ConWeb Mostly Mum on McCain-Liddy Link Topic: The ConWeb
Following David Letterman's mention of John McCain's links to domestic terrorist G. Gordon Liddy during McCain's appearance on Letterman's "Late Show" Oct. 16, one would think it would have gained mention somewhere on the ConWeb.
One would be mostly wrong.
Newsmax,NewsBusters, CNSNews, the Media Research Center and Accuracy in Media all maintained silence about Letterman's mention. WorldNetDaily didn't mention it either, but an Oct. 17 column by token liberal Bill Press detailed Liddy's dirty deeds without noting Letterman.
The Heathering of David Brooks Continues Topic: NewsBusters
NewsBusters keeps up its Heathercampaign against David Brooks with an Oct. 18 post by P.J. Gladnick:
The New York Times "House Conservative" seems to know his place. Pretend to be a "conservative" while advancing the liberal agenda of getting Obama elected (along with slamming Rush Limbaugh). Should the "House Conservative" veer from that path, he will find his invites to exclusive Manhattan parties, where they probably now express "strange new respect" for Brooks, dry up along, perhaps, with his job.
Would Gladnick continue to be allowed to write at NewsBusters if he didn't write stuff like this, attacking fellow conservatives who deviated even slightly from right-wing dogma? We wonder...
Would all schools in the U.S., under the muscle of an Obama administration, be forced to drill youth in the talking points of "gay" sex and gender–switching, calling it "justice"? Would Ayers' idea that America is an oppressive regime with way too much heterosexuality become a core tenet of your child's value system?
Use Obama-Glo and you'll get a high paying job that demands virtually no hours per week, free health care, free abortions, free hurricane protection, free higher education, a cameo in a Tom Hanks movie, free tire inflation service so we can stop drilling for oil and free delicious and nutritious meals with zero trans fats delivered by an ex Fannie Mae executive in a hybrid car to your mortgage-free home three times per day!
And don't forget, if you order now, your name will be placed in the Obama-Glo sweepstakes. That's right, your kids and/or grandkids could win a chance to sing alongside the world famous Obama Youth in an upcoming production of "If They Could See Me Mao: The Musical" – coming soon to a public school classroom near you. (on-screen graphic: odds of winning = 99.9 out of 100)
What are you waiting for? Quantities aren't limited, so you should order like you should vote: early and often!
There's bamboozle and there's bamboozled – and then there is Barry Sotero, aka Barack Hussein Obama, the quintessential bam-boo-zuh-ler. But that notwithstanding, all indications are that on Jan. 20 of 2009, America's first Kenyan-American will be sworn in as president. To which I say, "Qu'ils mangent de la brioche," i.e., "let them eat cake" – because there sure won't be anything else of substantive fulfillment for Americans to enjoy. Voters are buying into his repeatedly vacuous mantra of "change" – and change they are going to get – but, excluding socialists, communists and Marxists, not a change they are going to be happy with.
Beyond appointing a junior leftist like Ruth Bader Ginsburg or a younger version of abortion zealot Stephen Breyer to the bench, Obama promised to sign the so-called "Freedom of Choice Act" as the first thing he will do if elected. With one stroke of the pen, Obama's first act would strike down every state and federal law restricting abortion in all 50 states. That means no more parental notice, no more ban on partial-birth abortions, no more protection for any child – anywhere. Even infants who are born alive won't get protection from an Obama administration, as he led the charge in the Illinois Senate and voted four times against protecting infants who escape an abortion alive!
Obama was unquestioningly accepted as packaged – someone who was sincere, forthright and amiable in every way. The fact that he doesn't have the ghetto-jabbering syntax of a Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton most assuredly did not hurt him. It simply hasn't occurred to whites (or blacks for that matter) that Obama could even approach being the monster a white man has the potential of being.
MRC Bashes Stephanopoulos for Agreeing With Americans Topic: Media Research Center
An Oct. 16 Media Research Center CyberAlert item (and NewsBusters post) by Brent Baker complained that "Democratic operative-turned ABC News journalist George Stephanopoulos made it a 'clean sweep for Barack Obama' as he declared on Nightline after Wednesday's third and final presidential debate: 'He has won every debate,'" adding that "Stephanopoulos has awarded all four debates this year to the more liberal candidate."
Baker fails to note that Stephanopoulos' opinion reflected that of the American public as indicated by post-debate polling, in which a plurality or majority also declared Obama the winner:
WND Chooses to Remain Suckered Topic: WorldNetDaily
How utterly craven and desperate is WorldNetDaily to smear Barack Obama? It's lending what little credibility it has to promoting an almost assuredly nonexistent tape of Michelle Obama purportedly haranguing an almost assuredly nonexistent "news agency."
An Oct. 16 article (unbylined -- it seems that WND's own writers lack enough faith in API to actually put a name to this) parrots African Press International's claim that "the contents of the tapes if made public may change the political atmosphere in America for ever." Indeed, WND uncritically parrots everything API has to say, including its claim that Michelle Obama called API "because of a Nairobi contact that did not like the way API was covering Barack Obama using information collected from American media outlets. The Nairobi contact prevailed upon Mrs. Obama to talk to API."
While WND buries denials by the Obama campaign, as well as by National Review's Byron York, in the article, it ignores other views on the subject by its fellow right-wingers:
"Not sure how she would have found a number to call them with since they don't provide a contact number anywhere," said JammieWearingFool.
"A simple search on a AllAfrica.com, an African news agency that aggregates hundreds of African newspapers that is based in Washington D.C shows that [API] were not mentioned anywhere," said the pro-Palin Change & Experience blog.
Further, an Oct. 15 ABC News post by Jake Tapper -- currently linked to from WND's front page but not strangely referenced anywhere in the WND article -- makes an important point: "The Obama campaign does not tend to directly engage fringe Web sitesmaking wild charges, and if they were to do so, they certainly wouldn't have Michelle Obama make the call."
[T]here is no such thing as the news agency, African Press International. It is in fact an unbelievably cheap-looking Wordpress blog, operated by a pseudonymous person from God-knows-where, that steals daily news stories from the African Press Agency, strips the attributions from them, and substitutes its own name. This enterprise also features a phony charity impersonating an actual charity.
WND has displayed no evidence that it has ever made an attempt to investigate the background of API or "Chief Editor Korir."
Joseph Farah, Jerome Corsi and Co., we can easily assume, are most desperately praying to their God, hoping against hope that -- in the face of all signs they have most assuredly seen -- this story is even slightly true. Then again, it promoted the false "whitey" story too.
If, as it appears, it is a fake (not unlike Corsi's Kenya documents), WND deserves to be shamed out of the journalism business. Unless it thinks it can convince people that lies are the new "journalism."
UPDATE: Indeed, Corsi has been begging API to post the audio.
Newsmax Falsely Invokes 9/11 Hijacker to Attack Obama Topic: Newsmax
An Oct. 17 Newsmax article by David Patten promoted an ad campaign by the anti-Obama National Republican Trust PAC that will highlight Barack Obama allegedly "embrac[ing] the idea of giving driver’s licenses to any illegal immigrant who wanted one." The article is illustrated by a shot of 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta's Florida driver's license and notes, "In the aftermath of 9/11, authorities reported that the 19 terrorists involved in the attacks had obtained 13 driver’s licenses, plus 21 federal or state-issued ID cards."
But Atta didn't enter the United States illegally; he arrived on a tourist visa, which he later applied to have changed to a student visa (during which time his tourist visa expired, meaning that he was technically in the U.S. illegally at the time of the attacks). That student visa application was approved in 2002.
Indeed, all of the 9/11 hijackers entered the U.S. legally on visas, though several had overstayed time limits, making them technically illegal at the time of the attacks.
Graham's False Sex Scandal Equivalence Topic: NewsBusters
Tim Graham takes time out from HeatheringDavid Brooks to draw a false equivalence between sex scandals in an Oct. 17 NewsBusters post. In it, he complains that the sex scandal involving Democratic Florida Rep. Tim Mahoney has received only a fraction of the media coverage of the sex scandal of the man he replaced, Republican Mark Foley. But Graham downplays Foley's offenses and pretends both scandals are the same.
Graham states Foley's offense only as "sending sexual Internet messages to Congressional pages." He fails to acknowledge -- even though he reprints a 2006 transcript pointing it out -- that there was a larger issue of Foley's history of behavior toward the (teenage male) pages and whether House Republican leadership knew about it and did anything to stop it, which ratchets up the scandal quotient.
Mahoney, meanwhile, is caught in the arguably dime-a-dozen scandal of paying off a (female adult) mistress who threatened to go public about the affair and of apparent involvement involvement in multiple other affairs. Sleazy? Sure. But not as sleazy as cruising for teenage boys and the Repubican leadership trying to cover it up.
If you'll recall, Graham's fellow MRC employees at NewsBusters and CNSNews.com endeavored to distract their readers from the Foley scandal in 2006.
WND's Amnesia on Obama's Birth Certificate Continues Topic: WorldNetDaily
An Oct. 16 WorldNetDaily article by Chelsea Schilling reported on "a second lawsuit challenging Barack Obama's 'natural born' citizenship."
Schilling apparently doesn't read her own website (much like fellow WND employee Drew Zahn), because WND debunked the claim that Obama's birth certificate is fraudulent back in August. For Schilling's benefit, here's the relevant section:
A separate WND investigation into Obama's birth certificate utilizing forgery experts also found the document to be authentic. The investigation also revealed methods used by some of the bloggers to determine the document was fake involved forgeries, in that a few bloggers added text and images to the certificate scan that weren't originally there.
As we asked about Zahn: Is Schilling really that stupid, or is she so dishonest that she will lie to her readers in order to smear Obama?
The amnesia (and stupidity) spreads to Hal Lindsey, who makes the mistake of reading the website that publishes him -- except for the part that answers the question he raises. Lindsey makes this convoluted logical trainwreck:
Besides, FactCheck.org says it examined the Obama birth certificate and claims it is genuine.
But FactCheck.org is owned by the Annenberg Foundation, which links to Bill Ayers, which links to Barack Obama, both of whom held seats on that board – which then calls FactCheck.org's objectivity into question.
Needless to say, Lindsey fails to mention that Walter Annenberg, the source of the funding behind FactCheck.org and the Annenberg Challenge, was a prominent Republican.
The Lead Heather Targets David Brooks Again Topic: NewsBusters
NewsBusters' lead Heather, Tim Graham, has let loose the Swatch dogs of war again upon conservative New York Times columnist David Brooks.
In an Oct. 15 post, Graham bashed Brooks as an "increasingly fraudulent 'conservative'" (translation: he won't robotically regurgitiate McCain talking points), though he did relent a bit and concede that Brooks "tried to be generous at the end and say the 'landscape has been so biased against McCain.'"
Graham bashes away further on Brooks in an Oct. 16 post for committing the offense of speaking the truth that Barack Obama handled the debate attacks from John McCain well and that McCain didn't cause enough damage to significantly alter the campaign. That's not how Graham saw it, of course; he sneered that "Brooks was digging McCain’s campaign a grave" and did a "gush for Obama."
Brooks is so not gonna be invited to Graham's next party.
CNS Article on Obama Tax Plan Is Lacking Topic: CNSNews.com
An Oct. 15 CNSNews.com article by Matt Cover claiming that "Barack Obama’s plan to cut taxes on 95 percent of taxpayers would effectively increase government spending" is missing a few things.
Cover credits the claim to "the non-partisan Tax Policy Center," but the only direct quotes the article attributes to anyone at the center are definitions of two Obama tax-related proposals. All conclusions Cover reports are paraphrased, which makes it difficult to go back to the source and figure out from exactly which TPC report Cover is getting his information. (the most recent came out Sept. 30.)
Note that Cover calls the Tax Policy Center "non-partisan." He might want to check with upper management for guidance on that, since his ultimate boss, Brent Bozell, criticizes the media whenever they do that. In a Sept. 30 column, Bozell complained that "reporters and columnists touting Obama are repeatedly citing numbers by something called the Tax Policy Center – and you’ll never hear that this is a project operated by two liberal-Democrat think tanks."
Also missing is any mention of the TPC's analysis of John McCain's tax plans -- for example, it has noted that McCain's plan to lower capital gains taxes would mostly benefit those with income of $600,000 a year or more. Or would CNS have to state that TPC is "liberal-Democrat" if it did?
Matthew Vadum's Idea of A Beatdown Topic: Capital Research Center
The Capital Research Center's Matthew Vadum has attacked us in an Oct. 15 post, calling us "mendacious masochists" and a smear site" for pointing out a false claim he made regarding Barack Obama's relationship with ACORN and goes on to say we "should do some research for a change."
Actually, we did do our research. But Vadum didn't address what we actually said.
If you'll recall, we were pointing out that Newsmax's Lowell Ponte cited Vadum as his source for claiming that Project Vote was "ACORN’s voter mobilization entity" at the time Obama worked for the group in 1992 -- language lifted almost verbatim from Vadum's CRC report on the subject -- when in fact Project Vote was not a part of ACORN in 1992.
In his blog post, Vadum cites another report that he says "makes it abundantly clear that ACORN and Project Vote were partners in the voter registration drive led by Obama." But that's a different claim than the one we were addressing.
We never claimed that ACORN didn't play a role in the Project Vote operation Obama was a part of in 1992. We are taking issue with Vadum's claim that Project Vote was "ACORN's voter mobilization arm" in 1992. As ACORN itself stated, "At that time, Project Vote had no more connection to ACORN than it did with dozens of other national and local organizations with which it partnered on local registration drives."
Where's Vadum's evidence contradicting that? We see none. And his insistence that it's an "invented claim" doesn't count because he doesn't back that up either.
Vadum thinks he issued "another good beating" upon us. That presumes he did so the first time (which he didn't).
If this is Vadum's idea of a beatdown, about all we can say in response is: Thank you, sir, may we have another?
From an Oct. 16 Newsmax article by Ronald Kessler:
If Barack Obama wins the presidency, he will endanger the country by making us more vulnerable to terrorist attacks, the vice chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence tells Newsmax.
Obama “would so weaken our security forces that I personally believe that we would be in much greater danger of terrorist attacks in the United States and abroad,” says Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo. “I’m very much concerned, because he’s shown weak judgment throughout his career. Throughout his campaign he has taken one position after another that just doesn’t make sense in fighting the war on terror.”
What Kessler doesn't tell you: Bond is the Missouri chairman for John McCain's campaign, so it's no surprise that he would harshly attack Obama -- indeed, it's his job.
Jerome Corsi has the same problem CBS had on the subject of documents.
Like CBS' memos regarding President Bush's National Guard service, Corsi's memos purported proving that Barack Obama had a close relationship with Kenya's Raila Odinga and donated money to his campaign are clearly not original and may be competely fraudulent.
But even though Corsi so far is standing by his Obama docs, he dismissed the CBS docs:
In an Oct. 5, 2005, WorldNetDaily column, Corsi referenced "the forged documents story that brought Dan Rather down from his lofty chair as CBS News anchor."
In a Sept. 28, 2007, WND article, Corsi wrote: "CBS News initially stood by its claims in the face of widespread accusations – brought first by bloggers – that early 1970s documents used in the story to discredit Bush were forgeries, created with a modern word-processing program."
But Corsi's documents are at least as "forged" as the CBS'. And like CBS, he is treating them as accurate, even "authenticated," even though you can't authenticate a fake.
In an Oct. 17 WND article, Corsi again insists that his documents have been "verified" -- even as he continues to offer nothing to support that "verification" but obviously fake documents.
Jack Cashill declares Barack Obama an anti-Semite in his Oct. 16 WorldNetDaily column.
Why is Obama an anti-Semite: Because he mentioned Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz in a speech criticizing the runup to the Iraq war.
Cashill thus baselessly buys into the argument that anyone who criticizes the neoconservatives who got the U.S. into the Iraq war is automatically an anti-Semite because a number of the most prominent neocons are Jewish.
Cashill claims that Perle and Wolfowitz's names in 2002 were "two names in common parlance only on the hard left" and singling them out was "the kind of intelligence that Obama could have gotten only from his pals in Chicago's unrepentant radical community." Uh, no:
In March 2002, Wolfowitz sat down for a lengthy interview on PBS' "Newshour with Jim Lehrer," and the New York Times Magazine did a lengthy profile of Wolfowitz in October 2002.
In an appearance on the July 11, 2002, edition of the PBS series "Wide Angle," Perle said: "Saddam is much weaker than we think he is. He's weaker militarily. We know he's got about a third of what he had in 1991. But it's a house of cards. He rules by fear because he knows there is no underlying support. Support for Saddam, including within his military organization, will collapse at the first whiff of gunpowder. Now, it isn't going to be over in 24 hours, but it isn't going to be months either."
As might be expected given his other concurrent conspiracy theory, Cashill drags William Ayers into it, calling him "no garden variety anti-Semite" and baselessly asserting he has a "fondness for Islamic Jew-haters."
Is Joseph Farah proud of that fact that he has sunk so law as to publish fabulists like Cashill in his failing effort to bash Obama? Is Farah's death wish for the company he has spent the past decade building that strong?