As Democratic primaries and caucuses in more diverse states approach, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders are locked in a complex battle for the black vote.

Both candidates find themselves with powerful allies. The former head of the NAACP, Ben Jealous, threw his support behind Sanders, saying in a recent interview black voters need to compare the candidate records:

In the 80s, [Clinton] chaired the Children’s Defense Fund, but then in the 90s the CDF came out with the “super predator” theory, which said there were some kids who were so sociopathic by age six months that they were beyond redemption… And [the theory] was not used against young white men in Columbine, it was almost always used to explain the actions of young urban black men…

It comes down to the trio that MLK referred to as the triplets of evil: racism, militarism, and greed. Bernie Sanders has been very consistent in fighting racism, in fighting stupid wars–Vietnam or Iraq, [and] he has been very consistent in fighting greed. When you take those with Hillary, it just gets confusing, confusing.

Jealous also pointed to out at the same time Sanders was involved in the civil rights movement in Chicago, Clinton supported Barry Goldwater, a Republican.

Others condemned Clinton’s support for actions Bill Clinton took during his time in office. On Wednesday, Michelle Alexander, author of the famous The New Jim Crow, wrote a scathing article in The Nation entitled “Why Hillary Clinton Doesn’t Deserve the Black Vote.”

While stressing “this is not an endorsement for Bernie Sanders,” Alexander says legislation like Bill Clinton’s crime bill and welfare reform, which Hillary Clinton supported, “decimated black America.”

She marvels at how fellow blacks are “eager to get played,” at their support for Clinton and her husband:

What have the Clintons done to earn such devotion? Did they take extreme political risks to defend the rights of African Americans? Did they courageously stand up to right-wing demagoguery about black communities? Did they help usher in a new era of hope and prosperity for neighborhoods devastated by deindustrialization, globalization, and the disappearance of work? No. Quite the opposite.

Ta-Nehisi Coates, author of Between the World and Me and a famous article in The Atlantic called “The Case for Reparations,” said on Wednesday he would be voting for Sanders (but rejects the term “supporter”).

Coates (a critic of Sanders’ opposition to reparations), while noting Sanders also voted for Bill Clinton’s crime law, said Clinton’s support for the law and her Wall Street ties were concerning, and that he supports Sanders’ push to guarantee free college tuition for all and fight inequality and poverty.

Civil rights activist and actor Harry Belafonte, actor Danny Glover, rapper Killer Mike, and democratic socialist Cornel West, author of Race Matters, have endorsed Sanders. While Black Lives Matter has yet to endorse either, the lawyer for Walter Scott’s family recently switched his support from Clinton to Sanders, and Eric Garner’s daughter endorsed Sanders, starring in a powerful new video explaining her decision. Walter Scott and Eric Garner were killed in altercations with police.

Sanders met with Al Sharpton this week, but has yet to get his endorsement.

But Clinton has powerful support as well. On Thursday, the political action committee of the Congressional Black Caucus, comprised of 20 politicians and lobbyists, endorsed Hillary Clinton. Civil rights legend John Lewis questioned Sanders’ civil rights activism, declaring:

I never saw [Sanders]. I never met him. I was chair of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee for three years, from 1963 to 1966. I was involved with the sit-ins, the Freedom Rides, the March on Washington, the march from Selma to Montgomery and directed [the] voter education project for six years. But I met Hillary Clinton. I met President [Bill] Clinton.

Supporters of Sanders, such a writer for Mother Jones, were quick to point out Sanders’ civil rights work was indeed “brief and localized” when compared to Lewis’, but considering Sanders was involved with the Congress of Racial Equality and the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee in Chicago–whereas Lewis worked in Southern states–they were unlikely to meet. Further, the March on Washington, which Sanders attended and Lewis spoke at, comprised hundreds of thousands of people. Sanders protested and organized sit-ins against police brutality and segregation during his time at the University of Chicago.

Members of the Congressional Black Caucus that may lean toward Sanders noted the political action committee of the Caucus is a separate group. Congressman Keith Ellison tweeted emphatically that the Caucus itself “has NOT endorsed” a candidate and that the PAC decision was made “withOUT input from CBC membership, including me.”

The CBC as an organization represents the black members of Congress. U.S. Uncut, a popular liberal website, implied opening the decision to members might have helped Sanders, quoting The Intercept as saying,

Every major union or progressive organization that let its members have a vote endorsed Bernie Sanders. Meanwhile, all of Hillary Clinton’s major group endorsements come from organizations where the leaders decide.

Some members of organizations that backed Clinton, like those of the Human Rights Campaign, rose up in rebellion over leader decisions.

But Clinton also has black actress Angela Bassett, famous for performances in What’s Love Got to Do With It? and most recently American Horror Story and Chi-Raq, speaking at campaign rallies for her. At a recent event at South Carolina State University,

Bassett said Clinton does care about black families, pointing to her work with the Children’s Defense Fund and the Children’s Health Insurance Program. The actress also said Clinton is ready to have conversations about incarceration and the role of the government pertaining to black families.

As the candidates vie for support, this week Charles M. Blow of The New York Times condemned Sanders supporters for what he perceives as condescending attitudes toward black voters. His articled was called “Stop Bernie-Splaining to Black Voters.”

Frustrated by the “black people are voting against their interests [if they choose Clinton]” argument, Blow writes:

If only black people knew more, understood better, where the candidates stood — now and over their lifetimes — they would make a better choice, the right choice. The level of condescension in these comments is staggering.

Sanders is a solid candidate and his integrity and earnestness are admirable, but that can get lost in the noise of advocacy.

Tucked among all this Bernie-splaining by some supporters, it appears to me, is a not-so-subtle, not-so-innocuous savior syndrome and paternalistic patronage that I find so grossly offensive that it boggles the mind that such language should emanate from the mouths—or keyboards—of supposed progressives.

Blow believes this reflects old, racist ideas “that black folks are infantile and must be told what to do and what to think.”

For more from the author, subscribe and follow or read his books.

If there was one event in recent American memory during which people best showcased their willingness to believe things for which they had no evidence, surely it was the 2008 presidential election, when the far right accused Barack Obama of being a socialist, a Muslim, and a Kenyan.

These beliefs persist into the waning years of the Obama presidency. In 2010, 55% of likely voters believed Obama to be a socialist. In late 2015, 29% of Americans still think Obama is a Muslim, 20% think he is foreign-born.

The near future will make a mockery of the fear mongering and hysteria that birthed and perpetuated this mythology.

The United States is changing, for the better in the opinion of some, for worse in the opinion of narrow minded thinkers. Is it not obvious that the baseless attacks on Obama’s political beliefs, religion, and nationality necessitated the use of “socialist,” “Muslim,” and “foreigner” as vile slurs? Would not the far right oppose a similar vilification of “conservative” or “Christian” or the “native born” as ludicrous reasons why a presidential candidate should be disqualified for office?

By imagining that “those people” are less qualified for the presidency than others, we waste an enormous pool of human talent, discouraging people that could do a tremendous good in office, plus spitting on the notion of American freedom and equality.

Call it irony, karma, or justice, but it is not difficult to imagine the untruths about Obama will soon be the truths of other presidents. This is an important hope, as it could dispel fear and bigotry.

Indeed, the U.S. is already drawing close.

THE SOCIALIST

Bernie Sanders may or may not be the first socialist elected president.

Since entering the presidential race, Sanders has made enormous gains against the presumed Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, even leading her in New Hampshire for a time.

Currently, in the key early battleground states, Clinton leads Sanders by the slim margin of 48%-41% in Iowa, 48%-45% in New Hampshire. This is far better than Barack Obama was doing against Clinton at the same time in 2008, before she lost her lead and came in third in Iowa.

From July through September 2015, Clinton raised $28.8 million and spent nearly all of it; Sanders raised $26.2 million and spent less than half. He’s spending far less and still in statistical ties. During this time, Sanders reached 1 million campaign donations faster than any presidential candidate in U.S. history; the average donation was $25. He takes union donations, refusing to accept corporate money, a stark contrast to Clinton, who is heavily funded by big banks and corporations.

Sanders draws the most massive crowds of any Democratic candidate and, before Donald Trump came along, of any candidate period. 11,000 people in Phoenix; 15,000 in Seattle; 28,000 in Portland; 27,500 in Los Angeles; 20,000 in Boston–twice the number that came to see Obama in 2007.

In a theoretical national contest with Donald Trump, Bernie Sanders does slightly better than Clinton. After the first Democratic debate in October, though media outlets like CNN declared Clinton the winner (CNN is owned by Time Warner, which donates to Clinton’s campaigns), many polls and focus groups showed viewers thought Sanders the victor, from Fox News to Slate, to Fusion, Time, The Drudge Report, Daily Kos, and CNN itself.

Perhaps Sanders’ rise can be attributed to the fact that many younger people don’t view “socialism” as a dirty word. In recent polls, 69% of those under 29 (and 50% of those 30-49) would be willing to vote for a socialist for president. Overall, 47% of Americans said they would.

The election and reelection of local socialist politicians, like Sanders in Vermont or Kshama Sawant in Seattle, points to the willingness of American voters to support candidates of radical political persuasion.

Though I imagine most Americans, both supporters and opponents of socialism, have a very limited understanding of what socialism is (to cure this, see my article “Bernie Sanders Barely Scratches the Surface of What Socialism Is”), it is not outside the realm of possibility that a socialist could one day take the White House…be it in one year or one hundred.

After all, most Americans agree with his ideas.

THE MUSLIM

Anti-Muslim bigotry reeks from high-profile Americans like Ben Carson, who suggested recently that a Muslim should not be president, to nameless Americans, like the man who told Trump, “We have a problem in this country. It’s called Muslims.” He went on to claim Obama was a Muslim, that Muslims were in training camps plotting American deaths, and asked, “When do we get rid of them?”

Whether that was referencing terrorist networks or all American Muslims is open to speculation.

Trump, not one to defend Muslims, replied, “We’re going to be looking at a lot of different things.”

The two Muslim Americans in Congress, who for all we know may one day run for the highest office, had strong words for intolerance of this sort. Keith Ellison of Minnesota, the first Muslim in Congress, said:

For Ben Carson, Donald Trump, or any other Republican politician to suggest that someone of any faith is unfit for office is out of touch with who we are as a people… It’s unimaginable that the leading GOP presidential candidates are resorting to fear mongering to benefit their campaigns, and every American should be disturbed that these national figures are engaging in and tolerating blatant acts of religious bigotry.

Congressman Andre Carson of Indiana said, “Saying that the U.S. shouldn’t elect a Muslim U.S. president is absurd as saying we shouldn’t elect a neurosurgeon as president.”

Obviously, anti-Muslim sentiment stems from hateful conservative myths that most Muslims are terrorists, looking to kill Americans and replace religious liberty and American democracy with an Islamic caliphate.

Fortunately, a recent poll shows 60% of Americans would actually be willing to vote for a Muslim for president. For 18-29 year olds, it’s 76%; for 30-49 year olds, it’s 67%, an encouraging sign that not only are many Americans far less prejudiced than Ben Carson, but that a younger, more tolerant generation is upon us.

THE FOREIGNER

The U.S. Constitution currently states that anyone who is not a natural-born citizen cannot be president. With this in mind, ultra-conservatives obsessed over Obama’s birthplace during the 2008 election (and of course much later), demanding to see his birth certificate, only to declare it fraudulent once it was made public. Trump was one of the leaders of this national embarrassment.

The notion that a man or woman who immigrated to the U.S., or a child adopted from abroad, should not be president amounts to nothing more than a nationalistic, “patriotic” belief that American-born people are somehow superior to foreigners, or have more of a “right” to be democratically elected and lead than foreign-born citizens.

Should one’s qualifications be based on the spot on the globe on which you chanced to be born, over which you had no control? Or whether you care enough about your new home, the United States, to seek public office, and whether voters agree with your ideas and vision?

Consider 10-year-old Alena Mulhern: born in China, adopted, a U.S. citizen since she was 10 months old, resides in Massachusetts.

She is one of many in the last decade to push for an Equal Opportunity to Govern Amendment, like the one from 2003 that went nowhere in Congress (it was nicknamed the “Arnold bill,” as it would have made California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger eligible to run). The amendment would have declared foreign-born persons eligible for the highest office once they had been a U.S. citizen for 20 years.

“We should all have the opportunity to run for president… Just think of all the great candidates that would not be able to serve our country because of a law that came into existence over 200 years ago,” Mulhern recently told the Massachusetts State House.

She is part of that new generation that will broaden freedom for people of formerly slandered political ideologies, religions, and national origins. She will help bury the bigoted and outdated ideas that assaulted Barack Obama. She said of her own presidential ambitions:

I would be a great leader and bring people together. I would guide our country so it would be an even greater place to live, work, and raise a family. And most of all, I love my country. I want to serve my country, and this is my country.

For more from the author, subscribe and follow or read his books.

On July 26, 2016, Fox News host Bill O’Reilly received some criticism after claiming black slaves who constructed the White House were “well-fed” and offered “decent” housing. O’Reilly was offering some background information after Michelle Obama, in her speech at the Democratic National Convention, brought up the topic of slavery and the construction of her current residence. O’Reilly said:

In 1800, President John Adams took up residence in what was then called the Executive Mansion — it was only later on they named it the White House. But Adams was in there with Abigail, and they were still hammering nails, the construction was still going on. Slaves that worked there were well fed and had decent lodgings provided by the government, which stopped hiring slave labor in 1802. However, the feds did not forbid subcontractors from using slave labor.

O’Reilly’s main point was that “there were others working as well,” not just slaves, to construct the White House, but his side note raised some eyebrows, including those of Abigail Adams, who promptly rose from her grave at United First Parish Church in Quincy, Massachusetts, and began floating in the direction of New York City.

“Oh, hell no,” the ghost of Adams snapped as she reentered the physical world, before leaving the church grounds, says lawn care specialist Hank Emerson.

Highway motorists reported various mutterings of profanities from the apparition during its journey, including “That Bill fuckface O’Reilly” and “Silly rabbit. Trix are…for kids.”

Before her arrival at the Fox News headquarters at Rockefeller Center, word had already spread that Adams was coming for Bill, according to a gaffer who asked to remain anonymous. “I heard one of his assistants say he was off to a last-minute 3 p.m. luncheon. I’ve never seen Bill move that fast.”

The source says that when the assistant insisted they wouldn’t be able to wrap up production in time if he left, he allegedly went ballistic, saying, “We’ll do it live. Fuck it! We’ll do it live!” before dashing across the parking lot.

Adams was miffed to have to leave a message for Bill, but the one she left was, objectively, pretty powerful — a verbatim quote from a letter she wrote to her friend Cotton Tufts on the conditions of the black slaves building the White House:

The effects of Slavery are visible every where; and I have amused myself from day to day in looking at the labour of 12 negroes from my window, who are employd with four small Horse Carts to remove some dirt in front of the house. the four carts are all loaded at the same time, and whilst four carry this rubish about half a mile, the remaining eight rest upon their Shovels, Two of our hardy N England men would do as much work in a day as the whole 12, but it is true Republicanism that drive the Slaves half fed, and destitute of cloathing…to labour, whilst the owner waches about Idle, tho his one Slave is all the property he can boast, Such is the case of many of the inhabitants of this place.

For more from the author, subscribe and follow or read his books.

Bashar al-Assad’s Syrian government agreed on Thursday to allow United Nations humanitarian aid into Madaya, Foua, and Kfarya, three towns where people are dying of starvation due to attacks from both sides of the Syrian civil war.

Assad has only allowed in about 10% of U.N. aid offered in the past year.

Assad’s forces, alongside the Lebanese militia Hezbollah, have held Madaya under siege for six months. Cutting off food supplies to the city of 40,000, the Syrian military also placed land mines on the outskirts to prevent residents from fleeing.

The situation has grown so grave, residents have eaten all the stray cats and dogs, and can now only make soup from water, flower petals, oil leaves, and grass. The head of the Madaya medical council reports two or three people, especially the elderly, children, and the sick, die each day.

According to The Independent:

The situation is so desperate that starving residents spend their days trying not to move in an attempt to conserve energy. With temperatures falling, the Red Cross says locals have been forced to burn plastic to keep warm, exposing themselves to fumes.

That was after doors were removed to burn for heat.

Foua and Kfarya, two villages totaling 30,000 people, have been under siege by Assad’s enemies, anti-government forces, for over a year. Residents there are also eating grass to survive, undergoing surgery without anesthesia, and dying in numbers currently unknown.

“People who need medication in the two villages often must take drugs that are expired, and…mothers must crush grains of rice – when available – and boil the mixture to make baby food.” Water in the two towns is about to run out.

Some anti-Assad forces bombing and starving Foua and Kfarya are armed and supported by the United States and other Western powers. For example, Jaysh al-Fattah (the “Army of Conquest”) is participating in the siege; the Army of Conquest is made up of both Al Qaeda groups and “more moderate rebel factions” (New York Times) that are covertly armed by the U.S.

In 2015, internal Pentagon documents and admissions by the former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency revealed the U.S. knowingly supported extremist terror groups like Al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria.

Over 250,000 Syrians have died in the civil war and 4 million refugees have fled the country. Despite a massive death toll and conditions as horrific as starvation, many Americans do not want to allow Syrians to resettle in the United States.

For more from the author, subscribe and follow or read his books.

When comedian Jon Stewart was asked what he read online, he replied:

When I look at the Internet, I feel the same as when I’m walking through Coney Island. It’s like carnival barkers, and they all sit out there and go, “Come on in here and see a three-legged man!” So you walk in and it’s a guy with a crutch.

He was referencing one of several kinds of clickbait, defined as web content of a provocative or sensational nature designed to attract readers. This subset uses exaggeration or outright lies in headlines to get more views, versus a more benign subset of clickbait that uses headlines with annoying subjectivity and grandiose promises of reaction (i.e., “You Won’t Believe What Happens Next”).

Both forms stand apart from satire (i.e., “Obama To Limit Gun Owners to One Mass Shooting Each”), which is its own subset.

When considering the relationship between news, clickbait, and the truth, I see little point in addressing at any length clickbait headlines injected with annoying subjectivity and big promises.

Take Tuesday’s Upworthy story, “A Ballet Company’s Response to One Football Fan’s Sexist Insult on Facebook Was Epic.” The bait here is opinion-based. Is it sexist to say a football team played like they were wearing tutus? A ballet company and an Upworthy writer certainly thought so. Was the company’s response truly “epic”? Or was it just “great”? How is epicness (epicity?) measured?

Headlines that use lies and misrepresentation are substantially more dangerous, at least to any person who values the truth, wants others to know the truth, and despises witnessing falsities shared on social media.

Bear in mind, the headline for this article is both misleading and satirical. First, I’m not addressing headlines of annoying subjectivity and promises of reaction like “The Answer May Shock You.” How would I know if you’ll be shocked?

Second, who does clickbait “better” is a matter of opinion. Who does it most convincingly would be an interesting scientific study (Fox News viewers are less informed than consumers of other news media). Who does it more often would too, and as I spend much time reading far left websites (Socialist Worker, Mother Jones, Alternet, Think Progress, The Nation, etc.) and face-palming after seeing some things conservative friends share on social media, I would say more outright lies appear in rightwing headlines. But I’m biased; that is my perspective, not a conclusion produced by the scientific method.

But without further ado, let’s look at some case studies, and the degree of exaggeration and lies found in both liberal and conservative news headlines. You can click on the images to read the full stories.

DIFFERENCES IN DEFINITIONS

“A Terrorist Just Fire-Bombed a California Mosque While People Were Inside,” U.S. Uncut (liberal), 12/11/2015

As liberals and conservatives debate the definition of “terrorist,” some on the Right may find this a misleading headline worthy of one of the harsher labels used below. Terrorism is usually defined as violence or the threat of violence to coerce or intimidate, especially for political purposes.

If terrorism often includes political purposes but not always, U.S. Uncut is justified in using “terrorist.” (“Fire-Bombed” is acceptable, as a molotov cocktail falls neatly with the bounds of that descriptor.) If political purposes must be involved, it becomes trickier. Some attacks, such as the almost yearly firebombing of abortion clinics or murder of doctors, can rightly be called terrorism using conservatives’ definition. But others, like an attack on a mosque, may be more controversial.

An attack on a mosque can safely be characterized as a hate crime stemming from racial and religious hatred. But how cleanly can that be divorced from the political atmosphere in which the attack takes place, for example a time of widespread debate over whether Muslims should be president, be forced to carry religious-based identification (see below), or be allowed to enter the U.S. at all? How easy is it to say both “the attack was due to hatred and bigotry” and “the attack was not a statement on what U.S. policy toward Muslims should be”?

It’s safe to say that if a Muslim firebombed a Christian church, many conservatives would be quick to call it terrorism, even if the perpetrator’s hatred of Christians was distinctly separate from his views on government policy toward Christians, Muslims, Muslim nations, etc.

EXAGGERATION

“Donald Trump Says Muslims Should be Forced to Wear ‘Special ID Badges,’” Counter Current News (liberal), 11/19/2015

Donald Trump is a truly despicable human being, and has said worse about Muslims, but he didn’t say this precisely. If you see a headline like this, the article had better back up exactly what it claims with evidence.

Sadly, Counter Current News doesn’t do this. The article itself says, “Trump refused to rule out a government requirement for Muslims to carry special identification cards or patches that would identify them by their faith.”

Basically, a reporter asked Trump if his plans for tracking Muslims might involve registering them in a database or “giving them a form of special identification,” to which the heartless ogre replied, “We’re going to have to look at a lot of things very closely. We’re going to have to look at a lot of the mosques.”

So Trump refused to condemn such a notion, he didn’t “say” it himself. Nowhere in the article does the writer provide evidence that the special identification would be worn, that it would be a “badge.”

DISTORTION

“2,000 White Teens Brawl at Kentucky Mall, No Arrests,” Black Talk Radio Network (liberal), 12/27/2015

“Media Fails to Identify the Race of 1,000-2,000 Black Teens that Shut Down a Kentucky Mall,” Right Wing News (conservative), 12/28/2015

What a difference a day makes. This is an interesting case study of two articles, one liberal and one conservative, saying completely opposite things.

When you read the article under a headline claiming the teens were white, you find no mention of race whatsoever!

Thank God we have Right Wing News to set the record straight.

Yet despite the fact that Right Wing News’ headline boldly declares 1,000-2,000 black teens created the chaos, it offers little evidence for the racial makeup of the group. “The teenagers involved in this incident were black,” it says, beside a photo of black shoppers, some running, from the local news station.

Is that all we get? No source other than a single photo? No estimates from local authorities on the percentage of the teens who were black? No quotes from witnesses or participants? Were 100% of the teenagers black? Or only 90%? The headline certainly seems to imply each and every troublemaker was black, yet this isn’t backed up with any actual evidence.

Remember, I’m not examining directly the truthfulness of articles, but rather if bold claims in a headline are supported by evidence in the article itself. Perhaps all the teens involved in fights were black. But if an article offers no evidence in support of a provocative headline, it is clickbait.

Instead, this author focuses his time on castigating CBS and even Fox News for being “corrupt media machine[s]” that hide facts that fail to “fit their agenda.” “Minorities behaving badly will always be unreported as much as possible.”

Would this writer grow so upset if the media didn’t report the racial breakdown of fights involving many whites, say, during Black Friday riots or after a national championship? Well, they don’t and likely not.

Apparently, calling out the young people’s race in order to highlight racist myths about the innate criminality, aggressiveness, and deviancy of blacks doesn’t quite fit the media “agenda.”

LIES

“Germany: Mass Sexual Assault by Muslim Migrants Reported New Year’s Eve; Coward Officials Accused of Cover-Up,” Wounded American Warrior (conservative), 1/5/2016

Who wouldn’t trust a wounded American warrior?

Comparing this headline to the article that accompanies it, there’s clearly distortion similar to our case study above. The headline claims Muslims attacked people in Cologne, Germany. Yet the sources used never characterize the attackers as Muslim, only “Arab or North African men.”

Believe it or not, not all Arabs and North Africans are Muslim.

While the headline emphasized mass sexual assaults, the article states 30% of the complaints during the chaos sown by Arab or North African men were of sexual assault. The majority of problems, including but not limited to robbery, were not sexual in nature, so perhaps a more accurate headline could have been crafted.

Further, the headline calls German officials “cowards,” but the writer presents no evidence of a cover-up, only mentioning others have accused officials of trying to hide the truth when it took days for the attacks to be officially confirmed. (Is there no other possible explanation, say, taking time to gather the facts? Also, does covering up information automatically make one a coward? Why not “evil”? Or “sinister”? Or “biased”?)

But this article crosses the boundary from distortion into blatant lies. The headline claims the attackers were “migrants,” which is sure to stoke anti-immigrant hatred. Does the article offer any evidence the men were migrants?

No. In fact, the only word on the matter is the complete opposite!

But the police have also insisted that many of the men had been known to them for some time and that they were not a group of newly-arrived refugees.

It’s fine if Wounded American Warrior doesn’t believe the German police. But if it is to claim the attackers are migrants, it had better have good evidence to support it.

LAUGHABLE LIES

“Obama Wants to Shut Them Down for Sharing Their Faith on TV…And Then THIS Happen,” American News (conservative), 11/5/2015

That’s no typo. The headline literally ends with “Then THIS Happen,” if that gives you any indication of the quality of the report you’re about to read.

Here American News breaks the story: the President of the United States wants to shut down HGTV’s “Fixer Upper” because the hosts are Christians.

Yet the article and the accompanying video merely talk about how the hosts became Christians. There is no mention of Obama whatsoever, no peep about perceived persecution!

Also on the site: a picture of Obama the Muslim, who redecorates the White House and dons a turban in preparation for his jihad.

For more from the author, subscribe and follow or read his books.