It's a fact ...

T-2 CUZZIN RICKY "[B]owing to pressure from the Hillary Clinton campaign and the liberal media by 'fact-checking' Republican nominee Donald Trump..." By the way, this whole fact-checking business? It's not what it is.  You know what fact-checking is?  Fact-checking is nothing more than an opportunity for the Drive-Bys to opinionate in the news by calling it fact-checking.  There's are not fact checks. These are bogus, opinion-oriented assertions. But of course the low-information voters that read this stuff and even some, well, relatively intelligent people think that what we're getting here is legitimate fact-checking. Now, here's a piece from Kelly Riddell.  I didn't print where this comes from.  This might be McClatchy. It's not McClatchy.  It might be Breitbart.  I don't think it's Breitbart. I'm sorry, I didn't print out the website. (interruption) They say it's a popular one. I know that. I just don't remember what it is.  But there are "Eight Examples Where 'Fact-Checking' Became Opinion Journalism." This is the whole point.  In fact, James Taranto -- who is a great blogger, The Best of the Web blog, part of the Wall Street Journal empire. James Taranto actually tweeted that fact-checking "is opinion journalism pretending to be some sort of heightened objectivity." That's even better because that's exactly right.  The Drive-Bys do their fact-checking under the guise that they have no bias whatsoever, that they're totally objective and they're looking at these claims and they're being the final arbiter with no bias whatsoever, and it's patent BS.  And so what Kelly Riddell has done here is give eight examples of supposed fact-checking which are really nothing more than attempts at opinion journalism.  The first one is from the New York Times [...] Amen I say unto you ... keep the faith.