Bozell Takes Kochs' Side on Cato, Doesn't Disclose MRC's Koch Money Topic: Media Research Center
Brent Bozell has weighed in on the epic battle going on over control of the libertarian Cato Institute, between Cato's current establishment and the Koch brothers.
IN a March 19 CNSNews.com post, Bozell notes that he has "great appreciation and admiration for the Koch family and all it has done over the decades to champion liberty, free enterprise and a free society. They have invested their money in causes they believe in and every day take hits for having the courage and conviction to stand up for freedom and liberty." But he states that the Kochs are in the right over the establishment led by Ed Crane:
Anyone who reviews the complaint filed on behalf of the Kochs, which also includes copies of the shareholder agreement, can plainly see that the Kochs are unequivocally in the right. This is not a debate about who has the best vision for the libertarian movement. If libertarians and conservatives have any regard for the law and for shareholder agreements, there is just no way you take up sides against the Kochs.
In fact, what is most ironic is that Mr. Crane and some of his allies are so heated in their opposition to the Kochs they seem to be suggesting they have some entitlement to Cato and the shareholder agreement be damned. In the end, the Kochs and Ed Crane signed an agreement. If we as conservatives or libertarians do not honor our word and commitments, we will cease to be a movement built upon the principles of law so necessary in a free society.
Bozell didn't mention that one of the Kochs' "causes they believe in" is his Media Research Center. Through Koch-controlled charities like the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundationand the Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation, the MRC has received at least $15,000.
WND's Vox Day Still Has Issues With Women Topic: WorldNetDaily
Vox Day uses his March 18 WorldNetDaily column to further expound upon his longtime issues with women:
In high school, we were repeatedly instructed by our mothers and female friends that girls only wanted nice guys, real gentlemen who would treat them well and put them on the pedestals they deserved by virtue of their sex. Then we watched them uniformly ignore those nice young gentlemen in favor of the socially dominant and the athletic. In college, we were told that women were just as interested in sex as men, but that having sex with them while they were drunk was rape, having sex with them when they regretted it the next day was rape and not having sex with them was also rape if they felt sufficiently spurned.
This is the new societal reality, and it is not only one that women created, it is one that women demanded. While our fathers, grandfathers and great-grandfathers made it possible, they only did so at the instigation of women who sought liberation from the oppression of patriarchy.
While it is not true that all women are sluts, in a recent anonymous survey, I found that 31 percent of women reported cheating on a serious boyfriend and 24 percent of married men reported that their wives had been unfaithful to them. Men have long understood that instinctual male behavior was barbaric at heart and needed to be suppressed in order for civilization to prevail. What was forgotten was that instinctual female behavior was even less civilized. What Noonan decries is little more than an abandonment of the philosophy of Wollstonecraft, Sanger and De Beauvoir in favor of a return to the recognized wisdom of vastly superior philosophers such as Aristotle, Aquinas and Schopenhauer.
Led by a small cadre of practical game theoreticians, most notoriously the brilliantly dour Roissy, more and more men are taking the red pill and rejecting the pretty lies they have been told throughout the entire course of their education and upbringing. Some are choosing to go their own way. Others are improving the quality of their marriages, and still others are using their new-found knowledge to plow through the opposite sex like Visigoths and Vandals sacking Rome. What Peggy Noonan does not realize is that whereas men once assumed that a woman was a lady until proven otherwise, increasing numbers of them assume women are shallow and superficial until they are provided with credible evidence to the contrary.
As we've noted, Day has previously argued against women being allowed to vote, considers women's rights "a disease that should be eradicated," and has advised men not to marry "career" women because they have a bad habit of thinking for themselves.
CNS' Jeffrey Twists Words To Suggest Obama Admin Wants to Coerce College Students Into Sterilization Topic: CNSNews.com
We've documented how the truth simply no longer matters to CNS editor-in-chief Terry Jeffrey -- which you'd think would be a hindrance in his job, which is to run a "news" website. Jeffrey's overlords at the Media Research Center, though, apparently have no problem with Jeffrey abandoning journalism and using CNS as a right-wing propaganda mill.
Jeffrey hones his propaganda skills again in a March 17 article carrying the inflammatory headline "Free Sterilizations Must be Offered to All College Women, Says HHS."
Jeffrey is twisting words here. Nobody is being "offered" sterilizations against their will, as Jeffrey's headline suggests; as the article itself concedes, sterilizations would be covered at no cost in student health care plans, under a plan announced by Department of Health and Human Services. Jeffrey's headline falsely implies coercion -- and a desire to generate traffic to his website put above getting things accurate.
A manufactured controversy -- which CNS likes to do -- is apparently what Jeffrey was going for here, and he appears to have suceeded to a certain extent. CNS pushed the misleading meme in a March 19 article by Elizabeth Harrington in which she apparently intruded on a conference call masquerading as a "reporter" and pushed the idea that Democrats were promoting sterilization, against which Democratic members of Congress caught on and pushed back:
During the conference call, CNSNews.com asked: “Do you support the HHS regulation that requires health insurance companies to provide free sterilizations to college-age women who want them?”
Rep. [Jan] Schakowsky said: “You know, this attack on women’s health care is--I think the compromise that the president has offered and that the rulemaking from HHS, I think, is a good one. This is not about, you know, college-age girls getting sterilization when they want it--no.”
“I mean, there may be situations where for medical reasons and in consultation with the doctor that sterilization procedures are warranted for the health of a young woman,” said Schakowsky.
“Contraception and related procedures, contraception was declared one of the top 10 preventive health services of the 20th century by the Centers for Disease Control," said Schakowsky, "and the reason for these regulations is to protect the health of women, women of all ages, so that they can afford to get the preventive care that they need.”
“This isn’t about promoting sterilization,” she said of the regulation that guarantees free sterilizations. “No one -- there aren’t college girls lining up to become sterilized because they feel like it. And we’re talking about medical procedures.”
During the conference call, Rep. Xavier Becerra also offered his support for the regulation and responded to CNSNews.com's question by criticizing opponents of the regulation for advancing what he called “stereotypes” and “misinformation” about the president’s health care law. “Now when they [critics] talk about sterilization, you and I know that they’re trying to build this up into something that it isn’t,” said Becerra. “I think Jan clarified very well what the purpose of the HHS rulemaking is. It’s so a woman can, in consultation with her physician, can make a very serious decision. It’s not one of these fly-by-night activities that a woman would do without thinking long and hard.”
“So, I hope the press will help us avoid these types of stereotypes and this misrepresentation that’s occurring with regard to the actions and the legislation that’s out there,” said Becerra, “because it gives the American public this wrong perception that there, in fact, are death panels, or that the government did take over our health care, or that jobs were killed by the passage of the ACA.”
“That’s the farthest thing from the truth,” he said. “And I hope you all are out there trying to make sure that you’re passing along information -- truthful information -- and probing when folks start to make those kind of statements, which you and I know are intended to misrepresent and to deceive the American public.”
Becerra caught Harrington, Jeffrey and CNS red-handed. Their intent is to misrepresent the policy and deceive people. Because that's what propagandists do.
Newsmax's Wead Still Fawning Over Ron Paul Topic: Newsmax
We've documented how much Newsmax columnist Doug Wead has spent touting the presidential prospects of Ron Paul. Even as Paul's electoral chances dwindle, Wead is still at it.
In his March 13 column, Wead complains that "Ron Paul supporters are used to getting shortchanged by the media." He goes on to fawningly speculate why:
There are reasons why the pundits and the mainstream media exclude Paul. He is taking on the establishment. He is seeking to reform the monetary system, including changes that would make the Federal Reserve more transparent.
He wants us all to know how much money they are "printing" and to whom it is given.
Paul supporters come via the internet. That's why so many are young. They don't watch television news. They do their own research.
Paul doesn't convert them. The facts do. They simply match up the facts to the candidates. Many are even shocked to find that the old man has it right.
A Ron Paul presidency may be a lost cause at this point, but Wead is still enthusiastically plugging away.
Bozell No Longer Thinks Limbaugh's Attack of Fluke Is Offensive (If He Ever Did) Topic: Media Research Center
Over the past week, Brent Bozell has been shifting himself and his Media Research Center from occasionally conceding that Rush Limbaugh's three-day denigration of Sandra Fluke caused offense to aggressively pushing the idea that there was nothing offensive about it at all.
As we documented, Bozell waited five days to speak out on Limbaugh's attack on Fluke, waiting until Limbaugh was forced to apologize in the face of an advertiser exodus before he was spurred into action.
We started seeing this last week in Bozell's column, when he starting seriously pushing his pet distraction of highlighting offensive things others have said, declaring that these were "far nastier, far more insulting than Rush Limbaugh has ever said in his entire life." Bozell omitted exactly what Limbaugh said about Fluke or anybody else, preventing his readers from making a direct comparison.
Bozell repeated this dubious argument in his hypocritical letter to MSNBC demanding that Ed Schultz be fired, asserting that Schultz's "a history of insults a hundred-fold worse than anything Limbaugh has ever said." Needless to say, Bozell did not offer the algorithm he used to calculate that Schultz's insults were "a hundred-fold worse" than Limbaugh's.
This idea that Limbaugh is a lovable fuzzball (to use Limbaugh's own self-description) is spreading elsewhere in the MRC empire.
In a March 14 MRC TimesWatch item, Clay Waters was outraged that the New York Times described Limbaugh as an "offensive figure," going so far as to ludicrously defend Limbaugh by declaring that calling Fluke a "slut," unlike what Bill Maher said about Sarah Palin, can be printed ina family newspaper:
New York Times media reporter Brian Stelter wrote a column for Wednesday's Business section on the "offensive figure" Rush Limbaugh ("After Apology, National Advertisers Are Still Shunning Limbaugh") on the radio host losing advertisers after his "slut" comment on birth-control activist Sandra Fluke was inflamed by the left.
But the Times has thus far ignored the counterexample raised by conservatives of comedian and HBO "Real Time" host Bill Maher, who used a far more vile word to describe Republican Sarah Palin in March 2011. (The word's very offensiveness makes it unprintable, unlike Limbaugh's "slut," comment, a standard of obscenity that actually shields Maher.)
It's looking more and more like Bozell's initial, grudging criticism of Limbaugh was just for show. Like a loyal dittohead, Bozell probably really believes that Fluke is a slut and deserved Limbaugh's denigration.
The only problem with that, of course, is that his current war against liberal offenders makes him nothing less than a total hypocrite.
AIM's Kincaid Still Can't Quite Admit Proposed Uganda Law Would Kill Gays Topic: Accuracy in Media
For the past two years, Accuracy in Media's Cliff Kincaid has championed a proposed draconian anti-gay law in Uganda while denying the fact that it would permit the death penalty for mere homosexuality. Now, Kincaid is pushing the law again in defense of an American anti-gay activist accused of helping to inspire the law.
In a March 15 AIM column, Kincaid writres that the proposed law "had a death penalty provision for certain homosexual acts, such as sex with children." In fact, as we've documented, the proposed law counts "aggravated homosexuality" -- which the law defines as, among other things, a previous conviction for homosexual behavior -- as an offense punishable by death.
Nevertheless, Kincaid insists that the U.S. media "falsely called" the propsed law the "Kill the Gays bill" -- even though that's exactly what it would do.
Kincaid spends most of his column defending anti-gay activist Scott Lively from a "frivolous lawsuit" filed by "the George Soros-funded Center for Constitutional Rights" accusing Lively of crimes against humanity for his role in advising Ugandan lawmakers on the anti-gay law. Kincaid claims that Lively is being target for merely "criticizing homosexuality during a trip to Uganda." In fact, the CCR accuses him of much deeper involvement:
Scott Lively has been working with anti-gay forces in Uganda since 2002. In March 2009, Lively, along with two other U.S. Evangelical leaders, headlined a three-day conference intended to expose the “gay movement” as an “evil institution” and a danger to children. Lively likened the effects of his advocacy to a “nuclear bomb” in Uganda and stated that he hopes it is replicated elsewhere. The Anti-Homosexuality Bill emerged one month later with provisions that reflected Lively’s input. As in Uganda, Lively aims to criminalize LGBT advocacy elsewhere and has worked with religious and political leaders in Russia, Moldova and Latvia to that end. He states he has spoken on the topic of homosexuality in almost 40 countries and advises that “the easiest way to discourage ‘gay pride’ parades and other homosexual advocacy is to make such activity illegal.”
Kincaid uncritically repeats Lively's defense that he opposes any death-penalty provisions in the proposed Uganda bill, but no documentation is offered to back up Lively's story.
Kincaid selectively quoted from an Open Society Institute blog post, writing that "the Open Society Institute acknowledged that its 'Initiative for Eastern Africa' had drawn 'scrutiny from conservative leaders' in Uganda 'for supporting sexual minority groups.'" The blog post details the OSI's effort to purchase a newspaper ad space for a tribute to murdered Ugandan gay activist David Kato, noting that one newspaper group demanded the OSI soften language stated the undisputed fact that gays in Uganda "are routinely subject to arbitrary arrests, hate speech, torture, vigilante violence, and persecution." Does Kincaid support this kind of censorship?
Kincaid also whined:
For simply reporting on Uganda’s efforts to save their nation from Soros and his international networks, this columnist was falsely attacked as someone supporting death for homosexuals. The obvious purpose of such attacks is to silence critics of homosexuality and the Soros agenda for the U.S. and Africa.
Well, if Kincaid is supporting this law -- and he gives no evidence he has changed his mind about it -- he is indeed supporting death for homosexuals. It's not anyone else's fault but his own that he can't deal honestly with the facts.
NewsBusters Hates the Comedy Defense -- Except for Limbaugh Topic: NewsBusters
Scott Whitlock uses a March 16 NewsBusters post to complain that Stephen colbert said that the Taliban "evidently have a better track record on women's issues" than Rush Limbaugh. Whitlock further complains:
Liberals, including Colbert and Jon Stewart themselves, will immediately jump to the "we're just comedians" defense. However, considering that outlets like MSNBC routinely promote their clips and portay them simply as cultural satirists, it's worth noting the extreme, often hateful tilt of their comedy.
Whitlock seems to have forgotten that his NewsBusters colleagues defended Rush Limbaugh's misogynistic attack on Sandra Fluke as a joke.
As we've documented, Whitlock's fellow MRC employee Brent Baker said of Limbaugh's hateful demand that he wantsvideo of Fluke having sex: "Obviously, a bit of humor which escaped the overly-sensitive left-wing/media axis always looking to be offended." And another MRC co-worker, Ken Shepherd, insisted that Limbaugh was speaking "facetiously" when he denigrated a female author by saying, "What is it with all these young, single white women, overeducated -- doesn't mean intelligent."
It's more than a bit hypocritical of Whitlock to denounce the comedian defense when his own co-workers used the exact same defense to try and protect Limbaugh.
Farah Falsely Smears Fluke As 'Avowed Fornicator,' 'Slut' Topic: WorldNetDaily
Joseph Farah apparently loves Rush Limbaugh so much -- they worked together in the 1980s when Limbaugh was a local radio host in Sacramento and Farah was dragging the Sacramento Union even farther to the right -- he mindlessly repeats his most sleazy insults.
Rush Limbaugh calls an avowed fornicator who testified publicly before Congress about the financial hardship of paying for contraceptives a “slut,” which she is, according to the dictionary definition, and dozens of national advertisers capitulate to boycott threats.
We're not sure what "dictionary definition" of "slut" Farah is referring to here, but given that Sandra Fluke has never discussed her sex life in public, let alone in her congressional testimony, it can't be a volume existing on this plane of reality.
It's hardly the sign of a competent media critic when he starts channeling 20-year-old teen movies. But that's how Noel Sheppard reacts to Rosie O'Donnell losing her TV show on the Oprah Winfrey Network. Sheppard states this in a March 17 NewsBusters post:
I really am deeply saddened by this news and wish my former classmate all the best...NOT!
There you have it: Sheppard channels the juvenelia of "Wayne's World" to offer "media criticism."
WND Baselessly Claims Man Who Threatened Arpaio Is A 'Fanantical Supporter' of Obama Topic: WorldNetDaily
A March 14 WorldNetDaily article states that "A Tennessee man described as an Obama 'fanatic' has been convicted of threatening to kill Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his family, possibly in connection with the lawman’s investigation into the president’s eligibility for office." The article goes on to state that "Authorities say [Adam Eugene] Cox’s postings indicate – and his own mother confirms – that Cox is a 'fanatical supporter' of Obama." The "fanatical supporter" quote is repeated in a March 16 WND article by Joe Kovacs featuring Rush Limbaugh's claim that themedia is ignoring the threat against Arpaio.
Even though the articles put "fanatical supporter" in quotes, the person who said that is never identified. Turns out it's Arpaio himself -- and he's wrong.
The Phoenix New Times points out that despite Arpaio's description of Cox as an "Obama fanatic" conflicts with his actual writings, in which he claims "Satan "ordered" him to kill "birthers" to spark a war between political parties in order to decrease the population in America.
Just consider this another part of WND's sucking up to Arpaio in order to keep him promoting the WND birther agenda.
MRC's Graham: What Are All Those Gays Doing At the White House? Topic: NewsBusters
Tim Graham is having another anti-gay freakout, folks.
The headline of Graham's March 16 NewsBusters post reads, "Was Obama Playing Politics By Loading State Dinner Guest List With Gays?" Graham goes on to note that "fifteen prominent gays" attended the state dinner at the White House for British prime minister David Cameron. He then goes on to list them, noting that this may be part of an effort to "end the media-enabled charade that Obama (the 'committed Christian') opposes 'marriage equality.'"
Of course, Graham has long been a gay-basher, and this obsession with gays at the White House is just another part of that.
As Obama’s favorability ratings keep bouncing back up toward 50 percent, the only plausible explanation is that close to half of America’s voting public is so addicted to government benefits that they are prepared to re-elect a Marxist who has clearly demonstrated that he intends to completely free himself of the constraints of the Constitution.
Put in the most simple terms, we are at a crossroads because Barack Obama has brought us there. He is the first genuine Marxist to sit in the White House, and his agenda is to dismantle our capitalist economy and destroy American influence in the world.
Obama’s policies place us at this crossroads of history. This year is different because there will be no turning back from the road to European-style socialism and Caesarism if Barack Obama wins a second term. Rick Santorum understands this.
There have been many people in the history of the world who called evil good and good evil. None of them lasted very long. America has had presidents before who called good evil and evil good, but none, I believe, with the audacity of Barack Obama.
What makes matters even more perilous, notwithstanding the desire of these mullahs to not only obliterate the promised land of Jews and Christians, Israel, but to wipe the United States off of the face of the map as well with their soon-to-be-manufactured atomic weapons and long-range missiles capable of being delivered to our shores, is the now transparent fact that our own so-called president, Barack Hussein Obama, is in at least his heart also a Muslim. This, more than anything else, explains his near complete disdain, if not hatred, for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the nation of Israel.
Whether it is siding with radical Islamic groups like the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and other Arab states, resulting in the overthrow of leaders like former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and others friendly to Israel and the West, or taking no real action, save for meaningless so-called economic sanctions to “stop” the Iranian march to nuclear weapons, Obama is no Roosevelt of Churchill! Instead, he is apparently bent on furthering Islamic domination around the world and cutting the United States, with its Judeo-Christian roots, down to size. And, if you think this is too far a stretch, then study the history of Obama’s Kenyan father, who as a proud anti-neocolonialist, socialist and Muslim despised the United States and the West. Indeed, this scenario, an American president like Obama, being so heavily influenced by his father, is why our Founding Fathers wrote into the Constitution, and the Supreme Court has agreed, that an American president must be a “natural born citizen” who is the offspring of two American citizens.
So the Obama problem is not just a Netanyahu-Israeli problem, but our own collective problem. The plain fact is that we have not only a socialist, but, even more dangerous, a Muslim sympathizer and traitor in the White House.
And that is why we all are in such peril, not just the state of Israel.
On the other hand, our dear leader in the White House shows a great deal of compassion toward his favorite world citizens, Mideast Muslims. He cheered the protesters in Egypt, yet ignored pro-Western protesters in Iran who were hoping at least to receive his moral support.
Sure, President Barack Hussein Obama – a Muslim sympathizer not coincidentally born to a socialist Muslim Kenyan father – has intentionally been negligent, along with his Democratic comrades, in allowing this cancer to grow to the point where it not only is an imminent threat to Israel, but also Europe and the United States – but Republicans as well bear a significant responsibility for the mess we now find ourselves in.
Obama is a traitor, but there has been no political counterweight to his treachery from the other party. We no longer have a republic, but just a bunch of dangerous political hacks from both sides of the aisle occupying time, space and “growing fat” in Washington, D.C., at our expense!
Almost every week brings a new reason for the United States House of Representatives to bring impeachment charges against President Obama. The question of the day is not why he should be impeached but why it hasn’t already been done.
MRC Doesn't Back Up Attack on 'GCB' Topic: Media Research Center
A March 12 MRC Culture & Media Institute article by Lauren Thompson attacks the new TV show "GCB," claiming it has a "true agenda of degrading Christianity, conservatives, and Texans." Thompson goes on to assert that the show contained "a total of 72 attacks on the Christian faith" in its first two episodes, with the second episode alone "mocking Christianity a total of 42 times."
Strangely, though, Thompson provides no list of all 72 instances of these "attacks."
Why? Certainly Thompson made a list of the alleged offenses -- that's how she knows there are 72 of them. Why not post that list along with her article?
We're guessing that at least some of those purported "attacks" are specious at best, designed to run up the numbers in order to bash the show.
So, Ms. Thompson, what are you afraid of? Post the entire list.
Newsmax Remains Unenthused About Romney Topic: Newsmax
As with the aftermath of Super Tuesday, the aftermath of Tuesday's primaries in Mississippi and Alabama is continuing to leave Newsmax less than enthused about the prospect of Mitt Romney as the Republican presidential nominee.
Here are a couple post-election headlines from Newsmax:
In addition, before the election, Newsmax CEO Christopher Ruddy posted a column that began: "I am continually amazed how those at the Romney campaign continue to act victorious when they have such a poor case to make about cinching the nomination."
Ouch. None of this unenthusiasm, by the way, precludes Newsmax fromcranking up its hype machine for Romney should he actually get the nomination. It's done that sort of flip-flop before.
Brent Bozell Demands That Obama Break the Law Topic: Media Research Center
Not content with merely dispiaying rampant hypocrisy in attacking liberals who say offensive things in order to distract fromthe offensive things Rush Limbaugh has said, Brent Bozell has expanded to launching a really dumb attack on President Obama.
For the past several days, Bozell has been tweeting this message, changing the number of days appropriately: "Obama's had XX days to decide what to do with misogynist Bill Maher's $1 million check. It should have taken one."
First, Maher did not donate that $1 million to Obama; he donated to Obama's PAC, which by law Obama has no control over. By asking Obama to direct his PAC to do something, Bozell is asking Obama to break the law.
Second, Bozell's raginbg hypocrisy again rears its ugly head. Whatever day Bozell lists as Obama havnig not yet decided "what to do with misogynist Bill Maher's $1 million check" is the exact same number of days Bozell has had to issue meaningful criticism of Rush Limbaugh's misogyny, and he has utterly failed to do so. As the man said, it should have taken one.
Why should anyone take direction from Bozell when he doesn't even have the basic decency to genuinely criticize Limbaugh for the same misogyny he bashes others for? We can't think of a reason.