A June 30 WorldNetDaily article uncritically promoted the claims of J. Christian Adams, a former Department of Justice attorney who claims, as a result of "the Obama administration's refusal to prosecute Black Panthers who intimidated voters outside polls during the 2008 election," that "administration has ordered the DOJ not to pursue voting-rights cases against black people." The article is merely a rehashing of claims; WND makes no attempt to verify anything Adams says.
If it had, it would realize that Adams has no firsthand knowledge to support any of his claims; his attacks rely on hearsay and charges made by others.
WND also fails to mention Adams' background -- specifically, his ties to the "politicized hiring" that took place under the Bush administration, when DOJ employees tried to drive out liberal attorneys and replace them with right-wing ones -- like Adams. Indeed, the words "Republican" and "conservative" appear nowhere in WND's article.
CNS Takes A Word Out of Obama's Mouth Topic: CNSNews.com
A July 1 CNSNews.com article by Edwin Mora is headlined, "Obama: U.S. Borders Cannot Be Secured With Fences and Border Patrols." Mora begins his story: "President Barack Obama said today that U.S. borders cannot be secured with fences and border patrols."
But Mora left out a word that completely changes the meaning of what Mora was trying to portray Obama saying. From the direct quote of Obama in thethird paragraph (emphasis added):
“Even as we are committed to doing what’s necessary to secure our borders, even without passage of the new law, there are those who argue that we should not move forward with any other elements of reform until we have fully sealed our borders,” said Obama. “But our borders are just too vast for us to be able to solve the problem only with fences and border patrols. It won’t work. Our borders will not be secure as long as our limited resources are devoted to not only stopping gangs and potential terrorists, but also the hundreds of thousands who attempt to cross each year simply to find work.”
Obama didn't say that "U.S. borders cannot be secured with fences and border patrols," as Mora claimed; he said that those things alone can't secure the border. Big difference.
Too bad Mora and CNS can't see that -- or maybe they do and choose not to in order to make Obama look bad, thus making them right-wing activists instead of journalists.
NewsBusters' Double Standard on Interfering With A Reporter's Job Topic: NewsBusters
A June 30 NewsBusters post by Lachlan Markay complains that "The White House has gone to extraordinary lengths to prevent the press corps from having meaningful access to Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan," repeating claims by the right-wing Judicial Watch that it "apparently blocked a New York Times reporter from sitting in on Kagan's brother Irving's constitutional law class at Hunter College High School."
Markay presents this all as something shocking. So why isn't he similarly outraged that the publisher of his blog posts has done pretty much the same thing?
As we've detailed, Media Research Center vice president for business and culture Dan Gainor tried to coordinate a blackball conspiracy by trying to get his fellow right-wingers to stop talking to ex-Washington Post blogger Dave Weigel. Gainor was proud enough of his anti-Weigel crusade to talk to Politico about it, but it won't disclose it in his own attacks on Weigel.
If interfering with a reporter's coverage is a bad thing when Democrats do it, why isn't it bad when Markay's fellow right-wingers do it?
A June 29 WorldNetDaily article by Aaron Klein carries a headline that shouts, "PROOF! Private insurance targeted for annihilation."
But what Klein calls "proof," the rest of us call guilt-by-association -- you know, like what Kleinalwaysdoes.
Klein's lead claim is "A socialist organization with close ties to Barack Obama has outlined a plan to turn the president's health-care legislation into a government-run system that will ultimately eliminate private insurance companies." Of course, these "close ties" exist mostly in Klein's fevered, Obama-hating mind; he offers nothing more connections that are tangental at best. Klein offers no evidence that Obama has any direct connection to this "socialist organization."
This really isn't about Obama at all; rather, it's about Klein's near-pathological hatred. Anyone else would seek psychiactric help for such a pathology -- but Joseph Farah seems to like pathological hatred in his reporters.
Gen. McChrystal was wasting his time in Afghanistan. The real war is going on here, in America. It's the war the ism-infatuated intellectuals and East Coast elitist thieves have been waging against America since the days of the 16th and 17th amendments to the Constitution.
The 16th Amendment (do it for the war, don't you know) gave the federal government a reliably massive source of coercive funding, free of constitutional constraints, which enabled it to grow far beyond anything the Founding Fathers could have imagined (or perhaps they had – which is why they took such pains to limit their federal creation).
The Federal Reserve was created almost immediately afterward that same year (Dec. 23, 1913 – Merry Christmas, America). This gave the federal government the power to control banks, regardless of where they were located, and thus the flow of money nationwide. It was also a reliable purchaser of federal government debt – in case "enough" tax money to feed the beast could not be collected from the nation's newly indentured servants (formerly known as citizens).
The 17th Amendment broke the back of states' power over the federal government by removing state legislatures' ability to appoint United States senators to represent them in Congress. It centralized power in urban areas, destroyed rural areas and made the power of the press to manipulate public opinion during election time a very valuable commodity.
Armed with the massive money flow generated by a tax on incomes, and freed of the power state legislatures could effect upon the United States Senate by appointing their states' senators, the intellectualist and elitist thieves have never looked back.
New Article: Newsmax and Newsweek, Sittin' In A Tree? Topic: Newsmax
Christopher Ruddy and Richard Mellon Scaife attempt to buy the newsmagazine, but their promise to not interfere with its coverage runs counter to the right-wing agenda of everything else Newsmax does. Read more >>
P.S. The New York Times reports that the Washington PostCo. has rejected Newsmax's bid for Newsweek.
NewsBusters' Double Standard on Sexual Conduct, Al Gore Division Topic: NewsBusters
Rremember the Media Research Center's complaint that the media was reporting claims that South Carolina Republican gubernatorial candidate Nikki Haley had an affair when the only evidence they had was that the other person claimed there was one? In the MRC's eyes, this was defined as "unproven"; NewsBusters' Mark Finkelstein insisted it it was unworthy of coverage because "Haley has categorically denied the allegations."
No one should be surprised to learn that MRC's ethics on such things are completely situational and depend on who's being accused. Take the case of Al Gore being accused of making sexual advances on a masseuse. The charge is unproven, and Gore has categorically denied it. So guess what the MRC is complaining about? That it's being ignored, of course.
That's what Finkelstein does in a July 1 NewsBusters post, accusing MSNBC's "Morning Joe" of overlooking the story. Finkelstein doesn't mention that Gore has "categorically denied" the accusation -- thus making it, by his own standards of just a few weeks ago, unworthy of coverage.
Why is anyone surprised that MRC employees allow their bias to trump their ethics?
Reed Suggests Solomon Amendment 'Settled Federal Law' Under Kagan Topic: Newsmax
Ralph Reed's June 30 Newsmax column on Elena Kagan contains this curious statement:
Her defiance of settled federal law in banning military recruiters from the campus of Harvard Law School during a time of war reveals the temperament of an ideologue and a political partisan, not the temperament of a judge.
There is no federal law we know of, settled or otherwise, that forbids banning of military recrutiers "during a time of war." Reed is presumably referring to the Solomon Amendment, which cut off federal funding to schools who banned military recruiters. Given that a challenge to the Solomon Amendment was in the federal court system while Kagan was Harvard Law School dean -- and that a ruling by a federal appeals court that the amendment was unconstitutional gave Kagan an opening to keepmilitary recruiters from using the school's career office for a semester -- the suggestion that the Solomon Amendment was "settled federal law" is utterly absurd.
Schlafly's Falsehood-Laden Attack on Kagan Topic: WorldNetDaily
When you start your column with a lie, it's difficult to take anything else you write seriously.
Phyllis Schlafly does just that in the opening sentence of her June 30 WorldNetDaily column:
Barack Obama revealed his goal for the Supreme Court when he complained on Chicago radio station WBEZ-FM in 2001 that the Earl Warren Court wasn't "radical" enough because "it didn't break free from the essential constraints placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution" in order to allow "redistribution of wealth."
As we've detailed, Obama didn't "complain" that the Warren Court wasn't radical enough; he merely stated it as fact.
Unsurprisingly, Schlafly goes on to mislead about other Kagan-related things. She bashes Kagan's praise for Aharon Barak despite his being "the most activist judge in the world" without noting that none other than conservative justice Antonin Scalia has also praised Barak. Schlafly also repeats the discredted lie that Kagan is "anti-military."
Gainor Column on Weigel Doesn't Mention His Anti-Weigel Crusade Topic: Media Research Center
Dan Gainor's June 30 MRC Business & Media Institute column is dedicated to "self-immolating Washington Post blogger Dave Weigel," complaining that "D.C.’s in-crowd, both left and right, has closed ranks around him as one of their own" and are "letting their friendships cloud their judgment."
You'd think that with all this glee about Weigel losing his Washington Post job, Gainor would take a victory lap and proclaim to his readers how he worked behind the scenes to undermine Weigel by trying to convince conservatives not to speak to him. But strangely, he does not mention his own handiwork -- perhaps because it could lead to questions about what else he did to attack Weigel, his depiction of Weigel as "self-immolating" notwithstanding.
Similarly, over at NewsBusters, Lachlan Markay insisted, "Weigel did not leave the post because he is a liberal. And conservatives did not force him out." Markay didn't mention that the publisher of his blog post certainly tried to do just that.
Joseph Farah is suchaliar, one has to wonder what the motivation is. Is he pathological, or does he merely lack a conscience, taking the view that the end justifies the means in making money in promoting right-wing extremism?
Whatever the reason, he is clearly unable to stop. Farah adds another arrow to his quiverful of lies about Elena Kagan in a June 29 WorldNetDaily article in which he falsely smears Kagan as "a person who thinks it's OK to ban books," screeching, "Do you want a book banner on the Supreme Court?"
Here's Farah's alleged evidence to support his claim:
As solicitor general, Kagan defended before the Supreme Court a campaign finance law that could ban books and would ban pamphlets that would promote federal political candidacies or oppose them. While Kagan pointed out the law had never been applied to books, she acknowledged her support for the provision to consider such advocacy books as campaign contributions.
The facts are quite different the the pack of lies Farah is peddling. First, Farah thinks "could" and "will" mean the same thing -- apparently, he learned nothing about grammar in his career as a journalist. Second, the campaign finance law Kagan argued to uphold (in the Citizens United case) did not ban all books and pamphlets, as Farah suggests; it addressed only election spending by corporations and unions.
Further, Kagan never argued for banning books. While WND correctly notes that Kagan "pointed out the law had never been applied to books," it conveniently omitted that Kagan also said that because federal law had never banned books, it likely could not do so, and that any attempt would be unlikely to stand up in court.
Specifically, Kagan said, "Nobody has ever suggested -- nobody in Congress, nobody in the administrative apparatus has ever suggested that books pose any kind of corruption problem." Kinda shoots down Farah's claim that Kagan's a "book banner," doesn't it?
Farah pads out the article with the discredited lies that "Kagan is a radical antimilitary and proabortion zealot."
Farah then jumps to crass commercialism, begging his readers to send him $24.95 so he can send anti-Kagan letters to each member of the Senate.
So, compulsive or craven? We're not sure, but there is definitely something amoral going on with Farah. Nobody can spread such deliberate lies without deliberate intent.
WND, CNS Push Attack Du Jour on Kagan Topic: CNSNews.com
In the ConWeb, it's just one attack after another on Elena Kagan, and the facts really don't matter. Take today's attack, for instance.
What the ConWeb is howling about now is that back in the 1990s, when she was working in the Clinton administration, Kagan made suggested edits to a statement the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists planned to issue on the subject of the intact dilatation and extraction (D&X) abortion, aka so-called "partial-birth abortion."
CNSNews.com promoted this in a long, long June 29 article by Jane McGrath (whose main job is being an Obama-bashing blogger at Townhall.com). McGrath claimed that the draft ACOG statement "contradicted the argument President Clinton had been making to defend his opposition to a ban on partial-birth abortion." Which it didn't, of course. While the draft statement stated that ACOG "could identify no circumstances under which this procedure, as defined above, would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman" -- a claim that remained in the final version of the statement -- it went on to state that making intact D&X illegal "may outlaw techniques that are critical to the lives and health of American women." Kagan's edits mainly consisted of making the latter claim more explicit, stating that intact D&X may be the best option for some women.
McGrath goes on to uncritically quote an anti-abortion activist claiming that because of this, Kagan somehow "'deserves the blame' for delaying enactment of the partial-birth abortion ban."
WorldNetDaily anti-abort columnist Jill Stanek seized on the issue, misleadingly claiming that ACOG's draft was "unhelpful" and that Kagan "changed it to suit Clinton's pro-abortion agenda." Stanek went on to howl that "ACOG accepted a revision of its medical opinion from a political hack."
WND liked Stanek's column so much it rewrote it into a "news" article. WND, as per usual, makes no effort to do anything more with it, like obtain opinions from others on the issue.
But don't worry. As this attack crashes and burns, the ConWeb is sure to concoct a new one tomorrow.
Farah Pretends Fundamentally Flawed Attack Video Is True Topic: WorldNetDaily
Joseph Farah used his June 29 WorldNetDaily column to defend Rep. Michele Bachmann from criticism over her appearance in a Coral Ridge Ministries-produced video on socialism claiming that "the envy-inflamed ideas of Marx and others are at war with the family, the church, and with God and His Word." Farah, unsurprisingly, insists that such a claim is "undeniably and provably true."
But Farah's really upset that a news article criticized another Coral Ridge video trying to link Charles Darwin to the Holocaust by noting it was criticized by the Anti-Defamation League:
The Anti-Defamation League diminishes itself for blasting it. It is 100 percent true and well-documented. It is an established fact that the Nazi genocide was firmly based on Darwinism. If you have any doubts, just see the fascinating documentary for yourself. But, keep in mind, Bachmann had nothing to do with it! She is a part of a different documentary critiquing socialism.
Well, not quite. As we detailed in 2006, the basic premise of the video -- that Darwin's theory of evolution directly led to the Holocaust -- falsely conflates evolution with social Darwinism, the survival-of-the-fittest concept that existed long before Darwin.
Further, Coral Ridge reportedly misled at least one scientist interviewed for the video claiming that he was interviewed about a book he wrote and was not told he would appear in a Darwin-bashing video. Afther the scientist raised concerns about how he was being portrayed, Coral Ridge reportedly removed him from later editions of the video.
WND also studiously ignored criticism of the video from its fellow right-wingers. For example, a writer at the Alan Keyes-linked Renew America apologized for promoting it, pointing out that Coral Ridge pastor D. James Kennedy's statement "No Darwin, No Hitler" is "not a true statement."
WND was a huge promoter of the video and whitewashed the controversy about Coral Ridge's ethics. WND's promotion just happened to coincide with Coral Ridge's promotion of WND managing editor David Kupelian's WND-published book "The Marketing of Evil," featuring it on its televised services, airing an interview with Kupelian, and giving away copies of a "special paperback edition" of the book to Coral Ridge donors.
Oh, and to put the utterly craven cherry on top of this, WND sellsboth Coral Ridge videos, links for which are scattered throughout Farah's column.
WND Poorly Defends Birther Hero From Racist 'Smears' Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily's Joe Kovacs runs to the defense of birtherhero Tim Adams in in a June 28 article, portraying him as "the victim of a vicious smear campaign," which includes the allegation that he's a "racist." But Kovacs never address the core evidence to support that allegation.
After first quoting Adams saying that "I was, among other claims made by these 'concerned citizens,' a Nazi, a skinhead, a racist, and a host of other epithets" and that "I have never been a part of any racialist group, nor espoused any racist doctrines, not that that matters to them," Kovacs inserts a video from MSNBC's "Countdown" in which Keith Olbermann lays out the case of Adam's racist ties -- attending a convention of the openly racist Council of Conservative Citizens, where he was interviewed by self-proclaimed "pro-white" radio host James Edwards.
Suddenly, it's diversion time for Kovacs, who chooses to obsess over Olbermann's use of a plural instead of tackling the core issue:
"Oops! You're quoting white supremacists about a black president," Olbermann said. "Well done, WorldNetDaily!"
WND's story from which Olbermann was reading quoted Adams only based on WND's own, exclusive, hour-long phone interview with the former elections official, and mentioned no one else making any similar claim about Obama's hospital-generated birth certificate being non-existent.
Adams, did, however, initially make his allegation June 5 on a show hosted by James Edwards of WLRM Radio in Memphis, Tenn. The show's website describes Edwards – not Tim Adams – as having an "unapologetically pro-white viewpoint."
Kovacs' effort to divorce Adams from Edwards by claiming that Edwards' website didn't describe Adams as "pro-white" is as laughable as it is lame. It probably didn't describe Jerome Corsi that way either when he appeared on Edwards' show (not that Kovacs will mention that little nugget of fact anytime soon).
At no point in the article does Kovacs ask Adams to explain why he was at a CofCC convention (or even that he was there in the first place) or why he chose to be interviewed by a "pro-white" radio host.
Kovacs' cowardice continues: He notes that "if anyone is racist against blacks on this issue, Adams says it is those who suggest Obama is not eligible to hold office," but doesn't ask Adams if he thinks the birther kings at WND are racist.
Kovacs parroted once again Adams' story that he was a "senior election clerk" who "had a secretary, private office, two assistants and about 50 temp workers" working under him, and that he had access to "numerous government databases" and "unfettered Internet access, something else the workers didn't possess," but he ignored anyone who contradicted Adams' story. Like Glen Takahashi, whom Kovacs cited as verifying that Adams was a senior elections clerk. Dave Weigel wrote:
I checked with Glen Takahashi, the administrator of the Honolulu City Clerk's office, and while he verified that Adams worked there, he explained – gently making it clear he did not want to "call anyone a liar" -- that Adams never actually had access to information about Barack Obama.
"Our office does not have access to birth records," Takahashi said. "That's handled by the state of Hawaii Department of Health. Where he's getting that, I don't know. Put it this way: Barack Obama was not trying to register to vote in Hawaii. He is, as far as I know, not a registered voter here. So no one was looking that up."
Takahashi explained that the "senior elections clerk" job that Adams held was a low-level data entry position dealing with voter registration and absentee ballots -- Adams was one of dozens of temporary employees who staffed the pre-election rush. And he contradicted Adams's claims that Obama's lack of a birth certificate was an "open secret" or that voters contacted the office to ask about it.
"To be honest, I fielded no questions about that," Takahashi said. "Why would anyone ask us? We don't have those records."
That would seem to undermine Adams' story, but Kovacs doesn't want his readers to know about it.
David Limbaugh Falsely Claims FDR Made Economy Worse Topic: Newsmax
In attacking President Obama yet again, David Limbaugh writes in his June 29 syndicated column, published by WorldNetDaily and Newsmax: "Obama is wholly impervious to the historical record documenting the failure of FDR's pump priming during the Depression, which exacerbated rather than ameliorated the economic problems."
In fact, unemployment dropped consistently under New Deal programs. Most experts agree that when FDR tried to raise taxes and cut the budget in 1937, the economy faltered again.