Portraits of (Right-Wing) Success Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily's latest book is something of a vanity project, written by a WND columnist and profiling people like WND editor Joseph Farah.
WND enlisted the notoriouslyhateful and fact-averse Burt Prelutsky to write "Profiles of Success," in which Prelutsky interviews "writers, actors, athletes, politicians, entrepreneurs, developers, directors, musicians, evens an animal therapist" about how they "successfully pursued their dreams."
The list of interviewees, however, appears to fall into two main categories: Right-wingers, and friends and acquaintances of Burt Prelutsky. Farah is joined on the right-wing side by the likes of Newt Gingrich, Ralph Peters, Jesse Lee Peterson, Michele Bachmann and Andrew Breitbart. Many of the celebrities he picks are also right-leaning, such as Pat Boone, James Woods, Curt Schilling and Orson Bean (who also happens to be Breitbart's father-in-law).
There's not an obvious liberal to be found -- which was probably the point.
AIM's Kincaid: Palin "Had Every Right To Question" Manhood of Writer Topic: Accuracy in Media
Cliff Kincaid writes in the "Cliff's Notes" section of the Oct. 22 Accuracy in Media "AIM Report" that the writer who did a profile of Sarah Palin for Vanity Fair is "not a man in the traditional sense" because he's gay, and thus " Palin had every right to question his manhood":
Ruth Marcus of The Washington Post accused Sarah Palin of offending homosexuals when she remarked that the author of a Vanity Fair hatchet job about her was “impotent and limp and gutless.” Marcus wrote, “The Vanity Fair writer, Michael Joseph Gross, is gay, which makes matters worse —conjuring the stereotype of ‘limp-wristed.’ But whatever the sexual orientation of the offending reporter, Palin should not have been questioning his manhood.”
Palin had every right to question his manhood, since he is not a man in the traditional sense and wrote a cowardly piece. But her remarks were probably directed at his “journalism,” which Marcus admits was sloppy and full of unverifiable and anonymous quotes. Nevertheless, Gross was on the CBS News “The Early Show” with his “revelations.” Host Erica Hill, who substitutes for Katie Couric on the CBS Evening News, called the article “fascinating.”
Marcus was more concerned with Palin’s response to the shoddy article than with the fact that it was written by a homosexual journalist with an axe to grind. Palin has long opposed gay marriage, which makes her an obvious target for homosexuals like Gross.
The Marcus criticism of Palin shows how “sensitive” the Post has become on matters involving homosexuality. The paper does not tolerate any criticism of the homosexual lifestyle. It has been a cheerleader for gay rights for years and was one of the first newspapers to run announcements of gay “unions” as if they were marriages. It is sad that this once mighty newspaper has degenerated into a mouthpiece for the homosexual movement.
Usually it's Noel Sheppard who's shocked by the unshocking. Now, his fellow NewsBusters mate Tim Graham tries to horn in on the action with an Oct. 20 post headlined "Shocking: Maria Shriver's Daughter Excited Over Jon Stewart-Stephen Colbert Rally."
Even if Graham meant this sarcastically -- Graham went on that this admission "must thrill liberal hearts, who want something (anything) that fires up liberal young people" -- so what? Why attack Maria Shriver's daughter? What did she ever do to Graham beyond committing the apparent sin of liking Jon Stewart and being the daughter of someone he despises?
And conservatives complain about liberals engaging in personal attacks.
WND, Newsmax Spin Conspiracy Over Williams Firing Topic: Newsmax
NPR's firing of Juan Williams has kicked the ConWeb into baseless conspiracy-mongering over whether it was done on the orders of George Soros, who recently made a sizable donation to NPR.
In an Oct. 21 Newsmax article, headlined "A Soros Connection to Juan Williams Firing?" Jim Meyers claimed Williams' firing "has raised speculation that liberal NPR patron George Soros may have influenced the media organization’s decision to ax Williams on Wednesday." But Meyers cites nobody speculating that.
The conspiracy-happy Joseph Farah at WorldNetDaily, meanwhile, had no problem being more explicit: "This is a very big deal and suggests a totalitarian mindset is very much in control of NPR – not surprising given the additional support it receives from George Soros."
Farah goes on to falsely claim that "NPR concedes Williams was fired only for this comment." In fact, as the Washington Post reported, "NPR said it fired commentator Juan Williams because of a pattern of commentaries that violated the news organization's guidelines, and not solely because of Williams's statements about Muslims and terrorism on a Fox News program." The Post adds: "NPR officials say they have repeatedly told Williams that some of his statements on Fox violate NPR's ground rules for its news analysts. The rules ban NPR analysts from making speculative statements or rendering opinions on TV that would be deemed unacceptable if uttered on an NPR program."
He also calls NPR a "government media source" that is "state-sponsored, taxpayer-supported media propaganda" without offering any evidence of such "propaganda."
Klayman's Race Card: Obama Rules 'His People,' Not White People Topic: WorldNetDaily
There's garden-variety Obama derangement at WorldNetDaily, and then there's Slantie-level Obama derangement. Larry Klayman brings the latter by playing the race card in his Oct. 22 WND column:
But in the last two years, this pride has turned to deep-seated resentment and horror – as we have witnessed Obama seemingly favoring his own race and true religious allegiance over whites, Christians and Jews. On the eve of the congressional elections of 2010, when most experts predict that Obama's Democrats will lose control of at least the U.S. House of Representatives, it has become increasingly clear to not only tea partiers, but also most of the white Judeo-Christian electorate, that President Obama is not a ruler for all of the people, but rather "his people."
Suffice it to say that the majority of white Christians and Jews no longer see Obama as the president of "We the People" but instead "his" people. And, while the Republican Party may rejoice at this given its prospects in the upcoming congressional elections, there is no reason to be pleased for the country. For President Obama has not united the races and religions, but instead divided and pitted them against each other. The level of hostility one sees "in the streets," with a reverse backlash against blacks and Muslims, is frightening and potentially explosive.
When the leader of the United States ceases to be the ruler of all the people, but only a select few, the nation stands even more – particularly during a severe continuing economic depression – on the precipice of chaos, rebellion and ultimately revolution.
President Obama, even though you – given your dismal record of governance – may be our president for only another two and one half years, I implore you, as a white Christian and Jew, to be the leader of all of us.
Klayman is projecting. He's the one who's injecting race into things by insisting that Obama rules only "his people."
MRC's Poor Upset That Newspaper Covers Local News Topic: Media Research Center
The MRC's Jeff Poor has issued this tweet: "Really Washington Post? You dedicate 1/3 of your Metro frontpage to Prince Georges Co. getting a Wegman's grocery?"
Well, gosh, we wouldn't want a newspaper to report on anything happening in its readership area, would we? Especially the creation of 650 jobs in a down economy by a retailer with cachet in an area of the Washington region that has traditionally not attracted such retailers? Nah, that's not worth front-page coverage at all.
Wait -- doesn't Poor work for the MRC's Business & Media Institute, which you'd think would be excited about positive economic news in the newspaper? He sure does. Now we remember: Poor and Co. are not interested in positive economic news if the president is a Democrat.
The last thing the left always destroys is trust. No better example of this has surfaced in recent days than the Cincinnati teacher who bussed his students to the polling place – after showing them only a Democratic sample ballot. "Oh – and ice cream for all after we vote (Democrat)."
At one time, parents could have trusted the integrity of most any teacher. Today, one wonders if teachers have any integrity to trust. Illicit sex-ed classes, illicit abortions, illicit sex with students, political indoctrination, historical revisionism, enviro-pseudo science that makes a mockery of the scientific method and the putrid undercurrent of statist dependency at every turn. Oh – and now forced voting. Welcome to "education" in the Democrats' brave new world.
Teachers, not so long ago, did it "for the children." It was a personally rewarding, intellectually fulfilling and modestly paying job – with a nice, long vacation (during which many teachers worked at summer jobs, because they wanted the extra money).
Today, teaching is a dangerous, thankless job. Classrooms are infested with political and anti-religious ideologues, union seniority rules and burned-out careerists. The most disruptive and violent inmates (students) now run the asylum (school) – courtesy of the leftist fools teachers unions have elected to local, state and federal office. Teachers and administrators endure it because of the money, benefits and retirement. In other words, the system is filled with people there for all the wrong reasons – like the teacher who lacked the integrity to separate his own political views from the civics lesson he was trying to teach – a failure who will ultimately go far, if his Marxist palls are re-elected.
The left is all about rhetoric. Fine-sounding words, strung together in a clever turn of phrase – always with the iron heel of the state ready to descend on your throat, should you be so "uneducated" as to disagree with the policies of statist enslavement. "Do it for the children" has become "do it to the children," provided it will advance the communist agenda.
CNS Finally Does Article About MRC Protest Topic: CNSNews.com
How proud can the Media Research Center be of its hastily organized little protest in New York if its own news service takes three days to write up a story about it?
An Oct. 20 CNS article by Michael Chapman claims that "about 175 people attended the protest" three days earlier, but he offers no description of how he arrived at that estimate. He portrays the protest being led by TeaParty365 and the MRC was merely "invited to participate," even though he adds that the protesters "carried MRC signs addressed to the New York Times and NBC."
As opposed to the mysterious disappearing video of the protest posted and then deleted from the MRC's video site, Eyeblast," a new Eyeblast video is attached to Chapman's story -- a short, heavily edited video that includes only about 10 seconds of chanting and the rest edited clips of protesters over added music. There's no way to tell from that video that 175 people attended.
Chapman's article is pure sycophancy, uncritically and unironically repeating claims of "liberal bias" while he makes no effort to correct his own right-wing bias. There was no real work involved here outside of gathering quotes to plug into the story.
So why did it take three days to slap this together? Perhaps because everyone at CNS is otherwise occupied trying to identify words President Obama said or didn't say.
Meanwhile ... Topic: WorldNetDaily
Richard Bartholomew catches WorldNetDaily distorting a report of an alleged "Taliban-type culture" at Britain's universities. The Oct. 19 WND article describes a "top-secret report" gathered by "undercover agents" that allegedly "contains a stark warning from the MI5 chief." In fact, the report is publicly available, says nothing about "Taliban-type" culture, and information was gathered from interviews undertaken by a graduate researcher, not "undercover agents." And the quote WND attributes to MI5 head Jonathan Evans probably isn't accurate either.
Terry Jeffrey declared in an Oct. 18 CNSNews.com article:
It's official: The Obama administration has now borrowed $3 trillion, according to the U.S. Treasury Department.
It took from 1776, when the United States became an independent country, until 1990, the year after the Berlin Wall fell signaling victory in the Cold War, for the federal government to accumulate a total of $3 trillion in debt, according to the Treasury Department. It only took from Jan. 20, 2009, the day President Barack Obama was inaugurated, until Oct. 15, 2010, for the Obama administration to add $3 trillion to the federal debt.
Actually, not so much. As Media Matters details, comparing the amount of debt accumulated in the past two years to that of the first 214 years of the United States is absolutely meaningless, because one dollar today is equal to a lot less than a dollar in 1776, and it represents a drastically smaller share of the economy.
Plus, Jeffrey falsely equivocates the national debt increasing by $3 trillion (which is true) with the Obama administration being responsible for it. It appears that Jeffrey is blaming Obama for all of the FY 2009 deficit, which paid for actions (like TARP and the Bush tax cuts) that occurred under the Bush administration.
WND Misleadingly Defends Art Robinson's Love of Racist Novels Topic: WorldNetDaily
This week has brought a full-court press from WorldNetDaily in support of Art Robinson, a Republican candidate for Congress in Oregon:
David Kupelian wrote that Robinson is a "Ph.D. research scientist of international stature" and "a straight-shooting, problem-solving Reagan conservative who not only loves this country, he understands this country – what makes it work – and is willing to fight the good fight to restore it to greatness and prosperity."
Joseph Farah praised Robinson, who "was my neighbor for a few years," as "a renowned expert on the issue of so-called 'climate change,'" "an expert on the issue of civil defense," and "the kind of determined tax and budget cutter we need to replace the tax-and-spend Peter DeFazios of the world." Farah added, "Robinson's scientific background makes him highly qualified to challenge Obamacare and the myth of the carbon dioxide crisis."
Barry Farber defended Robinson from charges that he is a racist: "OK. I'm from the South. I've experienced racist candidates. But if you call a candidate a racist, you owe me a galaxy of N-words spoken with feeling, open and unsubtle disparagement of black people, cruel jokes and maybe even a flaming cross and a noose. Otherwise, don't bother me."
Farber went on to explain (and downplay) the racism charge:
Can you guess what's behind the charge of Robinson's racism? When Robinson's wife died in 1988, he homeschooled his six children, all of them now Ph.D.s, as is Robinson, veterinarians or well en-route. Robinson also developed a homeschooling curriculum that sold well and enabled all six children to go to college. An ancillary feature of Robinson's homeschooling program is a bibliography of over a hundred suggested books. In one of those books, written and set in the 1800s in Africa, a white person says something like, "These tribal people act like children. I don't think they're very smart."
And that's it! The fact that the hero of that book is a black man fighting slavery apparently did not deter the pro-DeFazio dirt-diggers from declaring "Mission Accomplished."
I wouldn't march even a baby ocelot across a rope bridge that flimsy. Too insulting to the voters' intelligence. But here we are. Robinson the racist! What intensifies the hurt is, I suspect DeFazio and his proxies know Robinson is no racist. And I'm the world's foremost authority on what I suspect.
Kupelian took his own stab at rebutting the charge:
One part of "The Robinson Curriculum" is a recommendation that students read as many as possible of the 99 short, classic historical novels for children penned by celebrated British author G.A. Henty (kind of like the "Hardy Boys" books). Now it happens that in one of these 99 Victorian-era books – all of which Robinson personally reprinted and offered to the public as an adjunct to his homeschooling curriculum – one fictional character makes a two-sentence remark while in Africa that could be considered racially insensitive by today's standards. Because of this, candidate Art Robinson is being labeled a racist.
Yes, I know, it's insane.
In fact, there's a lot more to the charge than Kupelian and Farber are letting on.
The book in question is Henty's "By Sheer Pluck," and here's the offending passage, in which Mr. Goodenough, the mentor of the young lad who's the main character, pontificates upon their arrival in Africa:
“They are just like children,” Mr. Goodenough said. “They are always either laughing or quarrelling. They are good-natured and passionate, indolent, but will work hard for a time; clever up to a certain point, densely stupid beyond. The intelligence of an average negro is about equal to that of a European child of ten years old. A few, a very few, go beyond this, but these are exceptions, just as Shakespeare was an exception to the ordinary intellect of an Englishman. They are fluent talkers, but their ideas are borrowed. They are absolutely without originality, absolutely without inventive power. Living among white men, their imitative faculties enable them to acquire a considerable amount of civilization. Left alone to their own devices they retrograde into a state little above their native savagery.”
While Kupelian downplays the words as being spoken by a "fictional character" (and Farber completely misrepresents the level of offensiveness), they appear to be representative of the late 19th century imperialist and racist attitudes in Henty's books.
A PBS bio of Henty notes that his books "are notable for their hearty imperialism, undisguised racism, and jingoistic patriotism," indicating that they they went out of print for a reason: such attitudes fell out of fashion decades ago.
And far from being "classic historical novels," a scholarly paper on Henty's work points out that they contain a "formulaic structure" and imparted "a discourse embodying the British imperial ideology." Of "By Sheer Pluck," the book containing the above offending passage, the paper states:
However, no such race-crossing is seen in By Sheer Pluck, a novel set in West Africa. On the contrary, "stereotypes about Africans begin to emerge as the setting shifts from England to the west coast of Africa" (Logan, "The Myth" 130-131). When Frank and Mr. Goodenough disembark from the ship on the coast of West Africa, the latter immediately warns the boy that "the negroes of Sierra Leone are the most indolent, the most worthless, and the most insolent in all Africa" (113). (4) This racist view is further reiterated and broadened through the boy hero Frank's observation of a troop of baboons:
in the distance Frank could hear the shouts of some natives, and supposed that the monkeys had been plundering their plantations, and that they were driving them away. The baboons passed without paying any attention to him, but Frank observed that the last of the troop was carrying a little one in one of its forearms. Frank glanced at the baby-monkey and saw that it had round its waist a string of blue beads. As a string of beads is the only attire which a negro child wears until it reaches the age of ten or eleven years old, the truth at once flashed upon Frank that the baboons were carrying off a native baby. (153-154)
The direct implication of this incident is that Henty's hero, even though he is knowledgeable about species, cannot really see a physical difference between a black baby and a monkey. (5) Therefore, the incident stands out as a striking expression of Henty's racialist perception of the Africans. As a result, early in the novel Henty establishes in the minds of his readers where he believes the natives of West Africa stand in the biological evolutionary chain. Furthermore, as statements about the intellectual capabilities and character and moral traits of the Africans come into play, the culturally-constructed racial stereotypes are also added into the picture.
Not surprisingly, the core idea in Mr. Goodenough's statement was in line with a declaration made by the Anthropological Society in 1864 "that black children develop only up to the age of twelve" (Green 233).
Obviously, Henty did not become a racist on his own. In a sense, in his novels, he was responding to the public sensitivity about the Empire, colonisation overseas and the discourses accompanying these concerns. In other words, his novels were both the reflections and the reinforcements of popular assumptions held by the majority of the British people in his own time.
The real question here is what Robinson does with Henty's books in his homeschool curriculum, particularly given that, in Kupelian's words, he encourages students to "read as many as possible." What guidance is given to homeschooling instructors in addressing the offending passage in "By Sheer Pluck" and other similar offending passages that presumably exist in other Henty books. Neither Farber nor Kupelian discuss this
To the contrary: Kupelian touts how Robinson's homeschooling curriculum "apparently works pretty well, as today all six of Art's children either have doctorate degrees or will shortly. One has a chemistry Ph.D., two have doctorates in veterinary medicine and the last three are all in the Oregon State University graduate program working toward their Ph.D.s in nuclear engineering."
Like any good capitalist, Robinson will happily sell you Henty's books (though they are old enough to be in the public domain). The Robinson Books page for the series -- you can buy all 99 for $1,199 in hardcover or $699 in paperback) describes them as featuring "Henty's heroes of honesty, integrity, hard work, courage, diligence, perseverance, personal honor, and strong Christian faith are unsurpassed." No mentionis made of the racism and imperialism that pervade the books.
The fact that Robinson defenders like Kupelian and Farber are working so hard to deflect the racism issue without explaining how Henty's racism and imperialism are dealt with leaves wide open the possibility that it isn't addressed at all. If not, Robinson should be asked why.
It's clear that WND is too far in the tank for Robinson to bother with any genuinely serious investigation of the issue.
MRC Runs Ad for New Book By Savage -- Whom Bozell Previously Denounced Topic: Media Research Center
Michael Savage is one of the very few conservatives the Media Research Center has ever regularly criticized. After Savage engaged in his infamous "get AIDS and die" rant in 2003 on his short-lived MSNBC show, the MRC's Brent Bozell praised MSNBC for firing him (albeit while also complaining that the media "turn a blind eye to liberals in the media who spew the very same hateful venom at conservatives"). Bozell cited Savage in denouncing "shock jocks" who "wish death on members of their audience," called Savage "crazy Right," and reiterated his criticism in a May column by pointing out that "Savage was loudly condemned by conservatives (like yours truly), and MSNBC was congratulated when he was fired, though some of us also pointed out that MSNBC should never have hired this bigot in the first place."
So why is the MRC's NewsBusters site accepting advertising for Savage's new book?
Apparently all is forgiven, and even the most hateful remarks can be glossed over with the passage of time.
WND Touts Video of 'Angel of Death' Morphing Into Obama Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily has already promoted the idea that Barack Obama is the Antichrist. Whywouldn't it take the next logical step?
An Oct. 19 WND article by Bob Unruh promotes an anti-abortion video in which an image of an "Angel of Death" morphs into Obama. Unruh is clearly approving of this denigrating image, weirdly presenting as fact that the video "links President Obama with the 'Angel of Death.'"
While Unruh includes a few comments critical of the video (none of which he links to) by "those who support abortion" -- a false construct -- he's much more interested promoting the "personhood" amendment the video was created to support. Unruh also misleads about Obama's record on abortion, misleadingly claiming that he "oppos[ed] as a state lawmaker even laws that would require doctors to provide medical care to infants who survive abortion attempts."
That Unruh and WND would promote such a video demonstrates just how pathological their hatred of Obama is.
I drove by what used to be a booming car dealership last week and saw nothing but a ghost town thanks to Obama taking over the auto industry and shutting down dissenters. Obama and his lynch mob in Congress have taken over our health care and turned it into something worse than any haunted house could portray. They have sunk our economy deeper than the Titanic, and the amazing thing is he is on the campaign trail for the Titanic crew – still trying to sell tickets for their disaster "cruise."
I'm really surprised that among all his "czars," Obama has not yet appointed anyone to oversee Halloween.
Under an Obama Halloween czar, the following costumes would be banned:
Barack Obama: Clearly the scariest costume on the market, (rivaled only by the Nancy Pelosi mask), has been shown to cause emotional distress in children and adults alike. Test groups reveal that many seeing a "Barack Obama" costume are prone to turn off their lights, lock their doors and rush their personal belongings into safekeeping.
George W. Bush: The Obama administration would also declare this costume illegal because homeowners often give those wearing such a mask at least a double portion of candy. And in the Obama administration, the freedom of disproportionate distribution (even based on merit or achievement) is prohibited. Besides, it makes the current administration look bad, particularly when those children wearing a George Bush costume are also embraced while homeowners repeat the phrase, "I miss you! I miss you!"
All skeletons: also banned because they too closely resemble the results of Obama health care. They fear such reminders could lead to a repeal of the Democrats' socialized medicine.
Any "Star Wars" costumes, which might fuel "the force" and the empire that, Obama himself admits, is striking back.
Bums or hobos: Any children wearing costumes with holes, patches or signs of "poverty" that reflect the Obama double-digit unemployment rate would be arrested on site.
The Wicked Witch of the West: The Federal Elections has received complaints claiming that this costume gives the current speaker of the House an unfair door-to-door campaign advantage.
On the banned candy list:
Pay Day: It is too reminiscent of the free-enterprise system that enables people to actually earn money and keep some of it.
Good and Plenty: Same thing. Banned because it points to the success of capitalism and a happier time most of us can all still recall.
Life Savers: Also banned because it makes people think about the tea-party movement and the Republican challengers. The Obama administration also wants to divert attention away from the fact that we are sinking in their failed socialist policies and the deepest in debt we have ever been.
Tootsie Pops: The candy of the Democratic Party reminding voters of that last election when they were all a "bunch of suckers."
Bazooka Bubble Gum: Chewing it is like an endorsement of the Second Amendment's right to bear arms.
Smarties: These are the people who'll be voting Republican this year, and we can't have that.
Snickers: The sound heard at Obama's campaign speeches still selling socialism as a solution.
Sugar Daddy is permitted, but would be printed with the Obama seal – to be handed out with government cheese. And, finally,
Almond Joy: Because sometimes you vote like a nut, this year we won't.
Under an Obama Halloween, in addition to the permits, children must report all candy intake and leave 96 percent of it at ACORN offices and various union drop-off sites. They will be redistributed to purchase votes in the coming weeks. Any leftover candy will be given to those Obama/Democrat supporters who are unwilling or too lazy to trick or treat for themselves.
If the government schools still have your children believing that Obama is worthy of the praise songs they sing, give them a "taste" of what that really means. After working all night collecting candy, inform them of all the restrictions and income, sales, health-care, "stimulus" and other taxes that will leave them with about three candy corns – two of which you, as parents, are entitled to for "property tax" for their bedroom in your house.
What's at stake in this election can be communicated to your little tots as simply as "candy or no candy." "Trick or Treat." Which do you prefer?