that divisive conflict.

A few days later, the bronze section of the monument was removed from its pedestal and his currently in storage as its ultimate fate is decided.The granite base will remain in place to avoid disturbing graves.There is still no evidence that the removal cost the $100 million Zumwalt claimed it would.

WND Touts Highly Dubious Poll On Alleged Election Fraud
Topic: WorldNetDaily

Bob Unruh wrote in a Dec. 12 WorldNetDaily article:

It was the Guardian that reported some months ago that more than 40% of Americans "still do not believe that Joe Biden legitimately won the 2020 president election."

And then it editorialized, "despite no evidence of widespread voter fraud."

Now, it appears, there's evidence.

According to a report from Rasmussen Reports, "more than 20% of voters who used mail-in ballots in 2020 admit they participated in at least one form of election fraud."

President Trump long has charged that the election was rigged and stolen from him. Evidence that appeared after the fact suggests he's right, because of the undue influence of Mark Zuckerberg's $400-plus million given to officials who often used that extraordinary funding to recruit Joe Biden voters.

Further, the FBI decided to interfere in the election, with its warning to media companies to suppress accurate reporting on the scandals in the Biden family that were revealed in a laptop Hunter Biden abandoned at a repair shop.

A subsequent polling suggested that interference alone could have cost President Trump the election.

Now, according to Rasmussen, a polling, in conjunction with the Heartland Institute, confirmed "21% of Likely U.S. voters who voted by absentee or mail-in ballot in the 2020 election say they filled out a ballot, in part or in full, on behalf of a friend or family member, such as a spouse or child, while 78% say they didn’t."

The report continued, "Thirty percent (30%) of those surveyed said they voted by absentee or mail-in ballot in the 2020 election. Nineteen percent (19%) of those who cast mail-in votes say a friend or family member filled out their ballot, in part or in full, on their behalf. Furthermore, 17% of mail-in voters say that in the 2020 election, they cast a ballot in a state where they were no longer a permanent resident. All of these practices are illegal, Heartland Institute officials noted."

In addition to failing to accurately point out that both Rasmussenn and the Heartland Instituteare right-wing organizations whose biased results can't reasonably be trusted, Unruh ignored the nunerous holes in the study, as the Washington Post's Philip Bump pointed out when Trump similarly hyped it:

Yes, you read that correctly. The claim is that fully one-fifth of those who cast a mail-in ballot three years ago committed fraud. Where does this noncredible assertion originate? From Rasmussen’s purported survey of 1,085 “likely U.S. voters.”

Rasmussen has long offered results that skew more favorably to Republican candidates. (This is generally attributed to its focus on “likely voters,” a designation it defines that holds little meaning a year before an election.) In recent years, Rasmussen has fallen into the pugilistic pattern of so many other prominent voices on the right, elevating falsehoods about the 2020 election and, more disconcertingly, frequently conducting polls centered on “proving” rhetoric from the right-wing culture war.

[...]

This instantly fails the smell test. A fifth of voters said they voted in a state where they no longer live? About 6 in 10 Americans have never moved out of the states in which they were born. Half of the rest, we are meant to believe, committed an obvious form of election fraud three years ago.

Without, I’ll add, being detected by any authority or by any of the thousands of people who, eager to prove Trump right, have been looking for examples of fraudulent voting. Those professional and amateur sleuths have also somehow not found evidence showing that 1 in 12 absentee voters — millions of people! — were offered cash for their votes. This would seem like it might leave a trail.

Unruh also ignored the fact that, given Rasmussen's right-wing bias, the poll "suggests that a lot of this 'illegal' voting presumably resulted in ballots cast for Trump," as Bump also noted. Bump concluded: "To assume that there was rampant fraud because a partisan pollster generated numbers showing that an incredible — or rather, noncredible — number of voters 'remember' having done things that violate the law is ridiculous."

Also note that Unruh has embellished his falsely about money from a Mark Zuckerberg-funded foundation used to fund election operations in 2020 was "often used ... to recruit Joe Biden voters." Unruh offered no evidence that any of that money was specifically used to "recruit Joe Biden voters," let alone much of it, as he claims. In fact, any election office could have received the money, and indeed more Republican-dominated jurisdictions than Democratic-donimated ones accepted the money.

Unruh's investment in that lie continues to discredit WND.

WND Repeats Bogus Story That Photojournalists Embedded With Hamas
Topic: WorldNetDaily

An anonymous WorldNetDaily writer dutifully parroted a conservatively correct narrative in a Nov. 8 article:

A new report about the images that came out of the Oct. 7 terror attack by Hamas on innocent Israeli civilians is raising questions about the actions of photographers apparently employed by AP, CNN, Reuters and the New York Times.

The charge is that the photographers were "EMBEDDED" with the Hamas terrorists.

They "accompanied the terrorist group into Israel. They knew the attack was coming and participated in it."

It is at Honest Reporting the details are spelled out.

"Hamas terrorists were not the only ones who documented the war crimes they had committed during their deadly rampage across southern Israel. Some of their atrocities were captured by Gaza-based photojournalists working for the Associated Press and Reuters news agencies whose early morning presence at the breached border area raises serious ethical questions," it explained.

[...]

A report from Pam Geller, commentator and activist, said, "We need war tribunals to prosecute these war criminal news orgs. The names of the photographers, which appear on other sources, have been removed from some of the photos on AP’s database. Perhaps someone at the agency realized it posed serious questions regarding their journalistic ethics."

One social media commenter said, of the positioning of the photographers alongside Hamas, "Yes, this is real."

But it wasn't. As we documented when the Media Research Center pushed this same claim, HonestReporting eventually admitted it had no evidence to back up its claim of embedding -- it was playing the "we're just asking questions" card. The news organizations accused of embedding all denied HonestReporting's claim as well.

Despite the fact that the story wasn't true, WND insisted on continuing to promote it anyway. Bob Unruh wrote in a Dec. 7 article:

Congress has begun investigating various media outlets that had reporters "embedded" with Hamas during the terror organization's attack on Israel on Oct. 7.

That was when terrorists, likely drugged up and with instructions to commit atrocities against Israeli civilians, did just that, beheading babies and burning entire families alive.

Further details revealed after the attack that killed an estimated 1,400 show that the terrorists raped both men and women, and murdered them in stunningly brutal fashion.

Having reporters embedded with an event is a common occurrence for media organizations, such as at protests, parades and such. But the legal and ethical questions of allowing reporters to knowingly accompany terrorists on a murder spree raise red flags the size of the state of Texas.

Unruh failed to tell readers that the claims were disproven and HonestReporting never had any evidence to back it up.

It's shoddy reporting like this that makes WND utterly untrustworthy.

WND's Schlafly Thinks Ballot Initiatives Are 'Mob Rule'
Topic: WorldNetDaily

Right-wingers are all for people making decisions about their lives -- until they make decisions that don't adhere to right-wing narratives. Thus, we have Andy Schlafly spending his Nov. 14 WorldNetDaily column whining that ballot initiatives are "mob rule" in the wake of Ohio voters approving abortion rights:

The "will of the people," as expressed by outcomes of heavily funded ballot initiatives, is a canard that should be rejected by Republicans. Direct democracy was feared and opposed by our nation's founders, who established a representative government for the United States and guaranteed "a republican form of government" to each of its member states.

Yet Republican candidates who participated in last week's third presidential debate seemed to misunderstand this crucial point, as reflected by their senseless responses to questions about a recent ballot initiative that just passed in Ohio. Ron DeSantis, for example, unjustifiably blamed the pro-life movement for being "caught flat-footed" by Issue 1, the abortion initiative, without mentioning that God-given rights should not be decided by a popular vote.

Republicans should be defending representative government against misuse of the ballot initiative process, which allows out-of-state industries and liberal billionaires to pass laws contrary to the informed decision-making by each state's elected representatives. Ohio's Issue 1 will benefit the billion-dollar abortion industry, while Issue 2 will profit the expanding marijuana industry by invading Ohio with a predicted $4 billion worth of pot.

Schalafly went on to cheer how Republican politicians will deliberately ignore what the people want:

Fortunately, some members of the Ohio Legislature are rising up against this misuse of ballot initiatives to change the culture of the Buckeye State. Ohio's elected representatives should not take a back seat or bow down to ballot initiatives contrary to what has been the well-established tradition of Ohio and our Constitution.

The passage of the radical Issues 1 and 2 in Ohio are an assault by out-of-state industries and billionaires to transform the state, and its Republican-controlled General Assembly should strongly resist this invasion. Four out of five Republicans voted against Issues 1 and 2, and that is to whom the Republican legislators should be listening, rather than a multi-million-dollar barrage of television ads.

Legislators should not be deterred by chants in the media that "the people have spoken." Representatives exist to resist tyranny by a misled majority, and Republican officials should not abandon the pledges they campaigned on for the benefit of Ohio.

Schlafly didn't why Republicans should ignore the majority of Ohioans who supportted the bill. He then started getting nonsensical:

Caving in to ballot initiatives is a betrayal of representative government, and of voters themselves. By denying the rights of voters to elect representatives to protect their state's way of life, Republicans give residents an incentive to move to Texas and other states that prohibit mob rule through ballot initiatives.

[...]

More Midwesterners will inevitably respond by moving to Texas, where leftists are not allowed to override the legislature. But families in Ohio and Missouri should not have to move to protect their way of life.

If a ballot initiative has been approved by voters, taht means voters have spoken and haven't been "betrayed." He went on to try an advance the argument that people are too stupid to support their own interests and need politicans -- preferably right-wing ones -- to tell them what they need:

Republicans reject the call for a National Popular Vote to pick our president, and instead that office is filled by the Electoral College. Republican candidates for president should campaign on defending our republican form of government against the progressive strategy of direct democracy.

Our Declaration of Independence stands entirely against infringement on God-given rights by popular vote or by any other means. That timeless document describes the concept of unalienable rights as a "self-evident" truth, yet Trump's rivals for president seem to think everything is fair game for ballot initiatives.

Actually, the Constitution, not the  Declaration of Independence, runs our country, and Schlafly offered no evidence tha the Constitution prohibits state ballot initiatives.

WND's Brown Quibbles Over NAR Definition
Topic: WorldNetDaily

In documenting WorldNetDaily columnist Michael Brown's defense of new House speaker Michael Johnson, we noted that both are a part of the New Apostolic Reformation, a right-wing evangelical movement, and how he accuses NAR critics of not understanding what NAR is. Brown devoted his lengthy Dec. 4 column to expanding that argument, insisting that the critics' NAR is not his NAR:

This article is not meant to provoke or insult or demean or antagonize or gaslight. Instead, it is meant to help readers understand why I continue to say that the "NAR" described by the critics does not exist.

Remember that I freely acknowledge the existence of the New Apostolic Reformation as articulated by Peter Wagner and, in certain ways, spearheaded by him.

I freely acknowledge that I have been a member and leader in the US Coalition of Apostolic Leaders (USCAL), but only after the name was changed from Apostles to Apostolic Leaders, which was subsequent to Dr. Wagner's involvement.

I freely acknowledge that I believe in the ongoing ministry of apostles and prophets in the church, holding to the view that there have been apostles and prophets operating in the church throughout history, even if not called by those names.

I freely acknowledge that I am friends with men like Lou Engle, Randy Clark and Sid Roth.

I freely acknowledge that I am an unashamed Pentecostal-Charismatic, that I have spoken in tongues since Jan. 24, 1972, and that I will gladly debate any qualified leader or scholar on the continuation of the gifts of the Spirit.

Why, then, do I say that the "NAR" of the critics is a fiction?

I'll do my best to explain.

He started off by noting a historian, Matthew D. Taylor, who he says "believes that there is a direct connection between the events of January 6 and the New Apostolic Reformation founded by Dr. Wagner." He went on to claim that "Dr. Taylor has come to recognize that I myself am not part of NAR. He also recognizes that men like Randy Clark are not part of NAR. And, like me, he takes issue with the scholarly methodology of some of the principal critics of the wider 'NAR,' while acknowledging some nuggets of truth in their work, as I also do":

In Dr. Taylor's own words, if you search online for NAR, "You'll find websites with literally thousands of names indexed of different Christian leaders who are supposedly part of 'the NAR.' … You will find writing about the New Apostolic Reformation that sounds like stuff out of a bad conspiracy novel – where NAR leaders are spookily manipulating political leaders like some sort of Charismatic Illuminati."

He adds, "You will also find people, reputable people, journalists, scholars, people who've done their research, pushing back and saying, 'Yes, there is such a thing as the NAR' and they can marshal a lot of evidence, much of it coming from Peter Wagner's writing and associations."

It is the former "NAR" whose existence I deny, the NAR that has become the charismatic boogeyman lurking behind every controversial tree, the global network allegedly numbering hundreds of millions of Christians, poised to take over the world. It is the "NAR" that is described so differently by different critics that many of the descriptions are mutually contradictory.

He went on to cite another critic of NAR and claim that its defintions of NAR are not what he considers NAR to be -- but it comes off as pedantically denying any criticism of NAR as invalid because he simply complains about others' defintions of NAR without trying to examine where those definitions come from. After all, those critics are drawing upon actual writings and statements whose existence Brown does not deny. He concluded:

Why do I deny the existence of "NAR" when I so freely affirm apostolic ministry today, when I recognize the existence of Dr. Wagner's NAR, and when I am an unashamed Pentecostal-Charismatic?

It is because the "NAR" of the critics is a fiction, and a dangerous one at that. For that reason, my appeal remains the same.

Ditch the unhelpful terminology, give up the exaggerated, fear-mongering, click-bait posts, and focus on actual abuses and problems. Then we can get some constructive work done for the glory of God and the good of His people.

Despite his opening claim that he wasn't trying to gaslight people, that's pretty much what he's trying to do here. More accurately, he's engaging in a version of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy, insisting that the definitions others have of NAR can't possibly be true because they don't apply to his own personal defintion of NAR. Yet he still recognizes the power of NAR branding enough, and not consider it tainted, to choose to remain affiliated with it and not try to redefine his beliefs under another term.

WND's Root Cranks Out More Conspiracy Theories
Topic: WorldNetDaily

Wayne Allyn Root crammed a couple of conspiracy theories into his Nov. 10 WorldNetDaily column. First up, replacement theory:

Well, this is starting to feel like "Groundhog Day." The GOP lost again on Election Day earlier this week. This is my post-election analysis of what has happened to America and why the GOP keeps losing elections.

The first answer is simple: The No. 1 problem in America and the No. 1 problem for the GOP is open borders.

Republican voters are being replaced and erased. We are being outvoted. Thanks to Democrat traitors waving the whole world in, America is now a foreign nation to Americans. We're the strangers in our own land.

This open border is the greatest catastrophe in our nation's history – times 100,000 and squared.

This is "The Great Replacement" strategy at work. The citizens are being overrun and outvoted by illegal alien invaders. How do you think Democrats turned California from the land of Republicans like former Presidents Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan and former Gov. Pete Wilson into a 100% deep-blue Democrat state? They kept adding illegal aliens by the millions until they outvoted California's legal citizens. Eventually no Republican could ever again win a statewide race.

Now Biden (and his boss Obama) are using the California model on the whole nation. Democrats keep waving in hordes of illegals. Then Democrats, unions, Soros-funded organizations, and I'm sure Catholic Charities too immediately show them two things: how to sign up for welfare and food stamps, and how to register to vote.

We are being overrun. This is the Alamo – Part Two. I don't know about you, but I didn't like Part One of the Alamo.

Until the GOP figures out how to stop this, we will keep being overrun … until America and the GOP are both gone forever.

After whining about how the Republican Party is being run under Ronna McDaniel, Root moved on to his old, never-proven election fraud conspiracy theory:

Next up on the brutal honesty list is rigged elections. Open borders and terrible leadership alone are not defeating the GOP. Democrats are cheating. We all know they rigged and stole 2020. Nothing has changed since then. Stop lying and trying to tell me we've made progress.

There is no difference between now and 2020. The system is rigged. Democrats are cheating. Or do you believe with this miserable inflation destroying the middle class, everyone in Virginia just raced to the polls to vote Democrat? Every poll shows 75% of voters hate the direction of America. Yet they voted for more of it? C'mon, I may have been born yesterday, but I wasn't born in the past 15 minutes.

Until the GOP finds a way to ban mail-in ballots with no voter ID, ballot drop boxes, ballot harvesting, dirty voter rolls and votes counted for days after the election (among many other problems), we aren't going to ever win again. Democrats have found a way to permanently rig and steal elections.

Finally, he raged that Democrats are effectively communist:

Are you aware, in world history, once entrenched in power, no one has EVER defeated a communist government at the ballot box. That's because voting isn't what matters in a communist country. All that matters is who counts the ballots. 

We are there now. Except the dumb, weak, cowardly GOP is too stupid, blind or bribed to know it.

Then it was time for some Trump-fluffing:

Who is riding to our rescue? I only know one man (for sure) is on our side: former President Donald Trump. I know the deep state hates him. I know he's superhuman. I know he's a one-man army. But even Trump needs a little help. I'm sad to say, I think it's pretty clear now, with people like Ronna McDaniel in charge, the GOP is never going to give it to him.

So, we better come up with another plan. Fast.

I've got a half dozen more brutal reasons the GOP keeps snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. No one can be this stupid. It has to be intentional.

Get ready for Part Two next week.

But Root's column the following week did not offer any more of those alleged "brutal reasons" -- instead, he served up even more Trump-fluffing while sneering at his Republican competition by huffing that "the also-rans who think they're running against Trump in the GOP primary. ... In reality, they're running for vice president … or for bigger book deals and speaking fees … or they're running to represent the RINOs, D.C. swamp, or the deep state." He went on to rant that "Destroying Trump's life was a warning to intimidate every future GOP candidate. ... If we allow Democrats and the deep state to imprison or disqualify Trump, I believe America is finished. Because Democrats will have dictated who we are allowed to vote for. Our votes will be nullified."

WND's Double Standard On Massacre Coverage By Shooter's Race
Topic: WorldNetDaily

Joe Kovacs spent a Nov. 19 WorldNetDaily article making the racist-adjacent argument that a black mass shooter deserved more attention:

A man who murdered four of his female relatives, including a teen, and left another teen critically injured, is dead after turning his gun on himself in Memphis, Tennessee, this weekend.

Now, some are hammering the national news media for their lack of coverage of the story.

It's a gun-grabber narrative that one would expect to make national news, but there is currently radio silence," notes J.D. Rucker at the Liberty Daily.

"The murderer was a black man with a rap sheet that dates back to 1996. Laws, if enforced, would have prevented him from owning the firearm he used to shoot women and girls. Therefore, it's not a story that most in corporate media will want to cover."

[...]

Rucker concluded: "There are two types of 'mass shootings' in the eyes of corporate media.

"Those that advance their gun-grabbing agenda get massive amounts of coverage that includes 'expert' commentaries, biased analysis, and emotion-driven calls for action. Those that do not advance their gun-grabbing agenda get buried."

The racist aspect is so important to Kovacs -- who, of course, makes sure to include a photo of the sooter so we all know that he was black -- that he refused to entertain two more likely factors in the purported lack of coverage of this story: the shooter's victims were family members so there was not a threat to the general public, and mass shootings have become so depressingly regular that a higher body count is needed to get additional media attention.

As you might imagine, WND's own coverage of mass shootings is much different when the shooter is white. Following October's mass shooting in Maine that killed 18 people, WND's coverage included an outside article seeking to blame it on the shooter's alleged mental illness -- as opposed to criminality, which Kovacs empasized for the black Memphis shooter -- and a Nov. 3 article by Bob Unruh touting how gun sales in Maine have increased since the massacre, in which the shooter's alleged mental illness was emphasized:

Democrats and other leftists may insist every time there's a shooting tragedy that it's the fault of the guns, that they have to be confiscated and destroyed, that the only way to prevent the shootings is to make sure people don't have guns.

In the recent Lewiston, Maine, tragedy, shooter Robert Card was found dead two days after. And evidence confirms he'd been treated for mental health issues, and had threatened to do just exactly what he ended up doing, meaning authorities knew that the danger was there beforehand.

But the Washington Examiner is reporting that Americans, millions of them, are on a path the other direction from Democrats.

Their opinion is that a defense against a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun, prompting a huge surge in gun sales in October.

Promoting gun sales is, of course, a right-wing narrative to keep people scared (largely of black people). In neither article was the shooter's race noted -- presumably because he was white and it doesn't suit right-wing narratives to acknowledge that.