“My
office has become aware of multiple serious allegations that ActBlue
(and its affiliates) have engaged in fraudulent, deceptive, and/or
otherwise illegal activities in the Commonwealth of Virginia and/or have
aided and abetted others in doing so,” Miyares wrote in the letter to
ActBlue. “The citizens of the Commonwealth of Virginia deserve to know
that nonprofit and political entities are financed in a legal manner and
that entities operating in Virginia are legitimately and legally
raising funds. To undermine those concerns is to undermine the integrity
of our elections and charities.”
Miyares pointed to hundreds of thousands of dollars in contributions
to the fundraising platform coming from individual donors in Virginia
“in volumes that are facially implausible,” according to the letter.
Some of these high-level contributions have come from senior citizens
who self-identify as retired or unemployed and are listed with
“suspicious” addresses.
That
appears to indicate that those donations are stemming from “fictional
donors or dummy accounts,” or that the transactions are “fraudulent”
altogether, Miyares wrote in the letter. Miyares noted that it is also
possible that ActBlue is taking contributions from Virginia donors
without their consent or awareness.
Miyares argued in the letter
that ActBlue’s actions may violate Virginia’s charitable and criminal
laws, campaign finance laws and federal laws.
“For the foregoing
reasons, it is imperative that you provide my office with a detailed
description of ActBlue’s processes and procedures for verifying the
legitimacy and accuracy of donor and contribution information as well as
the processes and procedures used in verifying information reported to
regulatory bodies,” the letter reads. “Given the seriousness of these
allegations, I expect to receive your substantive response by August 12,
2024.”
ActBlue publicly responded
to Miyare’s letter in a statement online Friday, claiming that the
investigation “is nothing more than a partisan political attack and
scare tactic to undermine the power of Democratic and progressive
small-dollar donors.”
“The promoters of this disinformation
campaign have shown up at the homes of donors and harassed our staff
in-person. This must stop,” ActBlue said in its statement. “The
continued escalation of these lies and their intimidating tactics is
dangerous. Republicans simply cannot accept that millions of Democrats
are energized and engaged in the political process, and are instead
resorting to political attacks and spreading false accusations.”
The
platform processed more than $90 million in donations in the first 24
hours after Vice President Kamala Harris announced in July that she’d be
running for president, following President Biden’s announcement that he
would not be seeking reelection, according to The New York Times.
ActBlue has previously engaged in several left-leaning and controversial events and fundraising opportunities, including processing contributions for an illegal immigrant bail fund and providing
fundraising opportunities to organizations tied to a pro-Palestinian
conference featuring speakers that praised Hamas’ Oct. 7 attacks against
Israel.
ActBlue did not immediately respond to a request for comment. [SOURCE]
The Heritage Foundation’s Election Fraud Database presents a
sampling of recent proven instances of election fraud from across the
country. Each and every one of the cases in this database represents an
instance in which a public official, usually a prosecutor, thought it
serious enough to act upon it.
And each and every one ended in a finding
that the individual had engaged in wrongdoing in connection with an
election hoping to affect its outcome — or that the results of an
election were sufficiently in question and had to be overturned. This
database is not an exhaustive or comprehensive list.
This database is
intended to demonstrate the vulnerabilities in the election system and
the many ways in which fraud is committed.
Continue scrolling to view the database, or Read More
Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson is sworn in during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Wednesday, August 3, 2022.
Bill Clark / CQ-Roll Call, Inc / Getty Images
Logan Washburn August 02, 2024
Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson is encouraging residents
to report so-called “misinformation” from their neighbors ahead of
November’s election.
“Misinformation about the election process, voter rights, or even an
issue on the ballot is a serious threat to election security,” reads an
online document
from Benson’s office. “If you see misleading or inaccurate information
regarding voting or elections in Michigan, please report it.”
The document requests residents email reports of election
“misinformation” – with “an image if possible” – to
misinformation@michigan.gov. Benson’s office solicits residents to report misinformation on its “voter education resources” page.
The Federalist asked Benson’s office who this email reaches and how
the state responds to alleged “misinformation,” but her office did not
comment in time for publication.
Benson’s office published another document discussing this so-called election “misinformation,” calling
it “the most potentially damaging threat to our democracy.” It blamed
“partisans, grifters, and other opportunists here at home” for “hacking
the minds of American citizens,” and called on residents to enforce the
official narrative.
“Citizens can and should join this effort,” the document reads,
“calling out misinformation when they see it and insisting that we hold
people accountable for spreading lies about elections.”
For “trusted” information, Benson’s office refers residents to its own “fact check” page, FactCheck.org, PolitiFact, and Snopes. The latter three have shown their colors as leftistinformationgatekeepers.
Benson, a Democrat, launched
a “Democracy Ambassador” program for residents last week, according to a
press release. The state sends supposedly “nonpartisan facts and
resources” to residents who join, and it encourages them to share these
approved messages “within their communities” where they will “combat any
election-related misinformation.”
Participants will “squash misinformation before it spreads,” Benson said in the press release.
The state’s “Democracy Ambassador” webpage
says the program consists of three steps: sign up to receive approved
information, share that information, and sign up to be a poll worker.
Democrat Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel spoke to journalists last month, emphasizing “collaboration” between officials and the media in her effort to “eliminate misinformation from social media platforms.”
Meanwhile, Benson has come under fire recently for a host of election integrity failures.
Under “voting initiatives and resources,” Benson’s office directs residents to Vote411 – which, as The Federalist previously reported,
feeds voter information to a leftist data harvesting scheme. The
Federalist asked Benson’s office for comment on Vote411’s alleged data
harvesting, but her office did not comment in time for publication.
Benson also hosted
David Becker of the Center for Election Innovation and Research at a
press conference Monday. Alongside the Center for Tech and Civic Life,
which gave at least $328 million
in “Zuckbucks” in 2020, CEIR funneled $70 million from Meta CEO Mark
Zuckerberg to local election agencies, advancing voting practices that
favor the left.
In December last year, Benson issued a manual instructing clerks that
absentee ballot signatures were entitled to a “presumption of validity.” A Michigan judge struck down the guidance as unconstitutional in a final order on Tuesday.
And in a demand letter to Benson in May, the Republican National Committee alleged that she failed to clean the voter rolls of 92,000 inactive registrants. [SOURCE]
FactCheck.org has joined Snopes as another sneaky liar with their article on Apr. 25 entitled “California Bill Wouldn’t Ban the Bible.”
Although per the “Editor’s note,” “FactCheck.org describes itself is
one of several organizations working with Facebook to debunk false
stories,” it is not without its left-wing biases.
Article author Angelo Fichera claims that California Assembly Bill 2943 has no bearing on the sale not only of the Bible but also of any
Christian book that makes the case, in whole or part, for orientation,
identity, or behavior change. Although Fichera asserts claims about AB
2943 banning books “are indeed not supported by the language in the
legislation,” he does not actually analyze the contents of the bill.
The extent of his “research” is to cite a tweet from the bill’s
author, California assemblyman Evan Low, and an email from attorney
Anthony J. Samson, a registered state lobbyist who “provided Low with
technical assistance on the bill.” Another quote from Samson is now
offered in the updated Snopes article.
Low and Samson are hardly impartial sources. They have a vested
interest in getting the bill passed into law before massive opposition
can galvanize. FactCheck.org never bothered to do the most basic
investigative work of all: “factcheck” the bill’s author and his
assisting attorney in relation to the language of AB 2943.
FactCheck.org would never take Donald Trump’s or Jeff Sessions’s word
for what a certain anti-immigration bill of theirs says. So why does
FactCheck.org take the word of Low and Samson about what AB 2943
allegedly says, particularly since it appears to be at odds with the
wording of the bill?
Courts Have Trashed Bill History in LGBT Cases
Low tweeted on Apr. 22:
“A church or individual may still practice conversion therapy if they
do so without charging for this fraudulent service. It does not ban
bibles nor does it ban the basic sales of books as some would have you
believe.” To this we can add Low’s statement to the state assembly
just minutes before the vote, in which he alleged the sale of a book is
not an actual conversion therapy “practice,” which the bill bans.
Samson sent an email to FactCheck.org saying: “The bill by its
express terms is limited to the practice of conversion therapy as a
commercial service in exchange for monetary compensation.” Samson added
in an email to Snopes: “It does not apply to the sale of books or any
other kind of goods, and it does not prevent anyone from speaking or
writing on the subject of conversion therapy in any forum.”
Let’s review what AB 2943 says, as opposed to how Low and Samson
characterize it. That’s critical because the wording is what ultimately
determines its legal enforcement. Yes, California courts may consider
the legislative history of a bill when ruling on its meaning, but “only where statutory language is ambiguous.”
Even then, it is not binding and comprises only one component of the
court’s opinion. A court could easily decide that the wording of AB 2943
is not ambiguous on this point, as we shall see.
In addition, past experience suggests legislative history often means
relatively little in relation to court decisions on LGBT matters. The
classic examples are the same-sex marriage decisions of the California
Supreme Court in 2008 (4-3), the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California in 2010, and the U.S. Supreme Court in 2015
(5-4), all of which were based on finding a “fundamental right” to
same-sex marriage in the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the
Fourteenth Amendment.
Yet this amendment addressed citizen rights of former slaves, not
“gay marriage.” No one who had a hand in formulating and passing this
amendment in 1866-68 would have done so if it had occurred to them that
same-sex marriage could be a possible result. Of what value was
legislative history here? None.
By the same token, did the Obama administration honor the legislative
history of Title IX (passed in 1972) when it decided to interpret “sex
discrimination” to include “gender identity” and “sexual orientation”?
Who could have imagined that when “sexual orientation”
non-discrimination laws were passed in the 1980s and 1990s it would lead
to Christian bakers, florists, and photographers being fined tens of
thousands of dollars and put out of business? Or children compelled to
undergo gender identity indoctrination from kindergarten on?
What AB 2943 Actually Says Implies Bible Bans
You might think that AB 2943 applies only to psychotherapeutic
“practices” in contradistinction to other “efforts.” You would be wrong.
“This bill intends to make clear that sexual orientation change efforts
are an unlawful practice under California’s Consumer Legal Remedies
Act,” the bill says. Ergo, any “effort” at “sexual orientation change” constitutes “an unlawful practice.”
Moreover, “‘sexual orientation change efforts’ means any practices
that seek to change an individual’s sexual orientation.” Catch that? “Any practices,” not exclusively those of a psychotherapeutic sort.
You might suppose that AB 2943 has restraints on its application to
avoid encroachments on freedoms of speech and religion. You would be
wrong. The bill specifies only one restraint: These “sexual orientation
change efforts” must occur in the context of a “transaction intended to
result, or which results, in the sale or lease of goods or services to
any consumer.” Obviously, the sale of a book is a “transaction” that
“results in the sale . . . of goods . . . to any consumer.”
Even so, you might surmise that the bill applies only to mental
health professionals and not also to religious organizations or
individuals, since that limitation existed in the 2012 law forbidding
sexual orientation change therapy for minors. You would be wrong. AB
2943 applies to “unfair or deceptive acts or practices undertaken by any person in a transaction intended to result, or which results, in the sale or lease of goods or services to any consumer” (my emphasis).
You might think that “sexual orientation change efforts” entails only
efforts “to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attractions or
feelings toward individuals of the same sex.” You would be wrong.
According to the bill, it includes also “efforts to change behaviors or
gender expressions.” Thus, any sale of a book that makes statements that
homosexual practice or transgender identification are immoral actions
that people ought not to commit falls easily under the purview of AB
2943.
You might think that a transaction has to take place before the law’s
penalty can apply. You would be wrong. Also prohibited by this bill is
“advertising, offering for sale, or selling a financial product that is
illegal.” Merely advertising (e.g., on one’s Facebook page or some other
Internet site) or offering for sale (e.g., on a table at a conference,
regardless of whether copies are sold) “a financial product” that
advocates a change of attractions, behavior, or gender expression away
from the “LGBTQ” mantra is fair game.
You might think (by now a little flustered) that at least the
prohibited advertising is limited to advertising a counselor’s practice.
You would be wrong. It rather includes (to judge from a stipulation of
the bill regarding veterans affairs) “advertising or promoting any
event, presentation, seminar, workshop, or other public gathering.”
Thus, any conference or lecture would apply if a fee is charged for
attending or if “goods or services” are advertised or made available in
the course of the “event.” Indeed, I can’t see why this wouldn’t also
apply to a course offered at a college or seminary if tuition is charged
for that course.
Bill’s Author Agrees It Can Apply to Churches
Now let’s go back and see how the bill’s actual wording applies to
Low and Samson’s remarks. Low’s first comment in his tweet is a
devastating new admission: “A church or individual may still practice
conversion therapy if they do so without charging for this fraudulent
service.” The flipside of this statement is that “a church or
individual” cannot “practice conversion therapy” if there is a charge for the service.
There is no puzzling over whether the sale of ‘books’ could count as a sale of ‘goods.’ It’s obvious.
Contrary to what many supporters of the bill have been saying, the
bill’s application extends beyond mental health professionals (note that
the Snopes article claims this is unclear). There is no exemption for
religious instruction. We now have confirmation from AB 2943’s author
that the bill would indeed apply “to a pastor, Bible study or house
church leader, member of a parachurch organization working to help
people afflicted by same-sex attractions, or indeed anybody who attempts
change if goods or services involve an exchange of funds.”
AB 2493’s wording does not support Low’s second statement: “It does
not ban bibles nor does it ban the basic sales of books as some would
have you believe.” The only way that such a statement, particularly the
second half, could be true is if the sale of a book were not included as
“a transaction . . . which results in the sale . . . of goods . . . to
any consumer” or did not come under the heading of “selling a financial
product.” It is difficult to see how that could be the case.
For example, the California government’s own guide to “Understanding California’s Sales Tax” gives as its first example of how “sales tax . . . depends on the tax rate and the dollar value of the goods sold” that of a retailer who “sells five books
costing $20 each” at a tax rate of 8 percent (my emphases). There is no
puzzling over whether the sale of “books” could count as a sale of
“goods.” It’s obvious.
“Goods” are broadly defined in AB 2943 as “tangible [movable]
chattels bought or leased for use primarily for personal, family, or
household purposes.” By what rationale, then, can Low claim the sale of
books is excluded from the bill’s designation “sale of goods”? If Low
were so concerned to exclude book sales from his bill, he would have to
have excluded “books” from the category of “goods” explicitly.
People Can Be Prosecuted for Recommending Books
Oddly, Low also claims AB 2943 does not “ban the basic sales
of books.” What limitation does the adjective “basic” place on “sales”?
Does he mean only book sales not made in conjunction with other efforts
to change the behavior, identity, or attractions of specific
individuals? His qualification reminds me of constitutional lawyer David
French’s observation in a recent National Review article.
While the state might not immediately ban the sale of
certain books, it could prosecute someone who recommended or shared such
books.
To be sure, it is probably “too much even for [the California
government] to sweep through Christian bookstores looking for books”
that caution against homosexual practice or transgenderism, although
French hastens to add that “the statute would empower such an action.”
Nevertheless, “it’s far more likely that the recommendation or sharing
of certain kinds of Christian books and other written materials would be
deemed evidence of fraud and would present a core part of the case
against a minister or counselor.”
In other words, while the state might not immediately ban the sale of
certain books, it could prosecute someone who recommended or shared
such books with a person struggling with same-sex or transgender
desires. The state could also prosecute someone who, at an event in
which books advocating against homosexual practice or transgenderism are
sold, urges homosexually active or transgender-identified persons in an
audience to change their behavior.
After people adjust to this draconian step, the state might well
decide to use the law to ban books outright. In the meantime, as French
adds, “the law would loom over booksellers and churches, establishing a
chilling effect and providing a pretext for even more secular
booksellers to refrain from stocking certain Christian titles.”
If Money Changes Hands, This Bill Applies
Samson makes an even more blatant distortion about books in the
updated Snopes article, claiming AB 2943 “does not apply to the sale of
books or any other kind of goods.” Pray tell, then, what
exactly is the bill talking about when it refers to “unfair or deceptive
acts or practices . . . intended to result, or which results, in the sale or lease of goods
or services to any consumer” (my emphasis)? The sale of “goods” is
mentioned a whopping 18 times in the bill in connection with fraudulent
practices.
If Samson had intended the limitations he specifies in his email, why didn’t he advise Low to put them in the bill?
Samson adds: “It does not prevent anyonefrom speaking or writing on the subject of conversion therapy in any forum”
(my emphases). If he had said “everyone,” he would be correct (a
monetary transaction is required); “anyone” is certainly false. The bill
is clear that it pertains to “anyone” involved in
“advertising, offering to engage in, or engaging in sexual orientation
change efforts with an individual,” broadly defined as “any
practices that seek to change an individual’s sexual orientation” or
“behaviors or gender expressions,” where a monetary transaction is
entailed.
There is no limitation in the bill itself placed on venue (office,
private residence, church, conference hall, auditorium, classroom), the
mode of communication (lecture, question-and-answer counseling,
facilitated small-group discussion, writing), or the number of persons
that may be present at a given event.
The Consumer Legal Remedies Act does not limit “unlawful, unfair, or
fraudulent business practices” to discussions with a single individual.
One can just as well engage in such practices in a classroom setting as
in a one-on-one session. If Samson had intended the limitations he
specifies in his email, why didn’t he advise Low to put them in the
bill?
Samson’s comment in the FactCheck.org article, which is repeated in
the updated Snopes article, is a masterpiece of dissembling: “The bill
by its express terms is limited to the practice of conversion therapy as
a commercial service in exchange for monetary compensation.” One who
hasn’t read the bill but reads this description would likely conclude
that “the practice of conversion therapy” means only the practice of
reparative therapy or some other psychotherapeutic practice engaged in
by mental health professionals. As we have shown, one would be wrong.
What’s the bottom line? Either Low and Samson are deliberately
misrepresenting matters to secure passage of this bill, or they have
ignorantly constructed one of the most poorly worded bills imaginable.
Whichever answer one goes with, the end result is the same: AB 2943 does
not exempt from state action any oral or written communications
associated with a monetary transaction that convey, in whole or part,
that people should stop engaging in homosexual practice or expressing
themselves as a gender at odds with their biological sex established
before birth.
To those tempted to accept Low and Samson’s assurance I say: Caveat emptor. [SOURCE]
Robert A. J. Gagnon, PhD, is the author of "The Bible and Homosexual
Practice" (Abingdon) and co-author of "Homosexuality and the Bible: Two
Views" (Fortress). For 24 years he was a professor of New Testament at
Pittsburgh Theological Seminary. He is currently professor of theology
at Houston Baptist University and Theological Seminary.
The fact-checking website Snopes.com, wrote a “fact-check” article questioning the satirical nature of the Babylon Bee.
Snopes has fact-checked the Babylon Bee many times before. An insider to the fact-check world told The Federalist that Snopes readers will send the fact-check site articles from the Babylon Bee to ask whether they are true or not.
Regardless of Snopes’ original intentions with fact-checking satire,
an article it published today took an opinionated aim at the Babylon
Bee. Some pundits have even said Snopes is actively working to
deplatform and delegitimize the Babylon Bee.
The Babylon Bee wrote a satirical piece on a recent news story regarding a woman who lied about being told to “go back to where she came from”
by a white male in a grocery store. The woman was a Democratic Georgia
lawmaker who was evidently using the phrase “go back to where you came
from” in light of President Trump’s tweets.
In the satirical piece,
the Babylon Bee made fun of the story by saying the woman was told to
“go back to where she came from” by a Chick-fil-a employee.
The subhead of the Snopes “fact-check” reads, “We’re not sure if
fanning the flames of controversy and muddying the details of a news
story classify an article as ‘satire.'”
Next, Snopes said the Babylon Bee made up a fictionalized story about
a real-life news event instead of making a satirical point.
“While this real-world incident stirred up a good amount of online
anger, it wasn’t quite outrageous enough for the entertainment website
Babylon Bee,” Snopes said. “In an apparent attempt to maximize the
online indignation, this website published a fictionalized version of
the story, changing the location to Chick-fil-A, a fast-food restaurant
known for its CEO’s opposition to same-sex marriage.”
Snopes called the satirical article, which obviously pokes fun at a
real life event, a fictionalized version of the story. “The Babylon Bee
has tried to fool readers with its brand of satire in the past,” it
said.
Demonstrating a lack of objectivity, the article continued, calling
the Babylon Bee a “ruse,” which literally means “an action intended to
deceive someone.”
Snopes using its platform to say the Babylon Bee’s brand of satire is
a threat to facts misses the most important fact: It’s satire!
The Babylon Bee released an official statement highlighting the consequences this Snopes article may have on it.
Thanks to the 2016 election cycle, Facebook has partnered with
fact-checking websites such as Snopes to combat “fake news.” Snopes,
however, categorizes Babylon Bee articles as “fake news.” This threatens
the publications ability to share its content.
While Facebook apologized for hiding Babylon Bee content in the past,
another “fake news” review could leave the Babylon Bee without access
to Facebook and threatens its ability to monetize.
While Snopes ended its fact-checking partnership with Facebook in
February of 2019, they may be setting a precedent for other
fact-checking sites.
The Babylon Bee’s founder, Adam Ford, tweeted his thoughts on this poor reporting in a long thread. [SOURCE]
In the last article,
we that showed top fact-checking website PolitiFact generally rates
Republicans as less honest than Democrats and their style betrays the
need to constantly explain why Republican statements that seem true are
actually false. While this approach gives us some insight into how
PolitiFact skews against Republicans, another important component is
which facts they choose to check.
It is extremely hard to pin down exactly which facts PolitiFact
declines to check. We could argue all day about individual articles, but
how do you show bias in which statements they choose to evaluate? How
do you look at the facts that weren’t checked?
Our first stab at this question came from asking which lies each
candidate was famous for and checking to see how PolitiFact evaluated
them. These are necessarily going to be somewhat subjective, but even so
the results were instructive. With Donald Trump, we discovered the lies
that were best-known were usually checked and frequently re-checked
later on. All but one was marked as “False” or “Pants on Fire”.
PolitiFact checked this. And checked it and checked it and, just in
case they missed something, they checked it again. Then they checked it.
They checked Trump’s exact statement six separate times, finding it
false each time. Keep in mind that PolitiFact frequently points back to
the sum total of all their checks when determining which politician is
more or less truthful, so this lie is counted as six separate
falsehoods.
2. Claims about President Obama’s Birth Certificate
Politifact checked Trump on issues related to President Obama’s birth
certificate a total of eight times. The checked four times on whether
Hillary Clinton had anything to do with starting the birther rumor, two
times on statements that were skeptical of Obama’s birth status, once on
whether he brought the issue to a close and, finally, a “Full Flop”
rating when Trump admitted that Obama was born in Hawaii.
3. Claiming He Had No Relationship With Vladimir Putin
PolitiFact rated Trump’s claim that there was large-scale voter fraud
on and before Election Day as “Pants on Fire.” We tried to limit this
to this very specific claim. Trump made several other statements related
to the idea of voter fraud that were also checked and found to be
false.
5. Claimed Hillary Would Let 650 Million Immigrants In
PolitiFact checked this claim (which wandered between 600 million and 650 million) and found it to be “Pants on Fire.”
Hillary Clinton’s Top 5 Lies
The Hillary Clinton PolitiFact story was far stranger than we
anticipated. Not only does PolitiFact not check Clinton as frequently,
but they also often fact-check her by proxy. Strange as it may seem,
PolitiFact would often look at someone talking about a Clinton statement
and then fact-check the person talking about Clinton’s statement
instead of fact-checking Clinton on the statement she made.
Of these five statements, PolitiFact checked Hillary four times and
did two “fact checks by proxy,” compared to the 21 fact checks of
Trump’s five statements.
Clinton stated repeatedly that she did not send any classified
emails. PolitiFact checked this a few times as the story unfolded and
gave it a variety of ratings.
Their first rating was when they fact-checked not Clinton, but Rep.
David Cicilline saying that the former secretary of state claimed she
didn’t send any classified emails. They rated Cicilline’s claim “Half
True.” Nine months later, they would rate Clinton’s statement that she
didn’t receive or send classified info as “False.” Two months later,
they took her claim that the emails didn’t have classified headers and
rated it “Mostly True.”
PolitiFact did check this statement, but only by proxy. Senate
Majority Leader Mitch McConnell noted that Clinton has a history of
lying and included her statement that she was named after Sir Edmund
Hillary. PolitiFact verified that he was correct, but proposed that it
is possible a young Hillary’s parents lied to her about it. Because they
could not verify that this was an intentional lie, they rated
McConnell’s statement as “Half True.”
The simplest explanation for the disparity in lies checked between
Trump and Clinton is that when Hillary gets caught in a lie, she stops
lying, while Trump continues lying.
This is not something the evidence seems to support. Barack Obama
continues to this day to claim that women make 77 cents on the dollar
compared to men. PolitiFact rated this as “Mostly False” in 2012, but changed their rating to “Mostly True” when
Obama made the same statement in the State of the Union but with fewer
details. Their excuse was that Obama’s claim was misleading but
technically true if you look at data with the least possible context.
(This is a standard PolitiFact prefers for Democrats but abhors applying to Republicans.) Obama (and most Democrats) continue to this day to make this incredibly misleading claim.
Yet Mitt Romney was checked five times (each one rated false) for making the arguably true statement that Obamaapologizedfor the United Stateswhen visiting foreign countries after
being elected in 2008. PolitiFact found Romney was right that Obama
expressed regret over recent U.S. policy, then proceeded to go on a
3,000-word diatribe about what exactly constitutes an “apology.”
The pattern is there: PolitiFact checks Republicans repeatedly for
the same facts, especially if they feel they can rate them “false.” Keep
in mind that PolitiFact routinely touts its aggregate truth ratings, so
running up the “false” scoreboard on Republicans matters when they
release their “who is more honest” data stories.
Even so, this review of candidate lies suffers from the fact that we
have to, by necessity, pick and choose the facts to review and look
individually to see if PolitiFact has checked them. It would be
instructive to see how often PolitiFact chooses to fact-check individual
politicians. Let’s take the fascinating case of Sen. Marco Rubio.
Is a Senate Candidate More Important Than the House Speaker?
Rubio was the junior senator from Florida for nearly six years before
coming in third place in the 2016 Republican primary. Yet PolitiFact
was checking him nearly every month since a year before he was elected to the Senate.
Rubio was fact-checked as many times before he took office than
long-time senator and erstwhile Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has
been checked in his entire career. Before he even started his
presidential campaign Rubio was fact-checked 10 times more Democrat Sen.
Elizabeth Warren has been during her tenure.
Below is a segmentation of fact checks for Clinton, Rubio, and Reid,
showing where in their careers PolitiFact has checked their statements.
Before he even announced his run for president, PolitiFact had
checked Rubio more times (87 fact-checks) than they had checked Clinton
during her entire 2008 presidential run (83 fact-checks). It seems
over-eager to check a four-year junior senator more than a presidential
candidate, vice president, Senate majority leader, and speaker of the
House.
Nor was Rubio alone in this. Before he ran for president, Sen. Ted
Cruz was fact-checked 46 times, more than any Democratic senator we
checked. House Speaker Paul Ryan was fact-checked nearly twice as often
as former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, even if you take out every single
fact check from the time period in which he was the Republican vice
presidential nominee. Michelle Bachmann (remember her? Three-term
congresswoman who placed sixth in the Iowa caucus) was fact-checked a
stunning 51 times, nearly as many times as governor, senator, and vice
presidential candidate Tim Kaine.
This would of course be a difficult metric to keep track of on a
case-by-case basis, which is how fact-checking is done. But it is clear
from the numbers that PolitiFact will, especially in off-election years,
seek out a speech from a prominent Republican delivered at a conference
or assembly and select a fact from the speech that they feel is
inaccurate.
Donald Trump, the Democrat
One thing you may have noticed through this series is that the charts
and data we’ve culled show a stark delineation between how PolitiFact
treats Republicans versus Democrats. The major exceptions to the rules
we’ve identified in PolitiFact ratings and analytics have been Trump and
Vice President-elect Mike Pence. These exceptions seem important. After
all, who could more exemplify the Republican Party than the incoming
president and vice president elect?
It should be noted that all this data scraping and analysis was done
before the election. As we planned this series, we were anticipating a
deep dive into Hillary Clinton’s record, contrasting it with that of
major Republicans. But Clinton suddenly appears less important than
President-elect Trump.
Trump threw a wrench into my analysis. Here I was, with a fairly
clean story about PolitiFact being particularly unfair to Republicans,
rating them more harshly, unfairly calling them liars with alarming
frequency. Then along comes a candidate who seems to take a more … um…
“casual” approach to the truth, and who is easy to fact-check because
his statements are so careless and brazen, and his every statement is
spread across the world so quickly.
Now, while I’m talking about Trump in this article, most of the same
things can be said about Pence. Pence has spent an enormous amount of
time reinforcing or defending statements that Trump has made and most of
Pence’s fact-checks are based on statements he made as Trump’s VP
choice. As a result, PolitiFact rates Pence the third most “dishonest”
Republican we checked.
“Only the third?” you may ask. “Who was in between Trump and Pence?”
I’m so very glad you asked. The second most “dishonest” politician
PolitiFact rated was Cruz. Let’s compare Cruz to Trump.
Trump Versus Cruz All Over Again
Note: For truth ratings, we used the following metric: True = 0,
Mostly True = 1, Half True = 2, Mostly False = 3, False = 4, Pants on
Fire = 5. This means that lower scores are “more truthful.” The higher a
politician’s “truth score” is, the more PolitiFact has called him a
liar.
In total truth ratings, Trump’s average rating was 3.2, slightly
worse than “Mostly False” as an average. Cruz’s average rating was 2.8,
slightly better than “Mostly False.” If we look at the truth values over
the course of the primary, a couple things stand out:
We see that Cruz was rated as significantly more truthful than Trump
in two months, August and November 2015. Cruz was fact-checked twice in
August and thrice in November, while Trump was fact-checked a total of
23 times those two months. (Cruz was not fact-checked in June, when
Trump announced his nomination.)
During the most important months of the primary campaign (December
2015 and January 2016) PolitiFact checked Cruz more frequently than
Trump and became substantially harder on Cruz, rating him at nearly the
same level of dishonesty as Trump. In the months following, the ratings
of both candidates improved at about the same rate. Until Cruz withdrew
from the race.
In the month after Cruz dropped out of the race, PolitiFact unleashed
on Trump with five “Pants on Fire,” five “False,” three “Mostly False,”
and one “Half True.” Before he clinched the nomination, Trump was
portrayed as just a slightly more dishonest GOP candidate. After the
nomination, he was portrayed as a flat-out liar.
Explaining Away Ted Cruz
Things get more interesting when we look at the nature of these fact-checks. We looked earlier
at how longer fact-checks indicate PolitiFact feels the need to explain
themselves in defending a rating that may be questionable. When we look
at the word counts for Trump against almost any other Republican,
Trump’s word counts do not fit with the pattern for Republicans, but the
one for Democrats.
Articles calling Cruz a liar (“Mostly False,” “False,” or “Pants on
Fire”) are 30 to 40 percent longer than the same ratings for Trump. This
means that, while PolitiFact was comfortable giving the overall ratings
impression that Cruz and Trump were both liars cut from the same cloth,
they consistently felt the need to explain at length why Cruz was a
liar (a pattern we see with nearly all Republicans).
In contrast, they treated Trump as a Democrat: When he lies, they state the facts plainly and let the matter rest.
PolitiFact’s Crying Wolf Syndrome
In this context, PolitiFact’s analysis of Trump reinforces the idea
that the media has called Republicans liars for so long and with such
frequency the charge has lost it sting. PolitiFact treated Mitt Romney
as a serial liar, fraud, and cheat. They attacked Rubio, Cruz, and Ryan
frequently and often unfairly.
But they treated Trump like they do Democrats: their fact-checking
was short, clean, and to the point. It dealt only with the facts at hand
and sourced those facts as simply as possible. In short, they treated
him like a Democrat who isn’t very careful with the truth.
Unfortunately, it requires an in-depth analysis of their work to
discover this. If you look only at the ratings in aggregate, the metric
that they’ve used to build their brand and to slander Republicans for
almost a decade, it looks like Donald Trump is just another Republican. [SOURCE]
Secretary of Defense, Lloyd Austin, fired Brig General/Attorney Susan K Escallier, after being notified, while he was on overseas travel, that she was the one who oversaw the plea deal for the plea deal involving the three 9/11 masterminds. pic.twitter.com/7dUaagZncq
A view of an Iranian missile during the 45th anniversary of the Islamic Revolution in Tehran, Iran, February 11, 2024. (photo credit: STRINGER/WANA (WEST ASIA NEWS AGENCY) VIA REUTERS)
Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards
Corps said on Saturday that revenge will be “severe and at an
appropriate time, place, and manner,” blaming the “terrorist Zionist
regime” for Haniyeh’s death.
The Iranian attack on Israel in response to the assassination of
Hamas political bureau leader Ismail Haniyeh in Iran last week is
expected to come as early as Monday, three US and Israeli officials told
Axios reporter Barak Ravid on Sunday.
Michael Erik Kurilla, commander of US Central Command, arrived in the Middle East early Sunday morning amid Hezbollah and Iran's threats against Israel, Walla reported on Sunday, citing two senior US officials.
The aim of the visit, which was planned before the current escalation, is to prepare a coalition to counter such threats, the report added.
Israel on high alert at Iran threatens revenge
Several
Iranian officials vowed that the country would avenge Hamas leader
Ismail Haniyeh’s assassination, as Israel remains on high alert for a
potential attack and the United States is sending additional forces to
the region.
Iran’s
Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps said on Saturday that revenge will
be “severe and at an appropriate time, place, and manner,” blaming the
“terrorist Zionist regime” for Haniyeh’s death.
Defense Minister Yoav Gallant (center) and US-CENTCOM Commander General
Michael Kurilla (left), meeting during a situational assessment on the
threat from Iran, April 12, 2024. (credit: DEFENSE MINISTRY)
The Lebanese-based terrorist group has reportedly decided to increase
its targets in attacks in response to the assassination of its
commander, Fuad Shukr.
“Until
now, Hezbollah and the [Zionist] regime have, in an unwritten
understanding, practically adhered to certain limits in their military
operations, meaning that confining their actions to border areas and
shallow zones, targeting primarily military objectives,” a spokesperson
from the delegation told CBS News.
“However,
the regime’s attack on Dahieh in Beirut and the targeting of a
residential building marked a deviation from these boundaries,” the
spokesperson said. “We anticipate that, in its response, Hezbollah will
choose both broader and deeper targets, and will not restrict itself
solely to military targets and means.”
An
Israeli official told CBS News that while Iran’s April 13 attack was
thwarted, Israel was anticipating a “more aggressive” retaliation this
time around – a retaliation which could extend to Israeli interests
abroad.
The US
military will deploy additional fighter jets and Navy warships to the
Middle East, the Pentagon said on Friday, as Washington seeks to bolster
defenses following threats from Iran and its allies Hamas and
Hezbollah.
The
US is bracing for Iran to make good on its vow to respond to the
killing of Haniyeh two days ago in the Iranian capital Tehran.
US
Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin had approved sending additional Navy
cruisers and destroyers – which can shoot down ballistic missiles – to
the Middle East and Europe.
It is also sending an additional squadron of fighter jets to the Middle East.
“Austin
has ordered adjustments to US military posture designed to improve US
force protection, to increase support for the defense of Israel, and to
ensure the United States is prepared to respond to various
contingencies,” the Pentagon said in a statement.
There
had been speculation that the Pentagon might not replace the USS
Theodore Roosevelt carrier strike group in the Middle East once it
completed its ongoing deployment. But Austin decided to rotate in the
USS Abraham Lincoln carrier strike group to replace it.
The Pentagon statement added it would increase readiness to deploy more land-based ballistic missile defenses.
The
US military also intensified deployments prior to April 13, when Iran
launched an attack on Israeli territory with drones and missiles. Still,
the threat from Hezbollah in Lebanon could present unique challenges to
any efforts by Washington to intercept drones and missiles, given the
group’s vast arsenal and immediate proximity to the Jewish state.
At
the time, Israel successfully shot down almost all of the roughly 300
drones and missiles with the help of the United States and other allies.
Earlier, Pentagon spokesperson Sabrina Singh said the US did not believe escalation was inevitable.
“I
think we are being very direct in our messaging that certainly we don’t
want to see heightened tensions, and we do believe there is an off ramp
here – and that is that ceasefire deal,” Singh said.
An
Israeli delegation will travel to Cairo in the coming days for
negotiations to reach a Gaza ceasefire and hostage release deal, Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office said on Friday.[SOURCE]
Pix 1: As a 16 yr old Red Guard, Zhang Hongping reported his mother to the authority for complaining about the Cultural Revolution at home. Two months later, she was executed.
Pix 2: At 18, Guy Reffitt turned his father in to the FBI for being at the Capitol on Jan 6. His father… pic.twitter.com/Z8Z0nCNFLX
Just your average Zen Baptist, admitting upfront to being a (mostly) reconstructed hillbilly.
If you can't understand the attitude or perspective I come from, it's safe to say that we're from different realities.
If you can't start off the conversation with a respectful question about how/why I came to the particular perspective I did, and then find some way that you can relate to it, then I don't have any time to entertain your issues.
Give respect, get respect.
Hear Together: Roanoke Outside Foundation
-
Roanoke Outside is a nonprofit working to protect outdoor experiences and
build a stronger outdoor community. One of the biggest ways they do that is
thr...
Joe Shields - Brooklyn Bridge
-
Joe Shields - Brooklyn Bridge
Website - http://twoshacks.com.
From: joecartoondotcom
Views: 4343
203 ratings
Time: 03:55 More in Music
