A short item this week on the news site Semafor had an interesting way of describing the existing dynamic between the national news media and Joe Biden’s angry reelection campaign. It said Biden’s team has“begun organizing a series of off-the-record trips for top political reporters and editors” to meet up at campaign headquarters in Wilmington, Delaware, for the purpose of “background briefings on campaign strategy.”
I’d like to think that the person who authored the article is just hopelessly naive, but it’s Ben Smith, who has been running in these circles for what feels like three lifetimes. So, he certainly knows that contrary to his depiction, these aren’t boring scenes where curious reporters show up to get a rundown of Biden’s campaign schedule and themes. That’s not what happens.
What happens is the nation’s most influential media outlets send representatives to a Democrat candidate’s facilities — in this case, Biden’s campaign headquarters — to coordinate what their coming “news coverage” should look like, according to the Democrat’s needs and preferences. Thusly, Smith wrote that in these recent meetings, “Campaign officials have chafed at some of the coverage of former President Donald Trump, feeling that outlets are too focused on his legal troubles and haven’t paid enough attention to some of his incendiary recent statements on the campaign trail.” In other words, CNN and MSNBC are about to start showing a lot more clips from Trump rallies wherein he says something that’s supposed to offend the audience. And if it doesn’t, no problem. Jake Tapper and Joe Scarborough will be on hand to helpfully explain why it should. Over and over and over again.
We’ve already seen a version of this play out in recent days. Not even a month ago, in perfect unison, the media reupped their Trump-is-Hitler routine.
Associated Press, Dec. 18: “Senate border security talks grind on as Trump invokes Nazi-era ‘blood’ rhetoric against immigrants.”
The Washington Post, Dec. 18: “That language has caused alarm among some civil rights advocates and immigrant groups, who have compared it to the writings of Adolf Hitler.”
The New York Times, Dec. 17: “In New Hampshire on Saturday, he told the crowd that immigrants were ‘poisoning the blood of our country,’ a comment that previously drew condemnation because of echoes to [sic] language used by white supremacists and Adolf Hitler.”
Reuters, Dec. 16: “Donald Trump, the Republican presidential frontrunner, said on Saturday that undocumented immigrants were ‘poisoning the blood of our country,’ repeating language that has previously drawn criticism as xenophobic and echoing of Nazi rhetoric.”
Unable to help themselves, Biden campaign officials then rushed to Politico to brag that it was all their idea. That article explicitly quoted Biden’s campaign communications director claiming that Trump is “going to echo the rhetoric of Hitler and Mussolini, and we’re going to make sure that people understand just how serious that is every single time.” (The “rhetoric” in question was Trump’s perfectly innocuous mantra that the unmanageable hordes of impoverished migrants unlawfully dumping themselves over the southern border are “poisoning” the country by chipping away at its social and legal fabric.)
It’s never a hard sell for a Democrat to get the media to pick up its preferred storyline. Biden slurs through those “Trump is a threat to democracy!” speeches with mind-numbing repetition, and the accomplice media take the cue.
“A second Trump term ‘poses a threat to the existence of America as we know it,’ says The Atlantic’s top editor”— CNN.com, Dec. 5.
“IF TRUMP WINS: The staff of The Atlantic on the threat a second term poses to American democracy”— The Atlantic, Dec. 4.
“Why a Second Trump Presidency May Be More Radical Than His First”— The New York Times, Dec. 4.
“A Trump dictatorship is increasingly inevitable. We should stop pretending”— The Washington Post, Nov. 30.
So, no, these gatherings with Democrat media aren’t dry informational sessions. They’re all-hands meetings for reporters to receive instruction as to how the next week, month, and season should go. If the Biden campaign wants more hype over whatever it is Trump is saying at his rallies, trust that it will be done.
Corporate media have gotten every single major story of the last decade wrong, in big and little ways. Whether it’s the 2016 election, the Russia-collusion scam, the threats posed by Covid and response to the same, the effort to destroy Brett Kavanaugh’s life and family, accurate discussion of the Biden family business, immigration, abortion, crime, racism, guns, hate crime hoaxes, the economy, inflation, education, the relationship between the sexes, the radical trans agenda, or a thousand other stories, the media haven’t just been bad. They have been absolutely irredeemably awful.
A record-high percentage of Americans (39 percent) have literally no — as in none, zilch, nada — trust in corporate media to “report the news in a full, fair and accurate way,” according to Gallup. Another large percentage (29 percent) has “not very much” trust in the media to get the story right. Only 11 percent of Republicans trust the media, compared to nearly 60 percent of Democrats. The gap between the parties is because corporate media overwhelmingly shape news and information to support Democrats and their policy goals.
If The Washington Post were doing journalism instead of propaganda, its reporter who covers the news media might be focused nonstop on the fact that trust in the media is extremely low. But Paul Farhi thinks there are more important problems. Namely, he’s worried that some unwashed masses might be practicing their First Amendment right to do journalism without a license.
“Someone invented the phrase ‘citizen journalism’ a few years ago to describe amateurs doing the work of pros. Yes, it occasionally works, but probably no more often than ‘citizen cop,’ ‘citizen attorney’ or ‘citizen soldier,’” he wrote on social media.
First off, and definitely most importantly, someone needs to take Farhi aside and gently explain to him the meaning of “citizen soldier.” Our armed services were created around the idea of a broad swath of citizens working together to defend the nation’s values. The notion is fundamental to Western civilization and has routinely been shown to achieve better results than armies made up of professionals.
Even now, “citizen soldier” is how military reserve and National Guard members throughout the country think of themselves. In fact, the National Guard’s publication is called “Citizen-Soldier.” There is no need for Farhi to disparage these citizen soldiers or the many successful citizen-soldier armies throughout time and history.
Heck, while we’re at it, let’s go ahead and note that it was a “citizen attorney” with an eighth-grade education who wrote a handwritten appeal to the United States Supreme Court in the case that found that the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires states to provide attorneys for criminal defendants who are impoverished. But of the three groups he mentions, attorneys are the best for his case for professionalism on account of the intense education top lawyers receive.
But journalism? Journalism needs credentialing? Really? Farhi has been on this kick about the need to keep the lower castes out of journalism for a while now. Seven years ago he wrote, “Is there any other profession in which more people think they can do the job better than the pros than journalism? Medicine? Teaching?”
Again, one of these things is not like the others. There is a reason why people generally respect surgeons and don’t try to do their jobs. And there is a reason why people have taken to reporting real news and information since those at corporate media outlets such as The Washington Post are so bad at doing actual journalism.
The Washington Post, we might recall, launched the Russia-collusion scam by having one of its longtime journalists launder an information operation against the American people. The criminal leak against the Trump administration remains one of the great uninvestigated and unsolved crimes of recent memory. That the Post gleefully and willingly took part in an information operation against the country is reprehensible. The paper perpetuated the Russia-collusion hoax with hundreds of stories based on anonymous sources from the intelligence bureaucracy. This scam was no minor thing. It was the lie that Donald Trump was a traitor who had stolen the 2016 presidential election by colluding with Russia. It caused massive amounts of damage to the republic.
Farhi, for his part, seemed to think that many things in the invented “Steele dossier” were true. Falling for a completely false and unsubstantiated claim from fellow Russia hoax outlet McClatchy, Farhi wrote, “If this is accurate, put another check mark next to the Steele Dossier.” Another? ANOTHER? Way to showcase the bare minimum of skepticism and do real professional journalism there, guy.
After finding out the absolutely jaw-dropping news that the Steele dossier was an information operation, bought and paid for by the Hillary Clinton campaign, Farhi wrote, “Most surprising thing abt Clinton’s involvemnt w/Steele Dossier (aside from paying for it) is why her campaign didn’t make more of it.” Citizen journalists knew enough to be even more suspicious about the quality of the shoddy product after realizing its provenance, but not the “professionals” at The Washington Post! In fact, Farhi seemed to be bitterly clinging to the Russia-collusion scam as of a month ago, even after the Post begrudgingly corrected some of its fake news on the matter.
One citizen on social media replied to Farhi’s smug arrogance about the superiority of professional journalists, “The media’s track record in the last 5 years is like a prostitute’s track record on being a virgin.” A bit too kind, but the point is made.
As one of the exceedingly few “professionals” — to use Farhi’s parlance — to do actual journalism on this story and thereby debunk the information operation the Post pushed relentlessly for years, I have nothing but respect for the many “citizen journalists” who did the work corporate media refused to do. I frequently relied on them and their detailed research in the Herculean task of taking on the Post, The New York Times, CNN, and every other media outlet that participated in the intelligence agencies’ information operation against Americans.
In addition to the many articles the full-time professional team at The Federalist researched, reported, and published, we also published many articles from some of these citizen journalists who researched details far better than the entire “professional” journalism class combined.
The Federalist and citizen journalists may not have the corporate sponsorship that Farhi and his cohorts have, but we are wealthy in something few if any at The Washington Post have: a desire to find the truth and share it with others.
Pure Propaganda
The same goes for another information operation run by The Washington Post. In 2018, that paper ran the effort to destroy Brett Kavanaugh’s family and life by publishing an absolutely disgusting and unsubstantiated series of stories alleging he was secretly a serial gang rapist roaming the streets of suburban Maryland. This was a redo of a playbook The Washington Post and other Democrats had used in 1991 in an attempt to derail Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’ nomination.
While the Post carefully edited out exonerating details, shaded information to help the Democrat operation, and amplified some of the flimsiest claims on record, The Federalist got to work reporting the real story. We were aided in this effort by tips from community members who were aghast at what The Washington Post was willing to do in pursuit of its political goals. Some of them gave us information they said they tried to share with The Washington Post but were shut down over.
Farhi, for his part, wrote a tendentious article asserting that the obvious collusion between Democrats in and out of the media was a “conspiracy theory.” Quoting — and I’m not joking here — Jane Mayer (yes, really, Jane Mayer), he said there was absolutely no coordinated effort to run the smear operation everyone witnessed against Kavanaugh. (For an alternate fact-based and fact-filled perspective, feel free to read the best-selling book I co-authored with Carrie Severino on the matter.)
A few years later, when The Washington Post was brutally deriding Sen. Tom Cotton for suggesting the U.S. government should look into the Wuhan Institute of Virology as a potential source of the Covid-19 pandemic (the Post called it a “debunked conspiracy theory”), The Federalist was publishing citizen experts who were arguing that maybe the paper owned by billionaire Jeff Bezos didn’t have the story right.
At every step of the way, the Post didn’t do journalism so much as uncritically regurgitate claims from “experts,” about the pandemic and the response to it. Because we at The Federalist published truthful information and hosted debates from citizen experts about the proper response to a global pandemic, we were throttled by the Censorship-Industrial Complex. Those who misled the public as The Washington Post did on the Wuhan Institute of Virology were rewarded with awards and algorithmic amplification.
The “professionals” of The Washington Post continue to republish every unsubstantiated claim coming out of the Censorship-Industrial Complex. For example, a disinformation group called “Center for Countering Digital Hate,” which attempts to get governments and Big Tech to shut down political speech it dislikes, is routinely quoted by the “professionals” over at The Washington Post. So are many other groups that work to censor political speech. Few “citizen journalists” are as gullible as the average Washington Post reporter when it comes to such mindless participation in disinformation operations.
Real Journalism
We could go on and on and on. Who did better on the stories involving Jussie Smollett, Covington’s Nick Sandmann (for which the Post settled a $250 million defamation lawsuit), or the Biden family business? No, citizen journalists probably wouldn’t describe Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi as an “austere religious scholar,” as The Washington Post did.
The Washington Post and other media outlets aren’t “failing” to get the story right. They are doing exactly what they set out to do: frame news and information in a way that advantages their political allies.
They have massive corporate backing and establishment support in their efforts. Stop thinking that they’re salvageable. That was silly thinking decades ago. By now, it’s suicidal. Start shunning them for their propaganda and thinking instead about how to support and amplify journalism that cares about the truth.
The leftist “news” media – NBC, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, The Washington Post, The New York Times – continue their conspiracy of silence on blockbuster evidence of President Joe Biden’s corruption, determined to see, hear, and report no evil about the Democratic administration.
An internal FBI document provides convincing evidence that Joe Biden – then the sitting vice president of the United States – along with his son Hunter – extorted $5 million for each of them from an executive of Ukrainian oil company Burisma.
According to terms of the $10 million bribe outlined in the document, the vice president would quash Burisma’s legal problems by threatening to withhold financial aid to Ukraine if they didn’t fire a senior prosecutor looking into their corruption.
Even when the document was released to the public on July 20, Biden’s media minders kept their audiences in the dark. No longer journalists, they’re now mere leftwing storytellers, selectively spreading a message intended to deceive when it suits them, and throwing a blanket over any truthful report when it harms the narrative. Their primary mission isn’t to inform the public or to hold the powerful accountable. It’s to ensure that Joe Biden gets reelected.
A document provides potentially damning evidence against President Biden and his son, Hunter. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)
The Burisma scandal follows reports of similar bribery/pay-to-play schemes with Russia, Kazakhstan, Romania and even with America’s arch-enemy China, hiding the money in over 20 LLCs that served no purpose other than to confuse potential investigators.
Between the evening of August 1 and the morning of August 8, ABC, CBS and NBC devoted more than five hours to Donald Trump’s third indictment on morning and evening newscasts as well as their Sunday morning political talk shows, according to an analysis by NewsBusters.
In contrast, the same programs spent a mere four minutes and 50 seconds on matters related to the Biden family’s many scandals. Putting a number on that lopsided disparity, the old networks spent 68.7 times longer covering Trump’s indictment than anything related to the Biden family’s legal troubles.
The Burisma cover-up continues. On August 9, House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer released a memo detailing bank transactions that show at least $20 million flowing from Russian and Kazakhstani oligarchs to Hunter and his associates.
“It appears no real services were provided other than access to the Biden network, including Joe Biden himself,” Comer said in a statement. Some of the same oligarchs dined at Washington, D.C.’s Café Milano with then-Vice President Biden, according to Comer. The evidence suggests a criminal scandal on a scale never seen before in American politics. And yet The Big Three refuse to share a word of it with American public.
Those who don’t watch or read these leftist propagandists – and there are plenty of reasons not to tune in – might wonder if it matters. The answer is clear. At the height of the Hunter Biden laptop scandal, ahead of the 2020 elections, the legacy media refused to cover it or dismissed it as Russian disinformation.
A post-election poll conducted for the Media Research Center found that 45.1% of swing state Biden voters were unaware of the evidence linking Biden to corrupt financial dealings with China through his son Hunter. And 9.4% of Biden voters said that had they known these facts, they would not have voted for Biden, flipping all six of the swing states he won and giving President Donald Trump 311 electoral votes.
The bottom line is that the legacy media intentionally kept Americans in the dark, and in doing so, swayed the election to Biden.
US Representative and Committee Chairman James Comer (R-KY) speaks during a House Committee on Oversight and Accountability hearing regarding the criminal investigation into the Bidens, on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC, on July 19, 2023. (Photo by Brendan SMIALOWSKI / AFP)
Meanwhile, the Big Three are myopically focused on Trump’s fourth indictment – the timing of which not so coincidentally follows the latest shocking revelation in the Biden influence-peddling scandal.
The Big Three’s abject refusal to report on the Biden bribery scandal while providing wall-to-wall coverage of the dubious charges against Trump is not just a betrayal of their viewers; it constitutes election tampering. As such, their behavior is a threat to democracy.
Last week, an even bigger bombshell. It turns out then-Vice President Joe Biden was using a web of pseudonyms, from Robert Peters to Robin Ware to JRB Ware, while working with his son to place tens of millions of dollars in that web of LLCs. The National Archives revealed that its holdings contain nearly 5,400 emails, electronic records and documents indicating that Biden used aliases while he was vice president.
Those who don’t watch or read these leftist propagandists – and there are plenty of reasons not to tune in – might wonder if it matters. The answer is clear. At the height of the Hunter Biden laptop scandal, ahead of the 2020 elections, the legacy media refused to cover it or dismissed it as Russian disinformation.
The pattern continues. Not one story in the pro-Biden press.
It is time for Biden to face an impeachment inquiry to find out whether he used the power of the vice presidency to rake in millions of dollars for his family, Additionally, President of ABC News Kimberly Godwin, CEO and President of CBS News Wendy McMahon, and NBC News President Rebecca Blumenstein should be invited to appear before a congressional committee and be prepared to answer for this behavior.
The American people deserve to hear the truth. Suppressing the news is not something we should expect outside of totalitarian regimes.
Elon Musk shared a Federalist article on Twitter this week that detailed how “Zuckbucks” were used to influence the outcome of the 2020 election, and leftists are livid.
On Tuesday, the Twitter CEO linked to an October 2021 article, written by Federalist contributor William Doyle, that examines how Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg gave hundreds of millions of dollars to nonprofits such as the Center for Tech and Civic Life (CTCL) and the Center for Election Innovation and Research (CEIR) leading up to the 2020 presidential contest. CTCL and CEIR then poured these “Zuckbucks” into local election offices in battleground states around the country to change how elections were administered, such as by expanding unsupervised election protocols like mail-in voting and the use of ballot drop boxes.
Notably, Doyle’s article examines how these grants were heavily skewed toward Democrat-majority counties, essentially making it a massive, privately funded Democrat get-out-the-vote operation. Organizations such as the Capital Research Center have also released detailedanalyses on the partisan distribution of these funds.
While Musk simply referred to the article as “interesting,” that was apparently too much for Washington Post columnist Philip Bump to handle. In response, Bump penned an article titled, “Musk shares baseless election claim with millions of Twitter users,” in which he attempted to smear the Twitter CEO and discredit The Federalist’s article.
“This is a common way in which Musk elevates right-wing rhetoric. He’ll often engage with fringe voices by declaring their commentary to be “concerning” — suggesting it’s just something worth mulling over,” complained Bump in melodramatic fashion.
But then Bump openly admits the purpose of “Zuckbucks” wasn’t to help election offices “promote safe and reliable voting” during the Covid outbreak, as CTCL and CEIR originally claimed, but to increase voter turnout in Democrat-majority areas.
Much of the analysis in the Federalist article centers on the idea that these investments were larger in more-Democratic counties, using that as a peg for the argument that the investments were partisan and critical to Biden’s success.
But that argument is easily countered. CTCL’s investments were often in heavily Democratic areas — because those areas often have lower turnout rates. If you want to increase turnout, the smartest place to try to do so is places where turnout is lowest. In the United States, that’s often lower-income communities and communities that have high populations of Black and Hispanic residents, two groups that often vote heavily Democratic.
In trying to explain away the disparities in “Zuckbucks” distribution, Bump instead admits a Democrat get-out-the-vote effort is exactly what happened. While Zuckerberg’s donations to CTCL and CEIR were marketed as just a good-faith initiative to ensure Covid didn’t disrupt local election administration, House Republicans later discovered that less than 1 percent of CTCL’s 2020 funds were spent on personal protective equipment.
“The argument has gone from: Private funding from CTCL for election administration offices was only meant to help the elections run smoothly,” to “CTCL poured money into Democratic strongholds to boost turnout and that’s a good thing,”tweeted Jason Snead, the executive director of the Honest Elections Project.
Whether they realize it or not, Bump and the Post are admitting the main purpose of “Zuckbucks” was to boost turnout among voters in Democrat strongholds. It’s a remarkable fact that, for once, the Post got right.
Shawn Fleetwood is a Staff Writer for The Federalist and a graduate of the University of Mary Washington. He also serves as a state content writer for Convention of States Action and his work has been featured in numerous outlets, including RealClearPolitics, RealClearHealth, and Conservative Review. Follow him on Twitter @ShawnFleetwood
It’s no secret many on the left love to politicize tragedies, but the reaction from some to Monday’s deadly shooting at a Christian school in Nashville has reached a whole new level of malevolent. Local authorities have identified the shooter as Audrey Hale, a 28-year-old woman who pretended to be male and had reportedly attended the school years prior. After entering the Covenant School shortly after 10 a.m., the shooter killed six people before being gunned down and killed by police. Among the victims are three 9-year-old children and three school staff members.
Nashville Police Chief John Drake characterized the shooting as a “targeted attack” and said authorities discovered “a manifesto” and detailed maps of the school showing points of entry. Drake also confirmed “there is some theory” to the idea that Hale’s transgender identity contributed to her decision to target the school but that authorities are still investigating the motive. Police said Hale was considering “another location” to target, but after “a threat assessment by the suspect [and] too much security, [she] decided not to.”
Immediately following the attack, leftists began using the horrific tragedy as an opportunity to promote their radical agenda and spew insensitive remarks.
Joe Biden
During moments of crisis, Americans should be able to count on their president to put aside politics and bring the country together. But not when that president is Joe Biden. After talking about how much he loves chocolate chip ice cream on Monday, Biden used the Nashville shooting to push for more gun control.
“The shooter … reportedly had two assault weapons and a pistol. … So, I call on Congress again to pass my assault weapons ban,” Biden said.
Biden on Nashville shooting: "It's heartbreaking, a family's worst nightmare…we have to do more to stop gun violence…I call on Congress again to pass my assault weapons ban."pic.twitter.com/10sArjE8mC
During her remarks in Monday’s White House press briefing, Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre not only used the shooting to call for increased gun control, but appeared to blame the tragedy on Republicans.
“How many more children have to be murdered before Republicans in Congress will step up and act to pass the assault-weapons ban?” she asked.
Jean-Pierre weighs in on school shooting in Nashville:
"How many more children have to be murdered before Republicans in Congress will step up and act to pass the assault weapons ban?pic.twitter.com/bQp6S3Q4nu
ABC News Senior National Correspondent Terry Moran wasted no time in seemingly tying the shooting to Tennessee Republicans, who recently passed legislation protecting minors from experimental transgender surgeries, wrong-sex hormones, and drag shows. After providing viewers with details on the shooting, Moran immediately segued into discussing the legislation Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee approved earlier this month.
IT BEGINS: ABC's Terry Moran ties the Nashville school shooting to Tennessee's recently-passed legislation banning the hormonization and mutilation of minors. The shooter was 28. pic.twitter.com/MfKdOpQZIf
Washington Post contributor and former New York Times columnist Mike Wise went out of his way to thank a Twitter user, who referred to Tennessee as “an intolerant state that brainwashes children through religious indoctrination.”
“This is as deep and real as it gets. Thank you,” Wise wrote.
A Washington Post contributor just thanked someone who posted that the Christian school in Nashville that was shot up today was a religious indoctrination center pic.twitter.com/U6hW9AP6C4
The Virginia Democrat blasted Republicans with an unserious and bad-faith attack, saying the GOP thinks drag shows pose a greater physical danger to children than guns do.
Benjamin Ryan
In a now-deleted tweet, independent reporter and NBC News contributor Benjamin Ryan attempted to correlate the shooting with the fact that The Daily Wire, a conservative news outlet, is based in Nashville.
“Nashville is home to the Daily Wire, a hub of anti-trans activity by @MattWalshBlog, @BenShapiro, and @MichaelJKnowles,” Ryan wrote.
Anna Skinner
Newsweek Senior Writer Anna Skinner spent her Monday afternoon writing an article titled, “Tennessee Republicans’ Ban on Drag Shows Mocked After Mass Shooting,” in which she spun the news to be about bashing Tennessee Republicans and lamented that so-called “assault weapons” are still legal in the state.
“Tennessee Republican legislators are getting slammed after at least three children and three adults were killed in a mass shooting at a Nashville private school on Monday,” Skinner wrote. “Twitter users assailed state GOP officials in the wake of the bloodshed.”
Kyle Griffin
MSNBC Executive Producer Kyle Griffin published a tweet evoking similar absurdity.
Hayes Brown
MSNBC Opinion Writer Hayes Brown took a page from Griffin’s playbook and politicize the tragedy. In his column, Hayes bizarrely argued that “much of [America’s] gun policy is presaged on the idea that guns are cool,” and “[t]hat was the unspoken understanding behind the rapid spread of the AR-15.”
Republicans “think that their toys, their totems of masculinity, their props for playing the hero, are more important than the lives lost,” he wrote.
While now titled, “The gap between GOP gun rights fantasy and Nashville’s reality,” the article originally displayed the headline, “6 are dead in Nashville. Let’s revisit how much the Tennessee GOP loves guns.”
— James Lindsay, ultra-low social credit (@ConceptualJames) March 27, 2023
Josephine Harvey
In a so-called “news” article titled, “Gun-Loving GOP Congressman From Nashville Torched For Response To School Shooting,” Huffington Post Senior Reporter Josephine Harvey attempted to create a controversy surrounding GOP Rep. Andy Ogles — who represents the district that includes the Covenant School — by bringing up a 2021 Christmas photo of Ogles’ family holding firearms.
In her article, Harvey claimed the picture is a “gun-glorifying Christmas photo” and went on to cite tweets from leftists attacking Ogles for posting it on Facebook well over a year ago.
Shawn Fleetwood is a Staff Writer for The Federalist and a graduate of the University of Mary Washington. He also serves as a state content writer for Convention of States Action and his work has been featured in numerous outlets, including RealClearPolitics, RealClearHealth, and Conservative Review. Follow him on Twitter @ShawnFleetwood
The Washington Post admitted recently the media’s reaction to the Hunter Biden laptop story in 2020 “is an opportunity for a reckoning.” But reporter Anne Applebaum apparently disagrees.
Applebaum, a writer for left-leaning magazine the Atlantic, was confronted with a substantive question about the media’s reaction to the story at a “disinformation” conference on Wednesday. Instead of engaging in honest self-reflection on behalf of her peers, Applebaum dismissed the story’s importance. During a Q&A panel at the University of Chicago event, a student asked Applebaum, citing a Media Research Center poll, whether the mainstream media acted “inappropriately” for suppressing and dismissing the Hunter Biden story.
“Do you think the media acted inappropriately when they instantly dismissed Hunter Biden’s laptop as Russian disinformation, and what can be learned from that in ensuring that what we label as disinformation is truly disinformation and not reality?” the student asked.
“My problem with Hunter Biden’s laptop is, I think, totally irrelevant,” Applebaum said.
“I mean, it’s not whether it’s disinformation — I mean, I don’t think Hunter Biden’s business relationships have anything to do with who should be president of the United States,” she continued. “I don’t find it to be interesting, I mean, that would be my problem with that as a major news story.”
When Applebaum concluded, moderator David Axelrod ended the panel.
— The Chicago Thinker (@ThinkerChicago) April 6, 2022
Applebaum wrote about the Biden-related controversies in the weeks prior to the 2020 presidential election, calling them “right-wing-media smears”
Meanwhile, despite admitting that she is not interested in the Hunter Biden story, Applebaum repeatedly raisedconcerns of conflict of interestover the proximity of Donald Trump’s children to him when he was president (such as Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner serving as senior advisers) and the possibility that the Trump family profited from the White House.
Thus, Applebaum’s reaction to the question was described as“arrogant” because it “perfectly encapsulates why so many distrust the media.”
The Hunter Biden laptop story is anything but irrelevant.
Despite media outlets and social media companies suppressing the story in October 2020, the New York Times and Washington Post — the nation’s biggest newspapers — recently confirmed what was already known: The laptop and emails are real, and they belonged to Hunter Biden.
In a honest editorial published on Sunday, the Post thus admitted the lesson that should be learned from 2020 is that there is “a danger of suppressing accurate and relevant stories.”
After an incident involving Covington Catholic High School students following Friday’s March for Life in Washington D.C., an Native American activist and black supremacist protesters became emblematic of “fake news”complaints that have been lodged against the establishment media for decades.
Starting with a short snippet of video featuring the Native American activist — identified as Omaha tribe elder and Marine Corps veteran Nathan Phillips — banging a drum and chanting while locked in a standoff with a smiling young teen wearing a red MAGA hat, the media ran wild with accusations of racism and harassment against the elder by the students who had purportedly approached and surrounded him in an intimidating display of white privilege and social oppression.
Except, having rushed to judgment without waiting for all of the facts, much of the media was forced to walk back their initial reports by Sunday after other, longer videos emerged that painted an entirely different picture. It was the boys who had been harassed by the black supremacists and approached by Phillips, not the other way around, as had been implied at first.
The media had sought to demonize the students and portray Phillips as a victim, and countless outlets — including The Washington Post — reported that the abuse from the boys was extra terrible in light of the fact that Phillips was a combat veteran of the Vietnam War. Except, the media has had to walk back that claim as well, as it has now been revealed that Phillips never served in Vietnam, though it is still maintained that he served as a Marine during the same time period.
The Washington Post issued a correction on Tuesday about Phillips to the hit piece against the MAGA hat-wearing boys that was first posted on Sunday morning. That correction reads: “Earlier versions of this story incorrectly said that Native American activist Nathan Phillips fought in the Vietnam War. Phillips served in the U.S. Marines from 1972 to 1976 but was never deployed to Vietnam.”
This is yet another huge factual error within the larger array of mistakes in the story that the media got wrong at first glance. It doesn’t appear that Phillips ever specifically described himself as a combat veteran — though he certainly remains fair game for criticism for his distorted version of events in several interviews following the incident. Yet, despite Phillips having never specifically said he was a combat veteran of the Vietnam era, that was most definitely insinuated — both implicitly and explicitly by some — in countless reports and tweets from media outlets and reporters.
CNN transcripts from their interview with Nathan Phillips say that he said he was a Vietnam War veteran, but the video interview shows him saying he is a “Vietnam times veteran.”
The folks over at a veteran-focused blog known as This Ain’t Hell took a closer look at the circumstances surrounding the media’s portrayal of the self-described “Vietnamtimes veteran.”
Without Phillips’ military service records to verify — that have been requested — the blog nevertheless proceeded to display several screenshots of media chyrons and tweets announcing Phillips as a war vet, again clearly implying that he had served in the conflict.
The blog further dug into several interviews of Phillips and even looked into old media accounts of Phillips from prior incidents over the years and found no evidence that he had ever described himself as a combat veteran, but did find several instances where potentially “over-zealous” reporters had assigned that specific honor to him.
On top of that, the blog also looked closely at his age — reported to be 64 — and compared that to the actual timeline of the Vietnam War. Phillips would have turned 18 right around the tail-end of the war in 1972/73, so there is only an exceptionally small window with little margin for error to account for his having graduated from high school, enlisting in the Marines, as well as graduating from basic training and additional training schools prior to being immediately shipped off to the war zone, were he to have actually served in the war.
Again, without his actual service records to provide verification, there is really no way to know for sure, but odds are Phillips served in the Marines during what is called the Vietnam era — which officially ended in 1975 — without having served in the combat zone.
To be sure, we here at Conservative Tribune are not knocking Phillips for his military service. Indeed, we commend him for his service and sacrifice to the nation, regardless of whether he served overseas or at home, during a time of war or peace.
Instead, we are throwing a sharp elbow in the direction of the mainstream media — especially The Washington Post — and all of the reporters who perpetuated the implication that he was a Vietnam War veteran who had actually fought in the war, which appears to have not been the case at all.
This was a story made huge by the media in large part because it was deceptively framed to fit the preconceived notions of liberals by portraying a Native American activist as an oppressed victim and a bunch of white, MAGA hat-wearing Catholic school boys as privileged aggressors, which was pretty much the opposite of what actually happened. The media should be ashamed of themselves, and minor corrections and half-hearted apologies aren’t going to cut it in making things right this time.
It may have taken a few months, but President Donald Trump kept his word and sent a $25,000 check to a Gold Star family he promised the money to after their son was killed in combat.
WTVD-TV in Raleigh reported that Chris and Jessie Baldridge of Zebulon, North Carolina, received the check from the president on Monday via FedEx from the president’s New York residence at Trump Tower.
It also came with a message from the president himself.
“I am glad my legal counsel has been able to finally approve this contribution to you,”Trump wrote. “Enclosed is a check for $25,000 — I hope this will make things a bit easier, but nothing will ever replace your son, Dillon. He was an American hero.”
“I’m still speechless,” Jessie Baldridge told WTVD.
According to Military Times, Army Cpl. Dillon Baldridge, 22, was killed in Afghanistan in June. During his condolence call with the family, Trump promised to send them a $25,000 check out of his own account.
“We just thought he was saying something nice,” Jessie Baldridge told WTVD. “We got a condolence letter from him (a few weeks later) and there was no check, and we kind of joked about it. We didn’t take to social media and didn’t complain.”
The Washington Post jumped on the story, though, as the WaPo is wont to do. The White House said the check had been held up for legal complications.
“There is a substantial process that can involve multiple agencies anytime the president interacts with the public, especially when transmitting personal funds,” a White House official was quoted as saying.
“The check has been in the pipeline since the president’s initial call with the father. The president has personally followed up several times to ensure that the check was being sent. As stated earlier, the check has been sent.”
And so it was — dated Oct. 18, the same day The Washington Post’s story ran.
Regardless of the delay, the check is a nice gesture on behalf of the president to a grieving Gold Star family.
For the second time in recent days, China took a major step to put pressure on North Korea to resolve its standoff with the United States over North Korea’s missile development efforts. The Chinese government announced Monday it will implement the sanctions that were imposed against North Korea by the United Nations on Aug. 5.
The Security Council sanctions block nations from accepting North Korea’s primary exports, including coal, iron, iron ore, lead and seafood. The sanctions also target other revenue streams, such as banks and joint ventures with foreign companies. The sanctions could cost North Korea a third of its $3 billion annual export revenue.
Although China did not block the sanctions at the U.N., it was unclear until the announcement whether China, which is North Korea’s largest trading partner, would implement them. China also faces possible action from President Donald Trump, who has said he may order an investigation into allegations of unfair Chinese trade practices.
“It is obviously improper to use one thing as a tool to imposing pressure on another thing,”Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying said Monday. “There will be no winner from a trade war, it will be lose-lose.”
Advertisement – story continues below
China’s action to implement the sanctions came days after a state-run newspaper said that if North Korea attacks the United States, it will fight any war that results on its own.
“China should also make clear that if North Korea launches missiles that threaten U.S. soil first and the U.S. retaliates, China will stay neutral,”the Global Times editorial said.
Throughout the escalation of tensions between the United States and North Korea, China has called for restraint.
“The current situation on the Korean Peninsula is complicated and sensitive,”Foreign Ministry spokesman Geng Shuang said in a statement Friday.
“China hopes that all relevant parties will be cautious in their words and actions, and do things that help to alleviate tensions and enhance mutual trust, rather than walk on the old pathway of taking turns in shows of strength, and upgrading the tensions,”he said.
Writing in The Washington Post, David Von Drehle said China needs to emerge from the North Korean-American showdown with a win.
” … the audience of greatest concern to China — namely, the other leading countries in the region, including Japan, India, Australia, South Korea, the Philippines and Vietnam — faces the urgent question of whether they can trust a rising China to share in safeguarding their sphere. If the problem of Kim isn’t defused, those nations are sure to seek even deeper alliances with the United States while building their own military capacity. China’s regional influence will shrink rather than grow,”he wrote.
The Washington Post may very well have led the American public seriously astray via its recent attacks on President Donald Trump. The Post claimed that FBI Director James Comey wrote a memo in which he said that Trump had asked him to drop the investigation on former administration member Michael Flynn, despite a clear claim to the contrary by Comey’s successor, acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe.
What’s more frustrating than that is the fact that The Post claimed anonymous sources backed up its statements, but provided no real substance.
Just look for a second at this verbiage. This is an actual, serious line from The Washington Post that they just expect the good people of America to believe:
“‘I hope you can let this go,’ Trump said, according to the Comey notes, which were described by the associates. Comey’s written account of the meeting is two pages long and highly detailed, the associates said.”
And although Comey has not come out and said specifically that Trump never asked him to stop investing Flynn, he certainly seemed to imply it in May 3 testimony he gave the Senate Judiciary Committee.
When asked whether senior DOJ officials could ask the FBI to drop an investigation, Comey said flat-out, “It’s not happened in my experience,”according to a transcript, provided by, once again, The Washington Post.
Although that’s not a denial of Trump himself having asked Comey to drop the investigation, there does seem to be that implication at the very least. You’d think if Trump had said something, Comey would also have said something.
In fact, The Post’s statement doesn’t mean much at all when you consider the actual on-the-record-in-front-of-witnesses claimsmade by acting FBI director Andrew McCabe that fly right in the face of these unsubstantiated accusations.
When Sen. Marco Rubio asked McCabe before the Senate Intelligence Committee whether or not the firing of former FBI Director James Comey “in any way impeded, interrupted, stopped or negatively impacted any of the work, any investigation, or any ongoing projects at the Federal Bureau of Investigation,”McCabe’s response was even more definitive than the question given to him dictated.
“As you know, senator,”McCabe said, “the work of the men and women of the FBI continues despite any changes in circumstance, any decisions, so there has been no effort to impede our investigation to date.”
Huh. No effort at all to impede our investigation to date. Interesting.
The Washington Post’s editors tried to cover themselves by saying, “It’s unclear from the questioning if McCabe was talking solely about the consequences of Comey’s abrupt firing, or referring to a specific investigation on Trump’s associates for possible connections to Russian officials.”
Yeah, right. That’s not the only thing unclear here.
Yesterday morning, when President Barack Obama met with Chinese President Xi Jinping, 2016 GOP presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz humiliated our president with one sentence.
We know as much courtesy of The Washington Post political contributor Dave Weigel, who shared Cruz’s comment on his Twitter feed.While Cruz obviously meant this statement in jest, his comment rang true with a lot people:
Communism places the collective good over the individual and demands that every worker be paid according to his abilities and needs. President Obama believes that the wealth rightfully earned by business owners and job creators ought to be redistributed via increased wages and taxes.
Furthermore, Obama studied under the tutelage of Frank Marshall Davis, a card-carrying member of the Communist Party USA and close friend of his grandfather, who reportedly mentored Obama during his teen years.
Cruz’s tweet was especially brutal considering that Chinese President Xi Jinping is the ruler of a genuinely communist nation, one fraught with worker abuse and human rights violations.
By referring to Obama as “the world’s most powerful communist,”Cruz insinuated that the president’s ideology is so radical in nature, it makes Jinping look like a commonplace capitalist. In other words, Obama is a rigid ideologue and collectivist who wants to “radically transform” America from a free and just capitalist nation into a communist/socialist one where so-called “social justice” takes precedence over actual justice.
Cruz was likely joking when he made the comment, but like the best jokes, it’s funny because of the element of truth that runs through it.
A gay rights inspired adaptation of the famous image of Marines raising the flag over Iwo Jima in 1945 is sparking outrage following the recent Supreme Court decision legalizing gay marriage nation-wide.
The image — of four muscular, skin-baring men raising the rainbow flag posed like the Marines at Iwo Jima — was taken some ten years ago and appeared on a gay magazine, but was recirculated last week following the Supreme Court decision.
Twitter is in an uproar.
And dont compare gay marriage to the Marines who fought and died in Iwo Jima. The two events are not comparable pic.twitter.com/rqwtR2eoHh — Paulie Walnuts (@PAULme_maybe69) July 1, 2015
Replacing the soldiers on Iwo Jima standing up the American flag with the gay pride flag is disrespectful— Mitchell Moyers (@m_moyers8) July 1, 2015
They really recreated the Iwo Jima flag with the gay flag. Just stop — Evan Moriyama (@AsMoriyama) July 1, 2015
6821 people died in Iwo Jima,over 19,000 wounded.Apparently that ain’t nothi compared to gay people’s struggle huh — AmericanMuscle (@MrFakeDope) July 1, 2015#gay#TCOT
this is offensive how dare you besmirch Marines at Iwo Jima who gave their lives so there is a supreme ct pic.twitter.com/ARRqXwJC0u — Rosebud (@Murba1515) June 30, 2015
The Washington Post highlighted the outcry Wednesday, recalling the bloody operation that spurred to the first iconic photo taken on February 23, 1945 by Associated Press photographer Joe Rosenthal. Three of the Marines pictured were killed in combat, among the nearly 7,000 other Americans who died on Iwo Jima. Another 20,000 American troops were wounded.
The photographer of the gay rights image, Ed Freeman, The Post reports, has received hate mail, backlash on social media, and at least one death threat since the image went viral. “He said if he ever saw me, he’d kill me,”Freeman told The Post. “I got swamped with vitriolic hate mail.”
Freeman received disapproving responses to his when he posted on Facebook that Friday, “When I took this picture almost ten years ago, it never, never occurred to me that it would someday come to symbolize the victory we are celebrating today. Congratulations to all of us! Love to you all.”
Freeman told The Post that he did not intend for the image to be disrespectful and chalked the outrage up to people’s frustration with the Supreme Court decision. “The principle complaint that people have is that I am equating the gay struggle with the contribution and sacrifice of American servicemen,” Freeman said. “But there is no equal sign here. This is not meant as a sign of disrespect. For God sake, no. I totally support people in uniform. There is no comparison going on here. The comparison is going on in people’s heads, and they’re spoiling for a fight. They’re already on edge because of the gay marriage decision.”
The massacre of black churchgoers in Charleston by an evil psycho is a hideous thing. The case is especially sickening because the victims were chosen specifically because of their race. Thank God it’s extremely rare for whites to target black people for attack.
And yet the public is being told by The New York Times, The Washington Post, MSNBC and Salon that the Charleston massacre is one small example of white racists rampaging through the country. It’s like saying we have an epidemic of men flying gyrocopters onto Capitol Hill. Yes, there’s that one time, but I notice you keep citing the same case.
In The Washington Post, for example, columnist Lonnae O’Neal blamed the Charleston attack on “white supremacy,” claiming that “racial sickness is all around us.” (I guess the one upside of the horror in South Carolina is that we can FINALLY have a national conversation about race.)
The media’s WHITES ARE TERRORIZING BLACKS campaign reflects reality as accurately as the media’s other campaign, WHITE MALE COLLEGE STUDENTS ARE RAPING EVERYTHING IN SIGHT!
In a country of more than 300 million people, everything will happen eventually. That doesn’t make it a trend. Go up to any ordinary, sentient person and ask: Which race assaults the other race more?
Remember the “knockout game” — or as its devotees called it, “polar bear hunting”? Black teenagers would go looking for white people to knock unconscious with a single punch, videotape the attacks and post them online. The knockout game was a real trend — which the media denied was a trend.
Just last month, we saw videos of white reporters from the Daily Caller being mugged by black men in Baltimore.
Ask around. You might be surprised at how many whites you know have been physically attacked by a black person at least once in their lives.
Ordinary people keep hearing that we are in the middle of an epidemic of white-on-black violence and think, Surely the media wouldn’t be making this up, so I must be misinformed.
According to a preposterously, laughably, ridiculously bogus report on “hate crimes” produced by Eric Holder’s Justice Department, blacks are far more likely to be victims of hate crimes than whites are. It would be like a government report asserting that most rapes are committed by elderly white women. Holder’s DOJ got to the desired outcome by:
(1) Defining “hate crime” only as those in which the perp uses a racial epithet. (Because that’s what people fear most: I don’t mind getting the crap kicked out of me — as long as no one calls me a “cracker”!)
(2) Defining Hispanic perpetrators as “white.” (Yes, according to our federal government, Hispanics are “Hispanic” when they are victims of crimes, but “white” when they are the perpetrators.)
(3) Defining less than 0.1 percent of all violent crimes as “hate crimes.” (According to the FBI’s detailed crime victimization report, there were about 1.2 million violent crimes in 2012, but Holder’s Justice Department characterized less than 1,000 of those as “hate crimes.”)
The FBI’s crime victimization surveys tell a very different story, one more in line with a normal person’s life experience. In 2008, the most recent year for which such data seems to have been collected, FBI surveys show that, out of 520,161 interracial violent crimes, blacks committed 429,444 of them against whites, while whites committed 90,717 of them against blacks.
In other words, blacks commit more than 80 percent of all interracial violent crime.
Going for the element of surprise, columnist Brit Bennett recently complained in The New York Times that “white violence is unspoken and unacknowledged” by the media. Yes, I barely heard a thing about such alleged white-on-black crimes as: Tawana Brawley (hoax), the Duke lacrosse gang rape (hoax), Trayvon Martin (self-defense), Ferguson (hoax) and Eric Garner (justified police arrest). Other than the wall-to-wall, 24/7 coverage for months on end, there was barely a peep out of the media about these cases. The media will pounce on any suspicion of a white-on-black crime, spend a year being hysterical about it, and, if it turns out to be a false alarm, refuse to apologize, before quickly moving on to the next hoax.
The Charleston church shooting is the first case in a very long time in which blacks really were targeted by a white person because of their race (and had the misfortune of being in a gun-free zone). Even Bennett had to reach back to stories her grandmother told her about the Ku Klux Klan (100 percent Democratic) to come up with a previous example of whites terrorizing blacks.
The Charleston attack was a hideous, sickening crime. But that’s why we should thank our lucky stars that it was so unusual. White-on-black violence is freakishly rare everywhere in America, except liberal imaginations.
Did the IRS target Tea Party groups for harassment? For those who have been following this scandal, the definite answer is a resounding “yes!” For the Washington Post’s fact checker, the answer is also a firm “yes.”
For IRS and Obama Administration officials looking to avoid the consequences that come with admitting that political motivations forced a government agency to target political dissidents for systematic harassment, the answer is more complicated.
During his testimony before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee last month, IRS Commissioner John Koskinen claimed that the increased IRS scrutiny afforded to only Tea Party and conservative groups that lasted for years were not results of “targeting,” but of “inappropriate critieria.”
“The inspector general found inappropriate criteria were used to select organizations for further review — he did not refer to it as targeting.”
“Yes, inappropriate criteria were used. I don’t think I used the word target, but I do acknowledge that applications were delayed unnecessarily and for too long.”
“I have never said there was targeting,” Koskinen claimed during his testimony on March 26, 2014.
The Washington Post reported on Thursday that the term “targeting” is being rejected by government bureaucrats in favor of mealy-mouthed phrases meant to escape culpability.
The preferred term- “inappropriate criteria”- is being used by the Obama Administration to explain why only conservative and Tea Party groups were targeted for years of invasive questioning and halted statuses as nonprofit groups.
During his testimony, Kuskinen denied that the Inspector General’s report had used the term “targeting” and further explained that he had not used the term either.
The Washington Post, however, disagreed and blasted this absurd claim, saying,
We understand the public relations concern about acknowledging that the IRS engaged in targeting of conservative groups. But the cat’s out of the bag, given an official IRS report has used the phrase and both George and Koskinen have used it in public testimony.
The IG’s report was carefully written, but at this point, it is silly and counterproductive for Koskinen to fall back on bureaucratese — or even deny that the phrase “targeting” had been used. While perhaps technically correct in terms of the report, this is a slender reed to hide behind. After all, George publicly said that all three allegations of “targeting” were proven, and that using “inappropriate criteria” was the equivalent of “targeting.” That demonstrates that the term “inappropriate criteria” is simply a euphemism. Accept that means “targeting,” and move on.
The report delicately balanced the term “inappropriate criteria” with the actions of the IRS, but IG Russell George’s testimony before the committee in May of 2013 clarified, (emphasis added)
“The three allegations considered during our review were proven true. The IRS targeted specific groups applying for tax-exempt status. It delayed the processing of these groups’ applications, and requested unnecessary information, as well as subjected these groups to special scrutiny.”
“The inappropriate criteria discussed in this audit were the IRS’s targeting for review Tea Party and other organizations based on their names or policy positions, a practice started in 2012, and which was not fully corrected until May 2012. Actually the practice was started in 2010 and not fully corrected until May of 2012.”
The Washington Post assigned three Pinocchios to the claim but in truth, Koskinen’s claim likely deserves four. While we can nit-pick over what “targeting” means, the fact remains that the IRS systematically harassed Tea Party and conservative groups for years. That may have been based on “inappropriate criteria,” but that supposed criteria was rooted in the nature of the group’s political advocacy that runs contrary to the agenda of the Obama Administration. Such harassment is targeting no matter what coy euphemisms the Obama Administration wishes to assign it.
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
NEWSMAX
News, Opinion, Interviews, Research and discussion
Opinion
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
You Version
Bible Translations, Devotional Tools and Plans, BLOG, free mobile application; notes and more
Political
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
NEWSMAX
News, Opinion, Interviews, Research and discussion
Spiritual
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
Bible Gateway
The Bible Gateway is a tool for reading and researching scripture online — all in the language or translation of your choice! It provides advanced searching capabilities, which allow readers to find and compare particular passages in scripture based on
.jpg)
What Did You Say? 
You must be logged in to post a comment.