MRC Desperate to Dismiss Stewart-Colbert Rally Topic: Media Research Center
NewsBusters ran a live stream of Glenn Beck's "Restoring Honor" rally. It, along with the rest of the Media Research Center, is working overtime to dismiss and denigrate the Jon Stewart/Stephen Colbert Rally to Restore Sanity And/Or Fear.
As we previously detailed, the MRC went on a misleading attack over the presence of the former Cat Stevens at the rally. But that wasn't the only attack:
Matthew Sheffield whined that he "couldn't quite figure out the point" of the rally and took pictures of rally signs he didn't like, claiming that they proved the rally "had its share of hatred."
Tim Graham complained that the Washington Post portrayed the rally as "not 'liberal,' but merely 'distinct' from conservatism" and that it used "the conservative label twice in the 'sanity' story, but never 'liberal.'"
NOel Sheppard crowed about how Dick Armey and Cokie Roberts refuted Ariana Huffington's "typical left-wing nonsense about the significance of the previous day's Jon Stewart/Stephen Colbert rally."
Scott Whitlock groused that "Good Morning America on Sunday skipped the hateful signs at Jon Stewart's rally."
Kyle Drennen was upset that CBS dared to 'chide conservative figures for divisiveness" without noting "Stewart's own long list of vulgar name-calling incidents."
At the MRC's Culture and Media Institute, Alana Goodman insisted that "The crowd at the event appeared to be highly political and divisive – and almost exclusively liberal."
At TimesWatch, Clay Waters was offended that New York Times reporters were "enjoying the rally both in print and through live blogging while hyping the numbers."
A CNSNews.com article by Dan Joseph insisted that "Much of the crowd at liberal comedian Jon Stewart’s “Rally to Restore Sanity,” held Saturday on the National Mall, expressed criticism of the Tea Party and the Republican Party while praising President Barack Obama and other figures on the political left." Josephfurther complained: "While the rally was billed as being “non-partisan,” signs carried by participants almost exclusively attacked conservative politicians and commentators such as Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin and the Fox News Channel, e.g., 'Keep Fear Alive, Watch Fox News.'"
That's a lot of work to try and shoot down one little rally. Then again, the MRC repeatedlydefended Beck's rally and highlighted about how clean the grounds were afterwards. We don't recall anyone at the MRC noting that Stewart made a point of asking rally participants to clean up after themselves.
WND's Election Day Scaremongering Topic: WorldNetDaily
It's election day, so WorldNetDaily has one last change to scare people into supporting its far-right agenda. So today's WND commentary page is littered with such scaremongering:
Though thoroughly trained in Marxist theory and tactics in his early career as a community organizer, Barack Obama abandoned the strategy of gradualism and turned the Long March into a headlong charge. Aided by Reid and Pelosi, he staged a frontal assault, above the radar and in full view, on any remaining vestiges of constitutional constraints. As a result, in an irony so sweet as to suggest divine intervention, the proud community organizer was responsible for the organization of a new and vibrant political community: the tea-party movement. Named for the original Boston Tea Party of 1773, these grass-roots organizations provided a vehicle for political action for mainstream Americans who are not by nature political animals.
Barack Obama will hug Hugo Chavez, meet with Ahmadinejad, bow to the king of Saudi Arabia, but he calls freedom-loving Americans "enemies."
This is not new. Barack Obama's Department of Homeland Security refuses to use the word "terrorist" when referring to Islamic groups that have declared war on us. No, Obama's administration reserves the word "terrorist" for American citizens who oppose his agenda. The Obama "terrorists" include Americans who are pro-life, pro-marriage, pro-Second Amendment, pro-Constitution citizens, including veterans in the line of fire for our freedom. The Department of Homeland Security exists to defend us from our enemies. Instead, Obama has used it to declare us – freedom loving Americans – as the enemy.
In 2008, many tried to warn voters that Obama was not remotely close to what he was portrayed. We tried to warn voters that he would be a disaster and that the damage his administration would wreak would be calamitous to the fabric of our nation. People didn't listen – they bought the lie – they bought the creation. They bought the feel-good fictional account because to buy the truth would have first meant confronting the truth.
People who voted for Obama are like those who have an opportunity to get a real job or make something productive of themselves, but instead choose to languish in a nowhere job and make excuses for never climbing out of the basement of life. People could have made different choices separate from Obama or McCain before it came down to them being the only choices, but they chose not to. Now, the nation will be paying for his agenda for generations to come.
Election Day isn't the candidate's day – it is our day to have our say, and either we treat it as such or we buy into a theatrical production, and stay mired in the same dead-end position we're in.
Newsmax's Patten Takes the Apocalyptic Route Topic: Newsmax
Newsmax's David Patten goes apocalyptic in describing what he thinks will happen to Democrats in today's election, as intimated by the headline "Debacle of Historic Proportions Looms for Democrats":
Tsunami. Earthquake. Hurricane. Even as pundits struggle to find new metaphors to describe the scope of the GOP landslide expected on Tuesday, the latest polls indicate the midterm grass-roots wave could be even more powerful than analysts are predicting.
Respected political gurus Charlie Cook and Stuart Rothenberg said Monday morning that a 60-seat GOP gain in the House is possible, and a six- to eight-seat GOP gain in the Senate is likely.
"If we're wrong, it's higher," Cook told the audience of MSNBC's "Morning Joe."
Like a clarion warning of an impending catastrophe, a new Gallup/USA Today poll released Monday indicates that Democrats could be in for a political bloodletting of historical proportions.
Patten also quotes "Longtime GOP strategist Roger Stone" offering his opinion (which, needless to say, mirrors that of Patten's). This would be the same guy who we saw marching in the New York gay pride and exchanging licks with a fellow participant.
Stone's outside-the-GOP-lifestyle life surfaced most recently when New York gubernatorial candidate Carl Paladino -- whom Stone had been advising to the tune of $1 million -- made some anti-gay remarks.
Patten had previously touted how "Paladino's campaign reportedly received an important boost from GOP political operative Roger Stone," but Newsmax did not report on the Paladino-Stone gay controversy.
AIM's Kincaid: Yes, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar Really Is Scary Topic: Accuracy in Media
Several comments were implicitly directed at Bill O’Reilly of Fox News for stating on ABC’s “The View” that Muslims had attacked the U.S. on 9/11, when he obviously meant to say that Muslim extremists had done so. To drive his point home, during a fake debate with Stephen Colbert, Stewart introduced former basketball star Kareem Abdul-Jabbar as a Muslim (“Kareem Abdul-Jabbar is Muslim.”) who didn’t scare anybody except for other basketball players.
“We’re all on the same team,” Abdul-Jabbar proclaimed.
It was this effort to minimize the Muslim threat that was offensive, coming as it did just hours after explosive packages had been mailed to Jewish synagogues in the U.S. and intercepted before they could injure, kill, and destroy.
In his arrogance and condescension, Stewart cannot fathom that Americans understand that Kareem Abdul-Jabbar is not scary. But we also know that Muslims are behind most of the terrorism targeting America, and that Muslim countries are facilitating these attacks. Except for one brief and esoteric comment to the effect that there are things that we have reason to fear in life, Stewart pretended that the threat didn’t exist. He failed to deliver the sanity he promised.
As far as Colbert was concerned—despite the facetious title of his own rally—the fact is that fear is sometimes justified, especially when the nation is under attack from within and without. It is this fear that is driving action in America today, as tens of millions of Americans work to avoid the destruction of the American dream and the American way of life. The only thing Stewart said in their defense was that they were not all racists.
-- Cliff Kincaid, Oct. 31 Accuracy in Media column
Pat Buchanan, former communications director to President Ronald Reagan, former presidential candidate and WND commentator, has come to the conclusion that a courageous Republican legislator should move a bill for impeachment of President Bush.
I reluctantly agree – and for the same reasons.
President Bush has had nearly five years in office to honor his oath of office and enforce immigration laws in this country.
He has not only failed, he has intentionally neglected this sworn duty, instead claiming he prefers to promote a vague immigration "reform" plan that involved a "guest worker" program that has served as an encouragement to the most massive influx of illegal immigration this country has ever seen.
Obama must be challenged on every front – even if we don't win every battle. It's time to go on offense, buddy.
We won't get a second chance this time.
Obama should be impeached.
This isn't just about policy disagreements. It's about the biggest and most egregious abuse of power in American history.
If you think I'm exaggerating, tell me how.
It's time to step up to the plate. Americans are not sending Republicans to Congress this year in record numbers because they want a counterbalance to Obama in Washington. They are sending them there to change the direction of the country – radically.
What's wrong with impeachment?
Impeachment is a political process. It's part of the Constitution. It might fail, because there are plenty of wimps among Republican members as well as a fair number of Democrats apparently sworn to overthrowing our constitutional system.
Nevertheless, political battles are won on offense, not defense.
NewsBusters Also Gives Art Robinson's Love of Racist Novels A Pass Topic: NewsBusters
WorldNetDaily isn't the only ConWeb outlet who's eager to give Oregon congressional candidate Art Robinson a pass on his love of racist novels by G.A. Henty.
An Oct. 13 NewsBusters post by Jack Coleman declared that Rachel Maddow's mention of it meant that "Cable television doesn't get any shabbier than this." Coleman highlighted that it was a character in Henty's "By Sheer Pluck" making the racist statement in question, as if that matters. He then writes:
What if Robinson had acquired the rights to the works of Harriet Beecher Stowe? Would Maddow cherry picking the vile opinions of a specific character -- plantation owner Simon Legree -- also render Robinson a racist?
The point, as we noted, is that the racist opinions of the character are not presented as "vile" in the book -- indeed, they are reflections of the 19th century era in which they were written. The character is not a Simon Legree villain; he's the mentor of the young man who is the story's main character and is considered a hero.
The question that needs to be asked is why Robinson promotes a book that presents such a racist as a hero, and an author whose entire ouvere -- which Robinson wants his homeschool students to read -- presumably contains similar outdated imperialistic attitudes as a core component of his curriculum. Robinson has not disclosed how his curriculum addresses the issue of Henty's racism and imperialism.
The only response we can find is Robinson declaring during a debate, "Henty's books are not racist, and I'm not racist." But that's a meaningless answer that doesn't address how his curriculum deals with it.
MRC Won't Tell the Whole Truth About Cat Stevens, Salman Rushdie Topic: Media Research Center
In an Oct. 31 NewsBusters post, Brad Wilmouth touted how "Sean Hannity informed viewers that Restoring Sanity Rally participant and singer Cat Stevens - who converted to Islam in the 1970s and changed his name to Yusuf Islam - several times declared that Salman Rushdie should be killed after Iranian leader, the Ayatollah Khomeni, issued a fatwa on the British author in 1989 for publishing his book the Satanic Verses."
Similarly, a Nov. 1 MRC TimesWatch post by Clay Waters complained that a New York Times story "failed to mention the 1989 controversy over comments Yusuf made in support of the fatwa from the Ayatollah Khomeini that novelist Salman Rushdie be killed for insulting Muhammad in 'The Satanic Verses.'"
Neither Wilmouth nor Waters mentioned that Stevens/Yusuf has backpedaled on the claim.
According to a Wikipedia page on the incident, Yusuf backpedaled the day after originally making the statement, insisting he was only talking about the punishment Quran advocates for blasphemy. And Yusuf says on his website, "I never called for the death of Salman Rushdie; nor backed the Fatwa issued by the Ayatollah Khomeini – and still don’t," though he says that Rushdie's book "destroyed the harmony between peoples and created an unnecessary international crisis."
Isn't the full story of Yusuf's comments worth reporting? Not at the MRC, where only half the story serves its purpose of inflaming conservatives.
NewsBusters, WND Run With Murky Audiotape Topic: NewsBusters
When Andrew Breitbart's websites posted audio they claimed were of reporters at a CBS affiliate in Alaska plotting to smear Alaska Senate candidate Joe Miller, a good portion of the ConWeb was eager to report the claim -- and, in the process, downplay or ignore completely doubts about it.
Tom Blumer jumped on it in an Oct. 31 NewsBusters post declaring that the reporters were intent on "finding (creating?) an incident similar to one involving a Rand Paul campaigner and a MoveOn.org protester in Kentucky 'so we can put out a twitter/facebook alert.'" This was immediately followed by Mark Finkelstein uncritically repeating Sarah Palin's "shocking allegations" regarding the audiotape, adding that "this could shake up the Alaska race--and CBS."
Meanwhile, over at WorldNetDaily, Aaron Klein wrote that "the journalists can be heard plotting to 'find' a 'child molester' among the politician's supporters."
But things are not as clear-cut as NewsBusters and WND portray them. The TV station has stated that "The Miller campaign's analysis of the recording is incorrect in many material ways" and that "The complete conversation was about what others might be able to do to cause disruption within the Miller campaign, not what KTVA could do." Even Fox News has reported that it "cannot verify" what Palin and Breitbart have said about the audio's contents. Politico's Ben Smith added, "The transcript does not, in fact, make it terribly clear what they're talking about."
Despite such significant doubts being raised, NewsBusters has not mentioned them as of this writing, continuing to portray Palin's and Breitbart's skewed interpretation as fact. WND's Klein did note part of the TV station's response, but immediately followed with an attack on it by a blogger -- a response courtesy WND typically does not extend to liberals regarding right-wing claims.
But why would WND and NewsBusters let the facts get in the way? There's an election coming!
UPDATE: Plus, there's Breitbart's shoddy track record of sloppy and dishonest "journalism." WND and NewsBusters didn't mention that, either.
UPDATE 2: A NewsBusters post by Kyle Drennen complained that CBS' "Early Show" didn't mention the story. Like his colleagues, Drennen didn't mention the doubts that have been raised about the audio.
And Accuracy in Media pounced on it as well. Unlike the rest of the ConWeb, Don Irvine does include a significant portion of the TV station's response as an update to his blog post, though he immediately and sneeringly dismisses it.
The U.S. Constitution has no parliamentary provision for a "no confidence" vote, but Obama, Pelosi, and Reid have repeatedly demonstrated their willingness to circumvent America's Constitution.
This ruling imperialist triumvirate prefers the ways of Europe. Americans, therefore, should demand that they follow their preferred European parliamentary standards and resign.
On Tuesday we shall see if voters believe President Obama, whose policy of taxing, borrowing, and spending our way out of today's economic crisis is plunging America deeper and deeper into debt, decline and a potential crash of the dollar, has lost what in Chinese emperors was called the "mandate of heaven."
If Obama and his comrades genuinely wish to restore economic health and prosperity to America, they would resign even if they win on Tuesday.
The stock market would probably surge by 5,000 points within days of a mass resignation by left-liberal Democratic rulers. Foreign investment money would also flood into America.
Democrats ought to lose in 2010 and 2012, but they also need to be removed from power for at least two generations, as Republicans were from control of Congress from the 1930s to the 1980s.
For their redemption and ours, left-liberal Democrats need to wander for 40 years in the desert until they purge themselves of the pagan pseudo-religious cults of Eurosocialism, Marxism, progressivism and all other collectivisms.
In year 2050 Americans can reconsider whether the Democrats have again become an American political party.
Every American this week should take a vow never to vote for any Democrat until 2050.
To say that Obama is a Bolshevik may sound extreme, but as someone who grew up in the former Soviet Union and holds degrees in economics and political science from the University of Marxism-Leninism, viewing the American political landscape through red communist glasses reveals a scary reality: The United States elected a radical socialist government committed to the transformation of the American capitalist free-enterprise system into an egalitarian society driven by a state-controlled political economy.
Obama came on the American scene at the right time: The lack of education, historical perspective and political literacy turned the American electorate into what Bolshevik Trotsky called the "voting herd." The combination of impending economic crisis and the weak candidacy on the Republican side created fertile ground for a talented demagogue to seduce the nation.
Obama's agenda reads as if it came straight out of the University of Marxism-Leninism. There is nothing new here but the striking parallels between the Russian Bolsheviks and Obama's government: both utterly convinced in their own uncompromising righteousness and their fanatic belief in economic equality, and both equally obsessed with power and control.
To control the masses, as the Bolsheviks' teaching goes, the leader should instill fear and hope. There is plenty of hope in the "Audacity of Hope" and plenty of fear being peddled in the president's speeches and actions. He has been frightening the country with the threat of such enemies as Wall Street, the undue influence of big corporations, special-interest groups and the so-called extremists of the tea party.
Obama is clearly following Lenin's script, spending and printing money at unprecedented levels. The plan is simple: Replace American self-reliance with government dependency. Increasing government spending in ever growing numbers – be it for bailouts, stimulus plans, health care, manure management, tattoo removal, condoms or solar energy – is the program; the area doesn't really matter. The objective is to spend until the country is in such debt as to result in default or hyperinflation, causing the destruction of our currency and the obliteration of wealth. The more the American people are indebted to government, the more they will turn to the government to save them, assuring Democratic one-party rule for the future.
In a sense, Obama is taking a page from the playbook of FDR, who successfully exploited economic difficulties to ensure the Democratic Party's continued domination and to have the voters appoint him president for life.
WND Misrepresents DC Area Shootings As Islamist Topic: WorldNetDaily
An Oct. 30 WorldNetDaily article by Drew Zahn asserts that "A rash of unsolved sniper shots in Washington, D.C., is resurrecting concerns that terrorists may once again be on the loose in the nation's capital, following an al-Qaida blueprint – not for large-scale bombings, but for smaller, seemingly 'random' acts of violence."
But not only does Zahn quote no one likening the shootings to Islamic terrorism (including the Washington Times editorial he cites), he misrepresents what authorities have said about the alleged shooter. Here's what Zahn writes:
FBI spokeswoman Katherine Schweit has suggested the shooter is simply a "struggling" individual.
"This guy hasn't hurt anybody. We don't think he wants to," she says. "We're hoping that he'll turn himself in."
In fact, authorities were much more specific about what they think about the identity of the shooter, who has targeted the Pentagon, the Marines museum and a Marine recruiting office:
"We believe the suspect has a grievance surrounding the U.S. Marine Corps," said John Perren, acting head of the FBI's Washington Field Office. "We'd like to know what this grievance is, and what we can do to try and resolve it. We're willing to listen to him and hear his side of the story."
The shooter may have a grudge against the Marine Corps as an institution, but could hold the servicemen and women in high regard, officials said. He or she may recently have experienced a trauma such as the death of a loved one or the loss of a job. The shooter likely is familiar with the Northern Virginia area, and if the shooter lives with family or friends, may have offered excuses after slipping away at night.
"It may be that he feels he's been wronged by the Corps in his professional or personal life," Perren said.
Zahn goes on to reference a previous WND report on "an al-Qaida training tape that was captured in Afghanistan and revealed terrorists planning not only attacks with weapons of mass destruction but also with drive-by shootings, home break-ins, ambushes of law-enforcement officers and targeted assassinations." This runs counter to actions of the shooter, who so far, as the Washington Post notes, "has struck overnight or in the early morning hours when no one would be around the facilities."
Zahn also brings up the 2002 Belway Sniper case of "a pair of Muslim men named John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo," adding: "Notably, authorities in 2002 consistently denied Muhammad and Malvo's connections to terrorism, even after it was revealed they spoke sympathetically about the Sept. 11 hijackers and Malvo filled nearly 100 pages with sketches obsessed with jihad and shedding American blood for Islam."
But those sketches weren't seen as evidence of committed Islamic terrorism -- a logical decision given that Malvo also mixed in images from the decidedly non-Islamic film "The Matrix" -- they were seen as evidence of how Muhammad controlled Malvo. Indeed, according to the New York Post, "Malvo's drawings were introduced into evidence by the defense, which contends they shed light on the insane mind of a young man brainwashed by Muhammad."
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.