We have a WH correspondents dinner again !

[OldFartRides]

I was looking for a “Big Bang” cannon breech on fleabay when I came across this fine little “one off” or possible “kit”.

It is missing the firing pin. I’m working on that. The cocking mech I put together from a coupling nut, a fender washer and a bolt. That’s the zinc plated bit there on the breech. It’s 22 cal.  They must have let the grandkids play with it at some point. One wheel axle is bent, and the shield was folded back. 
Suitable for desktop defense, heh.

 

[Punxatawneyjoe]

1 hour ago, OldFartRides said:

Suitable for desktop defense

LOL, that's great. Love it. It's very cool and i especially like the rocket racer in the background. Looks in great shape. Thanks for sharing.

[Paul A]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/12/01/kanye-west-alex-jones-hilter-interview/

December 2, 2022

 

Kanye West draws fresh denunciation for Hitler praise in Alex Jones interview

The rapper Ye praised Adolf Hitler and Nazis in an interview Thursday with far-right provocateur Alex Jones, drawing a fresh round of condemnation for his incendiary antisemitism a week after he dined with former president Donald Trump alongside white nationalist Nick Fuentes.

 

“I like Hitler,” a fully masked Ye told Jones. Minutes later, the rapper said, “I love Jewish people, but I also love Nazis.”

 

The conversation with Jones focused on the Nov. 23 dinner Ye and Fuentes had with Trump, which occurred one week after Trump had announced another run for president.

The interview underscored Trump’s long-running ties to, and refusal to fully denounce, public figures known for spreading hate speech and baseless conspiracy claims.

 

'I Like Hitler': Nazi-Praising Kanye West Called Out Musk and Jones

On Demand News

1.44M subscribers

Dec 2, 2022

 

 

[Punxatawneyjoe]

3 hours ago, Paul A said:

Kanye West draws fresh denunciation for Hitler praise in Alex Jones interview

He needs psychological help.

[Punxatawneyjoe]

Washington Post

 

---

LEFT-CENTER BIAS

These media sources have a slight to moderate liberal bias.  They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by appeals to emotion or stereotypes) to favor liberal causes.  These sources are generally trustworthy for information but may require further investigation. See all Left-Center sources.

• Overall, we rate The Washington Post Left-Center biased based on editorial positions that moderately favor the left. Due to a few failed fact checks, they earn a Mostly Factual rating.

---

Detailed Report

Bias Rating: LEFT-CENTER
Factual Reporting: MOSTLY FACTUAL
Country: USA
Press Freedom Rating: MOSTLY FREE
Media Type: Newspaper
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: HIGH CREDIBILITY

 

History

The Washington Post (WaPo), headquartered in Washington D.C., was founded in 1877 by Stilson Hutchins. He was a journalist, publisher, and passionate Democrat that later became a Missouri state representative for the Democratic Party and operated The Post until 1889. Republican financier Eugene Meyer bought The Washington Post in 1946. After Meyer stepped down to become head of the Federal Reserve, his son-in-law, Philip Graham, became publisher.

In 1947, after Philip Graham committed suicide, his wife, Katharine Meyer Graham, took over the Washington Post Company. She was the first female publisher of a major American newspaper. Her son, Donald Graham, became a publisher in 1979. Donald Graham was the chairman of The Post before selling it to Jeffrey P. Bezos, the founder of Amazon. Katharine Weymouth, a granddaughter of Katharine Meyer Graham and niece of Donald Graham, served as the Washington Post publisher until her resignation in 2014. Currently, Frederick J. Ryan Jr., the founder of Politico and a former Reagan administration official, is the Publisher and CEO of The Post. Martin Baron is the executive editor.

Read our profile on the United States government and media.

Funded by / Ownership

In 2013, Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos bought The Washington Post for $250 million. Bezos is a frequent target of Trump, who has accused the businessman of using the Postal System as its “Delivery Boy.” The newspaper’s executive editor, Martin Baron, said Jeff Bezos, who founded Amazon, is not involved in its news coverage. According to a NY Magazine article, “Bezos is libertarian who has given money to anti-tax initiatives in the past” and supports gay marriage through donations. Bezos also donated to both Democratic and Republican Senators, respectively.

 

Analysis

The Washington Post played a part with The New York Times in publishing excerpts of the Pentagon Papers in 1971. The original papers can be viewed here. The WaPo started reporting on Watergate in 1972, linking the DNC break-in to Nixon’s campaign, and eventually brought down the administration of President Richard Nixon. 

According to Pew Research, the Washington Post is more trusted by liberal readers than conservatives. However, in 2016, The Washington Post published an anti-Bernie Sanders editorial, “Bernie Sanders’s fiction-filled campaign,” that the New Republic called an “embarrassment.” Further, a Reuters institute survey found that 43% of respondents trust their news coverage and 32% do not, ranking them #8 in trust of the major USA news providers.

The WaPo was involved in a scandal in 1980 when they published an article by Janet Cooke that won the Pulitzer Prize. Cooke later returned the Pulitzer Prize when it turned out the story was not true.

Bias

In review, The Washington Post publishes stories with emotionally loaded headlines such as “Trump escalates China trade war, announces plan for tariffs on $200 billion in products” and editorials “The Trump administration created this awful border policy. It doesn’t need Congress to fix it.” They typically utilize credible sources such as Propublica.org, Associated Press, Slate, Princeton.edu, New York Times, wired.com, and CNN when it comes to sourcing. Story selection and editorials tend to favor the left, with the Washington Post only endorsing Democratic Presidential candidates since 1976, including Hillary Clinton in 2016 and Joe Biden in 2020. The Washington Post has also been accused of having an anti-progressive bias, with numerous op-eds negative toward Bernie Sanders.

 

On 3/16/2021, the Washington Post amended and corrected a story from a December 23, 2020 phone call. On this call, they claimed an anonymous source told them that former President Trump told election investigator Frances Watson to “find the fraud” and she would be a “National Hero.” In the original article, the Washington Post used quotes to indicate these are the words of the former President. According to the actual recording received by the Wall Street Journal, those words were never said. In general, the WaPo reports news mostly factually and with a left-leaning editorial bias. While still a highly credible source, there needs to be a level of caution when they utilize anonymous sources.

[Punxatawneyjoe]

Elon Musk slams NY Times for ignoring his exposé of how Twitter censored Hunter Biden laptop - as woke outlets including Washington Post, CBS News and ABC all avoid the story too

• Musk promoted the 'Twitter Files' on Friday - which some outlets have ignored 
• The Files contain leaked Twitter correspondence about the Hunter Biden laptop
• The NYT and Washington Post are two major outlets that had not covered them 
• Publications that had covered the files include: POLITICO, CNN and NBC
• NBC dampened the news by suggesting the emails didn't reveal anything new

how Twitter executives were urged by Biden staff to delete tweets relating to the damaging contents of Hunter Biden's laptop.

Other left-leaning outlets including CBS News, ABC and The Washington Post are also yet to cover the 'Twitter Files', despite their contents causing a sensation among American conservatives and free-speech advocates. 

In response to the alleged lack of coverage from the Times, Musk described the newspaper as an 'unregistered lobbying firm for far left politicians'.

The comment came in response to a tweet from conservative radio host Clay Travis, who said, 'There is not one single article about @elonmusk or the @twitter email release last night on @nytimes app this morning.'

Musk responded: 'That is because The New York Times has become, for all intents and purposes, an unregistered lobbying firm for far left politicians'.

On Friday Musk promoted a Twitter thread by journalist Matt Taibbi in which, among other things, he published correspondence between Twitter staff in 2020.

In it they discuss censoring a New York Post story about Hunter Biden's laptop and allude to requests from Biden's team to do so - something Twitter went on to do.

Twitter took extraordinary steps to suppress the story, removing links and posting warnings that it may be 'unsafe.'

'They even blocked its transmission via direct message, a tool hitherto reserved for extreme cases, e.g. child pornography,' Taibbi said in one tweet that was part of the thread.

Notably, in one exchange one Twitter executive emailed another a list of tweets with the instruction, 'More to review from the Biden team.'

The other executive responded: 'handled these'.

Publications that have covered the story include POLITICO, NBC and CNN. The latter dampened the news by suggesting the leaked emails 'corroborated what was already known about the incident'. 

The Daily Beast echoed that sentiment but discussed the Twitter Files in a story headlined: ''Deeply Underwhelmed': Right-Wingers on Musk's Overhyped 'Twitter Files''

Although the New York Times is yet to write about the thread, it did publish two different stories relating to Musk and Twitter on Saturday, the day after it was posted.

The first of those stories, 'Hate Speech's Rise on Twitter Is Unprecedented, Researchers Find' criticized Musk for a rise in hate speech since his takeover of the social media company.

The other, 'Twitter Keeps Missing Its Advertising Targets as Woes Mount', was also critical of Musk's management of the platform and suggested that its current ad revenue in the US is 80 percent below internal expectations. 

The Washington Post followed a similar trend. The lead story on its website on Saturday night, 'Surging Twitter antisemitism unites fringe and encourages violence, officials say', similarly cited sources who suggested that anti-Semitic speech on Twitter had been on the rise since the Musk takeover.

POLITICO was a major publication that did address the Twitter Files as early as Friday night. Although it did not delve into Taibbi's specific allegations it did link to his 35-tweet thread.

Now, Hunter's father Joe is facing mounting political pressure to address why his campaign ordered Twitter staffers to pull tweets they seemingly deemed problematic - when they had only appeared to discuss the contents of the laptop.

'I've pulled web archives of 3 of these tweets,' Kerr, who has held bylines for both The Washington Examiner and The Daily Caller, wrote in the first of two replies to the slew of posts on Musk's profile, which were reshared by the mogul after being posted in succession by independent journalist Matt Taibbi.

 

[Paul A]

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/newsmax-bias-credibilty-reliability/

Newsmax

QUESTIONABLE SOURCE

A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency, and/or is fake news.

Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for profit or influence (Learn More).

Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be very untrustworthy and should be fact-checked on a per-article basis.

Please note sources on this list are not considered fake news unless specifically written in the reasoning section for that source. See all Questionable sources.

 

We rate Newsmax Right Biased and Questionable based on the promotion of conspiracy theories and pseudoscience as well as numerous failed fact checks.

 

Detailed Report

Questionable Reasoning: Conspiracy Theories, Pseudoscience, Propaganda, Fake News, Failed Fact Checks
Bias Rating: RIGHT
Factual Reporting: MIXED
Country: USA
Press Freedom Rank: MOSTLY FREE
Media Type: TV Station
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: LOW CREDIBILITY

[Paul A]

US unveils new stealth bomber amid tensions with Russia & China | DW News

DW News

4.33M subscribers

Dec 4, 2022

 

The United States has unveiled its latest stealth bomber at a ceremony in California.

The multi-million dollar B-21 Raider is the first US strategic bomber to be produced in three decades - and is being unveiled at a time of heightened tensions with Russia and China.

 

 

___________________________________________________________________

 

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/dw-news/

Deutsche Welle (DW) News

LEFT-CENTER BIAS

These media sources have a slight to moderate liberal bias.  They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor liberal causes.  These sources are generally trustworthy for information but may require further investigation. See all Left-Center sources.

• Overall, we rate Deutsche Welle (DW) Left-Center biased based on editorial positions that slightly favor the left. We also rate them High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing and a clean fact check record.

 

Detailed Report

Bias Rating: LEFT-CENTER
Factual Reporting: HIGH
Country: Germany
Press Freedom Rank: MOSTLY FREE
Media Type: TV Station
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: HIGH CREDIBILITY

[Paul A]

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/new-york-times/

New York Times

LEFT-CENTER BIAS

These media sources have a slight to moderate liberal bias.  They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by appeals to emotion or stereotypes) to favor liberal causes.  These sources are generally trustworthy for information but may require further investigation. See all Left-Center sources.

• Overall, we rate the New York Times Left-Center biased based on wording and story selection that moderately favors the left. They are considered one of the most reliable sources for news information due to proper sourcing and well-respected journalists/editors. The failed fact checks were on Op-Eds and not straight news reporting.

 

Detailed Report

Bias Rating: LEFT-CENTER
Factual Reporting: HIGH
Country: USA
Press Freedom Rating: MOSTLY FREE
Media Type: Newspaper
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: HIGH CREDIBILITY

[Paul A]

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-mail/

Daily Mail

QUESTIONABLE SOURCE

A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency, and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for profit or influence (Learn More). Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be very untrustworthy and should be fact-checked on a per-article basis. Please note sources on this list are not considered fake news unless specifically written in the reasoning section for that source. See all Questionable sources.

• Overall, we rate Daily Mail Right Biased and Questionable due to numerous failed fact checks and poor information sourcing.

 

 

Detailed Report

Questionable Reasoning: Right, Propaganda, Conspiracy, Some Fake News, Numerous Failed Fact Checks
Bias Rating: RIGHT
Factual Reporting: LOW
Country: United Kingdom
Press Freedom Rank: MOSTLY FREE
Media Type: Newspaper
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: LOW CREDIBILITY

[Punxatawneyjoe]

3 hours ago, Paul A said:

Daily Mail

 

3 hours ago, Paul A said:

Bias Rating: RIGHT

This is simply not true, Daily mail has always been a Lefty rag. Maybe we should fact check the fact checkers.

[Paul A]

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-mail/

Daily Mail

Analysis / Bias

The Daily Mail is a known supporter of the Conservatives.

They are also one of the pro-Brexit tabloids.

In general, most stories favor the right; however, the Daily Mail will report either side of the story is sensational enough.

___________________________________________________________

 

Yellow Journalism

Yellow journalism usually refers to sensationalistic or biased stories that newspapers present as objective truth.

Established late 19th-century journalists coined the term to belittle the unconventional techniques of their rivals.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism

Yellow journalism and yellow press are American terms for journalism and associated newspapers that present little or no legitimate, well-researched news while instead using eye-catching headlines for increased sales.^[1]

Techniques may include exaggerations of news events, scandal-mongering, or sensationalism.

By extension, the term yellow journalism is used today as a pejorative to decry any journalism that treats news in an unprofessional or unethical fashion.

 

Frank Luther Mott identifies yellow journalism based on five characteristics:^[6]

1. scare headlines in huge print, often of minor news
2. lavish use of pictures, or imaginary drawings
3. use of faked interviews, misleading headlines, pseudoscience, and a parade of false learning from so-called experts
4. emphasis on full-color Sunday supplements, usually with comic strips
5. dramatic sympathy with the "underdog" against the system.

___________________________________________________

 

Examples of Daily Mail front pages.

 

 

 

[Punxatawneyjoe]

yeah , maybe 15 years ago. lol 07 and 08. I agree with you that Daily Mail is a rag. But they nailed it on the Hunter Biden laptop story .

[Punxatawneyjoe]

Top U.S. Media Outlets “Compromised” by Communist China

A huge list of left-wing establishment media outlets have troubling ties to the mass-murdering Communist dictatorship ruling over mainland China, according to newly released documents. One leading commentator who first broke the story argued that it showed Western media was “compromised.” The outlets involved in the scandal include powerhouses such as CNN, the New York Times, Fox News, the Washington Post, Bloomberg, MSNBC, and many major newspapers across the country. Millions of dollars have been paid by the regime to top U.S. media outlets, too.

According to documents obtained by the National Pulse, a shadowy Beijing-backed outfit known as the China-United States Exchange Foundation (CUSEF) has been treating key U.S. media personalities and “journalists” to exclusive private dinners and even trips to Communist China. Among other major concerns, CUSEF was founded by the vice-chairman of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC), which U.S. authorities have identified as a critical part of the Chinese Communist Party’s “United Work Front.”

The regime’s “United Work Front” department is a crucial branch of the regime handling its overseas influence operations. The U.S. government’s U.S.-China Security and Economic Review Commission (USCSERC) noted in an official report that the CCP uses United Front work “to co-opt and neutralize sources of potential opposition to the policies and authority of its ruling Chinese Communist Party.” This would be completely in line with efforts to manipulate the American media, which, aside from being naïve, has a bizarre soft spot for communism.

Using United Front, the CCP selects a wide range of targets for manipulation — especially those in a position to support or oppose the mass-murdering regime’s objectives, such as media outlets. “The United Front strategy uses a range of methods to influence overseas Chinese communities, foreign governments, and other actors to take actions or adopt positions supportive of Beijing’s preferred policies,” the 2018 U.S. government report on China’s Overseas United Front Work continues.

 

 

 

 

In an interview with The New American magazine last year, investigative journalist Joshua Philipp with The Epoch Times, who investigated the United Work Front, explained that its operatives in the United States were terrorizing dissident Chinese in America. Some of those attacks included physical violence by Communist Chinese operatives, he explained. The regime also targets leaders in Chinese communities overseas to help expand Beijing’s influence in nations such as the United States.

With funding from CUSEF, another key outfit involved in the wining and dining of “journalists” is BLJ Worldwide, a lobbying and “communications consultancy.” On its website, the controversial firm boasts that it is “proud” to “work with numerous nations and governments, among them some of the largest and most influential on Earth.” It uses its “powerful global network” that includes “thought leaders and media.” Whether the mass-murdering dictatorship enslaving China is among BLJ’s clients was not immediately clear, but one of its two listed vice-presidents serves “governmental, corporate, and nonprofit clients based in the U.S., China,” and other nations.

Indeed, according to 2011 disclosures made under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) cited by Axios, CUSEF paid BLJ $20,000 each month to promote pro-Beijing propaganda in America. This included sending journalists and journalism students to China to give them a “positive look at China’s accomplishments.” This was done to supposedly “educate the next generation of U.S. journalists on China and U.S.-China relations while they are still honing their craft,” the public filings revealed.

Another element of the BLJ package for CUSEF included crafting a “short-medium term U.S. campaign to influence key constituencies (politicians, academics, and experts) as well as general public opinion regarding China’s true efforts and intentions in Tibet,” where the regime in Beijing is engaged in what critics have referred to as “cultural genocide.” This scheme was supposed to help analyze how “leading United States high-school textbooks” portrayed Tibet and China, then help peddle Beijing’s talking points as recommendations for “countering the tide of public discourse.”

According to CUSEF’s federal disclosures required under U.S. law, the goal of the campaign is to “effectively disseminate positive messages to the media, key influencers and opinion leaders, and the general public” about the Chinese regime. “In order to develop favorable coverage in key national media, BLJ will continue to organize and staff ‘familiarization trips’ to China,” CUSEF added. “This includes recruiting top journalists to travel to China, selected for effectiveness and opportunities for favorable coverage.” It paid off, with the CCP getting its propaganda pushed in dozens of top outlets and hundreds of “news” and opinion pieces across America.

As this magazine has been documenting for years, CUSEF is also bribing American universities and educational institutions. As The New American reported this weekend, CUSEF is also flying top American politicians to China to be wined and dined. The list of politicians who have made the trek include congressmen, senators, governors, mayors, and prominent state lawmakers from both parties. Reports created by these politicians on their trips were then distributed with the help of CUSEF lobbyists to other political leaders and opinion molders.

A related scandal involving Communist Chinese propaganda and establishment media outlets in the United States is also brewing. Last June, CCP mouthpiece China Daily filed a disclosure with the U.S. Department of Justice admitting that it had paid $19 million U.S. dollars to top American “news” organizations. That includes about $12 million to leading newspapers that serve as mouthpieces for the globalist establishment and now, Communist China, such as the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Post.

The China Daily paper, a wholly owned propaganda mouthpiece for the murderous regime in Beijing, paid U.S. media outlets some $2 million just in 2020 to promote CCP talking points. It paid almost $20 million throughout the Trump administration’s term in office so far, revealed official disclosures filed with U.S. authorities and required by federal law. Other newspapers listed as being on Beijing’s payroll include the Los Angeles Times, the Chicago Tribune, Boston Globe, Seattle Times, Houston Chronicle, and Foreign Policy.

According to a report by Judith Bergman at the conservative-leaning Gatestone Institute, the strategy being pursued by the CCP propaganda machine is to buy huge “ads” in these newspapers in the form of “China Watch” inserts. These are carefully crafted to look like “news” coverage in the newspaper, misleading casual readers into believing the paid CCP propaganda is actually a news report by one of the newspapers on Beijing’s payroll.

“The practice does not seem to have caused any sort of actual uproar in those media circles that engage in it,” observed Bergman. “This reticence is odd … because so many journalists and editors consider themselves as standing up against racism, ethnic and religious discrimination, and human rights abuses. Taking money from the Chinese Communist regime in exchange for spreading its propaganda would seem to indicate that this stance is simply empty posturing.”

On the Wall Street Journal “China Watch” website, which has not been updated for months but still features content from their CCP “partner,” a broad range of paid propaganda pieces glorifying the mass-murdering dictatorship and parroting its dishonest narrative can be found. And unless one looks closely, the content appears almost indistinguishable from a regular news article. The same is true for the many other U.S. media outlets that publish the paid CCP propaganda.

Would WSJ and other major American newspapers accept paid propaganda from the Adolf Hitler’s National Socialist regime, which slaughtered millions of innocent people? If not, why do they run propaganda from the CCP regime, which has murdered over 100 million, not including unborn babies? The barbarism and savagery of the two regimes is off the charts, and top Communist Chinese officials have made clear that they intend to supplant the United States — and even destroy it with nuclear weapons under certain scenarios.

The coopting of Western media is all part of a coordinated strategy by Chinese dictator Xi Jinping. “China needs to strengthen media coverage … and use innovative outreach methods … to tell a good Chinese story and promote China’s views internationally,” Xi was quoted as saying at the National Meeting on Propaganda and Thought Work in August 2013. He has echoed those points repeatedly since then, including telling a 2018 National Meeting on Ideology and Propaganda how important it was to improve “international communication” to present “good images” of China while raising the regime’s “soft power” and the influence of its “culture.”

Aside from co-opting Western “presstitues,” as the Western media has come to be ridiculed by critics for behaving like prostitutes, Beijing also has its own massive propaganda megaphone with global reach. Xinhua, an intelligence front masquerading as a news agency, has agents all over the world spread out across hundreds of bureaus gathering intelligence and disseminating CCP lies worldwide. Whistleblowers have been trying to expose this threat for almost a decade, but of course the CCP-compromised Western media has largely failed to report it.

According to a 2018 Pentagon report, the regime has even been buying up radio stations — including American stations — using subsidiaries to conceal the ownership. “These radio stations broadcast pro-China content but have not registered as agents of a foreign government under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA),” explained the Defense Department report, headlined “Assessment on US Defense Implications of China’s Expanding Global Access.”

The new revelations follow a recent leak of names of almost two million Communist Party of China members from the Shanghai area representing about two percent of the party’s total membership. The list, only parts of which have been published, already revealed that there are hundreds of CCP operatives in sensitive posts in Western governments, banks, embassies, defense contractors, pharmaceutical companies, and universities. The establishment media has been almost totally silent, for obvious reasons. More disclosures are expected in the weeks ahead.

There exists a massive array of powerful organizations in the United States working to build up Communist China — and especially its economic and military power. One of the most powerful but obscure is the National Committee on U.S.-China Relations, which has a leadership that reads like a who’s who of pro-Beijing powerhouse figures in the United States. The roster includes former U.S. Secretary of State Henry “New World Order” Kissinger, former U.S. Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair, former U.S. Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew, and more.

With the obvious fact that America’s top propaganda outlets posing as “news” organizations are compromised by the world’s most murderous dictatorship, it is perhaps no surprise that those same “news” organizations refused to expose the Biden and Harris families’ myriad corrupt ties to that dictatorship. But as The New American magazine has been reporting for many years, the Deep State and the mass-murdering regime are essentially partners in the quest to undermine America and freedom as they impose what they all openly describe as the “New World Order.”

If not stopped, the “New World Order” that globalist elites and Beijing are seeking to build will look a lot like Communist China — and America’s sellout journalists, who will lose all press freedoms guaranteed under the First Amendment, will bear a large part of the blame.

[Paul A]

https://guides.library.oregonstate.edu/c.php?g=286173&p=1905749

Citation Basics

There are certain basic things you need to cite almost all sources, using just about any format:

• The AUTHOR (or creator) of the work.  This may be one person, many people, a group or an organization.
• The TITLE OF THE WORK itself.  The article title, the book title, the video title, etc.
• The PUBLICATION DATE.

If your specific source was published as part of a larger work, then you also need the TITLE OF THE LARGER WORK. 

This could be a newspaper, magazine or journal (if your source is an article), a book (if your source is a chapter or image), etc.

___________________________________

 

https://www.pcc.edu/library/research/reasons-for-citing-sources/

Reasons for Citing Sources

• Citing makes your work more credible.
• Citing tells your reader where you found your information.
• Citing allows your reader to learn more, beginning with your sources.
• Citing gives credit to the people whose words or ideas you are using.
• Citing protects you from plagiarizing.

 

Edited December 5, 2022 by Paul A

[Paul A]

https://www.voanews.com/a/trump-rebuked-for-call-to-suspend-constitution-over-election/6862404.html

Voice of America

December 04, 2022

 

Trump Rebuked for Call to Suspend Constitution Over Election

Washington — 

Former President Donald Trump faced rebuke Sunday from officials in both parties after calling for the "termination" of parts of the Constitution over his lie that the 2020 election was stolen.

Trump, who announced last month that he is running again for president, made the claim over the weekend on his Truth Social media platform.

"A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution," he wrote. "Our great 'Founders' did not want, and would not condone, False & Fraudulent Elections!"

 

Asked about Trump's comments Sunday, Rep. Mike Turner of Ohio, the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, said he "vehemently" disagrees and "absolutely" condemns the remarks, saying they should be a factor as Republicans decide who should lead their party in 2024.

 

Trump's comments came after Twitter's new owner, Elon Musk, said he would reveal how Twitter engaged in "free speech suppression" leading up to the 2020 election.

But files released Friday, which focused on the tech company's confused response to a story about Biden's son Hunter, do not show Democrats trying to limit the story.

________________________________________________________________________

 

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/voice-of-america/

Last Updated on November 1, 2022 by Media Bias Fact Check

Voice of America

LEAST BIASED

These sources have minimal bias and use very few loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using an appeal to emotion or stereotypes).  The reporting is factual and usually sourced.  These are the most credible media sources. See all Least Biased sources.

• Overall, we rate Voice of America Least Biased based on balanced story selection and minimal use of loaded words. We also rate them High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing and a clean fact-check record.

---

Detailed Report

Bias Rating: LEAST BIASED
Factual Reporting: HIGH
Country: USA
Press Freedom Rank: MOSTLY FREE
Media Type: Radio Station
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: HIGH CREDIBILITY

[Punxatawneyjoe]

Media Bias/Fact Check

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Media Bias/Fact Check (MBFC) is an American website founded in 2015 by editor Dave M. Van Zandt.^[1] It uses a 0–10 scale to rate sites on two areas: bias and factual accuracy. It has been criticised for its methodology and accuracy.^[2]

Contents

• 1 Methodology
• 2 Usage
• 3 Reception
• 4 See also
• 5 References
• 6 External links

Methodology

 

Chart showing the degree of bias rating given to CNN

Van Zandt and his team use a 0–10 scale to rate sites for biased wording, headlines, actuality, sourcing, story choices, and political affiliation. There is a criterion for factual accuracy based on failed fact checks.^[3] The group has also sorted hundreds of web pages into the ideological categories of: Left, Left Center, Least Biased, Right Center, and Right.^[4] Van Zandt admits he is not an expert and that "his methods are not rigorously objective."^[5]

Usage

The site has been used by researchers at the University of Michigan to create a tool called the "Iffy Quotient", which draws data from Media Bias/Fact Check and NewsWhip to track the prevalence of "fake news" and questionable sources on social media.^[6][7][8]

Reception

According to Daniel Funke and Alexios Mantzarlis of the Poynter Institute, "Media Bias/Fact Check is a widely cited source for news stories and even studies about misinformation, despite the fact that its method is in no way scientific."^[2] In 2018, the Columbia Journalism Review identified Media Bias/Fact Check as "an armchair media analysis."^[9] Additionally, the Columbia Journalism Review described Media Bias/Fact Check as an amateur attempt at categorizing media bias and characterized their assessments as "subjective assessments [that] leave room for human biases, or even simple inconsistencies, to creep in".^[3] A study published in Scientific Reports wrote: "While [Media Bias/Fact Check's] credibility is sometimes questioned, it has been regarded as accurate enough to be used as ground-truth for e.g. media bias classifiers, fake news studies, and automatic fact-checking systems."^[10]

See also

• Ad Fontes Media
• AllSides
• NewsGuard

References

1.  

• "About". Media Bias/Fact Check. Retrieved 2019-03-30.
•  
• Funke, Daniel; Mantzarlis, Alexios (December 18, 2018). "Here's what to expect from fact-checking in 2019". Poynter.
•  
• Tamar Wilner (January 9, 2018). "We can probably measure media bias. But do we want to?". Columbia Journalism Review.
•  
• Thomas J. Main (February 1, 2022). "Both the Right and Left Have Illiberal Factions. Which Is More Dangerous?". The Bulwark. Retrieved February 18, 2022.
•  
• Heffer, Chris (2020-10-01). All Bullshit and Lies?: Insincerity, Irresponsibility, and the Judgment of Untruthfulness. Oxford University Press. p. 103. doi:10.1093/oso/9780190923280.001.0001. ISBN 978-0-19-092328-0.
•  
• Dian Schaffhauser. "U-M Tracker Measures Reliability of News on Facebook, Twitter -- Campus Technology". Campus Technology. Retrieved 2018-12-03.
•  
• Paul Resnick; Aviv Ovadya; Garlin Gilchrist. "Iffy Quotient: A Platform Health Metric for Misinformation" (PDF). School of Information - Center for Social Media Responsibility. University of Michigan. p. 5.
•  
• Ramy Baly; Georgi Karadzhov; Dimitar Alexandrov; James Glass; Preslav Nakov (2018). "Predicting Factuality of Reporting and Bias of News Media Sources". Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. Brussels, Belgium: Association for Computational Linguistics. pp. 3528–3539.
•  
• Albarracin, Dolores; Albarracin, Julia; Chan, Man-pui Sally; Jamieson, Kathleen Hall (2021). Creating Conspiracy Beliefs: How Our Thoughts Are Shaped. Cambridge University Press. p. 130. doi:10.1017/9781108990936. ISBN 978-1-108-84578-6.
•  
• Chołoniewski, Jan; Sienkiewicz, Julian; Dretnik, Naum; Leban, Gregor; Thelwall, Mike; Hołyst, Janusz A. (2020). "A calibrated measure to compare fluctuations of different entities across timescales". Scientific Reports. 10 (1): 20673. doi:10.1038/s41598-020-77660-4. ISSN 2045-2322. PMC 7691371. PMID 33244096.

[Punxatawneyjoe]

Media Bias Fact Check: Incompetent or Dishonest?

By James D Agresti
April 24, 2017

As Just Facts grows in prominence and reputation, an increasing number of scholars, major organizations, and eminent people have cited and recognized the quality work of Just Facts. With this higher profile, Just Facts has also been subject to deceitful attacks. A recent example of such comes from “Media Bias Fact Check,” an “independent media outlet” that claims to be “dedicated to educating the public on media bias and deceptive news practices.”

In the opening paragraph of her review of Just Facts, Media Bias Fact Check contributor Faith Locke Siewert writes:

On their article http://www.justfacts.com/racialissues.asp#affirmative, they use the Richard Sander’s (law professor at UCLA) essay “A Systematic Analysis of Affirmative Action in American Law Schools.” To support much of their hypothesis, obviously against affirmative action (seeming also to support the notion of black intellectual abilities being inferior).

Those two sentences contain three demonstrable falsehoods:

• “A Systemic Analysis of Affirmative Action in American Law Schools” is not just an essay. It is a peer-reviewed journal paper that was published in the Stanford Law Review. Big difference.
• Just Facts does not use this paper to support “much of” its research on affirmative action. The research contains more than 60 footnotes, and this paper is just one of them. Just Facts’ full research on racial issues has 498 footnotes, and this paper is two of them.
• Just Facts does not offer any “hypothesis” in this research, much less “support the notion of black intellectual abilities being inferior.” To the contrary, the opening section of Just Facts’ research on racial issues covers the topic of science and presents multiple facts that challenge that notion.

The flagrant and simplistic nature of these bogus critiques suggests that Media Bias Fact Check is either inept and/or dishonest.

Siewert goes on to write that Just Facts is “a deceptive site because they do use facts, but not all the facts in order to mask their right Bias.” As proof of this, she cites two articles that take issue with the Stanford Law Review paper cited by Just Facts. Neither of these articles appeared in a journal, and one of them is from a publication “written and published entirely by Harvard undergraduates.” Siewert does not even attempt to prove whether the critiques have any factual or logical value.

Worse still, the lone excerpt that Siewert cited from these articles does not even take issue with the facts from Stanford Law Review paper that were presented by Just Facts. Thus, she must not understand the context in which Just Facts cited the paper, or she is lying about it.

By Siewert’s logic, if someone cites a peer-reviewed paper, and anyone argues against it, then the person who cited the paper is “deceptive” and “masking their bias” if they don’t cite the critique—regardless of whether it has any merit or relevance. This inane standard would apply to just about every scholar.

Siewert finishes by writing that “a glance at their sister site justfactsdaily.com gives you their right bias right off the top from just the article headers.” That statement is rife with ignorance. Just Facts Daily is dedicated to debunking widespread untruths propagated by major media and cultural institutions, and such institutions frequently spread left-leaning falsehoods. Hence, the article headers are not evidence of bias on our part but evidence of bias on the part of the media and academia. In cases where right-leaning fictions take hold, and no one properly debunks them, Just Facts goes after them as well.

If Siewert has exercised a bare minimum of diligence to read the “About Us“ page of Just Facts Daily, she would see that it “typically covers topics that have not been accurately and thoroughly covered by other organizations. There is no need for us to duplicate quality work that is already accessible, so we generally step in when others have not addressed an issue or failed to do so honestly or competently.”

As further evidence of its untrustworthiness, Media Bias Fact Check has declared that PolitiFact “is the gold standard for political fact checking.” To the contrary, Just Facts has documented that PolitiFact has an extensive record of propagating falsehoods.

Like Doug Wellumson, an educator who teaches a course about critical and analytical thinking at Lakeland College (Wisconsin), Just Facts realizes that no one can be totally free of bias. That is why Just Facts offers its millions of readers a “Guarantee of Integrity,” which reads:

Just Facts is passionate about finding the truth and making it known, and thus, we diligently work to ensure that our research is scrupulous. If, however, you should ever find an error in our research or feel that we have missed a critical fact that alters the implications of any matter we have addressed, please contact us, and we promise to make it right.

Just Facts’ adherence to such high standards may be part of the reason why Wellumson recently wrote that “only one fact-check source, www.justfacts.com, is worth anyone’s time.”

The reality of human nature is that people tend to easily accept that which aligns with their preconceived notions but demand very high standards of proof for anything that challenges their presumptions. Just Facts supplies very high standards of proof, and as a result, people with considerable expertise in the issues addressed by Just Facts have complimented its work. This includes, for example:

• a Ph.D. professional measurement scientist.
• a professor of education policy.
• a Ph.D. oceanographer.
• a licensed actuary at one of the nation’s largest accounting firms.
• a manager of several hydroelectric power facilities.
• the head of corporate development for a biotech company.
• a Ph.D. biochemist and molecular biologist.

---

Update (9/19/17): As documented in the emails reproduced below, Just Facts contacted Media Bias Fact Check, and Media Bias Fact Check significantly revised and improved its article about Just Facts. However, it is still far from accurate.

Update (11/3/17): Without notifying Just Facts, Media Bias Fact Check significantly revised its article about Just Facts yet again. This new version uses illogical and sophomoric arguments to criticize Just Facts’ gun control research. The fallacies in these arguments are deflated simply by reading the actual research along with this article from Just Facts. In sum, more than enough evidence is presented above and below to show that Media Bias Fact Check cannot be taken seriously.

Update (2/6/21): Once again, Media Bias Fact Check has revised its article about Just Facts. The article now links to three supposed “Failed Fact Checks” by Just Facts. However, Just Facts already debunked each of them here, here, and here. Yet, Media Bias Fact Check doesn’t even bother to mention that Just Facts replied to those claims. This further illustrates the depths of their dishonesty and/or incompetence.

Also, the owner of Media Bias Fact Check (Dave Van Zandt) has stooped to blaming his underling for the original falsehood-ridden article about Just Facts. He does this by saying that it was written by “a former reviewer, who is no longer affiliated with our organization.” Exposing this duplicity, the website of Media Bias Fact Check stated when the article was first published and still states today that Van Zandt “makes all final editing and publishing decisions.”

---

From Just Facts president Jim Agresti to Media Bias Fact Check
4/25/2017

Dear Media Bias Fact Check,

Our institute has found materially misleading assertions in your review of our organization, Just Facts. We have published an article that addresses these falsehoods, and I am writing to make you aware in case you would like to respond or issue a correction: https://www.justfactsdaily.com/media-bias-fact-check-incompetent-or-dishonest/

If you prefer Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/justrealfacts/posts/10154466151019212

---

From Media Bias Fact Check president Dave Van Zandt to Just Facts president Jim Agresti
4/25/2017

Good Morning James,

I wish you had contacted us before writing this article. When there is a dispute on a rating we always have another researcher perform a second or even a third review. We also will always consider the evidence you present in performing these reviews.

We will re-review your website as soon as possible and if changes are warranted we will make them. While this review process is occurring we will hide your page until complete. I would appreciate you doing the same with your article. If we do not see changes then by all means bring the article back as a refutation. I will send the completed review to you here.

If you are ok with this agreement we will proceed.

---

From Just Facts president Jim Agresti to Media Bias Fact Check president Dave Van Zandt
4/25/2017

Dave,

Thank you for your timely reply.

I’m sorry, but we will not take the article down. Of course, if it contains errors, we will correct them. If you change your article, we will place a note at the end of our article documenting the change.

If you had contacted us before posting your review, this could have been avoided. Most importantly, before any of us posts anything, we should get the facts straight.

---

From Media Bias Fact Check president Dave Van Zandt to Just Facts president Jim Agresti
4/25/2017

Fair enough. I have a thought. It seems in looking that JustFacts.com is pretty straightforward and well researched. However, Justfactsdaily.com seems to be more opinion based using the research from Justfacts. It seems there should be two separate reviews. One for justfacts that appears to be low bias and presents all sides and the other for Justfactsdaily. We are going to separate the two. I’ll let you know when they are done.

---

From Media Bias Fact Check president Dave Van Zandt to Just Facts president Jim Agresti
4/29/17

Good Morning James,

Sorry for the delay in getting the Just Facts site re-reviewed. I am sure you can appreciate how busy we are. First, I want to apologize for the previous review. The reviewer clearly zeroed in on one issue and did not look at the big picture. I feel in my review I did do that. I removed that review and replaced it with mine. I also have another reviewer working on your website. In our communication we are on the same page. I will add his notes when he completes them. Here is the new review:

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/just-facts/

I also reviewed Just Facts Daily, which you can view here.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/just-facts-daily/

I would appreciate it if you would address the fact that we did re-review your website and made appropriate changes. I don’t expect you to remove your article, but I would greatly appreciate you changing the headline to something less inflammatory.

Sincerely,

Dave

---

Media Bias Fact Check Review of Just Facts as of 5/2/2017 

LEAST BIASED 

These sources have minimal bias and use very few loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes).  The reporting is factual and usually sourced.  These are the most credible media sources. …

Factual Reporting: HIGH

Notes: According to the Just Facts about page “The mission of Just Facts is to research and publish straightforward and thorough facts about public policy issues. To accomplish this with impartiality and excellence, we abide by Standards of Credibility to determine what constitutes a credible fact and what does not.

Reviewing this website is quite challenging due to the sheer volume of information presented. It simply is not possible to cover it all. What I did was I looked at all the policy positions presented and read sections of each and applied what I read to our methodology. Our first criteria is use of loaded words and headlines. My review shows zero use of loaded words and headlines always match the content of articles, therefore Just Facts scores 0/10 in this criteria. The second criteria we evaluate is factual reporting/sourcing. In this category Just Facts is downright impressive as everything is sourced to credible information from respected sources. Our third criteria is Story Choices (do they cover both sides). In this category Just Facts selected a variety of policy topics and the actual research does offer both sides of the story using facts. However, in this category we found a slight rightward bias based on the selection of information presented. This was minimal however and may be due to reviewer bias. I score this 2/10. Our last criteria is political affiliation which looks at a combination of ownership, funding and the general tone of the information. The owner of this website is James D. Agresti who also operates the website Just Facts Daily that we have rated as having a right-center bias. Mr. Agresti is also author of the book Rational Conclusions, evidencing factual support for the Bible across a broad array of academic disciplines. Mr. Agresti’s Christian political bias is evident on the Just Facts Daily website, but less so here. Just Facts is a Non-Profit. For political affiliation we rate Just Facts 4/10 based on ownership bias and demonstrated bias on the sister site. When added up this website scores 1.5 Right, which falls within the Least Biased category.

Source: http://www.justfacts.com/

---

Media Bias Fact Check Review of Just Facts Daily as of 5/2/2017 

RIGHT-CENTER BIAS 

These media sources are slightly to moderately conservative in bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor conservative causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information, but may require further investigation. …

Factual Reporting: HIGH

Notes: Just Facts Daily (JFD) is a news, opinion and fact checking website with a right-center bias in reporting. JFD’s tagline is “Be Informed, Not Just Opinionated.” This website is certainly informative, but it also appears to be quite opinionated. First, lets look at factual reporting. We could not find any evidence of JFD making certified false claims. Each article is also impeccably sourced to credible information to convey their narrative. Therefore, we rate them high for factual reporting. The right-center bias designation comes from multiple factors. First, there is excessive use of loaded emotional words in the headlines. The following loaded words (words that attempt to influence through positive or negative emotion) were found in the first 15 headlines: Incompetent, Dishonest, Catastrophically, Deceitful, Brazen Lie, Smearing, Deadly Falsehoods. Most of these words appeared in headlines when the topic was about liberal politicians or liberal policy. Further, the headlines that described conservative policy did not contain these negative connotations. They were mostly neutral in wording.

In order to keep this short I will discuss only one article. The article is entitled “Clinton and Obama’s Brazen Lie About the Iraq Withdrawal.” The loaded language, “Brazen Lie” does not fit the content of the article. Clinton and Obama cite the SOFA agreement as the reason for our troop withdrawal from Iraq in 2011. This is true and not a brazen lie. There is however, more to the story and JFD did a good job of showing that they could have legally extended the troops time in Iraq, but chose not too. Overall, the article is well sourced and for the most part is accurate. The bias is conveyed through the author’s attempt to show that Obama and Clinton are mostly responsible for the rise of ISIS, due to abiding to the SOFA agreement signed by former President Bush. In 2011, at the time of the troop withdrawal, ISIS was not considered a threat and it could not be predicted that they would increase in size and strength in such a short period of time. Essentially, the entire article is an attempt to blame the Obama administration for something that was unforeseen at the time.

In summary, this is a factual website from a sourcing standpoint and impressively researched. It does however convey a right leaning bias through story selection that is more favorable toward conservative causes and more negative toward liberal policy. There is also extensive use of loaded negative emotional words when describing the left. This is the opposite approach that a fact checker should take, when instead they should be using neutral language. We rate this source Right-Center Bias.

Source: https://www.justfactsdaily.com/

---

From Just Facts president Jim Agresti to Media Bias Fact Check president Dave Van Zandt
5/2/2017

Dave,

Apologies for the delayed response. I appreciate the changes and think the content is now much closer to reality. However, I still take issue with a few matters.

I plan to reply in more detail tomorrow, but for some simple starters:

1) I think it is fair for you to adopt the standard that fact checkers “should be using neutral language.” And I agree that we use that we use strong language in describing falsehoods. Yet, your review of PolitiFact does not fault it for employing headlines like “Pants on Fire” (with an animated graphic showing flames) or “Voodoo magic” for an article about tax cuts paying for themselves. Likewise, your review of FactCheck.org does not criticize it for using such rhetoric, even though its two most recent headlines say that Trump:

• “left a trail of false, misleading and sometimes puzzling statements in his wake.”
• is “the candidate we dubbed the ‘King of Whoppers’ in 2015,” and “has held true to form as president.”

2) As I mentioned in my article criticizing Media Bias Fact Check, Just Facts Daily “typically covers topics that have not been accurately and thoroughly covered by other organizations.” This is why we mostly critique claims from the left. However, in cases where right-leaning fictions take hold, and no one properly debunks them, we go after them with equal vigor. For example: “Those are quintessential cases of liberals talking out of both sides of their mouths, and conservatives are just as guilty.”

3) “The word “catastrophically” was not used as a “loaded emotional word” in our headline. The context shows that this word was quoted from Bill Nye and was the subject off our fact check.

---

From Just Facts president Jim Agresti to Media Bias Fact Check president Dave Van Zandt
5/5/2017

Hi Dave,

Sorry for the delay again.

I have hard time understanding how you square this statement you made with the facts below: “Clinton and Obama cite the SOFA agreement as the reason for our troop withdrawal from Iraq in 2011. This is true and not a brazen lie.”

In October 2011, the New York Times reported:

• “there was an understanding … that a sizable American force would stay in Iraq beyond that date.”
• the troops did not stay, because the Obama administration “pressed the Iraqi leadership” to take a “controversial” public stand on immunity for troops “that ended any possibility of keeping American troops here past December.”

On the same day, Foreign Policy reported:

• Obama “administration sources and Hill staffers also” said “that the demand that the troop immunity go through the [Iraqi] Council of Representatives was a decision made by the State Department lawyers and there were other options available to the administration, such as putting the remaining troops on the embassy’s diplomatic rolls, which would automatically give them immunity.”
• “ ‘The White House has always seen the president’s pledge to get all troops out of Iraq as a core commitment, period,’ the White House official said.”

The facts are clear that the SOFA agreement was not the reason that the troops left Iraq. Beyond this, Obama took credit for pulling the troops out of Iraq on multiple occasions until ISIS took over. Then he said: “What I just find interesting is the degree to which this issue keeps on coming up, as if this was my decision.” How is that not a brazen lie?

This statement is also at odds with the facts beneath it: “In 2011, at the time of the troop withdrawal, ISIS was not considered a threat and it could not be predicted that they would increase in size and strength in such a short period of time. Essentially, the entire article is an attempt to blame the Obama administration for something that was unforeseen at the time.”

The issue here is not whether ISIS in particular would take over, but if any radical element would do so, and the facts were clear at the time that this was distinct possibility:

• In August 2010, Babakir Zebari, Iraq’s top army officer, stated: “At this point, the withdrawal is going well, because they are still here. But the problem will start after 2011 – the politicians must find other ways to fill the void after 2011. If I were asked about the withdrawal, I would say to politicians: the US army must stay until the Iraqi army is fully ready in 2020.”
• In October 2011, the New York Times reported that “the arguments of two White House officials, Thomas E. Donilon, the national security adviser, and his deputy, Denis McDonough, prevailed over those” of “military officials, who “said they wanted a ‘residual; force of as many as tens of thousands of American troops to remain in Iraq past 2011 as an insurance policy against any violence.”
• In October 2011, Foreign Policy reported that the troop pullout “represented the triumph of politics over the reality of Iraq’s fragile security’s requiring some troops to stay, a fact everyone had assumed would prevail.”

How can you say that this “was unforeseen at the time”?

I also take issue with the whole notion of a “Christian political bias.” Although evangelical Christians tend to be conservative, I know quite a few who are not. To me, a true “Christian political bias” is simply a “bias” to being uncompromisingly honest. Regrettably, such honesty is so rare that it is often treated as a bias.

[Paul A]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/12/06/georgia-senate-runoff-results-walker-warnock/

December 7, 2022

 

Warnock beats Walker in Ga. runoff, growing Democrats’ Senate majority

ATLANTA — Democrat Raphael G. Warnock on Tuesday was projected to win reelection to represent Georgia in the Senate, defeating Republican Herschel Walker in a tight runoff and expanding his party’s slim majority in the chamber.

 

The result also capped a disappointing midterm cycle for Republicans, who expected a red wave but fell short of retaking the Senate and reclaimed the House majority by a margin of just a few seats.

Walker, a first-time candidate ridiculed for gaffes, accused of serious misconduct and elevated by former president Donald Trump, exemplified broader Republican concerns that their nominees — and Trump — undermined their chances.

[Paul A]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/12/06/jack-smith-trump-communications-subpoenas/

December 6, 2022

 

Justice Dept. subpoenas Ariz., Mich., Wis. officials in Trump Jan. 6 probe

Special counsel Jack Smith has sent grand jury subpoenas to local officials in Arizona, Michigan and Wisconsin — three states that were central to President Donald Trump’s failed plan to stay in power following the 2020 election — seeking any and all communications with Trump, his campaign, and a long list of aides and allies.

 

The requests for records arrived in Dane County, Wis.; Maricopa County, Ariz.; and Wayne County, Mich., late last week, and in Milwaukee on Monday, officials said.

 

They are among the first known subpoenas issued since Smith was named last month by Attorney General Merrick Garland to oversee Trump-related aspects of the investigation of the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, as well as the criminal probe of Trump’s possible mishandling of classified documents at his Florida home and private club.

 

Smith also is overseeing the Mar-a-Lago criminal investigation, which began this spring, after months of disagreement between Trump and the National Archives and Records Administration over boxes of documents that followed the former president from the White House to Mar-a-Lago, his Florida residence and private club.

[Paul A]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/12/06/trump-organization-guilty-tax-fraud/

December 6, 2022

 

Trump Organization convicted in N.Y. criminal tax fraud trial

NEW YORK — Former president Donald Trump’s namesake company was convicted Tuesday of tax crimes committed by two of its longtime executives after a Manhattan trial that gave jurors a peek at some of the inner workings of the Trump Organization’s finances.

 

The verdicts Tuesday came amid other troubles for the Trump family business, which was sued by New York Attorney General Letitia James in September in a civil case that accuses Trump, three of his adult children and longtime chief financial officer Allen Weisselberg of manipulating the valuations of their properties to get better terms on loans and insurance policies, and to get tax breaks.

The suit seeks to recover more than $250 million and has the potential to cripple the Trump Organization’s ability to continue doing business in the state.

[Punxatawneyjoe]

9 minutes ago, Paul A said:

Trump Organization convicted in N.Y. criminal tax fraud trial

lol, i was waiting for this one. You could have posted it yesterday. I also realized that we have hijacked this thread from old fart rides. None of it has to do with the white house correspondents dinner. And none of it has any impact on what happens in Australia so the MO is apparent. My apology to OldFartRides for being part of the hijack effort. I will leave it to the unofficial electric unicycle video pzar from here on in.

[Paul A]

3000 police officers deployed in raids over plot to overthrow German government | DW News

DW News

4.33M subscribers

Dec 7, 2022

 

 

In a nationwide raid, 25 suspected members and supporters of a terrorist organization were arrested early Wednesday.

 

Officials said the network, part of a wider right-wing movement, was already well established with a concrete plan to overthrow the German state by force and install a new government.

 

 

According to the investigators, the members of the group "followed a conglomerate of conspiracy myths consisting of narratives of the so-called 'Reichsbürger' as well as QAnon ideology."

 

The prosecutors added that the group's adherents believe Germany is ruled by a so-called "deep state," similar to baseless claims about the United States that were made by former President Donald Trump.

 

 

Edited December 7, 2022 by Paul A

[Paul A]

Family of fallen Jan. 6 officer denies McConnell, McCarthy a handshake | USA TODAY

USA TODAY

Dec 7, 2022

 

 

Capitol police officer Brian Sicknick's family didn't shake hands with Sen. Mitch McConnell and Rep. Kevin McCarthy during a Jan. 6 medal ceremony.

 

The family of a deceased Capitol police officer refused to shake hands with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., during a ceremony Tuesday honoring U.S. Capitol Police and D.C. Metropolitan Police.

 

During the ceremony, Sicknick's two brothers and parents approached Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and shook his hand.

They continued down the line of lawmakers standing in front of the podium, bypassing McConnell and McCarthy.

The Sicknicks kept walking, declining to shake hands with the GOP leaders.

 

 

 

[Paul A]

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/07/us/politics/trump-organization-trial-herschel-walker.html

Dec. 7, 2022

The New York Times

 

Trump Bedeviled by Company’s Conviction and Senate Candidate’s Defeat

Tuesday’s conviction of the Trump Organization on charges of financial impropriety, coupled with the loss by former President Donald J. Trump’s candidate in the Georgia Senate runoff, marked one of the worst days for Mr. Trump since he announced his presidential candidacy roughly three weeks ago.

 

In New York, the jury that heard the case brought by the Manhattan district attorney, Alvin L. Bragg, deliberated over two days before returning guilty verdicts on all 17 counts related to a tax-fraud scheme, a sweeping condemnation of the company that bears Mr. Trump’s name.

 

Taken together, the two major political and legal losses on one day underscore the new reality Mr. Trump faces as he attempts a third national campaign.

 

He is not the favorite of most major donors anymore; that honor is currently bestowed on Ron DeSantis, the governor of Florida.

He is not the sole focus of conservative media; again, Mr. DeSantis is the heir.

And a series of legal threats continue elsewhere.