CNS Commenters Smear DNC Chairman As 'Slut,' 'Bitch' Topic: CNSNews.com
Terry Jeffrey has turned CNS into a honey trap for racists, homophobes, misogynists, and other just plain hateful readers who hang out in the website's comment forums.
That continues in a July 18 CNS article by Eric Scheiner in which he quotes Democratic National Committee chairman Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz telling a women's gathering that it should focus on electing women to Congress who will work for "ensuring access to birth control."
Scheiner's article brought out misogynistic readers who not only engaged in the usual sexist jokes about her looks, they called Wasserman Schultz a "bitch," a "slut," a "whore,' "heifer" and a "wench" who should be "moving to NY and turning tricks near the Holland Tunnel," "needs a bucket of fast drying cement poured down her throat," not to mention should have been aborted. One reader served up a more explicit death threat: "Let's drag her behind a car."
Some of these comments date back three days, which says that either CNS doesn't monitor its comments or nobody flagged them as offensive. Both possibilities raise questions about CNS and its readership.
WND Sneers At Gays: 'Do These Khakis Make Me Look Kinky?' Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily has typically been hostile to gays, but it has apparently decided to ratchet up the hate.
On July 19, WND sent out an email to its readers promoting an article by Bob Unruh -- with the headline "Pentagon gets 'gayer' than ever" -- complaining that the Pentagon granted permission for gay members of the military to wear their uniforms in a gay-pride parade. That email had this headline: "Do these khakis make me look kinky?"
What "kinky" khakis have to do with anything in Unruh's article, WND doesn't say -- indeed, the word "khakis" doesn't even appear in the article. It seems to be merely WND taking an opportunity to sneer at gays asserting their rights.
It's highly unprofessional, of course. But since when has birther-obsessed WND cared about acting in a professional manner?
CNS Just Can't Stop Being Dishonest About Planned Parenthood Topic: CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com, it seems, is simply unable to stop falsely framing Planned Parenthood's federal funding.
In a July 19 CNS article, Elizabeth Harrington repeats CNS' boilerplate assertion that "Planned Parenthood received $487.4 million in tax dollars; and according to its fact sheet, Planned Parenthood performed 329,445 abortions in 2010."
As we've repeatedly detailed, the federal money Planned Parenthood receives cannot and does not pay for abortion services.
Why does CNS persist in this false framing? Surely they know it's dishonest. Or perhaps that's why they persist.
Conspiracist Farah Hates Being Exposed As A Conspiracist Topic: WorldNetDaily
If there's anything Joseph Farah likes less than legitimate criticism of him and his website -- about which he's notoriouslythin-skinned -- it's being exposed for the conspracist he is.
That explains Farah's July 18 WorldNetDaily column, in which he has a fit over an Arizona TV station highlighting the manipulation WND engaged in to get Arizona officials involved in his birther crusade. As we've seen him do before, Farah nit-picks minor errors, issues narrowly crafted and less-than-true denials, and personally attacks the reporter making the charges, all in an attempt to distract from the larger questions regarding his and WND's behavior that Farah has steadfastly refused to answer.
The gist of the TV station's report is that both WND and Tom Ballantyne, whom the station described as "a wealthy conspiracy theory peddler," made presentations before the Surprise Tea Party, an Arizona group, after which members of thegroup sent "a barrage of emails" to Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett -- who also happens to be Mitt Romney's campaign co-chairman in Arizona -- that prompted him to investigate President Obama's birth certificate.
Farah seized upon a minor error by reporter Morgan Loew to attack the reporter and make a less-than-factual denial:
For instance, Loew demands to know if Bennett “knew Ballantyne and Corsi were employees and/or contributors to publications owned by Joseph Farrah (sic).” Since I have had nothing to do with the Western Journalism Center since 1999, when I left to found WND as a for-profit entity, the premise of the question is not even true. I never owned Western Journalism Center, as it has always been a tax-exempt, nonprofit charity.
Farah is misleading. While technically correct about the nonprofit status of the WJC and the fact he doesn't currently run it, so far as we know (Loew did accurately state elsewhere in the article that Farah founded both WJC and WND), Farah is being disingenuous about his relationship with the group. WND was founded in 1997 as a division of the WJC, and as he previously admitted, the WJC continued to own part of WND as recently as 2002 (and likely later), three years after he said he had "nothing to do" with the WJC. It's unclear how much, if any, of WND the WJC currently owns -- Farah is notoriously tight-lipped about the money that backs him (though we've tried to figure it out).
While Farah may not personally be currently involved in running the WJC, there is indisputably a relationship between these two organizations he founded, and Farah really should stop playing games in obscuring the nature of that relationship.
Farah also complains:
He demands to know whether Bennett “thinks he was manipulated by Farrah (sic) and his followers to take state action on the issue.” Since I have never met Bennett, written to him, phoned him or spoken to him, I would suggest the answer to that loaded question is “no.”
That's a suspicioiusly specific denial. Farah doesn't answer the question of whether any of his WND employees, such as Jerome Corsi, contacted Bennett, or whether he directed Corsi or others to do so.
Farah makes a strange complaint about Loew's description of Ballantyne as "a wealthy conspiracy theory peddler," retorting that "the story never explains how wealthy he is or how he may have accumulated his wealth." That sounds like Farah knows exactly how wealthy Ballantyne is and how he may have accumulated his wealth, and has decided to be a jerk about it. WND, after all, haspromoted Ballantyne's birther activism, so it's unlikely that Farah doesn't know who he is.
Finally, Farah tries to belittle Loew in a way that makes it seem he's talking about himself:
Here’s a guy painting broad conspiracies to explain what turns out to be an inconsequential event without even knowing how to spell some of the participants’ names, while labeling others he has never met nor talked to as “conspiracy peddlers.”
Hasn't WND's entire birther crusade been all about blowing up inconsequential events into broad conspiracies? Yeah, pretty much.
Bozell's Hypocritical Apology Demand Topic: Media Research Center
Brent Bozell has a myopic NewsBusters post:
This morning, in the aftermath of the unspeakable Colorado massacre that claimed at least 12 innocent American lives and injured dozens more, ABC "news" investigative reporter Brian Ross appeared on ABC's Good Morning America and made the outrageous, irresponsible, and completely unfounded claim that the alleged gunman, 24-year-old Jim Holmes, is a member of the Tea Party. Apparently Ross has learned absolutely nothing from the media's disgraceful rush to judgment and dissemination of misinformation following the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in January 2011.
That's twice now that the "news" media have falsely implicated the Tea Party in murder.
In a moment that demanded clarity of thought and purpose, Ross rushed to slander those with whom he does not agree politically, exposing the depths and darkness of his political prejudices. Shame on Brian Ross, and shame on ABC News for not yet demanding he look directly into the camera and beg forgiveness for politicizing this terrible event. Ross' meek Twitter apology is a cynically insincere slap in the face to us all.
Unmentioned in Bozell's post: A rush to judgment by the biased right-wing media he loves.
in a post at Breitbart.com, editor Joel Pollak declared that the accused shooter, James Holmes, "registered as a Democrat on June 14, 2011. He registered from an address in La Plata County, Colorado, and his status is listed as 'inactive.'" Pollak laughably asserted that "There are certainly more facts in our documents than in ABC News' irresponsible speculations."
Pollak, meanwhile, attacked Ross and ABC for their error, and even admitted that ABC has issued a "straightforward apology." By contrast, Pollak issued only a correction and no apology.
It wasn't until a full five hours later that Pollak started to backtrack from his false accusation, finally concediing that "the suspect may, in fact, not have been registered to vote."
Where's Bozell's outrage over this? Why is it OK in his mind to smear Democrats but not conservatives? Shouldn't Joel Pollak issue the very same abject apology Bozell demands from Brian Ross?
If he won't treat Pollak the same as Ross, Bozell is nothing but a coward and a hypocrite. But we knew that already, didn't we?
Salon has an interesting profile of WorldNetDaily columnist and Obama conspiracy-monger Jack Cashill. The article's conclusion sums up Cashill quite well:
Seeing Obama lead the free world may infuriate Cashill, but that’s garden-variety political anger. Seeing Obama celebrated as an author — that’s personal, and intolerable. You can’t fake being a good writer, and yet Obama is doing it. Or maybe Obama really is a good writer, and that’s even worse. There he goes again, using words Jack Cashill has never heard, citing authors Jack Cashill has never read, failing to make errors Jack Cashill would have made, laughing off his undergraduate poems while Jack Cashill pores over them, deep into the night, begging them to betray their author once and for all. There he goes, forgetting all about a poem he wrote in high school while Jack Cashill recites his own prize-winning composition, proudly, to an audience of one.
Yes, Cashill really did claim that "I can still recite the poem that won a class contest when I was a freshman in high school."
NewsBusters Still Hates Context (For Obama) Topic: NewsBusters
NewsBusters has a passive-aggressive relationship with putting words in their proper context: It will demand that the words of conservatives be placed in context, but not only does it happily quote, say, President Obama out of context and declare any attempt to put them back in their true context as "making excuses."
We see that again in a July 19 post by Tom Blumer, in which he denounces the Associated Press for putting Obama's statement "If you've got a business, you didn't build that" -- which right-wingers like Blumer have made a point of taking out of context -- in its origial context of talking about the roads, bridges and other infrastructure that makes it possible for customers to get to those businesses:
Geez, Steve, what part of "you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen" didn't you understand?
Note well that Peoples didn't write: "Obama said that his intended point was ..." He asserted as an indisputable, established fact what Obama's "intended point" was. You don't know that, pal -- no matter how many other Obama speeches you quote.
Actually, it's quite clear from Obama's words what he intended to say, and indeed did say. But Blumer is too invested in dishonestly taking that statement out of context that he just can't help but parrot the right-wing talking point du jour:
Not "somebody else created the infrastructure (with your taxes) which made pursuing your dreams more possible." Not "somebody else educated your employees (with your taxes) which made leveraging your talents possible." And even if the President was right -- and of course, he's not -- the "progressive" tax system which already takes a disproportionate percentage of income from high earners squares the deal.
In Obama's warped world, you didn't close the sale; "somebody else" did. You didn't screen, vet, hire, and motivate employes; "somebody else" did. You didn't organize and manage your work flow, vendor, and customer relationships; "somebody else" did. On a more personal level, you didn't orchestrate the complex elements (incuding government red tape) of building of your new home; "somebody else" did.
No amount of "context" can paper over the fact that in Obama's world successful people don't have a right to claim credit for their success. The government and the collective deserve all of it, and how dare you think otherwise? There's no room for, or even acknowledgment of, "individual initiative" in the president's "you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen" remark.
No amount of ranting can paper over the fact that Blumer doesn't care about context or even facts. He has right-wing marching orders, and he must deny reality to carry them out.
While we were posting our compendium of race-baiting by WorldNetDaily and Colin Flaherty, they were tag-teaming for yet another racial tirade.
Flaherty once again operates from the premise that only blacks are violent:
Ready to play the Knockout Game?
The St. Louis version is the most popular, so let’s start there: Begin with a bunch of black people. Anywhere from five to 50.
Find a white person, but an Asian will do. Alone is important. Older is better. Weak and defenseless even more so.
Without warning, punch that person in the face as hard as you can. You win if you score a Knockout.
If not, keep punching until your arms and legs get too tired to continue. Or the person dies.
You can play anywhere, but “vibrant and culturally mixed” South Grand District is probably best. That is where the victims are: Asians, “gay” people, artists, yuppies – people who won’t fight back.
By contrast, the St. Louis Riverfront Times points out that the "knockout game" is not exclusively a black thing, as Flaherty would have you believe:
But Knockout King does not appear to be bounded by race. Jason, from St. Louis County, says two white friends were part of his punch-out crew. One Dutchtown woman, agreeing to speak on the condition that her name not be published, says police caught her son, who is white, playing Knockout King two years ago, when he was sixteen. He and some friends had been hiding between buildings on Gravois Avenue, and he popped out to club a bicyclist who'd come rolling along.
"It's not a black thing, it's a kid thing," the woman says. "It's teenage kids trying to be cool. My son's as white as can be. He doesn't have a black bone in his body."
As with other recent Flaherty articles, WND appended a defensive "editor's note" insisting that "WND considers it racist not to report racial abuse solely because of the skin color of the perpetrators or victims." Of course, the only way to consider this "racial abuse" is to pretend that only blacks commit violent crimes -- which, as we just demonstrated, is an utterly false premise.
Flaherty is ignoring evidence that people of other races commit the very crime he purports to be outraged about -- which amply demonstrates this is all about race-baiting, not about the truth.
MRC's Graham Smears Huma Abedin Topic: NewsBusters
Tim Graham feels the need to go Muslim-bashing in a July 19 NewsBusters post by smearing Huma Abedin, aide to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
While most other conservatives are rushing to defend Abedin from specious allegations made by right-wing Rep. Michele Bachmann, Graham has thrown in his lot with Bachmann's Islamophobia, baseless attacking Abedin as "an ardent Sharia-imposing Muslim Brotherhood activist."
What evidence does Graham offer that she is any of those things? None. None whatsoever.
But that's pretty much the level of "research" we've come to expect from the MRC these days, isn't it?
Zullo, Farah Whine That Birther Posse's Motives Are Being Questioned Topic: WorldNetDaily
The birthers are getting desperate. WorldNetDaily and its proxy in Joe Arpaio's cold case posse, Mike Zullo, have become increasingly annoyed that their motives are being questioned and whining -- falsely -- that their so-called evidence is being ignored.
First up is Zullo, in a July 17 WND article by Art Moore, in which he whines that at that day's dud of a press conference, he was asked about the book on the investigation he co-wrote with WND's Jerome Corsi. Zullo declared that "I’ve made nothing out of that book" -- yet Moore quoted him as saying that he "received a check [for] $700 and another for $630." That apparently doesn't count as making money because "All of that money, he said, went directly to his church." Being the obsequious WND drone he is, Moore not only doesn't challenge Zullo on his blatant lie, doesn't ask the logical question of why the posse, a nonprofit group, shouldn't keep that money. Of course, if he did perform that act of journalism, Moore would also have to ask that very same question of Corsi, his fellow WND employee, and you know that ain't gonna happen.
Moore also quotes Zullo as saying, "Obviously, the information we are bringing forth is becoming very difficult for them to refute." In fact, we cited refutations of Zullo's "information" that were first published before Zullo announced them -- one of them by an organization founded by WND editor Joseph Farah.
The issue is not that Zullo's evidence is "difficult for them to refute," it's that it's difficult for Zullo to admit that it has, in fact, been refuted.
Speaking of Farah, he whined about the same thing in his July 17 column:
After watching the press reaction and “questions” following Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s breathtaking news conference yesterday, I have to tell you I’m embarrassed to call myself a newsman.
If someone asks me what I do for a living, maybe I’ll identify myself as an Internet entrepreneur.
Or maybe I’ll say I’m a “writer.”
Or maybe a publisher or businessman.
I never thought it would come to this. Being a newsman was all I ever wanted to be as far back as I can remember. It’s really all I’ve ever done through adulthood. It’s all I really know and love.
But I don’t ever want to be associated with that pack of jackals from Phoenix who jumped all over Arpaio and his investigator, Mike Zullo, for courageously presenting overwhelming evidence – I would even use the term “proof” – that Barack Obama’s birth certificate is fraudulent and that the state of Hawaii is not only a willing accomplice in this scandal but perpetrating an even bigger one as a virtual factory for phony documents giving noncitizens instant citizenship with a stroke of the pen.
Farah is lying, of course. Farah has freely admitted he's "an activist, a crusader" and no longer a journalist. It's unclear why he would be "embarrassed" to be called a "newsman" when he has completely abandoned journalism.
Farah concludes with a bit of false self-aggrandization:
I may not want to associate myself with the media anymore out of sheer humiliation. But I promise you one thing: I’m not going to stop being a real journalist. I’m not going to stop doing what I’ve been doing for 35 years. I’m not going to stop supporting intrepid, independent renegades like the WND team who make me believe there’s still hope for redeeming the media.
If Farah was a "real journalist," he would have disclosed by now the full extent -- including financial -- of WND's ties with Arpaio and the posse. He also have reported how his entire birther crusade has been discredited, but people like John Woodman remain persona non grata at WND.
It seems that the "real journalists" are the ones questioning the motivations and evidence of Zullo and Farah, not the ones who uncritically regurgitate their discredited research, which is what Zullo and Farah want.
Motley declared that "The Press is at every turn covering up - rather than covering - the serial failures of President Obama's signature vehicle," the Chevy Volt. As Media Matters points out, the Volt was in development well before Obama became president.
Media Matters also debunks several other false and misleading claims Motley makes -- for instance, his assertion that the "Volt fire problem remains unsolved." In fact, regulators concluded an inquiry into the Volt after finding it was just as safe as conventional cars, that the three fires associated with Volts had occurred after extreme crash tests, and GM voluntarily offered to make the cars even safer by reinforcing the battery pack.
Why is the MRC allowing Motley to blog at NewsBusters when he cares much more for hurling mean-spirited invective and false attacks than about the truth? Or did we just answer our own question?
NEW ARTICLE: WorldNetDaily's Long, Hot Summer of Race-Baiting Topic: WorldNetDaily
WND is eagerly and repeatedly portraying blacks as mob-prone thugs -- then tries to defend it by claiming nobody else has the guts to report it. Read more >>
Newsmax's Ruddy Hanging Out in Africa With Bill Clinton Topic: Newsmax
How times change.
Newsmax started life in 1997 under the editorship of Christopher Ruddy and the funding of Richard Mellon Scaife with the express purpose of attacking the Clinton presidency and cheerleading for his impeachment. But Ruddy and Scaife began changing their tune about President Clinton a few years back, with Ruddy even admitting that "Clinton wasn’t such a bad president."
That detente has now moved to a whole new level: Ruddy has accompanied Clinton on a trip to Africa, and is blogging about it at the Clinton Foundation's website.
No, really. A July 18 Newsmax article explains it:
Newsmax's CEO Christopher Ruddy has joined former President Bill Clinton on his current mission to Africa.
Last week, President Clinton and his delegation arrived in Johannesburg, South Africa, as part of a 10-day, five-nation tour across the African continent.
The Clinton Foundation sponsors programs that support sustainable development, education, and healthcare working with individuals, private business, and local government.
"President Clinton and his foundation have made a huge difference in their private-public programs," Ruddy said. "These programs have helped millions, have been extremely cost-effective and help build bridges between the United States and emerging countries."
Ruddy's Clinton Foundation blog post is the kind of fluffy promotion that is the last thing you'd expect from Ruddy on the subject of Clinton:
The Clinton Foundation demonstrates that public-private partnerships and strategic engagement of private citizens, community members, and local governments can achieve great results in health care. And as I saw firsthand today in Mozambique, this work is innovative in its scope and in its purpose – which is to ensure governments can own and maintain their own health care systems without further reliance on aid. I applaud the Clinton Foundation for bringing together groups and individuals from all sides of the political spectrum to build a world that’s more equal, more sustainable, and that benefits us all.
Mychal Massie uses his July 16 WorldNetDaily column as an opportunity to work his thesaurus with impunity.
In addition to referencing old favorites like Erebus and Barmecide, Massie throws in another highfalutin word: "hebephrenic." This references "a form of schizophrenia characterized by foolish mannerisms and senseless laughter along with delusions and regressive behavior." Needless to say, that word was directed at President Obama.
Also needless to say, Massie's column is yet another spewing of Obama derangement. He again repeats the discredited lie that Michelle Obama "spent $50,000 on exotic underwear in one store on a New York shopping trip with the Queen of Qatar," as well as the discredited lie that she "fraudulently represent[ed] your children as senior staff to either avoid paying for them or to give them salaries." He adds the discredited lie that President Obama targeted auto dealers for closure in the bankruptcies of General Motors and Chrysler because they donated to conservatives.
Between the lies and the thesaurus-diving, Massie still manages to work in a fit of the whacked-out brand of Obama derangement only Massie can do:
Everything you have said and done has told us a story – and it is a story with which we massively disagree. Yours is one continuing story of how to disparage America to foreign despots and how to reduce the White House to Cabrini Green on a hot weekend summer night. Your story is one that tells us you and your wife had no idea of the protocol and espirit de corps of the office you hold – and the dress and public behavior of your wife punctuates it.
Now we have another reminder of a story that has haunted you since you assumed office as you have the audacity to raise the specter of Romney’s legal standing. Do you think we have forgotten the stories surrounding your eligibility, your relationships with known Chicago mobsters, your relationships with unrepentant domestic terrorists and that you are the only leader in history to hide his past?
As I said, Barry, you have told a story – many of them, as a matter of fact. And they’ve all been nightmarish for those of us who have always loved America and who have not spent our lives cringing in shame of this nation as your wife told us she did.
There is one story you haven’t told that I know the majority of Americans would love to hear you tell, and that is the story of your affinity for Islam. That, you mendacious megalomaniac, is a story We the People would like to hear you tell the truth about.
If Massie didn't fill his column with discredited lies, would he still be allowed to write for WND, which has similar factual standards when it comes to Obama?
CNS' Jeffrey Cherry-Picks Numbers to Bash Stimulus Topic: CNSNews.com
Terry Jeffrey keeps his personal grudge against President Obama going via his anti-Obama propanganda mill -- masquerading as the "news" operation CNSNews.com -- in full effect with a July 16 article attacking White House press secretary Jay Carney for saying that the stimulus bill “widely recognized to have broken the back of the recession.”
Note Jeffrey's selective use of statistics to try to undermine Carney's claim:
In January 2009, the month before Obama signed his stimulus, the national unemployment rate was 7.8 percent, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. It has not dropped below 8 percent in any month since then. In February 2009, it hit 8.3 percent. In June 2012, it was 8.2 percent.
In January 2009, there were 12,049,000 unemployed people in the country, meaning there were that many people age 16 and older who wanted a job, had actively sought one in the previous four weeks, but had not been able to find one. In June 2012, there were 12,749,000 unemployed people—or 700,000 more than there were the month before Obama signed the stimulus.
The percentage of the American population actually holding jobs and the percentage of the population participating in the labor force (those either holding a job or actively looking for one) have both declined since January 2009. In that month, 60.6 percent of Americans 16 or older were working. In June 2012, 58.6 percent of Americans 16 or older were working. In January 2009, 65.7 percent of Americans 16 or older either held a job or were looking for one—and thus were participating in the labor force. By June 2012, that had dropped to 63.8 percent.
In January 2009, 142,187,000 Americans had jobs. In June 2012, 142,415,000 Americans had jobs—an increase of just 228,000 in the number of employed Americans.
But January 2009 was not the bottom of the recession -- October 2009 was. According to the same BLS statistics Jeffrey is using, the number of people who had jobs hit a low of 138,401,000 in October 2009. The number of unemployed peaked that same month with 15,421,000 without jobs, as did the unemployment rate, at 10.0 percent.
Jeffrey is making a dishonest comparision. Who's surprised?