CNN Stages Town Hall to Boost Clinton Candidacy

By: Roger Aronoff
Accuracy in Media

Who ever heard of a presidential primary debate or town hall meeting opening with a kiss on the cheek between the moderator and the frontrunner? It’s safe to say that didn’t happen between Fox News’ Megyn Kelly and Republican frontrunner Donald Trump. And not just because he didn’t show up for Thursday night’s debate in Iowa.

But if you tuned in to the January 25 CNN Democratic town hall, you would have seen that kiss between the moderator Chris Cuomo, and Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton. And that was just for starters. The event featured softball after softball question in a continuous love-in for the candidates, but especially so for Mrs. Clinton. This was a far cry from the December CNN Republican debate.

Of course, the Cuomo family has a history of favoring Clinton. Chris Cuomo’s brother, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, recently helped introduce the former New York senator when she received a gun control award named after his father, Mario Cuomo, who had also served as New York governor. Governor Cuomo has also endorsed her presidential run.

So, with a moderator ready to play favorites, CNN abandoned all sense of objectivity.

“Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders on Monday drew their sharpest contrasts yet in hard-hitting final pitches to Iowa voters as the competitive race to win the first in the nation caucuses enters its last week,” reported CNN on January 26. It doesn’t report that it had stacked the deck.

“Secretary Sanders—or, Clinton, sorry,” said student Brett Rosengren as he was about to ask the final question of the night.  “I can see why they gave you this question,” he continued. “I just wanted to know which of our previous presidents has inspired you most and why.” Why they gave you this question? Who was the “they” he was referring to?

Rosengren later said that he had posed the question himself, and submitted it to CNN. But it was CNN that chose his question, and it was CNN who directed that it should be asked of Hillary Clinton instead of Bernie Sanders (I-VT) or Martin O’Malley.

So CNN arranged easy questions for Hillary Clinton? What type, exactly, of town hall was this? This was, in reality, a stage-managed and produced love-in for Mrs. Clinton.

This is typical of how the left-wing, mainstream media abandon all impartiality and allow Democrats to answer supposedly spontaneous questions using teleprompters with predetermined answers. It’s reminiscent of the time that Democrat National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz was caught reading an answer to a question off of a teleprompter during an appearance on MSNBC, when she butchered the world “misled” as “myzled” while on camera.

The orchestrated nature of these town halls, debates, and other appearances by the Democratic candidates exposes how the media have already made their choice for this year’s presidential election. All that is left is to ensure Hillary Clinton’s victory with as much endless cheerleading media promotion as possible, while ignoring her scandal-plagued career.

“Sec. Clinton, when you’re elected the next president of the United States, what will you say to Republican voters?” asked a member of the audience. Mrs. Clinton then led into an answer about how she wants “to be the president for everyone.”

Later, moderator Cuomo asked, “It makes them [Republicans] feel that, well, Secretary Clinton doesn’t like us. Why would she work with us?” Clinton’s answer devolved into a pronouncement that she would give Republicans “bear hugs whether they like it or not.”

CNN’s treatment of Sanders was equally superficial at times, with Cuomo asking him, “Do you think you are up to the whole job [of president]?” But Cenk Uygur of The Young Turks makes a strong case from the left that Sanders got much rougher treatment than Hillary.

It is Cuomo, and CNN, who are not up to the job of vetting the Democratic presidential candidates. However, the softballs from CNN were in sharp contrast to the hardball questions for the earlier Republican debate, with questions designed to cause the candidates to attack each other’s platforms. CNN queried the Republican candidates with questions that sometimes sounded more like accusations than debate openers.

CNN’s Wolf Blitzer asked Donald Trump in December, “Is the best way to make America great again to isolate it from much of the rest of the world?”

“Governor [Jeb] Bush, you called Mr. Trump ‘unhinged’ when he proposed banning non-American Muslims from the United States,” Blitzer also asked. “Why is that unhinged?”

In contrast, CNN dealt very gingerly with two Clinton scandals: Benghazi and her mishandling of classified materials on her unsecured email server.

The Benghazi scandal poses a major obstacle to Hillary Clinton’s election. Yet, instead of a cutting question delineating the high stakes, Mrs. Clinton was asked by an audience member, “So, how are you planning on dealing with that [Benghazi issue] going forward, not only in the general election, but also if you became president working with Congress?”

This carefully phrased softball gave Mrs. Clinton an opening to blame Republicans for keeping the Benghazi issue alive. What is keeping the issue alive, however, is Mrs. Clinton’s and the administration’s stonewalling, preventing justice for the victims and accountability for an administration that blamed the attack on a YouTube video.

In her answer Clinton claimed that Democrats didn’t make the death of hundreds of American soldiers in Beirut (during the Reagan administration) a partisan issue, and that she had “put together an independent board to tell me as secretary of state what I needed to know and what we could do to fix it.”

The Accountability Review Board appointed by Clinton was far from independent, and failed to interview Secretary Clinton herself—despite her role in the administration’s decision to aid the al-Qaeda linked rebels in Libya, stymie the truce talks with Muammar Qaddafi, and refuse to properly secure the U.S. Special Mission Compound. In addition, she shares the responsibility for the dereliction of duty on the night of the attacks by failing to send available military assets to assist those who were fighting the jihadists, and for the decision to blame a YouTube video for the terror attack.

Yet even a question challenging Mrs. Clinton’s honesty was reworded as a question about supporter enthusiasm. “It feels like there is [sic] a lot of young people like myself who are very passionate supporters of Bernie Sanders,” asked audience member Taylor Gipple. “And, I just don’t see the same enthusiasm from younger people for you. In fact, I’ve heard from quite a few people my age that they think you’re dishonest, but I’d like to hear from you on why you feel the enthusiasm isn’t there.”

“Clinton tried to play the issue of millennials flocking to Sanders as a good thing, saying any kind of involvement in the election process is positive, but the truth is her campaign is starting to panic over a drop in poll numbers and Sanders’ domination in early states,” observed Katie Pavlich for Townhall on January 26.

Clinton’s email scandal has been one long drip, drip, drip of scandal exposing lie after lie. She took this opportunity to spin a number of the same falsehoods at the town hall. Cuomo asked Clinton about the timing of her apology for EmailGate, saying, “Yes, you apologized, but only when you needed to, not when you first could have. Fair criticism?”

Mrs. Clinton responded by falsely claiming, once again, that her unsecure server was set up so that she could conveniently use a single device. But, she insisted, “I’m not willing to say it was an error in judgment because what—nothing that I did was wrong.” That must be why the FBI has two ongoing investigations: one into her server and the other regarding possible public corruption.

Clinton should be apologizing not for the timing of her previous apology, but for allowing classified material, including Top Secret and Special Access Programs (SAP), on her private server where it was a sitting duck for hackers, and a genuine national security risk. And whether or not the material was marked classified at the time—which is how she defends herself—it was wrong and illegal.

But if mainstream media wishes were votes, Clinton would already have the presidency—no questions asked. There is a rotten double standard at CNN, and the rest of the mainstream media, which continue to ask hard-hitting questions of Republicans the likes of which they wouldn’t dare ask members of their favored party.


AIM Editor on Conservative Commandos radio about Media and Muslim Brotherhood

Accuracy in Media

AIM Editor Roger Aronoff appeared on December 17 on the Philadelphia, PA Conservative Commandos radio show to talk about his recent column “Media Continue Attacks on Muslim Brotherhood Critics.”

Aronoff’s article discusses how Frank Gaffney, a strong national security advocate warning about the dangers of shariah law and the Muslim Brotherhood, was attacked during a recent CNN appearance for allegedly promoting “McCarthyite” politics, and also belittled by The Washington Post’s Dana Milbank.

Aronoff said that Gaffney, who heads the Center for Security Policy, is “someone who I have great admiration for.”

“I think he’s been a powerful force in this country for good, and for peace through strength,” said Aronoff.

Gaffney has been a leading critic of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), which has been clearly identified as a Hamas or Muslim Brotherhood front organization posing as a civil rights organization, noted Aronoff.

CNN host Don Lemon misled his viewers by falsely claiming during his segment with Gaffney that “There is no direct knowledge that we had that CAIR has anything to do with the Muslim brotherhood.”

“The FBI used to have a relationship with CAIR, and after the Holy Foundation trial a decade or so back, they cut off ties with them because it became quite clear that they are a front group for the Muslim Brotherhood,” said Aronoff. “And these are sensitive topics, but our survival is at stake.”

“So the real question—and this should be a discussion—Should we be concerned about the Muslim Brotherhood, or should we just think of them as sort of the Elks Lodge of Muslims?” asked Aronoff on the show.

“Let’s go ahead and make the disclaimer right now,” said Aronoff, continuing, “we’re not saying all Muslims are terrorists, but I guess we’re saying that all jihadists are Muslims, and that jihadists, whether they are the Sunni Muslim Brotherhood types or the Iranian Shiite, they are of great concern.”

Aronoff argued that Obama really has gotten a “free pass” on having advisors who are connected to the Brotherhood. “I think it’s something that should be asked of every candidate: what they know about them, and what they think about them.”

Asked why the mainstream media refuse to cover the truth, Aronoff said that the mainstream media are still largely in bed with the Democrats, and “always looking to protect them, cover for them.” The mainstream media remain corrupt and biased so that its members continue to ask tough “gotcha” questions of Republican presidential candidates, like Donald Trump and Ted Cruz, whilerefusing to give Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton the same treatment, noted Aronoff.

You can listen to the entire interview here…


Does the Truth Matter to Hillary Clinton Supporters?

By: Roger Aronoff
Accuracy in Media

During a CNN-produced segment on December 10 called, “Does the truth matter for Trump supporters?,” co-anchor Alisyn Camerota tested this proposition with the help of a focus group of handpicked Trump supporters.

“Next topic. The truth, and Donald Trump’s relationship with the truth,” said Camerota before the break leading into the segment.

She then questioned those supporters’ responses to Donald Trump’s statement about having seen “thousands and thousands” of Muslims celebrating in Jersey City, New Jersey immediately after the September 11, 2001 attacks.

Trump’s memory failed him this time: He clearly didn’t see “thousands and thousands” celebrating in New Jersey while watching television after those terror attacks. However, he did likely see reports, and some images, of people celebrating, both across the Middle East and in the New York and New Jersey areas.

In fact, The Washington Post’s Glenn Kessler, who fact-checked this claim, initially failed to find the Post’s own article from September 18, 2001, which reported that “authorities detained and questioned a number of people who were allegedly seen celebrating the attacks” and holding “tailgate-style parties” while viewing the “devastation.” It was found, instead, by Powerline blog. Of course, it becomes quickly apparent that some reports don’t actually cite exactly how many people were celebrating, which has allowed Kessler to repeatedly update his fact-check and maintain that there weren’t “thousands and thousands” of Muslims celebrating within the United States.

The “alleged” part is not whether some Muslims were “detained and questioned,” but whether or not they were seen “celebrating the attacks” on and after September 11. The local CBS New York City affiliate aired a segment back in 2001 referring to a “swarm” of people celebrating 9/11 on a rooftop in Jersey City, and saying that people were waiting and watching with binoculars as the planes crashed into the World Trade Center. Breitbart reported that with this and other reports of similar celebrations, Trump’s figure may not be so far off, and they argue that Trump is vindicated.

This observation is not to defend Trump, so much as to criticize the mainstream media’s decision to focus on Trump, a derangement syndrome that brings so much attention to Trump because it gets them ratings. They also likely hope they can be active participants in so dividing the Republican Party as to produce an independent run, either by Trump if he fails to win the Republican nomination, or by someone else if Trump wins the nomination. Trump, however, announced during Tuesday night’s debate on CNN that he won’t run as an independent if he fails to get the nomination.

So was this a big lie on Trump’s part, or a confused but largely accurate—except for the numbers—account of the actual response by some number of Muslims in New Jersey and elsewhere? Rudolph Giuliani, the then-mayor of New York City,said there were a number of arrests that were made in that city because of people celebrating the attacks, but that Trump was exaggerating.

But the real question is this: Why doesn’t CNN also do a segment asking, “Does the truth matter for Hillary Clinton supporters?” with a group of Hillary supporters, and ask about their thoughts on how Hillary’s statements match the truth?

Instead, on November 12 Camerota said that Mrs. Clinton’s claim that she wanted to join the Marines is “one of those anecdotes that a candidate kind of throws out and we often move on.” Kessler awarded Hillary’s suspect story only two Pinocchios. Kessler gave her four Pinocchios for one that he labeled as one of “The biggest Pinocchios of 2015.” That was her claim that “DOMA [the Defense of Marriage Act] had to be enacted to stop an anti-gay marriage amendment to the U.S. Constitution” in 1996.

The investigation and questions into Mrs. Clinton truthfulness could go back a few years. Why not test American responses to Hillary’s claim about being named after Sir Edmund Hillary, who had not yet scaled Mt. Everest? He successfully reached Everest’s peak more than half a decade after Hillary was born.

Also, what about her false claim about coming under fire in Bosnia? Are those examples not enough to also pillory Hillary in the press?

Maybe not, but some of her more recent grand lies demand attention. Mrs. Clinton claimed at her October 22nd hearing before the Benghazi Select Committee that she did not see any of the 600 emails that came to the State Department from Libya, the ones which sought beefed up security.

Mrs. Clinton also claims that she didn’t tell the family members of the Benghazi victims that “We are going to have the filmmaker arrested who was responsible for the death of your son,” though several maintain that she did.

Mrs. Clinton claims to have had no knowledge of the flow of arms to al Qaeda-related groups in Libya, although her own public emails contain an admonishment from a fellow State Department employee, Ann-Marie Slaughter, warning against providing arms to the Libyan rebels. This dishonest candidate also claimed that she never sent or received classified materials on her unauthorized private server, another statement that has been proven false, andconfirmed again this week.

Mrs. Clinton has also been caught in another number of lies about how she hadtold her daughter, Egyptian Prime Minister Hisham Kandil, and the President of Libya that she knew the Benghazi attack was a terrorist attack perpetrated by an al-Qaeda related group. Yet she still conspired with President Obama and Susan Rice in claiming that a YouTube video critical of Islam sparked the 2012 Benghazi attacks.

A Quinnipiac Poll from a few months ago found that 61 percent of voters found her neither “honest” nor “trustworthy.” But the media don’t want to emphasize that.

The greed and dishonesty coming from the Clintons are unlike anything we have previously witnessed. Earlier this year the book Clinton Cash cited numerousconflicts of interest, such as the owner of Laureate Education, a George Soros backed company, receiving tens of millions of dollars from Hillary Clinton’s State Department through a non-profit he controlled, and, in turn, paying Bill Clinton more than $16 million, plus donating generously to the Clinton Foundation. The mainstream media, if possible, appear to be vetting Mrs. Clinton as inadequately as they did former presidential candidate Barack Obama. They turn a blind eye to these sorts of activities.

It’s clear that most of the media are determined to wreck the Republicans’ chances of winning the White House, at any cost. But the political winds are blowing in a conservative direction in many countries, such as France, Argentina and Venezuela. Already, as a backlash against Obama, the Republicans have made tremendous electoral gains since he was first elected in 2008. As The New York Times had to acknowledge last month, in addition to Republican control of both the U.S. Senate and House, “the president today presides over a shrinking party whose control of elected offices at the state and local levels has declined precipitously. In January, Republicans will occupy 32 of the nation’s governorships, 10 more than they did in 2009. Democratic losses in state legislatures under Mr. Obama rank among the worst in the last 115 years, with 816 Democratic lawmakers losing their jobs and Republican control of legislatures doubling since the president took office…”

If only CNN had the courage to examine both parties equally, instead of perpetuating its own Trump derangement syndrome while working to help elect a Democrat for president next year. Don’t count on it.


Carson Performs Brain Surgery on the Media

By: Cliff Kincaid
Accuracy in Media

Last May we published a column, “Why They Must Destroy Ben Carson.” It has been determined that a black Christian conservative, especially a political outsider with credentials as a life-saving physician, just cannot be allowed to succeed in politics. Carson must be destroyed.

His life as a poor boy with a temper is now coming in for serious media scrutiny. Who did he hit? And why?

In an attempt to defend this assault on the character of Ben Carson, Alisyn Camerota of CNN told the candidate on Friday that the media are fair and balanced because they “vetted” Barack Obama as a candidate by checking out reports that he once had a girlfriend, who “may have been a composite character.”

All of this is happening now because Carson is doing very well in the presidential polls and could actually capture the GOP presidential nomination and threaten Hillary Clinton’s election to the presidency. However, our media are determined to have the first black president, whom they failed to vet for his communist connections and Muslim background, succeeded by the first woman president, no matter how corrupt and how tainted by the Benghazi massacre she may be.

But in going after Carson, a decent man who has saved countless lives as a surgeon, the media are getting downright mean and silly. And typical of the bias they pretend not to have, they don’t seem to realize how ridiculous they look.

Carson, who grew up without a father, has credited his mother, teachers, a band director and the choir director at the church he attended while going to Yale for helping turn around his life and becoming a success. After his career as a doctor, he then became a philanthropist, setting up reading rooms in schools and awarding scholarships to students. His adult life is a success story by any objective measure.

But none of that matters because Carson is a black conservative who threatens the progressive, or dialectical, view of history and he must be destroyed.

Rather than highlight the positive influences in Carson’s life, our media are now sifting through some controversial incidents in his past which Carson has acknowledged that he had to overcome to get his life in order.

Enter CNN’s Alisyn Camerota, who is either one of the dumbest people on television or totally dishonest. She claimed on the network on Friday that President Obama had been thoroughly “vetted” by the major media when he ran for president. So I entered the words “Frank Marshall Davis” in the CNN search engine on Friday. Interestingly, I pulled up a column, “Frank Marshall Davis—Communist mentor of Barack Hussein Obama,” written by yours truly but submitted by someone else, and posted with a disclaimer, “not verified by CNN.”

You’re kidding me. Seven years after we exposed the Davis role in educating and raising Obama, CNN still has not “verified” the facts? It’s true. CNN has had seven years to verify what is an established fact—and which helps explain Obama’s transformation of America—and still won’t report, let alone investigate, the President’s relationship with a member of the Communist Party. Unfortunately, that’s fairly typical of the liberal media.

The media save their “vetting” for insignificant facts about Republicans that are designed to be blown out of proportion and make the candidate look bad.

Camerota made the vetting claim about Obama when defending the network’s investigation into Carson’s life as a young person. Carson is not accused of having a relationship with a communist. Instead, questions are being raised about some of the people he had violent encounters with as he grew up. Carson is protecting the identities of those people and, in any case, the incidents are not directly relevant to his presidential run, since the point is that he grew beyond these behavior problems to become the calm and professional person he is today. His demeanor is something that attracts people to him. He tells these stories about his past so that other young people facing similar problems can understand that it is possible to hold your temper in check and become a responsible adult.

CNN assigned Scott Glover and Maeve Reston to investigate Carson’s life as a young person. After their scrutiny of his early life, CNN admitted that none of the people they interviewed challenged the veracity of Carson’s accounts.

CNN has not only decided to go ahead with the “story” through more smoke and mirrors, but they now want Carson’s campaign to drop everything and bring forth people out of his past, so they can be embarrassed and tripped up with gotcha questions. Carson has told the media to get lost.

Carson has even discussed these incidents in his books and public appearances. The only conceivable purpose of this line of questioning from CNN is to portray Carson as a liar. Since they can’t challenge his amazing career as a doctor, they have to go back in time, to make up this or that controversy, based on conflicting accounts or questions about details.

But Carson understands the game the media are playing, and has turned the tables on them. This is another reason why ordinary people like him. He doesn’t take the garbage from the “journalists” in the major media who have already exposed themselves as partisan hacks.

Responding to Carson’s excellent point about Obama getting the soft and easy treatment from the media, Camerota said, “President Obama’s autobiographyDreams of [sic] My Father was also vetted.” With a straight face, Camerota said Obama had been vetted by reporters trying to find out whether he had had a girlfriend in his younger years, as he claimed in the book, actually titled Dreams from My Father. She said the media discovered the girl was a composite.

So what? The issue with Obama wasn’t a girlfriend. The issue was that Obama named “Frank” as his mentor and concealed the fact that he was Frank Marshall Davis, the communist. That was a far more serious matter. We exposed Frank as Davis in the 2008 campaign, but most of the media didn’t want to cover the story. They were too busy trying to elect the first black president and carry out his “hope and change” agenda.

Consider the furor if it had been determined that John McCain or Mitt Romney had been influenced by a member of a Ku Klux Klan or Nazi group. But Obama’s relationship with a communist who had a 600-page FBI file was not deemed newsworthy.

Carson understands how the media treated Obama, saying to Camerota, “The vetting that you all did with President Obama doesn’t even come close, doesn’t even come close to what you guys are trying to do in my case, and you’re just going to keep going back, ‘He said this 12 years ago’—it is just garbage. Give me a break.”

Carson understands how the media play their game, and he also understands the role played by Saul Alinsky, the community organizer, in Democratic Party politics. Alinsky wrote a book, Rules for Radicals, dedicated to Lucifer. But that’s not supposed to be controversial, either, as far as CNN is concerned.

In another media-manufactured controversy, Carson’s recollection that he was offered a scholarship to West Point has been challenged. Carson joined ROTC in high school and became a leader of Detroit’s ROTC program, rising to the rank of lieutenant colonel. Instead of applying to West Point, he pursued a medical career.

Politico headlined its story by Kyle Cheney, “Ben Carson admits fabricating West Point scholarship,” when Carson did not admit anything of the sort. A close reading of Carson’s book indicates he talked about an offer of a scholarship, perhaps from an ROTC official or a general he met at an ROTC affair. But he never claimed to have been admitted or to have applied. However, considering his background in the ROTC, it’s likely Carson could have gotten the scholarship if he had applied for it. Perhaps that’s why he considered it an offer. In any case, this is much ado about nothing. What’s more, the issue is Politico’s use of the term “fabricated.”  The Carson campaign did not admit fabricating anything. Doug Watts of the Carson campaign told The Daily Caller News Foundation that “The Politico story is an outright Lie.”

While Carson joined the ROTC and then decided to go to medical school, a young Barack Obama left his mentor Frank Marshall Davis only to fall under the influence of Marxist professors, become an Alinskyite community organizer, and then make friends with communists and terrorists in Chicago.

What a contrast. If only the American people had known who they were voting for in 2008.

Carson is not the fabricator. Our media are fabricating the news, making stories out of little or nothing. With a man whose career has been characterized by integrity and hard work, it’s hard to make him look bad. But the media won’t stop trying. Their double standards of scrutiny are so obvious.

In going after Carson, they have met their match. Rather, they have met someone willing to go after the media’s lack of ethics and standards. He is not willing to be a victim in their campaign of politics of personal destruction.

Carson is performing brain surgery on the media. It’s not intelligence he’s finding; it’s garbage.


Selling Sanders, Socialism and Hypocrisy

By: Cliff Kincaid
Accuracy in Media

Millionaire businessman Ben Cohen of Ben & Jerry’s Ice Cream was on CNN last week talking about his presidential candidate, career politician and Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), a “social democrat,” not a socialist. For his part, Cohen said, “You know, I’m a capitalist, clearly, and I support the guy.”

Capitalism has certainly been very good to Ben & Jerry. Their Vermont-based ice cream business is an American success story. But in 2012, they sold out to the British-Dutch conglomerate Unilever for a purchase price of $326 million. The result was that Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield became members of the one-tenth of one percent that Sanders rallies against. Cohen and Greenfield each has a reported net worth of $150 million.

The Chicago Tribune reports that the top one-tenth of one percent consists of 160,000 families with net assets of at least $20 million.

Unilever is worth $129 billion, according to Forbes magazine. Sounds like one of the big corporations Bernie should rail against.

During the Democratic presidential debate, Sanders said, “We’re gonna win because first, we’re gonna explain what democratic socialism is. And what democratic socialism is about is saying that it is immoral and wrong that the top one-tenth of one percent in this country own almost 90 percent—almost—own almost as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent. That it is wrong, today, in a rigged economy, that 57 percent of all new income is going to the top one percent.”

He called for a tax on Wall Street but not ice cream to pay for the free college educations he’s proposing for students. But a Wall Street tax would affect the 55 percent of Americans who report having money invested in stocks.

A popular Bernie Sanders meme notes that while he claims to want to get money out of politics, he bribes people with the promise of government benefits in exchange for votes.

What is clear is that Sanders, a true socialist, believes Americans have too many choices, and that apparently the government must step in to regulate and determine what’s best for consumers. “You don’t necessarily need a choice of 23 underarm spray deodorants or of 18 different pairs of sneakers when children are hungry in this country,” he told CNBC. “I don’t think the media appreciates the kind of stress that ordinary Americans are working on.”

Unilever, which owns Ben & Jerry’s, produces many different kinds of deodorants. Labeled “The World’s No. 1 Antiperspirant” featuring “body-responsive antiperspirant technology,” Degree is available in a range of formats for men and women. They include:

  • Degree Men Dry Protection
  • Degree Men Fresh Deodorant
  • Degree Men Adrenaline Series
  • Degree Men Clinical Protection

Sanders hasn’t said anything about too many choices of ice cream. According to published reports, there are about 40 varieties of Ben & Jerry’s ice cream available in pint form. There are reportedly 159 ice cream brands available nationwide.

One could easily argue that underarm deodorants and sneakers are more important than ice cream. But CNN’s Carol Costello didn’t make that point.

In fact, Cohen said his company has produced another flavor, a Bernie Sanders ice cream called Bernie’s Yearning. He told Costello that the giant chip on the top represents all the wealth that’s gone to the top one percent of the population over the past 10 years. “And the way you eat it is that you whack it with your spoon, then you mix it around,” he said. “That’s the Bernie Yearning.”

We are all supposed to have a good laugh about all of this. Except that in socialist Venezuela, which Sanders once praised for shipping fuel to New England, there is a shortage of toilet paper.

That doesn’t bother the Hollywood super-rich. Blogger Steve Bartin notes that dozens of “artists and cultural leaders” have signed up as supporters of Sanders’ socialist program, including comedian Sarah Silverman, once quoted as saying unborn children are “just goo.” Bartin cites a piece by Professor Glenn Harlan Reynolds in The Wall Street Journal which says that Hollywood gets about $1.5 billion in tax credits and exemptions, grants, waived fees and other financial inducements. His source was a liberal group, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, which noted that the funds could otherwise have been spent “on public services like education, health care, public safety, and infrastructure.”

In other words, services that could benefit what Sanders calls “ordinary Americans,” if only the Hollywood elite weren’t taking advantage of the taxpayers.

The Bernie Sanders campaign is proud of the Hollywood support. It says the number of “major artists from all genres of music, comedy, acting, writing, and producing” in support of Sanders has reached 125. They have their own special section on the “Sanders for president” website. Dr. Cornel West, honorary co-chair of Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), is listed under the category of “academic/philosopher.”

Sanders supporter and Hollywood director Adam McKay, who with Will Ferrell, co-wrote and directed the films “Anchorman” and “Step Brothers,” said, “As artists and citizens we believe it is time for government to once again represent the people and not just big money. Bernie Sanders is the only candidate speaking against the widespread legalized corruption that has handed our government to billionaires, large corporations and banks.”

Columnist Doug Powers commented, “I assume liberal celebs are pulling for Sanders’ style of socialism because he’s going to eliminate the tax credit programs for billion-dollar entertainment corporations? That story line would be too unbelievable even for Hollywood.”

Taking the personal hypocrisy one step further, leftist filmmaker Michael Moore has been quoted as saying that Sanders won the Democratic presidential debate because he questions “the core system” of wealth and power in the U.S. Moore’s net worth has been estimated at $50 million and he just went through a messy divorce, revealing that he had a 10,000 square foot lakeside home in northern Michigan once valued at $2 million.

Meanwhile, sniffing a story here, The New York Times has run a piece, “Bernie Sanders Has Fund-Raiser at Fancy Hollywood Home,” noting that the socialist finished up the debate and then raised money at the home of wealthy real estate operator Syd Leibovitch. The paper reported that tickets for the event sold for a minimum of $250. Those who spent the maximum, $2,700, or who raised $10,000, were invited to a special “pre-event reception,” the paper said.

It sounds like a special benefit for the rich and powerful.

The names on the host list included Marianne Williamson, the famous New Age spiritual teacher who has called for repealing Columbus Day. One of Williamson’s other political objectives being promoted by her Peace Alliance group is a federal Department of Peacebuilding.

Perhaps Sanders will promote that idea in the next presidential debate, after he bashes the rich and announces which brands of sneakers, deodorant and ice cream will go out of business under his administration.

When will the rest of the media follow the lead of The New York Times and expose this “man of the people” and his Hollywood backers as the phonies they truly are?


Media Come to Defense of Killer

By: Cliff Kincaid
Accuracy in Media

You may have noticed the news that trust in the media remains at an all-time low. As if to drive that figure even lower, CNN was busy much of Tuesday afternoon trying to spare a killer from the death penalty on the false grounds that Catholicism forbids capital punishment.

No wonder our media are held in such disregard.

CNN’s Vatican senior correspondent John Allen said, “You know, the Catholic Church has a long history of opposing the death penalty.”

False. Section 2267 of the Catholic Catechism says, “The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.”

On a website called Crux, which covers “all things Catholic” and for which Allen serves as associate editor, we find an article noting, “The Church doesn’t teach that the death penalty is immoral, but says it should only be used in rare circumstances when the state has no other way to protect society from violent offenders.”

So why did Allen mislead his CNN audience?

Speaking to anchor Brooke Baldwin, CNN’s Allen went on, “It was as far back as 1969 that Pope Paul VI urged the abolition of the death penalty and every pope since has upheld the same tradition. I think the interesting thing, as you say, is that Pope Francis was just in the United States, got a rousing ovation from Congress, was widely hailed by political authorities up and down the country. This is sort of the first test, Brooke, as to whether those people who were cheering the pope’s presence are also going to be willing to act on his concrete agenda.”

The popes or the bishops and cardinals can have their own personal opinions, but the fact is that the teaching of the church does NOT forbid capital punishment. He knows this.

The Catholic Answers website notes that both the Old Testament (Genesis 9:6) and the New Testament (Romans 13:4) seemingly endorse the death penalty.

The Ellicott’s Bible commentary notes that the phrase “To bear the sword” from Romans seems to be a recognized Greek phrase to express the power of the magistrates. “It is clear from this passage that capital punishment is sanctioned by Scripture,” the commentary says.

So Allen had the facts wrong and wanted “those people who were cheering the pope’s presence” in the U.S. to accept his personal plea but disregard church teaching. This distortion is one reason why people don’t trust the media.

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia notes that support for the death penalty has been part of Christian and Catholic tradition in the Old and New Testaments. What’s more, it was morally accepted when the U.S. Constitution was adopted. Scalia recently told a group of students, “If the death penalty did not violate the Eighth Amendment when the Eighth Amendment was adopted, it doesn’t violate it today.”

The Supreme Court has formally ruled that the death penalty is not a violation of the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment. What’s more, in June, the Court in a 5-4 ruling upheld the use of a particular drug for lethal injection in executions.

In the case at issue on CNN and other media on Tuesday, a woman named Kelly Gissendaner was given the death penalty by lethal injection because she ordered the murder of her husband, Douglas Gissendaner, in 1997. Her lover, Gregory Bruce Owen, stabbed her husband to death.

The family of Douglas Gissendaner issued a statement, noting, “Kelly planned and executed Doug’s murder. She targeted him and his death was intentional. Kelly chose to have her day in court and after hearing the facts of this case, a jury of her peers sentenced her to death… As the murderer, she’s been given more rights and opportunity over the last 18 years than she ever afforded to Doug who, again, is the victim here. She had no mercy, gave him no rights, no choices, nor the opportunity to live his life. His life was not hers to take.”

Despite media opposition to the death penalty, the majority of Americans still support it. Pew found that 56% favor the death penalty for people convicted of murder, while 38% are opposed.

Pew did find declining support for the death penalty among Democrats, helping to explain why the Democrats masquerading as journalists in the media oppose it. Pew explained, “Much of the decline in support over the past two decades has come among Democrats. Currently, just 40% of Democrats favor the death penalty, while 56% are opposed. In 1996, Democrats favored capital punishment by a wide margin (71% to 25%).”

Among Republicans it found that 77% favor the death penalty. Among independents the figure was 57% supporting capital punishment.

In addition to their liberal opposition to the death penalty, the media perceived a sexist angle in this case, since Gissendaner “became Georgia’s first female prisoner to be executed in 70 years,” as CNN put it, or “the only woman on Georgia’s death row,” as noted by The Washington Post.

Prior to the pope’s U.S. visit, CNN’s John Allen had written that “Francis knows that the death penalty is controversial in the United States, and that a strong camp in the American Catholic Church passionately defends it. Looking ahead to his trip here in September, this could be one of those moments in which discretion seems the better part of valor. On the other hand, it’s also a chance for Francis to show that he’s serious about the death penalty by saying something he knows full well many Americans, including some members of his own flock, don’t want to hear.”

As noted, Francis did condemn the death penalty before Congress. However, as a result of Georgia carrying out the ultimate punishment in the Kelly Gissendaner case, it appears that the pope’s influence in this area has been shown to be non-existent. He had actually pleaded for Georgia authorities to spare her life in a last-minute letter.

The credibility of the pope is a problem, since his personal views are contrary to church teaching and Georgia authorities ignored him anyway. But John Allen’s misrepresentation of the facts hurt his own credibility and that of the media, whose trustworthiness can only continue to decline.


How “Mittmentum” Backfired on Hugh Hewitt

By: Cliff Kincaid
Accuracy in Media

Salem radio commentator Hugh Hewitt has become a media darling for his “expert” opinions, as he lectures Republicans on how to handle not only the media but the issues. However, Hewitt is the same commentator who had flatly predicted a big Mitt Romney win. On October 22, 2012, Hewitt announced, “Romney’s momentum will continue unbroken, and his demeanor and especially his poise will be the takeaway for any undecideds that are left…Romney won the debates decisively, which means he will win on November 6. Some things are simple, and this is one of them.”

Hewitt, known as Hugh Blewit, failed to understand that President Obama had organized “the strongest grassroots organization in the history of American presidential politics,” in the words of Jeremy Bird, the National Field Director of Obama for America. This was a network comprised of more than two million volunteers, backed by neighborhood political teams and 2,700 field organizers. They carried the day.

We noted at the time that Republican strategist Karl Rove was raising $300 million for television ads depicting Republican candidate Mitt Romney as a would-be efficient manager of the U.S economy. Rove had advised Republicans not to call Obama a socialist, believing that undecided, moderate or left-leaning voters would jump to Obama’s side if that charge were leveled against him. This was a terrible miscalculation. It meant that a significant percentage of conservative voters didn’t think Romney was up to the task of identifying and rolling back Obama-style Marxism. They didn’t turn out for Romney. They also gave up on the Republican establishment, a continuing wave of outrage and discontent that accounts for outsiders moving to the top of the field of Republicans contending for the GOP 2016 presidential nomination.

But the establishment is back, in the form of such personalities as Karl Rove, a Fox News contributor, and Hugh Hewitt.

A moderator during the recent Republican debate broadcast by CNN, Hewitt engaged in back-and-forth with candidate Donald Trump over a Trump interview on Hewitt’s Salem network radio show. Trump complained that Hewitt was playing gotcha with trick questions about Arab personalities and names in the Middle East. Hewitt has made it clear he doesn’t like Trump’s style and approach.

Now that candidate Ben Carson is under fire by the media for offering his opinion that a Muslim who believes in Sharia should not be president, Hewitt has gone back on CNN to take issue with Carson and offer his advice. On Tuesday he told CNN’s Carol Costello that Carson is a rookie who has to work on getting his message right.

Confirming his role as a gatekeeper, Jim Geraghty of National Review says that Republican candidates are “attempting to showcase their interest in Hewitt’s priorities.” Similarly, Politico says Hewitt “has captured the ears of the GOP and earned the trust of virtually all of its biggest names.” But why? As proven by his faulty prediction in 2012, it seems he is too tied up in the establishment Republican Party view to understand the progressive wave that is not only still strong in the U.S., but around the world. Despite how things may look on the Democratic side right now, these forces are strong and believe that history is on their side.

In terms of their most recent gains, consider that the socialists have solidified their control of Greece, anti-American socialist Jeremy Corbyn has been elected the head of the Labor Party in Britain, and socialists seem poised to win the Canadian national elections on October 19. Even if the New Democratic Party (NDP) doesn’t win nationally, the left-wing party has already taken control of Alberta, the oil-rich and most conservative part of the country.

Here, avowed socialist Bernie Sanders (I-VT) is strongly challenging Hillary Clinton for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination. He draws huge crowds—most of them young people—and attracts people in the New Age movement who believe in bizarre things like a federal Department of Peace. This may sound strange, but the movement has tens of millions of followers who forecast a new Aquarian Age, apparently to be led by Sanders and the leader of a new global religion.

Having misjudged one presidential contest, it would be nice if the public were reminded of the details surrounding Hewitt’s prediction of a Romney victory in 2012. His blog at the time had proclaimed, “Why Romney Wins: the Economy is Tanking.” It is easier to pontificate than actually examine what is happening out in the country, as I recently did when covering a Sanders for President rally. The surge for socialism is real and has taken hold among those being “educated” at our public universities. No wonder Sanders wants to give them free college, a maneuver that could guarantee the Democrats millions of votes.

In a 2012 column entitled “Mittmentum Builds,” Hewitt seemed to have New Age powers of clairvoyance, saying that “He who surges last surges best in a presidential campaign, and it appears that Romney has indeed caught the last big wave.” He said that an “amazing” Romney speech in Wisconsin “is the sort of performance that flows from a candidate who knows he is winning.”

Let’s remember that Republican Mitt Romney lost an easily winnable election. He got only 48 percent of the vote, just two points more than Senator John McCain’s (R-AZ) total in 2008.

Candidates get scorched for making perceived mistakes, in response to trick or gotcha questions, but commentators are rarely held accountable for their errors. Let’s take a look back at some other predictions from the 2012 election, as reflected in headlines or actual quotations:

  • Karl Rove’s Prediction: Mitt Romney wins 285 electoral votes to President Obama’s 253.
  • George Will Predicts 321-217 Romney Romp.
  • Larry Kudlow (CNBC) predicts Romney Landslide. “A huge victory for a principled Romney.”
  • Ann Coulter confident of Romney victory.
  • Why Glenn (Beck) thinks Romney will have a decisive victory on Tuesday.
  • Dick Morris: Romney will win popular vote by 5 or 10 points.
  • Charles Krauthammer: It will be very close but Romney will win the presidency.
  • Landslide (win for Romney): Limbaugh predicts 2012 election.
  • (Michael) Barone predicts Romney wins handily.
  • Fred Barnes in The Weekly Standard: “Why Romney Will Win.”
  • Jonah Goldberg: “I think Romney wins in an absolute nailbiter.”
  • Matt Vespa at Red State: “My Prediction: Romney Wins Comfortably.”
  • Edward Morrissey (Hot Air): “Joe Biden Can’t Save Obama.”
  • James Pethokoukis (American Enterprise Institute): “…Mitt Romney will be elected the 45th President of the United States, winning the two-party popular vote 51% to 49% and the electoral vote by 301 to 237 for President Obama.”

Commentators get things wrong, and that doesn’t disqualify them from continuing to hold their jobs and make predictions. But getting a presidential contest wrong, without analyzing why it happened and whether the progressives are still outsmarting the Republicans, is a recipe for another disaster.

The headline over that October 22, 2012 Hugh Hewitt column was, “Romney Wins Again, And Left Gets It Wrong—Again.” The left was not only “right,” but is as strong as ever. Today, they have the pope on their side.

Republicans listen to and follow a Pied Piper like Hewitt at their own risk.


Biased Media vs. Behavioral Standards

By: Lloyd Marcus


I love her because she is a little over a hundred pounds, 5’2” gutsy fired ball. However, every time we fly, I pray she makes it through TSA without losing her cool. My wife Mary despises the gross infringement upon her rights and being “molested by TSA.” Mark Steyn hosting Rush’s radio show succinctly articulated the source of my wife’s outrage.

“Your grandmother in the wheelchair has to lift up her skirt and show her colostomy bag to the TSA until the end of time. Your grandfather, who got blown up serving his country in a war and has a leg brace, has to be degraded and show that to officialdom at the airport until the end of time. But millions and millions of people can just walk into the selfsame country across the southern border, and we’re supposed to just accept it.” – Mark Steyn

Meanwhile, the GOP, the MSM and political experts continue to scratch their heads, puzzled why Trump’s poll numbers rise every time he verbally slaps a reporter (operative) pushing the Left’s PC agenda. Mary’s outrage is shared by millions.

We all know the mainstream media is bias. But they appear to have totally come out-of-the-closet exposing their true identity as Leftist operatives. It was infuriating watching a CNN interviewer hammering Republican presidential contender Dr Ben Carson. This despicable jerk kept trying to twist Dr Carson’s words to mean Dr Carson wants to bomb refugees with drones. http://bit.ly/1fFSbuT

Dr Carson is an extraordinarily kind, gentle and wise man; humanity flowing from his very being. I wanted to slap the interviewer on Dr Carson’s behalf. (Just kidding.) Clearly, the Leftist operative interviewer was trying to infer that you never know what those crazy mean-spirited Republicans will do.

Also, infuriating and evil is the MSM hiding the sick scandal happening at Planned Parenthood.

In the latest video released exposing Planned Parenthood black marketing baby body parts, one of PP’s clients joked about shipping whole heads of aborted babies to research labs. http://bit.ly/1Kegvkl I was stunned by the lack of media coverage and national outrage. Have we grown numb?

My wife Mary said, “No, we have not. Outraged Americans held 200 huge rallies nationwide clamoring for the defunding of Planned Parenthood.” http://bit.ly/1hBAOgT And yet, the MSM is mute regarding the national outcry against PP. Once again, the mainstream media are proving themselves to be operatives of evil; protecting PP by shielding the American people from the truth.

Mary and I are longtime friends with a liberal couple. Getting their news solely from far left media outlets, they oppose defunding PP. We plan to share the horrific PP videos with them. If our liberal friends still rally behind PP, I no longer want them in my life.

Their loyalty to PP means they are disciples of the religion of Liberalism. Its sacrament is abortion. The murder and abuse of babies is fair-game in their war on conservatives and behavior standards. That is off-the-chain evil folks.

A trait I have noticed in this couple and Leftist media is their resentment of behavioral standards. They are thrilled when anyone striving to be morally upright fails. They celebrate depravity. As crazy as it sounds, the liberal couple likes Mary and I because we are among the few people in their lives they can trust. And yet, they resent our goody-two-shoes Christianity.

At the core of the Left’s relentless assault on traditional American values is their hatred of behavioral standards.

Black Superbowl quarterback Russell Wilson said he was following God’s plan, waiting to have sex after marriage. This made Wilson a MSM laughing stock. With 70% black out-of-wedlock births which leads to gangs, jail and poverty, the MSM attacking the black superstar did black youths a huge disservice. http://bit.ly/1PT7yNA

For years the Left despised the Duggar family’s wholesome hit TV show. It was an oasis in a desert wasteland were the Left/MSM seeks to make depravity normal. When son, Josh Duggar’s moral failures lead to the cancellation of his parent’s TV show, the MSM rejoiced. Why? The Duggars promoted behavioral standards.

Behavior has consequences. Josh Duggar did the deed and is paying the price. He has asked for forgiveness. I pray this young man will turn his life around. Throughout the Bible men of God had moral failures. Moses murdered a man. King David stole a man’s wife and had him killed. Moses and King David repented and became great men of God.

The Left presents the absurd argument that unless one is morally perfect, they have no right to suggest behavioral standards. The Bibles says, “All have sinned and come short of the glory of God.” Are we suppose to throw out all behavioral standards because humans are incapable of keeping them perfectly? Apparently, the Left says yes.

Angry, fearful and hopeless, Americans see the rapid moral decline of our culture, deathly afraid to say anything. Trump is taking the heat for saying what millions are thinking.

Here is another example of the Left’s war on behavioral standards. Self-proclaimed former lesbian Dr Rosario Butterfield said because God condemns homosexual behavior, the Left demands man’s approval. http://bit.ly/1Ef0J7Z Masterfully portraying themselves as victims, in reality, homosexuals are the aggressors. Appeasing the Left/MSM, SCOTUS repealed American’s right to freely practice their religion. http://bit.ly/1NPhbLW Christians are government mandated to embrace anti-biblical behavioral or suffer economic death and/or jail time. http://bit.ly/1U2ieQ1

Still, I get the sense that the Left has overplayed its hand and there’s a new sheriff in town. Americans are beginning to speak-out and push back against PC sacred cows such as Black Lives Matter, illegal immigration and the radical homosexual agenda.

Excellent! It’s about time.

Lloyd Marcus, The Unhyphenated American
Chairman, Conservative Campaign Committee


Paying the Media for Pro-U.N. Coverage

By: Cliff Kincaid
Accuracy in Media

A CNN story blared, “The American stock market has surrendered a stunning $2.1 trillion of value in just the last six days of market chaos.” The ups and downs of the stock market have been seized upon by those leading a global campaign to steal trillions of dollars from the American people in the name of “sustainable development.”

One aspect of the campaign is a so-called “financial transaction tax,” endorsed by socialist and presidential candidate Bernie Sanders (I-VT), which would even affect the stock trades of small investors. The proposal has a global component.

However, the odds are that you will only be treated to positive coverage of this unfolding scheme to “redistribute the wealth” on a global basis. George Russell of Fox News broke the story of how a branch of media giant Thomson Reuters and the United Nations Foundation are training journalists and paying for stories to “popularize” the U.N.-sponsored Sustainable Development Goals and make them attractive to news consumers.

The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are outlined in the U.N. report, “Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development,” a manifesto to be adopted by the nations meeting at the United Nations Headquarters in New York from September 25 to 27, as the global organization celebrates its 70th anniversary.

The SDGs, such as “End poverty in all its forms everywhere,” sound positive. However, in reality, the concept of “sustainable development” is a Marxist scheme that researcher Michael Hichborn of the Lepanto Institute calls “a United Nations plan for the creation of a global socialist utopia thinly disguised as a poverty reduction program.”

Thomson-Reuters says, “The intensive training program aims to provide professionals from 33 countries with information, tools and strategies to understand the complex issues surrounding the next set of UN global development goals. The program will enable reporters, editors and spokespeople to better understand, report and communicate around some of the issues related to two crucial upcoming UN conferences: the UN Summit in New York in September that will see the adoption of the new Global Goals, and the UN Climate Change Conference in December in Paris, which is aimed at reaching a universal climate agreement.”

Marta Machado, who’s in charge of the Thomson-Reuters initiative, has worked for the Muslim Brotherhood channel, Al Jazeera, and CNN.

The United Nations Foundation, started by CNN founder Ted Turner, claims the effort is designed to “increase, enhance and influence global communications and media reporting” on the campaign.

However, in a press release that carried the subheadline, “Why communications matter in 2015,” the United Nations Foundation said the campaign will include media training, financial grants and “a sustained surge in targeted digital media,” designed to “help increase the volume and animate a global public conversation about the new goals, creating the environment to help us achieve success by 2030” (emphasis added).

Hence, the coverage will be slanted in favor of the United Nations.

Another “partner” in the global media campaign on behalf of the U.N. is the Jynwel Foundation, described as the philanthropic initiative of Jynwel Capital, an international investment and advisory firm based in Hong Kong.

As this campaign unfolds, it is a virtual certainty that the real purpose of the SDGs—to punish Americans and other “rich” people—will be carefully concealed.

As amazing as it seems, a report on foreign aid from the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) is actually titled, “From Billions to Trillions: Transforming Development Finance.” A United Nations General Assembly report, dated August 14, 2015, calls for “several trillion dollars per year” to be spent to implement “sustainable development” on a global level.

But don’t call it theft; call it “sharing.” Indeed, a report titled, “Financing the Global Sharing Economy,” proposes global taxes on financial transactions, energy and other measures to bring in over $2.8 trillion. The founder of Share the World’s Resources (STWR), Mohammed Mesbahi, has outlined a “strategy for world transformation” that condemns “the materialistic and self-seeking idea of the American Dream.”

In order to acquire these resources, new taxes on the national and global level are being pushed in the name of stabilizing the stock market.

After the Dow Jones Industrial Average plummeted more than 1,000 points at the open on Monday, the “progressives” in favor of financial transaction taxes went into action. James Henry, senior fellow at the Columbia University Center for Sustainable International Investment, was quoted as saying the stock turbulence is “a great example of why we need a Financial Transaction Tax,” a proposal that he says would raise hundreds of billions of dollars.

Almost on cue, socialist Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) endorsed the idea. Sanders, who backs a 90 percent top marginal tax rate, says his proposed financial transaction tax will reduce “risky and unproductive high-speed trading and other forms of Wall Street speculation…” In order to make it attractive, he says the proceeds “would be used to provide debt-free public college education.”

Jared Bernstein, the economic adviser to Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. from 2009 to 2011, says in a New York Times column that Sanders is right. “A financial transaction tax is a smart, fair way to raise urgently needed revenues while reducing unnecessary trading that makes our markets more volatile,” he wrote.

The council of the Socialist International convened on July 6 and 7 at the United Nations Headquarters in New York, and endorsed the Millennium Development Goals and the “post-2015 development agenda.”

Sanders is reported to be a member of the Democratic Socialists of America, the U.S. affiliate of the SI.

Such a tax could be applied on a global basis as well. Steven Solomon, a former staff reporter at Forbes, says in his book, The Confidence Game, that a global financial transactions tax “might net some $13 trillion a year…”

Calls for global taxes and more foreign aid are not new. The difference this time around is that the Vatican has endorsed the SDGs. Archbishop Bernardito Auza, Apostolic Nuncio and Permanent Observer of the Holy See to the United Nations, gave a formal statement to the world body endorsing the “sustainable development” agenda.

Pope Francis will formally address the United Nations General Assembly in New York City on Thursday, September 25.


CNN Corrects Story About Trump and Biden—Still Gets it Wrong

By: Roger Aronoff
Accuracy in Media

When the news media correct themselves, those corrections often remain unacknowledged. This permits a false perception of accuracy. It also allows incorrect, damaging information to be disseminated by news reporters regardless of accountability.

CNN, in particular, has adopted a system which informs its readers that an article has been “updated.” What exactly do those updates entail?

In one case, it appears that updates for CNN may include an after-the-fact correction of a blatant factual error when a clearly posted correction is necessary to inform the public of the changes within. The CNN article, “Donald Trump knocks Joe Biden for plagiarism in law school,” by Tom LoBianco was updated on August 13 at 11:41 a.m., but as of this writing what appears to be an earlier uncorrected version remains on the WMAL website.

Republican presidential candidate Trump’s original comments clearly indicate that he criticized Vice President Joe Biden for plagiarism in general, not just his law school plagiarism.

“I think I’d match up great. I’m a job producer. I’ve had a great record, I haven’t been involved in plagiarism,” said Trump on Hugh Hewitt’s August 12 radio show. “I think I would match up very well against [Biden].”

The headlines that remain at WMAL, CNN, and WPTZ News Channel 5 are, therefore, deceptive, and falsely give the impression that Biden’s behavior is so far in the past that it merits little further inquiry.

“Republican frontrunner Donald Trump said he would ‘do great’ in a hypothetical matchup with Vice President Joe Biden in part because of the prospective candidate’s plagiarism in law school,” states the WMAL version of LoBianco’s article. “Biden admitted to plagiarizing a law review article while in law school—lifting from writings by British politician Neil Kinnock—and it became an issue that haunted his failed 1988 presidential bid.”

This reporting confuses two separate instances, and downplays the many missteps made by Biden.

Now LoBianco’s article states, “Biden admitted to plagiarizing while in law schoolas well as lifting from writings by British politician Neil Kinnock while on the campaign trail—and it became an issue that haunted his failed 1988 presidential bid.”

According to Slate Magazine, Biden’s plagiarism was pervasive. “What is certain is that Biden didn’t simply borrow the sort of boilerplate that counts as common currency in political discourse—phrases like ‘fighting for working families,’” wroteDavid Greenberg for Slate in 2008. “What he borrowed was Kinnock’s life.”

That was during Biden’s failed 1988 presidential bid. This issue could haunt him again if, as some believe, he decides to run for president in the upcoming election.

“Over the next days, it emerged that Biden had lifted significant portions of speeches from Robert Kennedy and Hubert Humphrey,” wrote Greenberg. “Yet another uncited borrowing came from John F. Kennedy,” he later added.

“If that wasn’t bad enough, Biden admitted the next day that while in law school he had received an F for a course because he had plagiarized five pages from a published article in a term paper that he submitted.”

Greenberg also wrote that Biden falsely claimed that he had three undergraduate degrees when he had only earned one in a double major.

In other words, Biden didn’t just, as Greenberg wrote, lift Kinnock’s life wholesale—he demonstrates an early pattern of fudging and false attribution for personal gain.

News organizations like CNN must hold their own reporters accountable for publishing accurate facts because they are in the daily business of informing the public. While CNN should receive some credit for updating its news article, it should have done so openly and with a formal correction. It also needs to update its misleading title. Trump said nothing about law school. The plagiarism issue that most people associate with Biden is the one involving Kinnock.

What I see from the mainstream media is often spin, deceit, and the failure to report on important issues. Covering up one’s mistakes instead of acknowledging them is just another way that journalists can skirt accountability.