CNS Buries Donohue's Smear of New Superman Topic: CNSNews.com
Most organizations, when finding themselves in possession of an hot, controversial quote, would play up that quote.
If you're CNSNews.com, and the quote is from one of your favorite fellow conservatives, you bury it.
An Oct. 28 CNS article by Pete Winn grousing about how a new Superman comic book series features a title character that is "dark and brooding with glowering – and eerily glowing – eyes" waits until the 10th paragraph to drop this quote by the Catholic League's Bill Donohue:
“It looks like the new Superman should have great appeal to the Columbine crowd,” Bill Donahue, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights told CNSNews.com.
“After all, he’s moody – not pensive, but moody – and he’s got that hood on him. I think people who want to shoot up innocents in high schools will look at him and say, ‘He is hip.’”
In addition to burying such a hot, offensive quote and not giving anyone a chance to respond to it (he does note that "DC Comics did not return calls from CNSNews.com"), Winn also obscures the right-wing slant of who he does talk to. He identifies one person as the "senior associate editor of the youth culture magazine Plugged In" (who complains that "it seems like ‘dark’ and ‘brooding’ – and everything that goes with that – sells") without noting that Plugged In is a publication of Focus on the Family and, one can presume, is biased against anything dark and brooding that it can't demonize.
Mind you, this is all about what the character looks like. There's no evidence that Winn, Donohue, the guy from Plugged In or anyone else involved in this article -- none of whom have any acknowledged awareness of the comic book culture -- went much beyond the cover art or the provided synopsis of this particular story arc. Indeed, Winn goes on to write:
The creators also portray the new Superman as politically correct -- refusing to become “an instrument of politics or policy” of the United States, saying things like: “I was raised in this country. I believe in this country. Does it have its flaws? Yes. Does it have its moments of greatness? Yes. Bottom line is, it's my home and I'll always carry those values around with me. But if I do what I can do just for the U.S., it's going to destabilize the whole world. It could even lead to war.”
So saving the whole world, and not just the United States, is politically correct?
Musser strikes again in an Oct. 28 AIM column making this bizarre claim:
In a word, the Nazi quest for Lebensraum in the East was an early pioneering attempt at what is today called the Green Economy. It was a backward eco-imperial plan of Aryan sustainable development, all at the expense of Jews and Slavs, and all dressed up in the latest scientific vocabulary of the day. To fixate on Nazi technology, industry, and the economy, therefore, as the explanation for that all that was evil about the Third Reich, is to subvert the means of holocaustal murder with the motive. The Nazi economy was merely the means by which the holocaust was paid for. The Russian Front provided the opportunity for murder. However, the motive of the holocaust was an Aryan environmentalism rooted in a romantic, evolutionary philosophy of man and nature, notwithstanding Speer’s defense at Nuremberg.
AIM won't tell you, of course, that Musser's entire Nazi-environmentalist link has been discredited.
According to the Seattle Times' David Postman, Musser has previously cited professors Raymond Dominick and Peter Staudenmaier to support this claim. But Dominick said his words have been "twisted almost into its opposite." Germany's conservation movement began in the 19th century, but the Nazis co-opted it: "But it is not the kind of conservation that the Greens preach. For the Greens, this kind of racist conservation is not part of their world view at all. I see the Greens as descendents of those parts of the conservation movement that were not tainted by Nazism." Dominick continued:
Well the one that’s so problematic is the racist environmentalism, has largely disappeared. And that’s because in Germany and elsewhere, the lessons of the Nazi debacle and devastation had discredited racist thinking. I wouldn’t suggest that there are no racists left on the planet, and maybe wouldn’t even suggest that there are no racists among the Greens. But certainly among the Greens, racism is antithetical to what they preach. If you follow the program of the Green movement, and in Germany and Australia, it’s very similar, the Greens preach profound tolerance of human diversity.
What the Nazis preached was the genocidal extermination of people they considered unworthy of life. It’s hard to find a more categorical difference than that. And if you run down the programs of the Greens and the Nazis point by point, you find similar kinds of diametrical opposites. For example, the Greens preach non-violence in international affairs and I imagine that’s part of what motivated Senator Brown’s confrontation with President Bush. The Nazis of course were the opposite. At the very core of Hitler’s world view was this militaristic, aggressive world domination. If you begin to talk about domestic politics, the differences are profound there too. One that leaps out to me most obviously is the feminism that’s preached by the Green movement. The Nazis were as patriarchal as any political movement that’s ever existed, and of course the Nazis preached totalitarian dictatorship. The Greens preach the exact opposite, grassroots democracy. So to say that the Greens and the Nazis are closely related is to defy the evidence, I would say.
Similarly, Staudenmeier says his work has been misappropriated:
I have heard from a number of conservative political figures in the United States, where I live, who are eager to use my historical work as a weapon in the struggle against what they see as the Green menace. These people refer to my research on ecofascism as a cheap tactic to impugn virtually all varieties of political environmentalism. In my opinion, this is not a serious way to approach important historical questions.
The Nazis certainly did not come to power because the predecessors of the Greens in Germany were too vocal in their opposition to the militarist and authoritarian tendencies of their day.
Postman also contacted environmental historian J.R. McNeill for his views of Musser's work:
There is a core of truth to the proposition that some (by no means all or even most) Nazis cherished a romanticized ideal of German nature, free from the ravages of industrialization. But this was a low priority among the leadership, and never carried out. The laws of 1935 on nature conservation were not enforced or followed, as the regime preferred heavy industry, development and rearmament. It would be more accurate to say a small minority within the Nazi party took nature conservation seriously, but they were unable to prevail over the mainstream, which for reasons of national power and full employment favored coal, steel, armaments, etc.
Postman further contacted University of Maryland professor Thomas Zeller, co-editor of the book "How Green Were the Nazis? Nature, Environment, and Nation in the Third Reich." Needless to say, he too thinks Musser's views don't reflect reality:
This polemic has been used a lot and I'm sure this is going to continue to crop up, unfortunately. It's convenient, but doesn't advance our understanding of Nazism or of environmental history. Either you say the Greens are latter-day Nazis, or people from the extreme right wing say these people, the Nazis, weren't all that bad. Either view distorts the historical record for a current-day political purpose.
There's much more from Postman discrediting Musser, but don't look for AIM -- who supposedly believe in accuracy in media -- to tell you about it.
WND Can't Stop Lying About 'Civilian National Security Force' Topic: WorldNetDaily
You already know that WorldNetDaily is a flamingly dishonest website. Bob Unruh's Oct. 28 article is just one more reason why.
In it, Unruh asserts that Rep. Charles Rangel's proposed Universal National Service Act is the manifestation of President Obama's desire to "create a 'Civilian National Security Force' as big and well-funded as the $650 billion-plus U.S. military, a mysterious campaign promise ignored by virtually the entire media except WND."
First, Unruh is outright lying when he claims that Obama's discussion of a "Civilian National Security Force" has been "mysterious." As we documented when WND first peddled this bogus story more than two years ago, Obama was referring to an expansion of the State Department to create the ability to "deploy teams that combine agricultural specialists and engineers and linguists and cultural specialists who are prepared to go into some of the most dangerous areas alongside our military."
Second, Rangel's desire to create a national service requirement has nothing at all to do with Obama. Rangel has introduced verisons of this same bill at least three times previously, in 2003, 2006, and 2007.
Third, WND this story already -- back in July, when the bill was first introduced. AS we noted at the time, reporter Chelsea Schilling pulled the same bogus link to Obama's purportedly "mysterious" statement that Unruh does now, with the added benefit of citing a writer at the website of conspiracy-monger Alex Jones as backup. Unruh offers no new information beyond a comment from "a WND reader who read the plans online."WND's readers must be idiots, since this one apparently missed the original fearmongering WND did.
Fourth, the most recent action on the bill as of this writing is that it has been referred to a subcommittee. No hearings have been held on it. This lack of action makes it all but certain that the bill will die in committee with the end of this particular Congress at the end of the year. When the new Congress convenes in January, Rangel will have to reintroduce the bill yet again.
Unruh doesn't mention that his recycled fearmongering is essentially for naught. Why would he? This is the kind of story that indicates Unruh had a story quota to fill, which he did with this empty, meaningless, fundamentally dishonest piece of hackery.
But then, that's the kind of dishonest hackery that makes Unruh such a valued WND employee.
Tim Graham's Double Standard on Co-Opting Others' Agendas Topic: NewsBusters
Tim Graham is shocked -- shocked! -- that a certain media watchdog that doesn't employ him (but does employ me) would latch onto someone else's event.
Graham's Oct. 29 NewsBusters post asserts that "One prominent liberal supporter/exploiter of the Comedy Central 'sanity' rally is Media Matters for America, which will glom onto the march in its effort to kill Fox News Channel."
Yeah! Graham's employer, the Media Research Center, would never do something so gauche as to glom onto somebody else's big Washington rally.
WND Finds A Creepy New Poster Boy To Whitewash Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily just keeps latching onto people it thinks are poster boys for its far-right agenda, whose questionable backgrounds WND must then bury in order to make the poster-boy stuff plausible. WND did it first with a homeschooling family run by a controlling, abusive father, and then with a Oath Keepers member who's a suspect in a child abuse case.
Now, WND has found another piece of work to champion, the full truth about whom it must once again hide. From an Oct. 28 WND article by Brian Fitzpatrick:
Filing a complaint about President Obama's eligibility has led retired Navy Lt. Cmdr. Walter Fitzpatrick III into some very deep waters.
The 58-year-old Naval Academy graduate is now paying the price for fighting City Hall. Fitzpatrick was arrested Wednesday for missing a court date, and he now sits in jail after allegedly being beaten and tasered by Monroe County, Tenn., deputies.
"I've been told he's been beaten up pretty good, enough to require X-rays," freelance reporter J.B. Williams told WND.
So Brian Fitzpatrick has essentially claimed that Walter Fitzpatrick was jailed for questioning Obama's "eligibility." Only that's not the case.
After a lot of conspiracy-mongering about purported "corruption in the county courts and sheriff's office," as exemplifed by the claim that "state law places a two-year limit on the term of a grand jury foreman, but Monroe County grand jury foreman Gary Pettway has occupied the office for 27 years" -- really, that's the only actual alleged offense cited -- Brian Fitzpatrick finally hints at the truth in the 18th paragraph of his article: "In April, Fitzpatrick attempted to execute a citizen's arrest of Pettway at the county courthouse, resulting in his own arrest for allegedly inciting a riot."
Fortunately, the Associated Press tells the story that WND won't -- specifically, that the jailing of Walter Fitzpatrick had nothing at all to do with his birther tendencies:
Fitzpatrick is charged along with Darren W. Huff, 40, a former militia member from Dallas, Ga., accused of inciting a riot at the Monroe County Courthouse in April while coming to Fitzpatrick's defense after Fitzpatrick's intrusion on the closed grand jury session.
Huff, who also faces related federal charges, was among about a dozen armed people who gathered at the courthouse. Records show Huff had said that he and others planned to take over the courthouse in Madisonville and arrest "domestic enemies of the United States engaged in treason."
Fitzpatrick disrupted the grand jury in a failed attempt to arrest Gary Pettway, who Fitzpatrick claims was unlawfully serving as foreman after serving continuously for almost three decades.
Blackwood previously dismissed a defense motion that Fitzpatrick and Huff were indicted by a "tainted" grand jury process and refused to dismiss felony and misdemeanor charges that include civil rights intimidation.
Ironically, Brian Fitzpatrick links to this very same AP article -- but only for the puprose of repeating the claim by a local district attorney who "said in a previous court filing that rulings in such challenges of grand juror qualifications show there is 'no limit on the number of two-year terms for which a foreman may be reappointed.'" The rest of the article is completely ignored.
This is the state of journalism at WND. Recent hire Brian Fitzpatrick hasdemonstratedall too well his ability to live down to those standards.
WorldNetDaily's Joseph Farah is so cute when he pretends his website has standards.
In an Oct. 27 WND article responding to reader complaints about ads for Democratic candidates popping up on the site -- which in all likelihood is less about the claimed argument of "free political expression" than it is about maximizing revenue -- there appears this:
"WND advertising messages should never imply endorsement – especially political ads," explained Farah. "WND commentators, including me, make their views clear in their columns and videos. None of them, including mine, necessarily reflect the corporate positions of WND. WND has rarely ever offered corporate positions in the form of editorials, like most newspapers do. That's because WND is and always will be primarily a news source. Commentary and political opinions are secondary to the primary mission of breaking news. This commitment and characterization distinguishes WND from many other websites and many other news organizations – perhaps even most of them."
Farah also reminds that, unlike any other news pioneer on the Net, he spent his entire professional career in the news business as a reporter, editor, top news executive and publisher and attempted, 14 years ago, to carry over the highest standards and practices from the old world of newspapering into the new medium of the Internet.
"We're doing the same thing we set out to do – with the same standards, the same mission," he added. "We're not an opinion site, like so many others out there. We are an independent news operation like no other in the world. There is no litmus test for the expression of political viewpoints at WND – unlike most other websites and media organizations. So, certainly, there has never been any temptation to ban political advertising based on the views of anyone at WND."
That's pretty much all balderdash. Farah's claim that WND is "not an opinion site" is false -- most original WND "news" articles are so slanted, through distortion or outright elimination of alternate sides of the story, that they are synonymous with opinion. We've caught so many falsehoods and misrepresentations in WND "news" stories that we've lost count. Only Farah could believe that such slanted, sloppy reporting equals having "the highest standards and practices."
Farah is also disingenous in pretending that his opinions do not represent the "corporate positions" of the company of which he is CEO and largest shareholder. Sorry, dude, but WND is Farah and Farah is WND. There's no logical reason to pretend otherwise.
And there is very much a litmus test for political viewpoints at WND -- liberal opinions must be heavily outweighed by conservative opinions.
See how silly Farah is being? Pretending he operates a real "news source" is goofy enough, but insisting he has nothing whatsoever to do with the website he runs? That's goofiness on stilts.
NewsBusters Purports to Read Jon Stewart's Mind Topic: NewsBusters
Media Research Center have occasional fits of mind-reading. That tendency popped up again in an Oct. 28 NewsBusters post by Lachlan Markay.
Responding to Jon Stewart's statement that, in Markay's words, "the agenda the administration has managed to get through "has felt timid at times,'" Markay insisted:
Under "timid," read "not liberal enough." Stewart's complaint was that the Obama agenda has not come to completely dominate the national political scene. He's not concerned that perhaps the president has overreached. No, to the extent that there are problems with Obama's policies, they are due only to the fact that those policies are not far enough to the left.
Markay, of course, does not back this assertion up. He's merely pretending to read Stewart's mind, insisting that he can divine what Stewart said better than Stewart himself.
Molotov Mitchell starts off his latest WorldNetDaily video by smearing Feisal Abdul Rauf, the imam who wants to build an Islamic center near the site of Ground Zero in New York, as "buddy-buddy with terrorists and a security threat in his own right," adding that he "simultaneously claims to build bridges while protecting his terrorist buddies as they blow them up." Mitchell then claims Rauf embodies a "combination of arrogance and idiocy that makes what I like to call idio-arrogance."
Then, ol' Molotov demonstrates his own idio-arrogance -- or more accurate, projection -- by explaining what it means to be "sharia-compliant":
Day one: If we're going to whip this country into sharia shape, we gotta deal with the gays first and foremost. Because under sharia law, homosexuals get the death penalty, so we'll need to form a new mujahadeen death squad to go and find Barney Frank, Rachel Maddow, that California judge who overturned Prop 8, the other California judge that just recently attacked don't ask, don't tell, as well as any gay entertainers because Allah does not like the show tunes. Throw in half the women in the Democratic Party, and we're off to a healthy sharia start.
Um, isn't that pretty much the same thing that Mitchell himself wants? As we've detailed, Mitchell has repeatedly engaged in gay-bashing and even endorsed a proposed Uganda law that would execute people merely for being gay -- after all, he's on record as favoring the "abolition of homosexuality."
Even Mitchell's graphics show projection:
Is Mitchell denouncing sharia law -- or wishing he could get away with it? We report, you decide.
Newsmax Gives Rick Scott the McCollum Treatment Topic: Newsmax
Having fully cast off Bill McCollum by endoring the man he lost to in the Florida Republican gubernatorial primary, Newsmax follows up on its endorsement of Rick Scott by doing for him what it did for McCollum -- slanting its coverage of the race to favor Scott.
Here are some post-endorsement Newsmax headlines, taken from its wire for the race between Scott and Democrat Alex Sink:
Newsmax also did an Oct. 25 interview with Scott. As his been the case since Newsmax started working for Scott instead of against him, there was no mention of Scott's sordid history as head of a hospital company convicted of massively defrauding Medicare (something Newsmax was more than eager to discuss when it was on McCollum's side). Instead, interviewer Ashley Martella lobbed softball questions and uncritically described Scott as a "former health care industry executive." The accompanying article non-iroinically described Scott as a "successful businessman" -- something it would never have called Scott two months ago.
It seems it really doesn't matter who it's shilling for -- Newsmax only knows how to slant its news to whatever its interests are at any given moment. That's the sign of a political organization, not a news organization.
Which makes us wonder: Did Newsmax CEO Christopher Ruddy donate to Scott's campaign like he did to McCollum's? And if so, will he stay silent about it, just like he failed to tell Newsmax readers about his behind-the-scenes fundraising for McCollum?
CNS Finds New Obama Words To Obsess Over Topic: CNSNews.com
Now that its ginned-up "creator" controversy has been resolved, CNSNews.com had to quickly scramble to find another word or two that President Obama said (or didn't say) to obsess over. Thus, we have an Oct. 26 article by Penny Starr:
President Barack Obama repeatedly has called the United States a “big, messy Democracy" in his many campaign stops around the country in recent weeks.
That's pretty much the entire story. No explanation on why CNS is focusing on those words -- nothing. Just three words. They might as well be random.
The boys at NewsBusters are doing their best to downplay the case of Lauren Valle, the liberal activist who was stomped in the head by a supporter of Rand Paul outside a venue where a Kentucky Senate debate involving Paul took place.
Matthew Balan was annoyed that "CNN devoted seven news briefs on Tuesday to an assault on a MoveOn.org employee by Rand Paul supporters caught on camera outside the Kentucky Senate debate on Monday evening, but failed to mention a second assault on Rand Paul supporter by a booster of Paul's opponent, Jack Conway. Most of the briefs also omitted how the MoveOn employee was trying to get an embarrassing picture of Paul."
Kyle Drennen complained that CBS interviewed Valle but "in September 2009 the network failed to give any coverage to a man having his finger bitten off by a MoveOn.org supporter at a California ObamaCare rally." Drennen continued: "In addition, on Wednesday, Smith did not report the fact that a Rand Paul supporter was assaulted by a Jack Conway supporter at the very same debate rally on Monday."
Drennen also wrote in an update: "New video obtained by RedState.com shows Valle run up to Rand Paul's car and shove a sign in his face. That runs contrary to Valle's assertion to Smith that she was 'simply there to hold a sign.'"
Actually, that's not quote what it shows. TPM writes:
What do we learn from the new video? Not a lot. It depicts the chaotic clash of supporters outside the Senate debate in Lexington that preceded the stomping, just as all witness accounts and Valle's own recounting have said. Conservatives touting the video say it shows Valle "attempting to assault" Paul but it also appears she was getting pushed from behind.
Regardless of what the clip adds to the story, the fact remains that Profitt stomped on her head, leaving him open to criminal investigation and the Paul campaign open to criticism and public shaming.
Mark Finkelstein, meanwhile, is the only NewsBusters writer moved to actually condemn the stomping. But even he found a way to deflect attention from it:
The guy who put his foot on an anti-Paul protester and pushed should be made to answer to the law. Period. That doesn't mean Chris Matthews had to break out the tired Nazi metaphor. But he did.
On this evening's Hardball, after rolling tape of the incident that occurred outside the Kentucky senatorial debate last night, Matthews dredged up the creakiest cliché in politics.
CHRIS MATTHEWS: Wo-w-w-w. I don' t know what to make of that, but it reminds me of the 30s in another country.
If Matthews is going to go the Nazi-metaphor route, can't he at least have the courage of doing so straight up, instead of resorting to lamely-laminated references?
Funny, we don't recall anyone at NewsBusters complaing when their fellow right-wingers drag out the Nazi metaphor against President Obama.
Reisman starts off by taking offense at President Obama's advice to gay teens, screeching that he is "urging vulnerable youths into a premature sexual life riddled with crippling disease and death," adding, "Why tell children to feel 'pride' and 'strength' in adopting an early death sentence when you are too immature to know much of anything? How cruel, how outrageously heartless!"
From there, Reisman presents as a example of "homosexual trauma" a 1988 ad (which she misidentifies as 1998) from a AIDS clinic stating that one in five "prospective partners could be infected with the virus that causes AIDS," claiming that the clinic "inadvertently confirmed homosexist sodomy as a death wish," asserting that "The data find roughly 1 in 5 homosexist males are an HIV, or, if you prefer, AIDS, vector."
Reisman seems not to understand that 22 years ago is not now. Also, "homosexist"? What does that even mean?
Still, she continues:
Depending on the data one consults, the average homosexual male has between 50 and 150 sex partners, and many die before age 20. Mr. Obama told these confused boys and girls to "reach out to people you trust," who would tell the child he or she is "gay." Obama's contention that teen homosexism as "a source of pride and a source of strength" is contraindicated by medial facts – a very short-lived period of "pride" or "strength."
AIDS has been transferred via oral sodomy while condoms during anal sodomy is an insider joke, albeit a lethal one (a penetration model increasingly fashionably among copy-cat "straights").
Statistically, youngsters who think themselves "gay" can expect to contract scores of STDs and to die young of AIDS. This is not "pride" but mass suicide based on how the human body responds to ongoing sodomy.
Reisman concludes by citing more ancient data, this time from a 1992 magazine article about the number of adolescents infected with AIDS who she presumeswere infected by adult "homosexist males," then asks, "Why haven't 10,000 or more homosexist males been arrested and convicted of mass boy murder?"
The fact that Reisman -- like Molotov Mitchell -- must go back 20 years to dig up statistics that don't reflect realities demonstrates the speciousness of her argument. Not to mention how, like with her anti-Kinsey jihad, personal animosity trumps anything remotely resembing sound research.
AIM's Kincaid Tries Lame Guilt-By-Association to Smear Stewart Rally Topic: Accuracy in Media
Cliff Kincaid goes for some laughably crude guilt-by-association in his Oct. 26 Accuracy in Media column, highlighting a statement by "Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers" that this weekend's Washington rallies by Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert are "worth attending."
That hit-and-run smear is pretty much it. Kincaid devotes the rest of his column to attacking Ayers.
Then again, Kincaid wants to see gays die, so this little fit of amoral ranting is not exactly out of character.
A $41,000 "all-electric" car heavily hyped by the Obama administration is now being dubbed a "fraud" because it requires gasoline for the driver to get anywhere, Jerome Corsi's Red Alert reports.
Last summer, General Motors, commonly called "Government Motors" since the Obama administration takeover, unveiled the first of its "Obamamobiles," the Chevrolet Volt, a compact electric car.
"At the end of July, Obama allowed himself at a GM plant in Michigan to be photographed looking somewhat nervous and uncomfortable behind the wheel of a production-line model of the Chevy Volt," Corsi wrote. "Now it turns out the GM promotion about the Volt being the first truly all-electric car was just a lot of hype."
Corsi, unsurprisingly, gets things wrong. First, the Volt is not an "Obamamobile"; development started in 2006 and it made its first public appearance at the 2007 Detroit Auto Show -- both well before GM needed government intervention.
Second, the Volt was never promoted as an "all-electric car." It always had an internal combustion engine, as noted in the 2007 unveiling. What the Volt has that other hybrid cars don't is electric drive -- that is, an electric motor drives the car, and the internal combustion engine generates electricity but is not directly connected to the driving wheels.
Corsi also writes: "Radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh has scoffed that the $7,500 tax credit constitutes nothing less than an admission by the Obama administration that nobody wants to buy the Volt." In fact, GM reports that initial demand for the Volt is so strong that it's planning to boost production.
Corsi adds, "Even worse, TopSpeed.com reported that the Chevy Volt's 1.4-liter 80 horsepower engine will only run on premium gasoline." Corsi doesn't explain why that's somehow "worse," given that numerous cars on the market already require premium fuel. Further, the Volt uses premium for a reason, because of the way the motor is designed to be as small and as high-efficiency as possible.
With such easily discredited claims, no wonder Corsi couldn't get anyone to pay for his now-free (but still not functional to free subscribers) newsletter.