Saturday, July 7, 2018

Robert Morningstar's fake-everything page

James Concannon reports...

        Robert Morningstar has written "I manage my Facebook page like a newspaper." What a joke. The truth is that he's turned his page into an aggregator of totally fake news. His sources include such laughable peddlars of propaganda as Pamela Geller,, and He sometimes writes a little text himself, but more often just re-posts the lead from his source.

       The majority of the garbage he re-posts is straight Republican talking-points. It's no secret that Morningstar's politics are slightly to the right of Adolf Hitler, so readers of the page get reminded daily that Donald Trump is a saint, and that Obama and the Clintons are serial child-killing maniacs.

        Last month expat was lamenting the fact that, these days, Internet arguments so often deteriorate into accusations of pedophilia. I guess the general idea is "Since pedophilia is the worst thing we can imagine, let's accuse our enemies of it and see if it sticks." So, for example, just yesterday Morningstar posted this from zerohedge:

Ex-Clinton Foundation Official Tied To Chinese Kindergarten Embroiled In Bizarre Sexual Abuse Scandal

        The actual story is highly tenuous and the connection to the Clinton Foundation non-existent. It dates from 26th November 2017, and Morningstar seems unaware that CNN covered it three days later, reporting that the police investigation concluded that the parents were making up the stories of abuse for whatever reason. But this is what passes for "news" in the world of Robert Morningstar.

        Another major theme Mr. Morningstar has willingly sucked up from his sources is Islamophobia. These sources include the blogs and creepingsharia. As expat reported back in Januay 2016, AM* thinks nothing of deliberately misattributing news images, labeling them as evidence of the crimes of Islam when they are, in fact, no such thing. monitors those sources and, under the tag creepingsharia, documents another flagrant case of misattribution, this time involving video coverage of a religious procession in Bradford, Yorkshire. The procession was not, as alleged, a demonstration in favor of Sharia.

        Morningstar hates because it frequently contradicts his prejudices. But instead of countering its analysis with logical rebuttal, he simply writes the catchphrase "Snopes is for dopes" and leaves it at that. His followers don't seem to mind, and they probably agree.

It's all a conspiracy
        Those twin major themes have almost pushed science and medicine off this horrible page, but those themes do still have a foothold, especially when the news can be twisted to imply a cover-up by governments or large corporations. A few days ago we saw this headline:

Cancer Institute Finally Admits Marijuana Kills Cancer

The source was and the lead was as follows;
"In August 2015, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) released a report on their website which stated, “Marijuana kills cancer”. Yes, you read that right – marijuana kills cancer."
        Except that the NCI report cited did not state that. Read the actual report, or the abstract anyway, and you'll find a 6-point bullet list ending with this very, very guarded statement:

* Cannabinoids may have benefits in the treatment of cancer-related side effects.

        Why does an educated man—a scholar, no less, he tells us—re-publish such trash without batting an eyelid? I've thought about that question, and here's the picture I have. Morningstar doesn't care about the truth. He has all these sources, and he gets up in the morning and reviews them. He truly sees himself as an editor/aggregator on behalf of a readership that's as bigoted and intolerant as he is, so he just picks whatever stories he thinks will appeal to that readership. The question of whether they are true or not doesn't cross his mind. Snopes is for dopes, for the simple reason that checking out unlikely news stories is a ridiculous and quite unnecessary activity.

        There's also, I think, some element of wishful thinking. He wishes he would be the one to discover a mysterious 10-mile high tower on the Moon, so he fastens on a piece of lint caught in a scanner and makes it so. He wishes he would discover a huge space station in lunar orbit, so an Apollo 10 image of a piece of floating mylar insulation becomes that space station and he calculates its size as 166 miles across. It doesn't occur to him that such an object would be extremely well known to every astronomer both amateur and professional in the world (and by the way, it could NOT be permanently hidden behind the Moon since a selenosynchronous orbit is an impossibility.)

Morningstar's 166-mile space station (public domain)

        If I'm right, it's a waste of time trying to convince him that he's wrong. I will continue to snap at his heels, however, whenever I have time. My hope is that some of his followers may one day see how bamboozled they have become.

Update: Morningstar now accuses me of sympathy with pedophiles

8th July: AM* re-posted a "story" from yournewswire with the headline:

British Man Gets Prison Sentence For Exposing Political Pedophile Ring

        The story concerns a con-man known only as "Nick." This person, now 50 years old, made allegations of sex abuse against a number of public figures, alleging multiple incidents of pedophilia and even murder, dating back 30 years. "Nick" filed a claim for £20,000 compensation.

        The police investigation of these claims, known as Operation Midland, found no evidence to support the allegations and was closed in 2016. Compensation was paid to those who had been harrassed by the investigation.

        Now "Nick" himself has been charged with twelve counts of perverting the cause of justice and one of fraud. He will appear in court in September.

        The yournewswire piece falsely reported that "Nick" has already been sentenced, adding "It’s not the first time the British legal system has conspired against those in society determined to bring pedophiles to justice."

When I posted to AM*'s fooboo page, correcting the yournewswire story, he replied:
"But we all know that what he exposed ("Nick") was true, and the British police are only protecting the guilty."
I replied
"No we don't "all know" that, Robert, that's just your fantasy. Nick's stories were pure fabrications."
AM* then came back with:
"Of course, "You all" don't know about the rampant pedophilia in Britain because you sympathize with pedophiles and so you blind yourself to their crimes."
I demanded that he produce evidence that I sympathize with pedophiles, or retract the accusation.

So far he has done neither.



THE Orbs Whiperer said...

I used to Spam George Moory incessantly with articles from World Net Daily ( until he finally started reading news from that sight on air. Eventually, he got guest from that site, such as Jeri Corsi.

What specific articles Patrick, have you taken issue with?

Anonymous said...

David and Barbara Mikkelson a.k.a is the be and end all institute if one is in need for the truth? Are you having a laugh?? Husband and wife Mikkelson as a reference hiding behind this fancy name Snopes?? Micky Mouse and Snoop Dog?

He calls himself CEO [ must be something big then right ] could not keep his wife and was accused of fraud, lies, conspiracy and putting prostitutes and his honeymoon on expenses.

Wauw!...One has to wonder Expat...and this is a serious question...Is this one a one off so to speak..a slip of the pen...or is your investigative instinct somewhat slipping? Using Snopes as a reference is like saying Santa Claus is a real person and living as a climate migrant on the Bahamas because Al Gore told us that the North Pole has melted away.



James Concannon said...

Adrian: That just looks like random sneering to me. Same as "snopes is for dopes". Personally, I'm glad somebody is fact-checking fiction-factories like Pamela Geller.

Adelle said...

Have these guys ever heard of "innocent until proven guilty"?!

Wait, what am I saying? I'm talking about people who, evidently, hate freedom!

Anonymous said...

@ James Concannon

"Adrian: That just looks like random sneering to me. Same as "snopes is for dopes". Personally, I'm glad somebody is fact-checking fiction-factories like Pamela Geller."

First of all: there is no random sneering in it. Maybe you should read it again. It is based on facts...and I agree...with a certain odeur of sarcasm..I'll grant you that much.

So, please explain then on what grounds your "...looks like random sneering to me" conclusion is based upon? Nobody in his or her right mind can say this or that is true because he or she fact-checked it on

The site is/was nothing more then a kitchen table chit chat old wives tale organization run by a happy couple called Mikkelson. And this not so happy anymore couple made it appear like something big, huge, important and above and beyond all the judge, jury and executioner on all things concerning fact and fiction. Everyone in his or her right mind knows that Snopes really is for dopes if on uses such a source for fact-checking without doing proper investigative work for yourself. It is somewhat like saying...I know its the truth because Wikipedia said so. Everyone knows or should know that this so called global information network is constantly being bamboozled by just a handful [yes, really just a handful] of administrators who constantly contort content in a way they deem fit.

So no...there is no justification to take these so called "fact-checkers" on face value just because they claim to be the upholders and defenders of the truth.

So...back to you then..please explain then on what grounds your "...looks like random sneering to me" conclusion is based upon? Looking forward to it.


James Concannon said...


"Husband and wife Mikkelson as a reference hiding behind this fancy name Snopes??"

"Micky Mouse and Snoop Dog?"

"He calls himself CEO [ must be something big then right ]"

"could not keep his wife"

"was accused of fraud, lies, conspiracy and putting prostitutes and his honeymoon on expenses."

Anonymous said...

@ James Concannon

I come to the conclusion that you seem to be unable to see the difference between a sneer and factual representation. As I said in my previous comment...yes...some are a bit sarcastic [intended on the basis for using something like Snopes for referencing "facts"] Therefore
number 1 - The Mikkelson couple IS Snopes / sarcastically pointing out A: how a husband and wife became the fact checkers on this planet?? and B: that there is no such thing as a huge international organization going by the name Snopes...objectively guiding the rest of the world to tell truth from fairytales.

number 2 - good point but none the less intended sarcasm

number 3 - If one calls oneself a CEO of an organization that consists of two people, namely your own is dramatically overstating ones position. It gives the dramatic air of a huge organization which again it never was.

number 4 - they were in a legal and dare one say also a dramatic divorce battle. So what is the problem using plain English on this one

number 5&6 - In reference to number 4 / you really should read some of the transcripts of the aforementioned legal divorce battle. The accusations were really made.

So...what is the problem ? It seems to me you are not really keen on real fact checking albeit with some sarcasm?


James Concannon said...

Adrian: Thanks for the comments. I don't know enough to assess Snopes' record or accuracy. I do know that the Mikkelson divorce is totally irrelevant to any such assessment.

I'm just glad that someone is doing this work, and I do sometimes follow their leads to check for myself. You could do that, too, if you suspect that Snopes is misleading.

I re-iterate my main point: Robert Morningstar yells "Snopes is for dopes" because he doesn't think his fake news ought to be fact-checked at all.

Anonymous said...

@ James

"....because he doesn't think his fake news ought to be fact-checked at all."

I am totally in agreement with you on such an assessment! No disagreement whatsoever on the fact that nowadays it is a very intelligent thing to do, as you obviously propose, to check everything. I believe that the Mikkelson divorce is relevant to some extent in the way they "played" it out in relation to their Snopes empire [ pun intended ]

But back to the relevant issue at hand: Like Wikipedia, Snopes et al they can not be trusted as being objective institutes when it comes to fact and truth. The real question therefore should actually be....the why question? For example...why is "the objective and so called truthful" Wikipedia worldwide for instance run on a daily base by just a handful administrators? Why and what is their motive for doing so? Why do they always seem to target certain issues in order to chance them within minutes? The same goes for Snopes in a way. Why and what are their motives for doing so? Surely you will agree that they, like the handful of administrators, cannot possible in their right mind think that the world needs them for controlling and upholding the truth? Surely you and I and lots of other people are more then intelligent enough to make up their own mind backed up with investigative research?

So yes motive, motive and motive. The above questions are somewhat rhetorical of course :-) and by no means meant to start smoking of an argument. However...I do think the world has been caught up in some sort of media social engineering scheme...wherein media is used a tool to direct, lead, obfuscate and manipulate. Which of course brought about the so called fact checkers. And there you have it....To what extend are or aren't they a part of this recognizable scheme.

So if you are willing to drive this point home so to speak.....Give yourself a few good laughs and investigate the financial ties between Snopes and Soros. Just a funny idea for a little back on the envelope research :-)

Thanks for your reaction


James Concannon said...

Did as you asked. Here's the answer—there are no such ties.

Anonymous said...

I rest my case, sorry

A picture of a couch potato with a lap top ventilating an opinion in the new york times? Come on please.
Last line of defense being ? The theme remains the same even in this article...we need this self appointed fact checkers and if there is any form of critique...well..then they play the dominant victim card.

I do not see how an article in the new york times such as the one you referenced is in anyway a form of investigative research?

Anonymous said...

and James

you may find the following article of "some" interest


James Concannon said...

"A picture of a couch potato with a lap top..."

The Forbes article is definitely interesting. Nothing on Soros, however.

OneBigMonkey said...

Sounds exactly like the tactic of a certain youtube moonhoax nut whose first response to criticism seems to be to accuse everyone who disagrees with him of being a transvestite and/or paedophile. If you can't discredit your opponents by proving them wrong, then I guess all you have left is to accuse them of something vile and hope the mud will stick.

expat said...

OBM: Yes, that's exactly it.

I'm chiming in here to comment on the adjective "self-appointed" as applied to snopes. I don't see how an internet fact checker can be appointed by anyone else—at least, I think if some high mucky-muck appointed one we would trust it even less.

James Concannon said...

"What specific articles Patrick, have you taken issue with?"

This one.