A variety of people, ranging from political centrists to conservatives, have increasingly looked with skepticism on the supposedly unbiased “fact-checkers” at Snopes, as the outlet has long displayed a decidedly left-leaning bias in its pronouncements of what is true and false.

The suspicion that Snopes has a heavy liberal bias just received a significant boost in the case of the outlet’s take on California Assembly Bill 2943. The law, currently working its way through the state legislature, would prohibit “sexual orientation change efforts” — referred to by the left as “gay conversion therapy” — on any resident in the state by any other resident if any sort of monetary transaction or exchange of goods or services is involved.

The bill cites numerous studies claiming to prove that SOCE doesn’t work and actually does more psychological harm than good for gay, lesbian and bisexual individuals. The legislation outlaws SOCE, calling it a deceptive and “unlawful business practice.”

As noted by Snopes, the bill’s opponents argue a literal and logical reading of the bill would lead one to believe that the law would effectively prohibit the sale of Bibles in the state, as the Holy Word of God obviously declares homosexuality to be a sin and urges individuals not to engage in such behavior.

Of course, Snopes dismissed that worry out of hand and declared it not just “false,” but “demonstrably and clearly false” as the bill makes no mention of the Bible, Christianity or any religion at all.

However, in a story exposing Snopes as a “sneaky liar” in regard to its coverage of the California bill,  The Federalist pointed out the outlet was at best being disingenuous, and at worst outright lying with its assessment of the concerns surrounding the law. Indeed, the broad wording of the legislation would certainly lend itself to the worrisome interpretation.

Snopes argued that the law would only apply to “mental health providers that seek to change an individual’s sexual orientation.” A previous state law that banned SOCE on minors under the age of 18 did the same thing. But even Snopes admitted in its dismissal that AB 2943 “also appears to prohibit SOCE from being performed by any individual, not just by mental health providers.”

A logical reading would lead one to presume that the new law could be applied to any pastor, Bible study leader or member of a church-affiliated organization with a focus on serving and counseling LGBT individuals, if any sort of monetary transaction or exchange occurred.

Furthermore, Snopes was compelled to add, “The Assembly Judiciary Committee’s analysis notes it is not clear whether the text of A.B. 2943 would amount to a blanket prohibition on any and all SOCE.”

“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,” insisted Anthony Samson, a Sacramento attorney and policy adviser.

But for those who haven’t been paying attention lately, “unclear” meanings in legislation tend to leave doors open for laws to be used in unanticipated ways — such as banning the sale of a Bible both because of its anti-homosexuality message and how that message could be used to “change an individual’s sexual orientation.”

The Federalist also pointed out Snopes declared it “clear” that the “bill does not seek to outlaw all religious or moral instruction regarding sexuality and sexual orientation.” Emphasis on the word “all,” which could be construed as meaning the bill might seek to outlaw “some or most” religious or moral instruction in regard to sexual orientation.

It was further noted that there is no sort of religious exemption in the bill and the wording of the proposed law seems to apply a blanket prohibition upon “efforts to change behaviors or gender expressions” or “sexual orientation.”

RELATED: Watch What Happens When These College Kids Learn Obama Sent Troops to Border, Too

Thus, sharing what the Gospel has to say about the sin of homosexuality or that Christ can save one from a life of such sin would be outlawed if any sort of monetary transaction were involved at any point.

As The Federalist wrote, “Selling religious or secular books (pamphlets, videos, audios, etc.), holding conferences, teaching courses in a college or seminary where tuition is paid, giving a speech at a paid venue, counseling people for a fee, or perhaps even posting online articles in a site that requires a paid subscription, in which it is asserted (in whole or part) that it is morally wrong for people to engage in homosexual practice or identify as ‘gay’ or ‘transgender, all could be treated as a violation of California Assembly Bill 2943.”

What this bill in essence boils down to is an attempt by California Democrats to criminalize “orthodox Christian beliefs” about morality and sexuality, whether such an outcome was intended or was merely a pleasant — for them — and unintended consequence.

Snopes would have everyone believe that there is nothing to fear from this particular piece of legislation, but logic and reason would dictate otherwise.

Let this serve as an object lesson on why “fact-checkers” these days aren’t to be completely trusted and their assessments of what is true or false should be taken with a grain of salt.

What do you think? Scroll down to comment below!

A newspaper printing a correction is nothing new. From small-town weeklies to papers with global reach, corrections are an uncomfortable but required piece of journalism when warranted.

When a newspaper has to admit it printed the equivalent of “fake news” in a story about “fake news,” it’s ripe with irony. When that newspaper turns out to be The New York Times, you can bet there will be more than a few guffaws coming from conservatives everywhere.

The “fake news” in question first appeared Saturday in a Times profile of Campbell Brown, once a reporter and anchor for NBC and CNN who now holds the title of Head of News Partnerships at Facebook.

The Times piece was designed to give insight into Brown’s professional background and her role at Facebook, including the challenges she faces in helping the social-media giant determine the oft-criticized relationship between Facebook and the companies whose news coverage it favors over others.

At some point in the feature, Times reporter Nellie Bowles detailed some of the upcoming projects Brown was working on at Facebook.

“… Ms. Brown wants to use Facebook’s existing Watch product — a service introduced in 2017 as a premium product with more curation that has nonetheless been flooded with far-right conspiracy programming like ‘Palestinians Pay $400 million Pensions For Terrorist Families’ — to be a breaking news destination. The result would be something akin to an online competitor to cable news.”

The problem with that sentence is the notion of payments to the families of Palestinian terrorists isn’t exactly a conspiracy theory. It’s a proven fact.

By Monday, Times editors had taken out the reference to the Palestinian “conspiracy theory” and added a correction at the end of the story.

“An earlier version of this article erroneously included a reference to Palestinian actions as an example of the sort of far-right conspiracy stories that have plagued Facebook,” the correction reads. “In fact, Palestinian officials have acknowledged providing payments to the families of Palestinians killed while carrying out attacks on Israelis or convicted of terrorist acts and imprisoned in Israel; that is not a conspiracy theory.”

 

In other words, “We’re sorry about the fake news that appeared in our story about fake news.”

The corrected version of the story now reads, “… Ms. Brown wants to use Facebook’s existing Watch product — a service introduced in 2017 as a premium product with more curation that has nonetheless been flooded with far-right conspiracy programming — to be a breaking news destination. The result would be something akin to an online competitor to cable news.”

RELATED: Listen: Rep. Blackburn Scorches Zuck in Post Hearing Interview on Censoring Conservatives

The amazing thing about Bowles’ claim of a conspiracy theory is the fact several high-ranking officials have confirmed the practice, including the president of the Palestinian Authority.

Mahmoud Abbas has not only confirmed such a practice exists, he even stated publicly last year that he has no intention of ending the payment program.

“I don’t intend to cease payment for families of prisoner martyrs, even if it costs me my seat, I will continue to pay them until my last day,” Abbas said, using the term “martyrs” to refer to the jailed Palestinians.

While The Washington Post has admitted the actual amount the Palestinian Authority has paid out is tough to pin down, “there is little doubt that the system allows people to be rewarded for what many Americans would call terrorism.”

While the Times deserves credit for correcting its mistake, the fact one of its reporters considered something that’s been admitted by the Palestinian Authority to be a conspiracy theory is a bit troubling.

And when The Times is preoccupied with attacking its opponents as “fake news” and “conspiracy theorists,” rather than on the truth, embarrassing mistakes like this are bound to happen again and again.

 

What do you think? Scroll down to comment below!

The Justice Department’s Southern District of New York and the FBI — acting on a referral from the Robert Mueller Special Counsel investigation — recently raided and seized documents from an office, home and hotel room associated with President Donald Trump’s former personal attorney Michael Cohen.

Bloomberg just reported that Attorney General Jeff Sessions has decided not to recuse himself from that particular investigation, though he reportedly did leave open the option of stepping back in regard to certain aspects of that investigation, if warranted in the future.

In the eyes of the liberal media, that non-recusal stands in stark contrast to Sessions’ prior recusal from the Mueller-led Russian collusion investigation and other matters related to the 2016 presidential campaign.

Asked about the non-recusal by Bloomberg, the DOJ released a statement that read: “The attorney general considers his potential recusal on a matter-by-matter basis as may be needed. To the extent a matter comes to the attention of his office that may warrant consideration of recusal, the attorney general would review the issue and consult with the appropriate Department ethics experts.”

Bloomberg fretted that Sessions’ involvement with the Cohen investigation would allow him to be briefed on its progress, which in turn could allow him to divulge such information to Trump if requested.

Furthermore, Sessions’ involvement would also permit him to play a decision-making role in the investigation, particularly in regard to if subpoenas or indictments are issued in the matter.

CNBC noted that the non-recusal by Sessions also stood in contrast to how SDNY lead attorney Geoffrey Berman had recused himself from the Cohen investigation and handed it off to his deputy, Robert Khuzami. Berman had been personally interviewed for the position by Trump and was appointed by Sessions.

In seeking confirmation of the decision by Sessions to not recuse himself, CNBC received this response from a DOJ spokeswoman: “We don’t confirm or deny recusals — as the AG said in his testimony in November. To do so could be used as a way to confirm the existence or scope of an ongoing criminal investigation, which we have a policy of not doing as you can read in the United States Attorney Manual.”

Nevertheless, that hasn’t stopped the liberal media from speculating on their own about the “existence or scope of an ongoing criminal investigation” as it pertains to Michael Cohen.

The Hill surmised that the raid on Cohen’s office, home and hotel room was related to an alleged payoff he gave to former porn star Stormy Daniels — real name Stephanie Clifford — in order to purchase her silence in regard to an alleged consensual affair she had with then-businessman Trump a dozen years ago.

It is thought by some in the liberal media that such a payoff could implicate Trump in some sort of campaign finance violation, and is the latest saga in their perpetually evolving “We’ve got him now!” mantra.

Pushing that narrative even further, there has been speculation that Trump could eventually issue a pardon for Cohen, a potentiality the White House hasn’t totally ruled out but which was also called a “stupid question” by Trump himself when asked if he would consider pardoning his former attorney.

In the end, RedState noted that this move by Sessions — even if correct and to be applauded — has poured fuel on the anti-Trump left’s conspiracy theories regarding Trump being the real focus of the investigation and his administration’s efforts to cover up or obstruct that “truth” from emerging.

RELATED: Watch: Herman Cain Posts Video with Great News

A much more likely reason for Sessions’ non-recusal from the Cohen investigation is that it doesn’t have any real links to Mueller’s Russia investigation or the 2016 presidential campaign, in which case Sessions would probably have recused himself, which in turn would have implied that Trump was under investigation as well.

Of course, it is also plausible that Sessions decided not to recuse himself simply because he didn’t want to become the target of accusatory tweets from the president, as has occurred in response to his prior recusal from matters involving Russia and the campaign.

Regardless, Sessions is doing the job that he was appointed and confirmed to do, and unless there are clear indications of a conflict of interest or appearance of impropriety, there is no reason whatsoever for the attorney general to recuse himself from this particular investigation.

What do you think? Scroll down to comment below!

Ohio’s “America First” congressional candidate, State Rep. Christina Hagan (R), who is running in the state’s 16th district against the Republican establishment, says she will promote a plan once in Congress to “stop sending our dollars overseas.”

Hagen would instead use the money saved to pay retired and armed American veterans and law enforcement officers to guard and protect U.S. schools.

During an interview with Breitbart News’s Political Editor Matt Boyle and Deputy Political Editor Amanda House on SiriusXM’s Breitbart News Sunday, Hagan said her plan to protect American schoolchildren following the Parkland High School shooting did not involve “stripping law-abiding citizens of their rights” to bear arms.

Instead, Hagan said she would push a plan that brings American taxpayer money back to the U.S. to fund armed retired service members and police officers at schools across the country.

Hagan, who was endorsed by the National Rifle Association (NRA), told Breitbart News:

So we’ve actually put forth a policy idea that we would champion when getting into the federal legislature and it has nothing to do with stripping law-abiding citizens of their rights. [Americans’] Second Amendment rights should be absolutely upheld and protected to the very extent that they’re not breaking them. [Emphasis added]

As it looks to the future, we need to have an ‘Americans First’ priority. We need to take dollars that we’re sending all over the world to fund other countries to do incredibly silly things like train cashiers in Wal-Marts and take those dollars back to the United States and invest them in our schools. I mean we can have an ‘American First’ agenda by bringing veterans, by bringing law enforcement and having armed security resource officers in our school systems. [Emphasis added]

We just saw a few weeks ago — and there was very little media attention on it — in Maryland, an armed security resource officer who mitigated an armed shooter right out of the gate. So we just need to have the right people that are positioned to put country above self in with our children and that is the solution. The solution isn’t a massive amount of heightened security, you know making our children feel frightened to go to school, but to protect them and have the right people trained to protect them in that environment.

And it’s not a crazy idea. American dollars should be spent on Americans’ safety and security, and if the national security threat is having an armed gunman in our school rooms, then we need to put our children first and stop sending our dollars overseas. [Emphasis added]

I’m Christina Hagan.

I’m running for US Congress.

I’m a proud gun owner.

I’m a proud member of the @NRA.

I’m endorsed by the NRA.

I am the NRA. #2a #MAGA ?? pic.twitter.com/d5hw8FMhRu

— Christina Hagan (@RepHagan) April 10, 2018

The most recent omnibus spending bill funds a slew of overseas and foreign initiatives using American taxpayer money. For example, the spending bill funds border security in the Middle East for countries like Jordan, Iraq, and Syria.

Meanwhile, the spending bill did not only not fund a border wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, as Trump has requested, but it specifically blocked the funding of a wall, as Breitbart News reported. Hagan told Breitbart News that she would not only push for a border wall on the southern border, but would also support legislation like the Trump-endorsed RAISE Act that would cut legal immigration levels in half and boost wages for American workers.

“We can’t allow terrorists to come into this country on a Diversity Visa Lottery, it is absolutely ludicrous that we would put our American citizens in harm’s way,” Hagan said.

Hagan’s primary opponent, Anthony Gonzalez, has received the backing of the GOP establishment, including Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL). If elected, Hagan, 29-years-old, would be the youngest woman ever elected to Congress.

Listen to Hagan’s full interview here:

Breitbart News Sunday airs on SiriusXM Patriot 125 from 8:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. Eastern.

John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder. 

The number of people killed in Mexico in the first quarter of 2018, at 7,667, is more than ten times higher than the 763 civilian deaths in war-ravaged Afghanistan during the same period, according to a Breitbart News analysis of Mexican government and United Nations data.

When taking into consideration the difference in the population between the two countries, a civilian is still nearly three times more likely to be killed in Mexico than in Afghanistan.

Using CIA World Factbook population estimates, Breitbart News determined that the murder rate in Mexico so far this year stands at 6.15 per 100,000 people.

Meanwhile, the civilian fatality rate is 2.24 per 100,000 people in Afghanistan.

The murder rate estimates are consistent with the latest data (from 2012) compiled by the World Bank, which shows that the intentional homicide rate alone in Mexico (21.3 per 100,000) is more than three times higher than that of war-devastated Afghanistan (6.6 per 100,000).

Breitbart News gleaned data on the number of homicides in Mexico from the country’s national public security services and the Afghanistan civilian death figures from the U.N.

The number of murders in Mexico in the first quarter of 2018 increased by 20 percent when compared to the same period last year.

So far, 2018 is Mexico’s “most violent year in two decades,” the Agence France-Presse (AFP) agency notes.

Referring to civilian deaths, which excludes the number of American military fatalities and fatalities among the Afghan National Defense and Security Forces (ANDSF), the U.N. Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) reports, “From 1 January to 31 March 2018, UNAMA documented 2,258 civilian casualties (763 deaths and 1,495 injured), reflecting similar levels of civilian harm documented in the first three months of 2017 and 2016.”

Breitbart News’ fatality tally for Mexico excludes the 4,272 homicides designated as involuntary manslaughter, which brings the total number of deaths in the country during the first quarter of 2018 to 11,939.