MRC Selectively Quotes Jim Cramer Topic: Media Research Center
An Oct. 13 MRC Business & Media Institute post (and NewsBusters item) by Jeff Poor highlights narrowly focused on comments by CNBC host Jim Cramer, in an Oct. 12 appearance on MSNBC's "Hardball," that the stiumulus plan has apparently not resulted in much tangible, visible construction projects. Poor added that "many on the left think Obama's not getting enough credit for the economy, as a stock market rebound seems to be a good sign. However, as Cramer explained, the president isn't going to be able to take any credit for the economy until there's a clear rebound in the job market," then quoting Cramer saying that "Obama can’t take credit for what’s happening."
But Poor ignored what Cramer said earlier in the segment -- that, just like the folks on "the left," he thinks Obama deserves credit for, in Matthews' words, "avoiding a second Great Depression":
CRAMER: I think it's a team effort, Chris. First of all, Ben Bernanke was late, but really went into high gear, and the transition from Bush to Obama was really saved by Bernanke's actions. Second, Bernanke did a good thing, but also Tim Geithner did a good thing. And you can argue, well, Geithner is totally Obama's man. Geithner made everybody feel that the banking system was safe. Once we had the banking system safe, we began to have the recovery. So Obama should get a lot of credit for that.
MATTHEWS: Well, youknow, when the politicians wag and the right-wing goes after him as they do -- that's the way politics works -- they say bailouts bailouts bailouts as if there's something wrong with the guy. They say deficits deficits deficits, as if there's something wrong with the guy. But everything I studied in college in grad school was you've gotta do those things, both in terms of the sectors of the economy which were in trouble -- the financial sectors, the auto industry -- and you had to do something with regard to the overall economy in terms of printing the money, monetary policy, fiscal policy. The very things he did are the things you're taught you have to do. Am I wrong?
CRAMER: No, you're totally right. I hear those people criticize, and I think, did they ever read any history about what this country did wrong between 1929 and 1932? This was exactly -- what these pundits are calling for is exactly what created a multi-year depression. No, I mean -- Bernanke, Obama, Geithner, they got it right.
MATTHEWS: Well, all you hear from on the right is like -- Terry Jeffrey is my pal, he sits here like from Human Events from the far right, they come on here as if all you had to do is lassiez-faire. Set back, let the invisible hand solve the problem. Say's law is still in effect, every -- all the markets are going to work, everything's gonna clear. They actually say this crapola so loudly, they must beleive it or else they're just desperate. But they do believe that doing nothing was the right -- just balance the budget, let business solve the problem.
CRAMER: Well, they're dreamers. Look, here's the hand. It wasn't invisible. It was choking America. We are very lucky that these guys understood history. Now, the reason why it's easy to criticize Obama and why he doesn't take any credit is we haven't created any jobs yet, Chris, and that is bad.
Poor also didn't mention, as Cramer did, that Obama himself is not taking any credit for the recovery.
Like ancient Rome, we have replaced our republic with a Julius Caesar, a megalomaniac dictator Caligula, a Nero who not only fiddles while America burns but also fuels the cremation of our Constitution, Bill of Rights, free market system, and individual liberties in a thousand different ways.
President Obama is either a knave or a fool. Whichever he is, Obama like Jagland follows in the footsteps of Norway's Vidkun Quisling, who sold out his country to a European socialist ruler, in Quisling's case to Adolf Hitler.
Rome somehow survived Julius Caesar, Caligula, and Nero. The United States as a sweet land of liberty will probably not survive Emperor Barack Hussein Obama.
Farah Can't Stop Lying About WND's Agenda Topic: WorldNetDaily
Who does Joseph Farah think he's fooling?
His Oct. 13 WorldNetDaily column is yet another exercise in pretending that WND is a legitimate news organization that doesn't have a political agenda. Taking exception to an article by the Huffington Post's Thomas Edsall in the Columbia Journalism Review listing WND among the "conservative media" that are "explicitly ideological," Farah writes:
WorldNetDaily has disavowed the label "conservative" more times than I can count. Nowhere has WND ever proclaimed itself with such a label. And this apparently bears repeating and further explanation.
WND is a news agency – the largest independent source of news on the Internet.
It was founded by me – a lifelong journalist with a career spanning four decades and including stints in which I ran daily newspapers in major markets, none of which included any of the "conservative" media mentioned in Edsall's list.
The journalists working at WND all have similar qualifications and experience in the so-called "mainstream media." None of them has ever worked in "conservative media," if that is not an oxymoron.
The label "conservative" has been one placed on us, mainly by our competitors as a way of marginalizing us. Understandable, of course, but hardly "objective" and "neutral."
That's not to say WND doesn't have a unique worldview of its own amid the cacophony of those who like to think of themselves as "mainstream."
It's no secret.
We've explained it a thousand times.
We believe in doing good, American-style journalism the old-fashioned way – seeking the truth without fear or favor. We believe the highest calling of a free press in a free society is to serve as a watchdog on government and other powerful institutions. That's what American journalism was intended to do. That's why the Founding Father of this great country established for the first time in world history special protections for the free press in the First Amendment of our Constitution – so my colleagues serve as yet another check and balance on government power.
That's what we do – and, I think, we do it uniquely well and with the highest standards.
We've been through Farah's little song-and-dance before. Farah, as he has previously done, is obscuring the fact that he's trying to avoid answering relevant questions.
Farah denies being "conservative," even though his website unambiguously promotes a conservative agenda. The fact is that "conservative" is too mild a term for Farah and WND. They promote a far-right Christian agenda, and Farah himself may best be labeled a Christian reconstructionist -- after all, he supports the blacklisting of actors and condones the killing of adulterers.
Notice that at no point does Farah deny that WND is "explicitly ideological" -- he merely reframes it by claiming WND has a "unique worldview." Also notice that he's careful not to explain what that "unique worldview" is, even though any casual WND readers can see that it is obviously "explicitly ideological."
The "good, American-style journalism the old-fashioned way" boilerplate is pure, unadulterated horsepuckey. "Seeking the truth without fear or favor"? A total lie. WND is afraid to tell its readers about birther lawyer Orly Taitz's increasingly erratic courtroom antics.
A "watchdog on government and other powerful institutions"? Only if it's controlled by Democrats -- WND has little interest in exposing the wrongdoing of Republicanpoliticians.
"The highest standards"? Don't make us laugh. Clark Jones knows all about WND's so-called "standards" -- it took seven years and a libel lawsuit before WND finally admitted it published numerous false claims about him. And, of course, WND has told lieafterlie about President Obama and liberal policies.
Farah's delusions to the contrary, WND has long been a journalistic joke, and it remains so today. He's just trying to pander to the folks who haven't figured that out yet.
Newsmax Hides Facts on Study Attacking Health Care Reform Topic: Newsmax
An Oct. 12 Newsmax article by Theodore Kettle promotes "a new PriceWaterhouseCoopers study on the costs of the health care reform bill being voted on Tuesday by the Senate Finance Committee" and presented its findings, which he called "devastating," as indisputable fact.
But Kettle fails to mention -- even though otherarticles posted on Newsmax do -- that the the study was paid for not by PriceWaterhouseCoopers but by America's Health Insurance Plans, a lobbying group for the insurance industry with its own specific agenda. Those articles, both by the Associated Press, also include criticism of the study that Kettle can't be bothered to include because it apparently fits his personal agenda of opposing health care reform.
On the subject of criticism, Kettle wrote only that "The White House’s panicked response has been to make a dubious challenge to PriceWaterhouseCoopers’ competence." But, again, not only is Kettle hiding the forces behind the study, he does not refute the White House's claim other than to call it "dubious," a claim he does not support with evidence.
A July 11 WND article by Drew Zahn asserted that John Holdren, the administration's science czar, "advocated ... compulsory abortions in the U.S." in a textbook he co-wrote in the 1970s. In fact, Holdren was merely repeating a claim that compulsory population-control measures, including abortion, "could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society"
Even the right-wing Accuracy in Media's Cliff Kincaid found that to be an egregious distortion of the facts, pointing out that "while Holdren can be criticized for including this reference to compulsory abortion, it cannot be said, strictly speaking, that it is necessarily his view."
Nevertheless, WND continued to push the false claim. A July 25 column by Matt Barber assertedd that "Holdren has advocated ... forced abortion," a statement uncritically quoted by Bob Unruh in a July 31 article. A Sept. 8 column by Janet Porter asserted that Holdren "wants forced abortions."
A Sept. 21 article by Jerome Corsi tried to spin the lie. After noting that PolitiFact pointed out that "the authors make clear that they did not support coercive means of population control. Clearly, nowhere in the book do the authors advocate forced abortions,"Corsi adds: "A close reading of 'Ecoscience,' however, shows the authors clearly stated their acceptance of abortion as an effective population-control technique." But "acceptance" is not the same thing as advocacy.
Still, in an Oct. 10 article, Corsi wrote that Holdren "advocated abortion as a means of population control."
One of WorldNetDaily Jerusalem bureau chief Aaron Klein's favoritesources is David Ha'ivri, currently a spokesperson for the Samaria Liaison Office (aka Shomron Liaison Office), which appears to be a group that speaks for Jewish settlers in the West Bank. What Klein repeatedly fails to do in his WND articles is that Ha'ivri is a Kahanist sympathizer -- a right-wing movement whose political parties, Kach and Kahane Chai, have been outlawed in Israel for inciting racism. When given the opportunity, Ha'ivri refused to condemn a plot by Jewish extremists to detonate a bomb outside a Palestinian girls' school. None of that association with terrorist organizations -- which the U.S. considers the Kahanist movement to be -- kept WND from giving Ha'ivri a prominent space as a "letter of the week."
WND uncritically quotes Ha'ivri again, in an Oct. 11 WND article by Samuel Sokol (presumably working under Klein's direction), as speaking for a group of "Jewish pilgrims" visiting the tomb of Joseph in the West Bank town of Nablus. Sokol doesn't acknowledge the term "West Bank," sticking with the right-wing Jewish terminology of "Samaria," and also insists on calling the town Shechem, merely "known to the Arabs as Nablus."
Sokol's article carries the dateline "Shechem, Israel," even though the town has officially been known as Nablus since, oh, the seventh century, and the status of "Samaria" as an official part of Israel remains in dispute.
Apparently, nobody is ever supposed to say anything bad about Glenn Beck -- even if it's the truth.
NewsReal's David Swindle takes us to task for daring to defend reporting pointing out that Beck's claim that his mother committed suicide is at variance with the facts, which show that the cause of her death is at best inconclusive. His professed problem with it is that it delves into Beck's personal life, which should be off limits in political debate:
If the question of whether she died by suicide or by accident is in doubt (which is all you might be able to establish) then it’s awfully sick of you and MM to choose the answer which makes Beck out to be a liar. I mean you do see how this is really distasteful and unnecessary and how a reasonable person could call this a smear? The circumstances of someone’s mother’s death is in doubt and you accuse them of lying about it in order to illicit sympathy from people and further their career? You really hate Beck that much? Because it seems to me that if you just disagreed with his arguments then that’s all you’d do. You’d refute his arguments (which is fair game.) But instead you choose to dig into his past to try and destroy him personally.
1) No "choice" was made to "make Beck out to be a liar." All that was done by Media Matters is highlight reports showing what the official investigation into Beck's mother's death and what Beck himself has said about it. There are discrepancies, and Swindle doesn't refute that.
2) Obviously, Beck himself is the only one who can answer questions about the discrepancy. But does Swindle really think that such a shameless entertainer as Beck is incapable of enhancing a tragedy for sympathetic effect?
3) Swindle accuses us of "dig[ging] into [Beck's] past to try and destroy him personally." As if that has never been done by conservatives looking to attack liberals. (See Clinton, Bill.) But really, how exactly does this little incident "destroy him personally"? Further, Beck has made the claim publicly on numerous occasions, which opens it up to public scrutiny.
It seems to us that Swindle is opposed to any criticism of Beck. After all, his boss, David Horowitz, has embraced Beck as "the most eloquent, fearless and effective warrior standing between Barack Obama and a collectivist state." But Horowitz himself is embracing personal attacks as well: Just four months after declaring that smears such as "Manchurian candidate" were beneath substantial criticism of Obama, Horowitz called Obama that very thing.
Ultimately, this is small potatoes and hardly the worst thing Beck has done (the top of that list is likely ridiculing the wife of a rival radio host for having a miscarriage). But the fact that Swindle is in full defense mode over such a relatively minor indiscretion tells us that Beck is now a priority of the Right as someone who must be protected at all costs -- just like Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter.
Note to Farah: Obama Increased Troops in Afghanistan Topic: WorldNetDaily
In his Oct. 11 WorldNetDaily column, Joseph Farah writes about how President Obama "told us during last year's presidential campaign that troops needed to be redeployed from Iraq to the 'real' front in the war on terrorism – Afghanistan," but is now "mulling ... over" Gen. Stanley McChrystal's recommendation for a even larger U.S. presence in Afghanistan. "Isn't this exactly what Obama said he wanted to do more than a year ago?" Farah adds. "Maybe it's that Nobel Appease Prize?"
But Farah hides the fact that Obama did, in fact, increase the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan by approximately 20,000. Farah writes that Obama "has only modestly increased U.S. forces in Afghanistan," but that's misleading; the additional troops Obama ordered earlier this year increases the number in Afghanistan by nearly 50 percent.
Only in Farah-speak would that be considered "modest."
We already know how WorldNetDaily's self-proclaimed mission to "serve as a watchdog on government - to expose corruption, fraud, waste and abuse wherever and whenever it is found" is a sad joke. It cares about "corruption, fraud, waste and abuse" only when the person doing it is a Democrat -- Republicans get a free pass. WND is proving it again with the case of John Ensign.
Earlier this year, it was revealed that Republican Sen. Ensign had an affair with a staffer whose husband was also on his staff; Ensign admitted to the affair after a possible blackmail attempt by the husband. Ensign doubled his mistress' salary while the affair was going on, and her son received payment from an Ensign-controlled poltical entity. It was later revealed that Ensign tried to find a lucrative job for the husband after the affair was revealed at companies on whose behalf Ensign's staff repeatedly intervened with federal officials.
Also revealed in this was a shadowy, secretive group of Christian politicians -- many of whom have been involved in similar moral and ethical transgressions -- that Ensign is linked to.
But you won't read anything about this in an original WND news article. The only news article found on the Ensign scandal in WND's database is from WND at all but, rather, linked to Fox News.
That level of interest would seem to indicate that there would be a similar desire among readers for news of this scandal. But WND has decided otherwise.
Why? Perhaps because Ensign is a Republican; perhaps because of the C Street angle, which would have put a bad light on Joseph Farah's fellow Christian evangelicals.
Whatever the reason, WND is afraid to tell its readers -- but not afraid of violating its own mission.
UPDATE: Another Republican scandal you won't read about at WND: growing evidence that Republican Texas Gov. Rick Perry is obstructing an investigation into whether the state executed an innocent man, whose execution Perry signed off on.
WND Lying About Chai Feldblum Topic: WorldNetDaily
On top of playing guilt-by-assocation with Obama appointees, perpetuating falsehoods about them is something WND likes to do as well.
An Oct. 5 WND article asserted that Chai Feldblum, Obama's nominee to become commissioner for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, "praised polygamy" -- a charge repeated in an Oct. 10 article. In fact, Feldblum did no such thing, despite WND's attempt to twist words.
WND's basis for the claim is that Feldblum signed a petition that urges "Legal recognition for a wide range of relationships, households and families – regardless of kinship or conjugal status." Among the several types of relationships listed in the petition are "Households in which there is more than one conjugal partner."
WND cherry-picked this statement to assert that Feldblum, in the words of the Oct. 5 article, "signed a manifesto praising polygamy." But the petition, like Feldblum, does no such thing -- it merely lists "Households in which there is more than one conjugal partner" among other types of relationships for which legal recognition should be provided.
So, WND's key attack on Feldblum is a complete lie. Why are we notsurprised?
WorldNetDaily, it seems, just can't decide how it feels about scaremongering predictions.
An Oct. 9 article by Jerome Corsi ridicules White House science czar John Holdren for having once predicted that "1 billion people will die in 'carbon-dioxide induced famines' in a coming new ice age by 2020," which could be avoided if "the government mandated urgent measures to control population, including the possibility of involuntary birth control measures such as forced sterilization."
But an Oct. 10 article by Bob Unruh approvingly cites the same kind of fearmongering:
Gerald Celente of TrendsResearch.com, says people right now should be bracing for "the greatest recession" which will hit worldwide and will mark the "decline of empire America." Crop failures could be among the minor concerns.
"Here we are in 2012. Food riots, tax protests, farmer rebellions, student revolts, squatter diggins, homeless uprisings, tent cities, ghost malls, general strikes, bossnappings, kidnappings, industrial saboteurs, gang warfare, mob rule, terror," he writes for a quarterly publication that is available through subscription on his website.
Oh, wait, we see now why Unruh gives this a pass -- Celente is blaming all this on Obama:
Now comes his forecast for a global depression and for the United States, "Obamageddon."
Unruh probably wouldn't be reporting Celente's predictions if a Republican president was in office.
WND Still Lying About Hate-Crimes Bill Topic: WorldNetDaily
An Oct. 9 WorldNetDaily article by Bob Unruh repeats one of WND's treasured lies about the proposed expansion of hate-crime laws to cover gays -- that it also "protects pedophiles."
Unruh uncritically quotes the American Family Association as claiming that since "sexual orientation" nowhere is defined in the law, "this law will give pedophiles, voyeurs, and exhibitionists special protections, which is why the bill has correctly been called 'The Pedophile Protection Act.'" In fact, as we've detailed, "sexual orientation" is already defined by federal statute as applying only to "consensual homosexuality or heterosexuality," so there is no need to do so again.
Unruh went on to claim that "Attempts by Republicans to add amendments stating 'pedophilia is not protected as a sexual orientation' were blocked by House Democrats." Unruh failed to report that, as we also detailed, such an amendment is superfluous because the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 specifically excludes pedophilia, thus precluding protection for pedophiles from the hate crimes bill.
Unruh also repeats claims that "Politically incorrect thoughts about homosexual behavior will result in enhanced criminal sanctions under this law" and will "this would be the very first governmental and societal disapproval of a sincerely held religious belief, held by a majority of Americans, namely that homosexual behavior is immoral" without noting that the bill states that "Nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by this Act, shall be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct protected from legal prohibition by, or any activities protected by the Constitution," which would include the First Amendment protection for freedom of religion.
Unruh lies about something else as well in referencing opposition to the bill by a group "founded by former U.S. Navy Chaplain Gordon Klingenschmitt, who was involuntarily removed from the U.S. military after he prayed 'in Jesus name.'" In fact, Klingenschmitt was removed for disobeying an order that he not appear in uniform at media events or political protests.
Erik Rush Endorses Censorship Topic: WorldNetDaily
Erik Rush writes in his Oct. 8 WorldNetDaily column:
The left's convoluted logic and specious contentions vis-a-vis First Amendment provisions for free speech can no longer be allowed to stand. If Congress shall make no law, and has made no law, no one's rights have been violated. Whatever measures the populace takes to curtail the actions of dissolute entertainers and public servants are also protected, so long as they are nonviolent.
And it is time that those measures be taken. Americans must begin to act toward the preservation of a reasonably decent, moral environment, in similar fashion as they have begun to act toward the preservation of their liberties.
Rush's declared motivation for censorship is to enforce "a reasonably decent, moral environment." Among the violations hecites of that enforced environment he wants to impose on America: "President Obama's new director of the Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools is a radical homosexual" and "a high school in Virginia that is dispensing profoundly disturbing, sexually-deviant media of various types to its students."
If Rush had actually read the WND story to which he links to bolster the latter claim, he would see that the high school is not "distributing" the "media" (a book) in question; a teacher had loaned her personal copy of the book to a student, who then loaned it to another student, whose father went ballistic over it. Rush would also know that WND libeled the teacher by suggesting she wants to have sex with her students.
Rush also cited this example:
Cable TV's ABC Family Channel (the appropriateness of this name depends upon what one's particular meaning of the word "family" happens to be) features the popular show "The Secret Life of the American Teenager." This insidious fare showcases the shallowest troupe of middle-class, sex-obsessed high-schoolers one could dream up. Episodes of this program employ the words "sex" or the phrase "have sex" an average of 48 times. I counted.
We suspect Rush enjoy watching every filthy, disgusting frame of that show as many times it took to count every single instance of the word "sex" a lot more than he lets on here. And we also suspect it took him a lot of viewings to make sure his count was completely accurate.
Morris: Obama's Nobel Part of European Plot to Re-Colonize U.S. Topic: Newsmax
Whether it was rewarding Jimmy Carter for criticizing the Iraq war or supporting Al Gore in his crusade against global warming, the Norwegian parliament, which chooses the winners of the Nobel Peace Prize, has sought to use the award as a political tool to influence American politics.
Its prestige and moral power make the prize a potent weapon with which to help steer the direction of the colossus beyond the seas that controls a quarter of the world's economy and most of its military power.
Now, the Norwegians have weighed in to support Barack Obama in his bid to reshape America so it looks more like, well, Norway, or at least like Europe.
The Nobel Prize is really Obama's payback for disciplining the unruly United States and taming it to be a member of the European family of nations. Europe wants to reverse the American Revolution and re-colonize us, and it sees in Obama a kindred spirit willing to do its bidding.
All this heavy lifting, this conversion of America into a European state, deserves a reward. And what is a more fitting one than to give Obama than the Nobel Peace Prize?
He obviously doesn't deserve the award for economics or, given his healthcare ideas, for medicine. But the Peace Prize expresses Europe's longing: to take back the nation its overly ambitious and uppity children founded.