Media Bias Fact Check:Articles promoting a political candidate, product, service or company are not acceptable unless submitted as a paid advertisement at agreed-upon rate and terms. All submissions of this nature must meet our family-friendly standards.
Comment Policy
No personal attacks will be allowed. Please make a general comment about the article you’ve read or a related item, but do not address your comment back to another individual with whom you do not agree. State your position, but please do not become contentious.
Comments referring to inflicting harm to any individual are banned.
Anyone seeking to threaten or intimidate The Post & Email’s staff will be reported to the authorities and banned from making further comments.
Please do not leave long, rambling soliloquies, but rather, be short and to-the-point. Limit links to external articles to one or two.
Any comments containing knowingly false or misleading information will be marked as spam and the commenter banned permanently.
Harassment, demands, back-and-forth arguments with other commenters and repetitive comments will not be published.
No swearing or obscenities will be permitted in keeping with our family-friendly policy.
The Post & Email does not allow anti-Semitic or any other kind of attacks against ethnicities or nationalities. The threats posed by Sharia law and radical Islam may be discussed.
Comments cannot be used to solicit donations for any cause.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-post-email/The Post & Email - Questionable - Right Bias - Conspiracy - Pseudoscience - Some false claims - Not credible
Factual Reporting: Mixed - Not always Credible or Reliable
QUESTIONABLE SOURCE
A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for the purpose of profit or influence (Learn More). Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be very untrustworthy and should be fact checked on a per article basis. Please note sources on this list are not considered fake news unless specifically written in the reasoning section for that source. See all Questionable sources.
Overall, we rate the Post & Email Questionable based on Far-Right Biased story selection/editorials as well as the promotion of conspiracy theories regarding liberals, promotion of pseudoscience regarding climate change, and use of poor sources or lack of hyperlinked sourcing.
Detailed Report
Reasoning: Conspiracy, Pseudoscience, Poor Sourcing Country: USA World Press Freedom Rank: USA 45/180
History
Founded in 2009 by John Charlton, The Post & Email is an online newspaper that reports news from a Christian conservative perspective. According to their about page “Mr. Charlton is a natural-born American Citizen and devout Christian who founded The Post & Email as an act of faith in Christ Jesus in order to give the common man a vehicle to report the news in his own words to the world.” He also is a “staunch opponent of Communism and Fascism.”
The current owner/editor is Sharon Rondeau, who states she is a natural-born American Citizen who began researching the eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama during the 2008 election cycle. She has been operating The Post & Email since April 2010 following Mr. Charlton’s departure.
“Since its founding, The Post & Email has been at the forefront of the Obama identity/eligibility issue.”
Funded by / Ownership
As indicated on the about page the website is owned by Sharon Rondeau. Revenue is generated through a combination of donations and advertising.
Analysis / Bias
In review, The Post & Email reports news from a conservative perspective. The primary writer is Sharon Rondeau, though there are others, who occasionally uses minimally loaded language in headlines such as this: Giuliani: FBI Investigating Ukraine-Biden Connections. This story is properly sourced to The Hill and Twitter. However, when reporting on Democrats there is a very strong use of emotionally loaded language such as this: “SETH RICH IS A HERO FOR EXPOSING CROOKED HILLARY”.
The website breaks news down into 4 categories: US Government Corruption, Grand Juries, Horse Protection Act and Obama Birth Certificate. In general news reporting in the first three categories tends to be factual and mostly sourced properly. In the last category, Obama Birth Certificate, the website continues to report on the debunked claim that Former President Obama is not a citizen. A sample article under this category is Carl Gallups: “Some of Us” Know Who Obama Is. This story is sourced to two questionable far-right sources, Breitbart and David Horowitz’s Front Page Magazine. According to the SPLC FrontPage Magazine is considered to be a part of an anti-Muslim hate group. The Obama Birther Conspiracy has been debunked numerous times. Below is a list.
Barack Obama’s Columbia University ID says he was a foreign student and went by “Barry Soetoro.” – PANTS ON FIRE
“You know our current president is (Muslim). You know he’s not even an American.” – PANTS ON FIRE
Birthers have obtained a copy of Obama’s Kenyan birth certificate. – PANTS ON FIRE
Barack Obama’s birth certificate is a forgery. – FALSE
“His true name is Barak Hussein Muhammed Obama.” – FALSE
Story selection almost always favors the right with articles such as this: Illegals Commit More Homicides in Texas Than 9/11! While this could possibly be true, it really does not matter. The author did not provide a single hyperlinked source to support the claim. Therefore, this potentially true story is deemed not credible. However, it is safe to say the claim that 3000 homicides were committed by illegals since 9/11 is statistically impossible. According to the conservative Cato Institute, there were 47 homicides committed by illegal immigrants in Texas in 2017. Assuming this is a near-average year, a more accurate number would be approximately 850 since 9/11. To put it another way, it would take 63 years at that rate to equal 3000 homicides. Again, if a source was provided the reader could then check the accuracy of these numbers. Further, why not just report an accurate number and then make arguments to support your position on immigration?
When it comes to science The Post & Email does not align with the consensus of climate scientists when it comes to human-influenced global warming. In this article, the author states “despite the hysteria, there is not a scientific consensus that man-made climate change is even real. Numerous studies, such as the research conducted by S. Fred Singer, show that the theory that climate change is man-made is “in dispute.”
Singer is best known for his denial of the health risks of second-hand smoke. In 2005, the left-leaning Mother Jones magazine described Singer as a “godfather of global warming denial.” In August 2007 Newsweek reported that in April 1998 a dozen people from what it called “the denial machine” met at the American Petroleum Institute‘s Washington headquarters. The meeting included Singer’s group, the George C. Marshall Institute, and ExxonMobil. Newsweek said that, according to an eight-page memo that was leaked, the meeting proposed a $5-million campaign to convince the public that the science of global warming was controversial and uncertain. The plan was leaked to the press and never implemented. Lastly, according to Jeffrey Masters, Ph.D. Director of Meteorology, Weather Underground:
[Singer] has testified before Congress numerous times, and is probably the most widely quoted skeptic on the ozone hole and global warming issues. Unfortunately, Dr. Singer cannot be considered an active scientist publishing in the peer-reviewed literature, or even an objective informed critic. Dr. Singer touts himself as having “published more than 200 peer-reviewed scientific papers over the course of his career”. However, Dr. Singer’s contributions to atmospheric science have been essentially zero since 1971.
In other words, he is not a credible source who has opposed the overwhelming consensus that Human Influenced Climate Change is real and will have negative impacts on humanity.
Editorially, the Post & Email reports favorably on the Trump Administration such as this: Trump Victimized by the Swamp Again and negatively toward Democratic policies such as this: To Implement Socialism Just Brainwash The Kids.
Overall, we rate the Post & Email Questionable based on Far-Right Biased story selection/editorials as well as the promotion of conspiracy theories regarding liberals, promotion of pseudoscience regarding climate change, and use of poor sources or lack of hyperlinked sourcing. (8/23/2016) Updated (D. Van Zandt 10/06/2019)
Special Note: On 10/6/2019, Ms. Rondeau contacted us via email concerning the previous evaluation in which we ranked the Post & Email right biased and mixed for factual reporting. Specifically, our lack of evidence regarding the use of poor sources and a borderline extreme right designation. As per our policy, we re-reviewed the source and made appropriate changes according to our methodology.
The brain trust at the P&E:
Silhouettes in Courage
"TIMING IS EVERYTHING"
12 hours ago by Joseph DeMaio
(Feb. 23, 2021) — Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court seems to have crept a little closer to becoming the newest member of the Deep State cabal now “governing” the Republic. Your humble servant has in the past noted that if Benjamin Franklin were alive today, he would be weeping at the prospect of the Founders’ hard work to create a constitutional republic being set afire.
After yesterday’s denial of certiorari review on the grounds of purported “mootness” in Republican Party of Pennsylvania v. Degraffenreid (USSC Doc. No. 20-542) and Corman v. Pennsylvania Democratic Party (USSC Doc. No. 20-574), two cases challenging the legitimacy of the 2020 general election results in Pennsylvania – the birthplace of the Republic – Ben Franklin would be sobbing uncontrollably. Not manly, but hardly unjustified.
Make no mistake, faithful P&E readers, the dissenting opinions of Justices Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch, arguing that the denial of review was wrong and that review should have been granted, reveal in detail the perils awaiting the Republic if its trajectory is not corrected soon. And if you think the first 30 days of the new administration are bad, as they say: “You ain’t seen nuthin’ yet.”
Since it takes four (4) Justices at their normal weekly conference meetings to vote in favor of granting (or denying) a petition for certiorari review, and the conference addressing the two subject cases was held last Friday, Feb. 19, 2021, one might well ask: where were Justices Kavanaugh and/or Barrett (forget about Chief Justice Roberts) when the Republic needed them most? Huh?
The Thomas and Alito dissents are found here, beginning at p. 25. Readers are encouraged to review the two dissents – the first by Justice Thomas, the second by Justice Alito, joined in by Justice Gorsuch – before consuming the rest of this post, because much of what follows gets a bit convoluted and the dissents provide a useful backdrop.
In the cases at issue, both dissents acknowledge that the opposing parties – the Republican Party of Pennsylvania and the Acting Secretary of State of Pennsylvania (in Degraffenreid) and Mr. Corman and the Pennsylvania Democratic Party (in Corman) – all agreed that the anomalies in the Pennsylvania 2020 general election mail-in ballot fiasco, even if addressed by a grant of certiorari review, would not have made an “outcome-determinative difference in any relevant federal election.” Bummer.
Translation: even if the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s extra-legislative ruling – extending by 3 days after election day the date for counting mail-in ballots, plainly contrary to the Pennsylvania Legislature’s unambiguous deadline of 8:00 PM on the election day – were to be overturned, the total vote count would not have materially altered the result in that state. Perhaps that is why Justices Kavanaugh and Barrett joined the rest of the Court in rejecting the certiorari petitions.
But that is not the point. Both dissenting opinions correctly focus on the real danger presented by a refusal to grant review on the bogus claim that the matter was “moot.” A refusal by the Court to clarify now – not later – the operational parameters under Art. 1, § 4, Cl. 1 and Art. 2, § 1, Cl. 2 of the Constitution governing “the manner” in which a state legislature alone may prescribe how electors are to be appointed may well operate as an invitation to state judicial and executive officers to indulge in the same shenanigans which characterized the 2020 election in Pennsylvania in future elections. Stated otherwise, if Pennsylvania “got away with it” in 2020, who is to say they won’t if given the opportunity “get away with it” again in future years?
By analogy, because Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. successfully “got away with” masquerading as a “natural born Citizen” for presidential eligibility purposes not once, but twice, a feat seemingly repeated in 2020 by Kamala Harris as to the Office of the Vice-President, why not deem these species of electoral gambits to be the “new normal?”
The sole and exclusive authority of the state legislatures in this regard to prescribe the “manner” in which electors for president are selected and federal elections for Senators and members of the House of Representatives are conducted under Art. 1, § 4, Cl. 1 and Art. 2, § 1, Cl. 2 of the Constitution is specifically recognized by Justice Thomas through his citation to and reliance upon the prior Supreme Court decision in McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1 (1892), as discussed earlier here.
The mere fact that, in the absence of a Supreme Court decision clarifying the issues, a state court or executive branch officer may feel free in the future to ignore plain and unambiguous statutory language enacted by a state Legislature – again, the branch of a state government exclusively possessed of the power to prescribe the manner of appointing electors and holding federal elections under the Constitution – merely underscores the fact that the cases were anything but moot.
Clearly, the refusal of the Court to address the issues raised holds the potential for either state courts or state executive officers in the future to repeat the usurpations and excesses which the Republic witnessed in November, 2020. Not good. Then again, courage is not one of the qualifications needed to hold a seat on the Supreme Court.
Ironically, Justice Thomas notes that the Court’s refusal to grant certiorari – after all parties had originally supported a grant of the certiorari petitions well before the Nov. 3, 2020 election to clarify the protocols, which support the Democrat parties withdrew after Nov. 3, 2020 – “is inexplicable.” See Thomas dissent at 2. With due respect to Justice Thomas, the refusal is not inexplicable at all. Indeed, the chronology of events is important. In this regard, the scheduling of the conferences to be held where the question of whether review will (or won’t) be granted is normally a function of the Office of the Clerk of the Court.
However, while the Court’s protocols and rules do not specify, in so many words, when cases will be scheduled for conference, because the Chief Justice chairs these conferences and sets their agendas, it would not be anomalous to speculate that the Chief Justice – in consultation with the Clerk, of course – might “influence” which cases are scheduled for particular conference days. See, e.g., Doctrinal and Strategic Influences of the Chief Justice: The Decisional Significance of the Chief Justice, 154 U.Pa.L.Rev. 1665, 1669 (2006) (“By controlling the conference, for example, the Chief may be able to pick the most strategic time to call a vote, such as when a swing vote appears to be leaning in the desired direction.”) (Emphasis added). Stated otherwise, as they say: “Timing is everything.”
Normally, cases are “at issue” and thus ready for “conference” when all of the parties’ briefs have been filed and, in some instances, after all amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) briefs have been filed. In these two Pennsylvania cases, the original petitions were filed prior to the general election, including an application for a stay filed Sept. 28, 2020 in Degraffenreid (Doc. No. 20-542). In both the Degraffenreid and Corman cases, certain amici curiae briefs had been proffered to the Court, both supporting the granting of certiorari. No ruling on the filing of these briefs was made until yesterday.
The amicus curiae brief of the “Honest Elections Project,” specifically urging expedited review, was filed on Oct. 26, 2020 (Degraffenreid) and the amicus curiae brief of the “White House Watch Fund,” also urging the grant of certiorari, was filed Nov. 30, 2020. Note, faithful P&E readers, that all of these dates are well before the Jan. 6, 2021 convening of the Joint Session of Congress where the final counting of the 2020 general election Electoral College votes was to take place. Oh, and by the way, not that it made any difference in the ruling, leave to formally file both amicus curiae briefs was granted in the same Feb. 22, 2021 order of the Court denying certiorari. All tied up in a neat bow.
An argument can be made that, given the stakes at issue, it would have been nice to have had a Supreme Court ruling on the issues presented in the two cases before Jan. 6, 2021. Things might have unfolded differently. Had the justices’ conference been scheduled earlier…, say in November 2020, December 2020 or sometime prior to Jan. 6, 2021 (or even before the date of the inauguration, Jan. 20, 2021), there might well be a different person residing at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue right now.
However, because the conference was not held until Friday, Feb. 19, 2021, with the decision denying certiorari handed down the following Monday, Feb. 22, 2021…, well, that’s just how the cookie crumbles. Now, the Goofball-in-Chief occupies the Oval Office and a likely ineligible Vice President lives at the U.S. Naval Observatory. How convenient. Again, timing is everything.
Finally, the Alito/Gorsuch dissent notes that, because the cases were “not moot,” and because there existed a “reasonable expectation” that the parties “will face the same question in the future,” the denial of certiorari will likely generate a high likelihood that “the question will evade future pre-election review, just as it did in these cases.” See Alito dissent at 4.
The “evasion” of pre-election review of difficult or controversial issues is increasingly becoming a hallmark of Supreme Court “jurisprudence.” As noted by Justice Thomas when testifying to Congress many years ago, he commented that the issue of presidential eligibility as a “natural born Citizen” was one which the Court “was evading.”
It is interesting that Justice Thomas, in explaining why the Supreme Court has not yet taken up an “eligibility” case on the merits, would select the term “evading” as opposed to “avoiding,” since the prior term suggests a conscious decision to “avoid facing up to” a difficult or known obligation.
Again, courage is not a component of character required to become or remain a Supreme Court Justice. The dissenters here have the courage which seems to be missing elsewhere. Is this a great country, or what?
Bob68says:
Tuesday, February 23, 2021 at 3:50 PM
Thank you for that article, and especially for mentioning presidential eligibility.
The key to revealing the panic of the Deep State/Swamp after the election of Donald Trump is acknowledging the many complicit in The Obama Fraud, including the courts themselves and the Obama media must now protect the lies they spread concerning eligibility and continue to evade the issue to protect themselves. Those complicit in The Obama Fraud, both parties, effectively gave America’s government and her military to her enemies. They will never admit they were horribly wrong in ignoring the obvious…..even as they watch America being destroyed.
This was never complicated, just too big to prosecute, and even too big to openly and fairly discuss………….Courts say; “no standing, evidence moot because it was submitted too early…or too late”, or whatever it takes for them to continue their evasion. It doesn’t help that two of the Supreme Court Judges were installed by an ineligible pResident, Barack Hussein Obama……Unfortunately, it also seems two Trump appointed Judges got themselves appointed to continue the “evading” of Constitutional eligibility, which Justice Thomas mentioned……..doing so would reveal Obama’s usurpation and that of Kamala Harris…something the Supreme Court will never do………Goodby America…………
The answer to the question of your last sentence is “what”……………….
"Goodby America.........." Realist, if Bob68 says we are panicking, we must be!