When Will NewsBusters Correct Its $16 Muffin Post? Topic: NewsBusters
A current entry in the "Editor's Picks" on the NewsBusters front page reads, "Washington Post ombudsman refutes media-hyped $16 muffin."
It links to an Oct. 2 Post column by ombudsman Patrick Pexton, who writes that he thought the story of the $16 muffin fowarded by the Department of Justice's inspector "was just a bit too good to be true" -- a suspicion that turned out to be entirely correct. He took Post reporters to task for running with the story without first contacting the hotel where the conference serving the muffins took place for its reaction. The receipts examined by the IG were imprecise, the hotel pointed out, and that the actual cost was $14.72 for both breakfast and an afternoon snack.
In attacking the muffin story as "media hyped," NewsBusters fails to mention that among the media doing the hyping was NewsBusters. As we've detailed, a Sept. 29 post by Noel Sheppard uncritically repeated the $16 muffin story, even though by that time the hotel had provided its own explanation -- and shortly before the DOJ IG itself backed off the claim.
Now that NewsBusters admits the muffin story is bogus, when will it correct Sheppard's post? And when it does, will it publish that correction prominently on the NewsBusters front page, where Sheppard's post first appeared and where NewsBusters' previously stated stance on publishing corrections on the same page the original article appeared on would dictate? Or will it bury it in Sheppard's days-old post and hopes nobody notices?
Cowardly WND Won't Link to Esquire's Reponse To Its Lawsuit Topic: WorldNetDaily
A Sept. 30 WorldNetDaily article details WND's response to "Esquire magazine's contention that WND's $250 million defamation case should be dismissed as a frivolous."
What, you didn't know that Esquire had responded to WND's lawsuit? That likely came as news to WND's readers, since WND had studiously ignored its existence until filing its own response.
And WND doesn't want you knowing anything more about Esquire's response that what it wants you to know, because it provides no link to the document in the article, even though it's easily available online.
And if you look at that document, you'll notice that it's dated Aug. 26 -- which means that WND refused to tell its readers about its existence for more than a month, even though WND purports to be a "news" website and Esquire's filing would presumably qualify as "news" important to its readers.
WND is certainly acting like it has something to hide here, like it did when, despite our urging, it refused to post filings on its website during Clark Jones' libel lawsuit against WND -- a lawsuit it settled before trial by admitting what it reported about Jones was completely false, thus avoiding a courtroom defeat.
Skimming over WND's response, we see one obviously cognitively dissonant claim. At one point, the response argues that Esquire "cannot legitimately contend" that WND editor Joseph Farah and reporter Jerome Corsi are "public figures" for whom the bar of libel and defamation is higher. But elsewhere, the document declares that Farah and Corsi "have not only become 'world-renowned' but have also become the 'go-to' source for information regarding the President’s qualifications and the release of a potentially fraudulent birth certificate." Admitting that you're "world-renowned" would seem to be admission of public prominence that makes you a "public figure," does it not?
At the end of the article, WND helpfully includes links to the video of its June press conference announcing its lawsuit, which gives you another opportunity to watch Farah shut down the press conference rather than answer my question about whether WND-affiliated lawyers supplied Tim Adams with an affidavit for him to sign, as he has claimed.
Obama Derangement Syndrome Watch, Wayne Allyn Root Edition Topic: Newsmax
Wayne Allyn Root's Obama derangement is rapidly mestatacizing. His Sept. 30 Newsmax column carries the headline "The Obama Enemies List — Are You Next?" and the column itself lives up to the paranoia:
Just days ago Obama spoke to an African-American audience and divided the country by race. He exhorted black Americans to “put on their marching shoes” and follow him into battle. Battle? Enemies?
What if a tea party leader (like me) asked white voters to vote a certain way based on race? Would the media let it slide, or would the tea partyer be called a racist?
What if a tea party leader described an election as a “battle”? Would he be accused of inciting a civil war? What if this kind of rhetoric by Obama incites a supporter to hurt or kill someone? Will the media hold Obama accountable?
What if a conservative political leader said the same thing as union leader Jimmy Hoffa, Jr. — “Let’s take these sons of b*****s out!” Would the media ignore or downplay this kind of statement coming from the right? What exactly did Hoffa mean by “take them out?” Did he mean kill them? Hunt them down and hang them? Or perhaps break their legs, as union goons have a history of doing?
Ever talk to a military man? I’ve never spoken in-depth to one military vet who had anything nice to say about Obama. Not one. Do you suppose Obama knows that? He most certainly knows he can afford to anger that group, without affecting his re-election in the slightest.
Obama knows he has nothing to lose with vets — they already seethe with anger toward him. This is how Obama treats his “enemies.” As Obama's mentor Saul Alinsky would say, the ends justify the means. The not-so-subtle message to Obama opponents: Dare oppose Obama and risk your comfortable retirement.
But vets should be honored to join a long Obama enemies list — the wealthy, small business owners, homeowners, suburbanites, gun owners, churchgoers, stock investors, and tea partyers. Those groups are very much against Obama. Result? Every Obama tax increase or “cut” just happens to be aimed at that “enemies list.” Obama makes it crystal clear who he is marching into battle against.
Obama has divided America into enemies and friends. Black and white. Rich and poor. Unions versus private sector. Business owners, stockholders, and homeowners versus those who can’t afford to own. Veterans and patriots versus America apologizers. Sad. Disgusting. Disturbing.
Which list are you on? It’s time to pay attention. Perhaps it’s time to start speaking out, before everyone is afraid to speak out. Who is Obama coming for next?
Someone should tell Root that counseling is available for his Obama derangement.
A Sept. 29 article by Terry Jeffrey carries the link-bait headline "Obama: 'I Don't Think Ethics' Was My Favorite Subject."
The article itself offers a more complete explanation:
“I was not always the very best student that I could be when I was in high school, and certainly not when I was in middle school,” Obama said, speaking at Benjamin Banneker Academic High School.
“I did not love every class I took. I wasn’t always paying attention the way I should have,” Obama said. “I remember when I was in 8th grade I had to take a class called ethics. Now, ethics is about right and wrong, but if you’d ask me what my favorite subject was back in 8th grade, it was basketball. I don’t think ethics would have made it on the list.”
Obama went on to tell the high school students that even though that 8th grade ethics class was not one of his favorites it did have a significant impact on his life—and now inspires the way he acts as president.
“I still remember that ethics class, all these years later,” Obama said. “I remember the way it made me think. I remember being asked questions like: What matters in life? Or, what does it mean to treat other people with dignity and respect? What does it mean to live in a diverse nation, where not everybody looks like you do, or thinks like you do, or comes from the same neighborhood as you do? How do we figure out how to get along?
“Each of these questions led to new questions,” said Obama. “And I didn’t always know the right answers, but those discussions and that process of discovery--those things have lasted. Those things are still with me today. Every day, I’m thinking about those same issues as I try to lead this nation.”
But a headline is how you sell a story, and the Drudge Report quickly pounced on it (top of the right-hand column).
The fact that the misleading headline appears on a story by CNS' editor in chief tells us this anti-Obama hostility and hackjobbery was deliberate, ordered straight from the top.
So CNS got its page views, even though the headline is an utterly dishonest depiction of the story. But then, dishonest journalism is how CNS rolls these days.
WND Columnist: We Need More White Babies! Topic: WorldNetDaily
Michael Master writes in a Sept. 29 WorldNetDaily column:
If the U.S. truly wants to fix the root causes to the economy, then it needs to take a hard look into the causes of the low birthrates to Caucasians from 40 years ago and again now. Let's start with these:
Men who feel no responsibilities
Abortion on demand
the New World Order
And what do all of these have in common? They all promote the liberal philosophy. The result is a white population with a birthrate that is too low to replace itself. The Caucasian population has decreased from 24 percent of the world population to 10 percent in just 40 years because of a lack of births.
American white people, women and men, are not having enough children to sustain the population because they value other "things" and a single lifestyle as more important than bringing life into the world. And our economy is suffering because of it.
Eventually, the morality of a people is reflected in the economy. And the American economy is not looking good because of a diminished set of values due to the dominance of liberal philosophy in the culture.
It is up to the rest of us to bring attention to the birthrate problem as often as possible. The media and politicians will not ever accept that the current problems with the economy, including insolvency of Social Security and Medicare, are caused by a low birthrate to white people in the U.S. And the liberalization of America caused that low birth rate.
The New World Order is keeping whites from having more babies? We had no idea.
WorldNetDaily and others in the ConWeb are inordinately concerned that white people aren't out-reproducing the non-white people.
NewsBusters' Hypocritical Freakout Over Governor's Joke Topic: NewsBusters
When North Carolina Gov. Bev Perdue quipped that "I think we ought to suspend, perhaps, elections for Congress for two years and just tell them we won't hold it against them, whatever decisions they make, to just let them help this country recover," the head of NewsBusters' Tom Blumer exploded. He howled in a Sept. 27 post:
Someone should ask Ms. Perdue to demonstrate the "funny" vocal inflections and other "joking" mannerisms she used to deliver yuks to her Rotary Club audience. If there's a way to make such a statement funny, I want to hear it. I say it doesn't exist.
And when the Raleigh News & Observer reported that it was a joke, Blumer howled even more:
Look, RN&O, you don't have to be a Republican, or independent, or moderate, or even an eeeeeeevil Tea Party sympathizer to take such a statement seriously. Why, even some (but sadly not all) liberals will have a problem with this.
Did Blumer have any evidence that Perdue's statement was meant to be taken seriously? Of course not. Still, insisted that Perdue was "obviously serious."
Blumer kept up the outrage the next day, onec again asserting that "There is no chance that North Carolina Governor Beverly Perdue was 'joking' — not even in a Steven Wright sense" -- again, with absolutely no evidence to back it up -- and personally attacking the newspaper reporter who called it a joke, then attacked another reporter who tried to defend the paper:
Sorry, John. No sale. If there were no bias, "joke" would have been in quotes. It wasn't.
Because it wasn't, a typical reader would take it to mean that it really was a joke. It wasn't.
If you meant to communicate that Perdue or her peeps thought it was a joke, you would have put "joke" in quotes. You didn't.
Again, Blumer has no evidence beyond what he has made up inside his own fevered brain that Perdue was not joking. He has simply decided that.
This is all very funny and hypocritical because we searched both the NewsBusters and MRC a rchives and find no mention, let alone freakout, over President Bush's 2000 statement, "If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator."
If anyone at the MRC was bothered by Bush's expression in favor of a dictatorship, joking or not, they weren't so bothered to write about it or even defend it from criticism.
Apparently, Blumer and the MRC wouldn't mind such violations of rights as long as it was a Republican who did the violating.
A Sept. 30 Newsmax article by Martin Gould states:
GOP claims that the Obama administration’s green energy loan guarantee program is mired in cronyism grew on Friday after a company tied to Nancy Pelosi’s brother-in-law got the lion’s share of the final government hand-outs made before Friday’s end of the fiscal year.
The decision to guarantee $737 million comes hard on the heels of the loss of more than $500 million of government money due to the bankruptcy of solar panel company Solyndra.
The new grant went to Tonopah Solar Energy, a subsidiary of SolarReserve, which started building Crescent Dunes, a massive solar-thermal plant in the Nevada desert in early September.
One of SolarReserve’s major financial backers is the PCG Clean Energy & Technology Fund (East), whose second-in-command is Ronald Pelosi, the brother of the House Minority leader’s husband, Paul. Another investor is Argonaut Private Equity, a company that lost heavily in the Solyndra debacle.
Ronald Pelosi joined Pacific Corporate Group in April, roughly three years after it had invested in SolarReserve, a company official confirmed Thursday. The official said Ronald Pelosi doesn't stand to profit or lose from the firm's stake in SolarReserve because he doesn't have an interest in the fund that made that investment.
The Pacific Corporate Group official said Thursday that no one from the firm had contacted the White House in connection with the application.
"This is an absurd suggestion," Department of Energy press secretary Damien LaVera said of any connection between Ronald Pelosi and the loan guarantee announcement. "Many months of rigorous technical, financial and legal due diligence was done by nonpolitical career employees to scrutinize every aspect of this transaction - over a period of years.
"It was approved because it meets all the requirements of the program - helping America win the clean energy race and create entire new industries for American workers."
Obama critics think they've found another solar scandal. They're wrong.
It is true that Ronald Pelosi is an executive at Pacific Corporate Group, one of the private equity firms that has plugged more than $100 million into SolarReserve. But it is patently false that he will benefit from the loan (as Drudge asserts, although Weekly Standard only implies).
Ronald Pelosi joined PCG this past spring, whereas the firm first invested in SolarReserve three years ago. More importantly, Ronald Pelosi does not have a financial interest in the fund that houses SolarReserve. If the fund generates big profits on its investment, Pelosi gets nothing. If the fund's investment gets wiped out, Pelosi's bank account won't take a hit.
Moreover, a PCG spokesman insists that no member of the firm had any contact with the White House about the SolarReserve loan.
Gould curiously failed to mention either the Chronicle or Fortune reports, even though both were published well before his own article was.
The next day, Gould published a follow-up article claiming that "The Obama administration is furiously trying to play down links between House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and a giant new $737 million loan guarantee for a green energy project in Nevada." Gould linked to the Chronicle article, but did not mention the article's explanation of why Ronald Pelosi has no financial link to the project.
Suddenly, MRC Loves The F-Word (When It's Used to Insult A Liberal) Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center loves to moralize about the incivility and vulgar language of liberals and the "liberal media":
Noel Sheppard declared that making jokes about Chris Christie's weight to be "juvenile,"huffing, "I hope the heads of these organizations are proud of the way their respective members behaved."
Sheppard also ranted about "all the vulgarity at liberal websites," specifically citing a blogger who called him a "Poor little f****r."
Mark Finkelstein complained that Cenk Uygur "used a variation of the f-word in fulminating about Paul Ryan's response to the SOTU."
Erin Brown lamented that 'the 'F' word is going mainstream," and called those who use it in music "attention-seekers."
Brent Bozell declared that alleged increased use of the F-word on broadcast TV is part of a " profanity virus," and that those who defend its use by claiming it's not being used in a sexual connotation are embracing a "legalistic definition of profanity (and common sense)."
But it appears the MRC has no problem dropping an F-bomb when it suits their purposes -- like insulting a liberal.
The other day, Andrew Breitbart gave a speech at a tea party convention in which he called actress Janeane Garofalo "Hollywood's sympathy fuck." Guess who's hosting it, completely uncensored and without condemnation of Breitbart for his vulgarity?
Indeed, the Breitbart TV website has embedded the MRCtv version of the video, as indicated by the logo in the upper left corner.
Apparently, Bozell and his crew simply pretend to be prudish when discussing the vulgarity of liberals, but when it comes to attacking liberals, there are no depths too low to sink -- the smear and dennigration is all that counts.
WND Upset That Guns Taken Away From Vindictive Online Stalker Topic: WorldNetDaily
Joe Kovacs writes in a Sept. 29 WorldNetDaily article:
An Arizona man has filed a federal lawsuit against some of the state's top judges, claiming they're taking away his freedom of speech and right to own firearms, all because someone didn't like what he wrote on his blog.
"You can't suspend someone's constitutional rights [for blogging]," said Mike Palmer, who is bringing forth the legal action. "Everybody in America blogs or Twitters, so it's a First and Second Amendment issue."
The scenario started when Palmer, a 55-year-old Christian missionary from Phoenix, was online discussing "spiritual death" often referred to in the Bible.
Questions about guns? The ultimate searchable research guide to firearms and ammo is now on DVD ...
But, according to the suit, a woman from Prescott, Ariz., Melody Thomas-Morgan, complained to authorities that Palmer was threatening her with "death," keeping that word in quotes in her legal filings.
Palmer explains, "It is true that the blog, 'That Woman Jezebel,' talks about spiritual life and spiritual death. ... Spiritual 'death' as in 'The wages of sin is death.' (Romans 6:23) ... It is not true that the blog ever mentions the 'death' of Miss Thomas-Morgan."
Kenton Jones, superior court judge for Yavapai County, went along with the woman's harassment complaint and ordered Palmer to surrender his guns.
As Kovacs is wont to do, he fails to report numerous crucial details -- like why a blogger would face having his firearms taken away. Turns out he's an online stalker obsessed with a woman who felt threatened by what he wrote about her. Nor does Kovacs quote directly any of the statements that led to the restraining order being issued against him. (Curiously, Kovacs doesn't use the term "restraining order" to describe what was issued against Palmer.)
According to Thomas-Morgan's statement to the court, Palmer is "close friends and spiritual mentor" to her ex-husband. She writes that Palmer sent her a "sympathy card (for my death, a 'self-inflicted head wound') ... as well as continual letters full of libel against me, sent to my pastor and family members." Thomas-Morgan also states that Palmer "makes sexual references" about her three young children in his blog. She continues:
In the past, Mr. Palmer, when visiting our home (pre-Dissolution), would oftentimes warn me not to make any fast moves around him because he might "accidentially" go into martial arts mode and do a quick chop to my neck and kill me. He also told women in our church that women breast feed for sexual pleasure (personally, never met a one); and told women in the congregation that they sould not wear deodorant because it could cause breast cancer. Obviously, this is NOT normal behavior.
Mr. Palmer's harrassment of me is continuous and must end. None of what he says about me is true. And what he does say about me and my children is harmful and fear-producing.
Kovacs quotes only from Palmer's appeal of the restraining order and does not quote from any other related document in the case, nor does he make any apparent effort to contact Thomas-Morgan for her side of the story.
This is who Kovacs wants to see fully armed -- an malicious online stalker who is trying to destroy a woman's life. This is who Kovacs wants to forward as a Second Amendment poster boy.
WND has a sad history of choosing poster boys whose disturbing pasts they have to disguise in order to make them palatable to their readers.
Sheppard Flip-Flops On Scarborough Within A Day Topic: NewsBusters
Noel Sheppard can't decide whether he loves or hates MSNBC's Joe Scarborough.
In a Sept. 26 NewsBusters post, Sheppard chortled over a Newsweek profile of Fox News, in which president Roger Ailes said that Scarborough “tacks to the center” and “doesn’t act like a conservative.” Sheppard added, "Seems a metaphysical certitude most conservatives would agree with that statement."
The next day, however, Sheppard was singing a different tune about Scarborough, simply because he was toeing the Media Research Center party line: "People are shocked and stunned at the blurred lines when Roger Ailes and Fox does it, not so shocked and stunned when Democratic establishment figures have been doing it over the past three decades." Sheppard didn't mention his pleasure the day before in Ailes' criticism of Scarborough.
How shallow a person must Sheppard be if he changes his opinion of someone from day to day simply based on how closely that person's words hew to a partisan political agenda?
Shallow enough to have a job writing for NewsBusters, apparently.
Reisman Ramps Up WND's Anti-Vaccine Hysteria Topic: WorldNetDaily
The newly revived anti-vaccine hysteria at WorldNetDaily -- centered on the HPV vaccine -- is spreading.
In a Sept. 29 WND article, Michael Carl is writing osensibly about boycotts of advertisers on the new TV show "The Playboy Club" and expressing pleasure that the show "is tanking in the ratings and hemorrhaging advertisers at an extraordinary rate." He quotes right-wing extremist and anti-Kinsey obsessive Judith Reisman to rant about Playboy and pornography.
Then Reisman says this: "The forced vaccinations of our children so that they can be had for sex is similarly ringing warning bells in the brains of those off the dumbing down grid."
In fact, given that there's no evidence that giving away free condoms at schools increases sexual activity, Reisman's insinuation that giving a child the HPV vaccine allows the child to "be had for sex" is not only dishonest, it's dangerous.
Apparently, Reisman is willing to risk our children getting cervical cancer to forward her hysterics-driven agenda. What a sleazy opportunist she is.
CNS' Jeffrey Misleads On Emergency Contraception, Calls Obama 'An Aspiring Tyrant In The Model Of Henry VIII' Topic: CNSNews.com
In his September 28 column, CNSNews.com editor-in-chief Terry Jeffrey declared that President Obama has "established himself as an aspiring tyrant in the model of Henry VIII" by "attempting to use the power of government to compel faithful Catholic men and women to act against their consciences."
How? Jeffrey explains one way Obama is doing so:
Obamacare regulations proposed by the Department of Health and Services on Aug. 1 would require every private health plan in America to cover sterilizations as well as all Food and Drug Administration-approved contraceptives, including "emergency contraceptives." These include drugs such as ulipristal, which can cause abortions both before and after an embryo implants in a mother's womb.
If this regulation is finalized -- and the Obamacare mandate that every American must buy health insurance is not repealed -- every American Catholic with a conscience formed in keeping with the teachings of his church would be forced to choose between disobeying Obama's law or disobeying his conscience.
In fact, ulipristal (sold under the brand name ellaOne), like the Plan B pill, works by preventing a fertilized egg from implanting into the uterus. Thus, according to health experts, it does not "cause abortions." As Christianity Today further explains:
For pro-life groups, such medications are morally (if not medically) abortifacients, drugs that cause an abortion. They are not abortifacients legally, however. According to medical definitions:
-- Pregnancy is a condition of the mother, beginning when the embryo attaches to the uterine wall.
-- Contraception lowers the chances of pregnancy; it includes medication that blocks fertilization, but also drugs that prohibit a pregnancy after conception.
-- Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. A drug that works before the embryo attaches to mother is contraception; one that occurs after pregnancy starts is an abortifacient.
Drugs such as ella and Plan B are approved for contraceptive use because they prevent pregnancy. According to the FDA, the drugs are emergency contraceptives that should be taken within five days of "a contraceptive failure or unprotected intercourse." They are not intended as routine contraceptives. Women who suspect that they are pregnant are advised to not take the drug.
What does this have to do with Henry VIII? Jeffrey portrays this debate over church-state issues as being just like Henry VIII's beheading of Thomas More, who was executed rather than take an oath declaring the king to be the supreme authority over the church in England. Jeffrey seems have overlooked the fact that Obama has not threatened anyone with execution for failing to take an oath to his authority.
McCaughey Misleads on Health Care Reform (Again) Topic: Newsmax
A Sept. 28 Newsmax article by Martin Gould is devoted to serial misleader Betsy McCaughey's latest ramblings about health care reform. This time, she's chosen to mislead about an 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling stated about the constitutionality of the reform law:
She also noted that the 11th Circuit dismissed the administration’s contention that mandatory insurance is necessary to eliminate “free riders."
“The decision pointed out that free riders are largely illegal immigrants who, of course, are unaffected by the mandate, they are exempt from it; or lower income people who will be provided for by the expansion of Medicaid and also will not be compelled to buy private health plans.”
In fact, according to the majority's ruling, poor people outnumber illegal immigrants as "free riders" ("cost-shifters" in the court's parlance), and both together make up only about 53% of the total cost-shift [p. 139]:
illegal aliens and other nonresidents are cost-shifters ($8.1 billion, or 18.9% of the $43 billion), but they are exempted from the individual mandate entirely. 26 U.S.C. § 5000A(d)(3). Low-income persons are the largest segment of cost-shifters ($15 billion, or 34.8% of the $43 billion), but they are covered by the Act’s Medicaid expansion or excepted from the mandate penalty.
And the minority opinion points out that most “free riders” or “cost shifters” are not exempted [p. 242]:
Relying heavily on the economists’ brief, the majority goes even further and subjects Congress’ findings to an analysis that looks startlingly like strict scrutiny review. The majority engages in a breakdown of who among the uninsured are responsible for the $43 billion, presumably in order to show that the mandate will not be the most efficacious means of ameliorating the cost-shifting problem. See Maj. Op. at 139-41. For instance, the majority claims that low-income individuals and illegal aliens (or other nonresidents) together are responsible for around half of the total cost shifting, yet are exempted from either the mandate or its penalty. Id.at 139-40. But even on the majority’s own terms, a substantial number of cost-shifters are not exempted from the mandate or its penalty, and there was nothing irrational about Congress’ decision to subject to the mandate those individuals who could reasonably afford health insurance in the first place.
Then, in another Sept. 28 article, Newsmax quotes McCaughey as saying:
"There are bigger premium hikes ahead in 2014,” she said, explaining that “1,472 employers and unions got waivers from the current coverage requirements because they couldn’t afford them. But in 2014, the waivers expire and mid- and large-size employers will be required to provide the ‘essential benefit package’ or pay a $2,000 fine — a mere pittance compared with the cost of that package.
“That's why McKinsey & Co. found that as many as 50 percent of large employers surveyed are considering dropping coverage in 2014. If that happens, middle and high earners will be forced into the exchanges, and lower income workers will be forced onto Medicaid."
In fact, McKinsey has admitted its findings were not meant as "a predictive economic analysis."
The article also carries the misleading headline, "McCaughey: Surge in Costs Start Of Obamacare Disaster." But there was no "surge in costs" directly attributable to health care reform; the article quotes the Kaiser Family Foundation's finding that health care reform accounted for just 1 to 2 percentage points of the 9 percent average rise in health care costs predicted for this year.
Noel Sheppard Still Thinks The $16 Muffins Are Real Topic: NewsBusters
Noel Sheppard used a Sept. 29 NewsBusters post to cheer on Bill O'Reilly, during an appearance on "The Daily Show," for pointing out how host Jon Stewart, who according to Sheppard "liberals love to put ... up on a pedestal as being the most intelligent man on television aware of all that's impacting the nation," supposedly "missed a major story last week about almost unthinkable waste in government spending."
As Sheppard goes on to explain, that would be the story of the $16 muffins reportedly served at a Department of Justice conference. Sheppard concludes: "I guess the smartest guy in the room missed this story. Might it have been important if a man he didn't like was in the White House overseeing such waste? Hmmm."
Sheppard is apparently so invested in that right-wing talking point that he missed the fact that it has been discredited.
The DOJ has pointed out that "The abbreviated banquet checks did not reflect all of the food and services provided. ... The package consisted of food, beverages, staff services and function space, including a 450-seat ballroom and more than a dozen workshop and breakout rooms each of the five days of the conference." In other words, the DOJ got a lot more than muffins for their $16.
Might the full truth have been so unimportant to Sheppard if a man he liked was in the White House? Hmmm.
UPDATE: Even the DOJ inspector general -- which first forwarded the $16 muffin story -- is backing off the claim. Will Sheppard report this to his readers?
Aaron Klein Anonymous Source Watch Topic: WorldNetDaily
A Sept. 8 WorldNetDaily article by Aaron Klein cites "a top PA official" to claim that "The Obama administration told the Palestinian Authority it cannot significantly help advance a Palestinian state until after the 2012 presidential elections." Klein goes on to quote the anonymous "official":
"We were told to wait for Obama's reelection, and that before then nothing serious will happen for a state," the official continued. "But after the reelection, the U.S. said the schedule will be short to reach a Palestinian state."
Klein's boss, Joseph Farah, says that quotes from anonymous sources are "usually quotes made up out of whole cloth to help make the story read better." Given Klein's heavy reliance on anonymous sources, there's no reason to believe that this is not the case here.