AIM's Kincaid Touts Its Kangaroo Court, Suggests Germany's Merkel Is A Secret Commie Topic: Accuracy in Media
Cliff Kincaid takes a victory lap in a May 5 Accuracy in Media column:
The announcement that the House will vote on a special congressional committee to investigate Benghazi is long overdue. Accuracy in Media’s two special conferences on Benghazi helped mobilize the public and the press to demand this outcome.
Kincaid goes on to tout one of the conclusions AIM's kangaroo court came to:
At AIM’s second conference on Benghazi, held at the National Press Club on April 22, retired Admiral James “Ace” Lyons stated openly what many have been talking about privately—that the transformation of U.S. policy from opposing to supporting al Qaeda can only be understood in terms of Muslim Brotherhood “penetration into every national security agency of this government,” and “their carte blanche entry into the [Obama] White House.”
So will these agents of influence be named and exposed by the Benghazi special committee? That is why the public has to continue to be mobilized to apply pressure.
This leads to a defense of Joseph McCarthy dubious Red Scare tactics.
But Kincaid isn't done with the infiltration theme. He wrote a second May 5 column promoting the idea that German Chancellor Angela Merkel is some kind of secret Soviet agent (and, of course, brings Obama into it):
In the current context, with Putin continuing to destabilize Ukraine, the other notable case of alleged penetration is Germany. As we noted in a previous column, a book by Günther Lachmann and Ralf Georg Reuth published last year looks at the hidden communist past of German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who spent 35 years of her life in East Germany, and concealed her work as an ideologue for a communist youth group.
The book grows increasingly relevant as we watch the Germans maneuver to avoid punishing Russia over its invasion of Ukraine. In the face of Russian aggression, Merkel says “…we want to continue having a reasonable partnership with Russia.”
“Germany is one of our strongest allies, and Angela is one of my closest partners,” said Obama. But since Russia is Germany’s partner, what does that say about Obama? The pieces of the puzzle are falling into place in front of our eyes.
The German book, The First Life of Angela M., only goes so far. It does not make the direct charge that Merkel is a Russian agent. That is a taboo topic, in the same way that an analysis of Obama’s grooming by Frank Marshall Davis is considered a form of “McCarthyism” directed against a civil rights activist. At least that is the rationale being offered by the media in the U.S. to avoid facing facts.
Remember, this kind of conspiracy talk is coming from the same organization that thinks its Benghazi kangaroo court is meaningful.
Michael Ackley writes in his May 4 WorldNetDaily column:
A final word about Miriam Carey: Why is WND the only news organization strongly campaigning for justice for this beautiful, young African-American mother? Other media have done stories, but there are the old questions: Where is the outrage? Where are the demands from civil rights organizations? Where is the human-rights commission investigation?
But as we've noted, there's no evidence WND is interested in "justice" over Carey, who was killed after attempting to drive onto the White House grounds then leading police on a high-speed chase through downtown Washington. WND cares only about using any and all means necessary -- including Carey's death -- as a cudgel against President Obama.
For WND, Carey is a political tool, not a cause driven by compassion. Too bad Ackley is too much of a WND loyalist to see it.
MRC Doesn't Ask Where Crowdfunding Filmmaker Got Money for Billboard Topic: Media Research Center
Phelim McAleer is apparently wasting his crowdfunding money designated to make a movie, blowing it on a billboard instead. And the Media Research Center couldn't be happier.
The MRC's Katie Yoder hasserved as one of the right-wing media cheerleaders for McAleer's crowdfunding campaign to make a film about rogue abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell. A May 1 item by Yoder keeps up the cheerleading, touting how McAleer "erected a billboard slamming Kickstarter – a half mile away from Kickstarter’s headquarters in Brooklyn, New York," attacking the company for putting restrictions on McAleer's crowdfunding efforts. (McAleer's campaign moved to another site.) Yoder goes on to proclaim that "the Gosnell movie’s Indiegogo campaign boasts more than $1.6 million raised with 16,500 funders – 76 percent of the $2.1 million goal."
One thing Yoder doesn't ask, however: Where did McAleer get the presumed thousands of dollars to erect a spiteful billboard? Did he take that money out of his crowdfunding pot, even though McAleer's little vendetta billboard has nothing to do with movie production? If so, did McAleer obtain permission from his donors to spend money on something other than movie production?
Yoder clearly doesn't want to know the answer. She's McAleer's PR agent, after all.
WND's Farah Goes Godwin, Makes An Obama-Hitler Comparison Topic: WorldNetDaily
WND's standard illustration for slandering Obama as Hitler or some other dictator.
Having brought in Anita Dittman as WorldNetDaily's new resident Godwinist -- dropping slanderous comparisons of President Obama to Hitler -- has apparently inspired WND editor Joseph Farah to drop his own Godwinism in his May 5 column:
No U.S. president since Israel was reborn in 1948 has been less of a friend to Israel or the Jewish people than Barack Obama. He seeks to redraw the nation’s borders in a way that would leave Israel unable to defend itself. He has sought to freeze building by Jews in and around Israel’s capital. He seeks a so-called peace agreement that would involve ethnic cleansing of Jews in a future Palestinian state. Obama is not operating in the spirit of Oscar Schindler. On the contrary, he is operating in the spirit of those who appeased Adolf Hitler in the 1930s. He is operating in the spirit of those who looked the other way as 6 million Jews were exterminated. He is operating in the spirit of those who had an opportunity to save Jews from death in the Holocaust but did nothing.
In short, Obama’s list of humanitarian priorities is not like Schindler’s.
Meanwhile, WND has repackaged Dittman's earlier Obama-is-Hitler comparison as a cynical promotion for Dittman's WND-published book, "Trapped in Hitler's Hell." One wonders if the book's title is an explanation for Dittman's Big Lie technique.
Newsmax Lets Dick Morris Make A Prediction Topic: Newsmax
Newsmax's Dick Morris rehabilitation campaign continues apace by giving him an April 30 column in which he explains how Rick Perry can make a presidential run in 2016:
Acceptable to Latinos based on his Texas record. Draws strong Tea Party support without being defined by it. A Southerner, he is clearly ready to play on the national stage. A big state governor whose record on jobs has only gotten better. He can’t be dismissed.
Will his debate brainlock disqualify him? Not if he doesn’t repeat it. Clinton recovered from a disastrous 1988 Convention speech. He’s probably had enough time to recover from his dismissal of Social Security as a "Ponzi scheme" in his book.
But Rick Perry has to develop a truly national perspective to win. He can’t forever be repeating "in the state of Texas" before each line. He needs to know more about issues other than energy. In 2012, he showed the same lack of depth and laziness in issue preparation as Sarah Palin did in 2008, but he wasn’t caught as easily because he’s a man.
Republicans don’t like to take chances. They want their candidates to have served their apprenticeship as losers. The Republican voters are agoraphobic, fearful of new situations and people. It takes them a while to get used to new candidates and those who have run once and learned their lessons have great appeal. So keep your eye on Perry.
Given Morris' track record on predictions, we can probably assume that Perry now has no chance whatsoever to become president.
WND's Cashill Rhapsodizes Over James O'Keefe Topic: WorldNetDaily
Jack Cashill devoted his April 30 WorldNetDaily column to rebutting the idea that Donald Sterling was the victim of being "James O’Keefe’d":
As Esquire writer Charles Pierce and others have commented in the wake of Clippers owner Donald Sterling’s sudden notoriety, Sterling’s lady friend V. Stiviano “appears to have James O’Keefe’d him.”
Pierce is referring to the work of imaginative young journalist James O’Keefe. Not yet 30, O’Keefe has pioneered the art of quietly recording the damning words of a range of duplicitous individuals – from ACORN workers to NPR executives to union honchos to campaign officials – and exposing those words to the light.
Pierce, however, does not quite get the verb “O’Keefe.” O’Keefe goes after corrupt and/or hypocritical organizations that have prospered through taxpayer largesse, and he always tries to work within the law, however ambiguous that law sometimes is.
The media do not share O’Keefe’s hierarchy of values. On CNN, after O’Keefe released the first video of ACORN office workers abetting his apocryphal scheme, the Washington Post’s Keith Richburg expressed his outrage – about O’Keefe.
“It sounds to me like that’s just entrapment,” Richburg said of O’Keefe’s sting. “You know, let’s go around various offices until we can finally trick somebody.”
On that same CNN show, Salon’s Joe Conason added, “It’s not journalism unless they report everything that happened. It’s propaganda.”
In fact, in just about every ACORN office O’Keefe visited the workers obliged his teenage-prostitution schemes. To prove they did, O’Keefe made a practice of posting the videos unedited to show that the damning quotes were not taken out of context.
Cashill is severely overstating O'Keefe's "values." In fact, before O'Keefe released his unedited videos, he released a heavily edited video designed to play up his most salacious accusations. And when O'Keefe got around to releasing his unedited videos, they usually showed that he was taking people out of context. Indeed, O'Keefe agreed to pay $100,000 to a former ACORN employee for falsely portraying him in a video and for illegally taping him.
Cashill goes on to declare that O'Keefe "has not once been sued for libel or defamation." Actually, the above cited case aside, he has been sued for defamation -- by one of his own former employees.
And Cashill was too busy rhapsodizing over O'Keefe's "hierarchy of values" that he mention a botched sting in which O'Keefe "hoped to get CNN Investigative Correspondent Abbie Boudreau onto a boat filled with sexually explicit props and then record the session."
Those are apparently the kind of "values" Cashill can get behind.
MRC's Bozell and Graham Again At War With Grammar And Perspective Topic: Media Research Center
Last week, we noted that a column by the Media Research Center's Brent Bozell and Tim Graham cited an "early childhood memory" without explaining to which of the authors the memory belonged.
Bozell and Graham do it again in their May 2 column:
Saint Mary's Institute is the Catholic grade school in my wife's New York hometown, Amsterdam. It is affiliated with Saint Mary's Catholic Church, whose pastor Rev. John Medwid pens the opening to the Saint Mary's Institute annual newsletter.
Whose wife is being referred to here? We might assume that it's Bozell's, but it was revealed in February that Graham does all the heavy lifting in writing with Bozell's contributions unclear at best.
Either Graham has forgotten he deserves credit for his ghostwriter, or he has forgotten that it's a violation of grammar to offer a first-person perspective in a column authored by more than one person.
By the way, it seems that MRC division CNSNews.com has finally settled upon a way of properly crediting Graham after weeks of botching it. But at the MRC's main site, Graham got credit for a while but recent columns carry only Bozell's byline.
WND's Unruh Lies About Detention Bill Topic: WorldNetDaily
It seems that one reason Bob Unruh left the Associated Press to join WorldNetDaily in 2006 was WND didn't believe in things like reporting facts. Indeed, Unruh's WND work is littlemore than propaganda for his pet causes that dismisses or ignores entirely facts that conflict with his right-wing agenda.
We see this yet again in an April 29 WND article by Unruh:
A decision by the U.S. Supreme Court means the federal government now has an open door to “detain as a threat to national security anyone viewed as a troublemaker,” according to critics.
The high court this week refused to review an appeals court decision that said the president and U.S. military can arrest and indefinitely detain individuals.
The firm of William J. Olson, P.C., which filed a friend-of-the court brief asking the court to step in, noted that not a single justice dissented from the denial of the request for review.
“The court ducked, having no appetite to confront both political parties in order to protect the citizens from military detention,” the legal team said in a statement to WND. “The government has won, creating a tragic moment for the people – and what will someday be viewed as an embarrassment for the court.”
WND reported when the indefinite detention provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act were adopted and later challenged in court.
The controversial provision authorizes the military, under presidential authority, to arrest, kidnap, detain without trial and hold indefinitely American citizens thought to “represent an enduring security threat to the United States.”
But Unruh is just regurgitating lies that even his fellow right-wingers have debunked. The conservative Washington Times wrote in 2012 of the military authorization bill whose renewal Unruh is attacking here:
All dramatics aside, no matter what the murky NDAA says or means, it cannot strip Americans of their constitutional rights. Chief Justice John Marshall laid out this logical principle in the 1803 case of Marbury v. Madison, which established the standard of judicial review. He wrote that if a law conflicts with a rule or right under the Constitution, “the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the Legislature, [therefore] the Constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.” This is a bedrock principle of American politics. Even if the most expansive reading of the defense authorization is correct and it does represent some kind of White House power grab, it doesn’t matter, because any such provision negating rights held by citizens would be struck down as unconstitutional once it was adjudicated.
There also is the matter of the law’s political context. Those who argue that the NDAA is some kind of enabling act for an impending Obama imperium must also explain how such a bill was passed by a divided Congress, particularly the conservative Republican-controlled House. If control was Mr. Obama’s objective, it would have been more sensible to craft the legislation during the two years when San Francisco Rep. Nancy Pelosi was speaker of the House, Democrats enjoyed a supermajority in the Senate and Mr. Obama was not so unpopular. He could have used those purported extraordinary powers to head off the “shellacking” he took during the 2010 midterm elections, assuming he thought he could get away with it.
The true test of the NDAA would be if Mr. Obama attempted to do what some people fear he might do, namely, begin a vendetta against his political opponents or others he wants to deal with “Chicago style.” But should we honestly believe Mr. Obama will soon order mass arrests and detentions of peaceful American citizens? That members of the military would carry out such orders, which go against all other laws and customs and the Constitution? That such actions would not be met with a flood of court cases, mass demonstrations, civil disobedience and active resistance? And all this would happen in an election year? It will take more than a scrap of paper to end freedom in America.
Needless to say, Unruh doesn't bother to report such things in his article -- he's all about fearmongering and propaganda, after all.
Will MRC Admit GOP's Obamacare Study Is Bogus? Topic: Media Research Center
Matt Hadro writes in a May 1 Media Research Center item:
House Republicans determined that just two-thirds of ObamaCare enrollees paid their first month's premium in the federal marketplace, but the broadcast networks ignored their finding on Thursday evening, though FNC's Special Report with Bret Baier ran a full story. If true, the report would drastically undercut the White House's number of ObamaCare enrollees.
Hadro won't tell you, but the operative term here is "if true." Turns out it isn't.
As TPM detailed, the GOP survey was rigged to produce that result -- it included language that explicitly left out the fact some people would still have time to pay their premium after April 15, which is when the House Energy and Commerce Committee asked companies to return their answers.Nearly 40 percent of Obamacare enrollees signed up after March 15, which means their first premium wasn't due until after the committee finished collecting its data.
Having demanded that the media cover a bogus study, will Hadro now report that the study was bogus and admit no self-respecting news outlet should have covered it in the first place?
WND's Klayman: Under Obama, Whites Are 'At The Back of the Bus' Topic: WorldNetDaily
Obama and his cronies spent the next five years favoring African-Americans and people of color over all other groups of society, and it became painfully obvious that this socialist saw himself as the one person who could extract a pound of flesh for all the years of insidious discrimination against blacks, dating back to even the years before the founding of the republic. In effect, Obama and his friends – ranging from black Muslims, to anti-Semites, to anti-Christians, atheists and other ultra-leftists – saw his presidency as an opportunity to “settle the score” with not just conservatives but rich whites. If this meant bankrupting the country with higher taxes on rich whites and other means to extract what in effect were reparations, then this was the price that needed to be paid for past discrimination. It was time for “whitey” to pay up, and to hell with the economic and social health of the nation.
One saw this early on in Obama’s presidency, with his continuous references to “income inequality,” his role in increasing the tax burden primarily on rich whites, his choking, anti-capitalist over-regulation of businesses, his and his Democratic colleagues’ enactment of Obamacare, his alignment with racist anti-white black Muslims and others like Louis Farrakhan, Jeremiah White, now deceased Harvard Law professor Derrick Bell (which helps explain his latent anti-Semitism, disdain for Israel and pro-Muslim/Arab foreign policies), his prejudicial comments during and after the Trayvon Martin case, where he condemned George Zimmerman and effectively called the incident a race-based attack on blacks, his 2012 presidential campaign, where he pitted African-Americans and other people of color, such as Latinos, against whites, and a host of other actions designed to favor blacks and people of color over whites.
In this context, and as I have written before, the irony is that under the Obama presidency there has been a role reversal; whites, and particularly rich ones, are now at the back of the bus. While it is not politically correct in today’s world for whites to raise this feeling in public, there has developed regrettably and tragically an undercurrent of deep resentment among whites, which is now starting to manifest itself in major ways.
In April, the unemployment rate dropped from 6.7 percent to 6.3 percent, and 288,000 jobs were created. CNS clearly had to spin that away: A May 2 article by Michael Chapman grumbled that "The national unemployment rate was 6.3% in April, which is the same unemployment rate America experienced halfway through the last recession, in the fall of 2008." At no point in his article did he mention that the rate declined 4/10 of a percent.
Another article by Chapman claimed that the "total unemployed" rate was 12.3 percent. Chapman then discredits himself by admitting that rate counts "have looked for full-time employment but have had to settle for a part-time job," which means they aren't "unemployed."
CNS cranked out three more articles designed to blot out the good news:
WND's Reporting On Evangelical Minister's Fall Eventually Makes Sense Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily usually doesn't devote original coverage to wrongdoing by evangelical ministers, especially one it has championed.
Doug Phillips has long been a WND buddy. in 2002, for example, WND touted how Phillips led a team of homeschoolers that found a dinosaur skeleton. In 2007, WND gave Phillips a column space to "highlight the stark differences between the secular left’s revisionist view of America’s founding and what he sees has 'the historical and providential record of the Christian legacy of law in liberty which was birthed for America at Jamestown in 1607.'"
Which makes it all the more unusual that instead of hiding or outsorcing to other outlets reports on the sordid sexually oriented allegations against Philips, an April 15 article by Chelsea Schilling was devoted to it, highlighting how Phillips "resigned from his position after confessing to an 'inappropriate' relationship" and "is now the subject of a lawsuit that claims he “methodically groomed” and made unwanted sexual contact with a young woman after serving as an authority figure in her life for more than a decade."
Until you get toward the end of the article, that is. Schilling devotes a section of it to homeschooling activist Michael Farris -- with whom Phillips worked for six years as an attorney for Farris' Home School Legal Defense Association -- throwing Phillips under the bus and distancing himself from the patriarchy/quiverfull movement Phillips was a leader in:
HSLDA Chairman Michael Farris told WND, “The reason Doug left HSLDA is because [President] Mike Smith and I, who were his bosses, were growing more and more uncomfortable as he started developing his patriarchy theory. We started limiting his ability to speak on those things while traveling on our behalf. We basically made it clear that he could not pursue those things with his HSLDA hat on. So he eventually chose to leave us so he could do those things because we were not comfortable with where he was headed.”
As for the patriarchy movement, Farris said the teachings are not widely accepted in the broader homeschool community.
“It’s a minority of homeschoolers that believe in it,” he said. “But unfortunately, until very recently, they were getting a lot of visibility in certain places. We have sought to avoid inviting any patriarchy speakers to speak at our national conference.”
While state homeschool organizations run their own events and may choose to have such speakers, Farris said HSLDA has never promoted them.
“Doug has never been invited to speak at our national conference since he left,” Farris said. “We have tried, by example, to keep this stuff outside the mainstream of the homeschooling movement.”
He added, “Frankly, we think it’s time for us to stand up and publicly say this is just wrong.”
Farris, who said he has known Phillips for two decades, expressed concern that Phillips could re-emerge in the homeschooling movement and as a leader in a Christian ministry.
As we've previously noted, Farris' claim not to be a part of the quiverfull movement is dubious given the fact that he has 10 children.
Farris is an even bigger buddy to WND than Phillips was. By contrast, WND has yet to devote any original coverage (or any coverage at all that we're aware of) to allegations that Patrick Henry College -- founded by Farris and where he still serves as chancellor, and where WND editor Joseph Farah sent at least one of his children -- ignored allegations of sexual assaults involving the school's students or blamed the victims.
MRC Obsesses Over Sterling's Long-Ago Dem Donations, Ignores He's A Registered Republican Topic: Media Research Center
Scott Whitlock huffs in an April 28 Media Research Center item:
In just over 36 hours, the three network morning and evening shows have already devoted 70 minutes of coverage to racist comments apparently made by Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling. Yet, ABC, CBS and NBC have ignored Sterling's long history of supporting Democrats, including Senator Patrick Leahy, Bill Bradley and Gray Davis.
But Whitlock failed to report that -- as we noted when his colleagues at NewsBusters also obsessed over Sterling's donations to Democrats more than20 years ago -- Sterling is a registered Republican.
The "MSM ignored something" meme fails when the person making the accusation is ignoring something as well.
Fox News Is Too Liberal for WND Columnist Topic: WorldNetDaily
Recently, Laura Ingraham was a guest on Howard Kurtz’s Sunday Fox show, “Media Buzz.” She offered what I thought was an intelligent solution to a problem that has been annoying me for some time.
As we all know, Fox remains an oasis on TV, the only news network that isn’t in the tank for Obama and the liberals. However, in attempting to comply with Roger Ailes’ desire that Fox be “fair and balanced,” too many shows have fallen into the habit of teaming up a liberal and a conservative, and having them spend five or 10 raucous minutes shouting over each other and trading insults. We wind up with a lot of heat and absolutely no light.
Ingraham’s suggestion was to unload the liberals and, instead, invite conservatives on board and let them hash out their differences. She’s right. We already know the liberal positions because we read them in every newspaper and we hear them trumpeted every day over at the three major networks, along with CNN and MSNBC.
It would be far more enlightening to hear Republicans share their differences over immigration reform, same-sex marriages, gun laws, health care and foreign policy. What’s more, we would be spared ever again having to listen to the likes of Juan Williams, Geraldo Rivera, Bob Beckel and Alan Colmes flapping their gums.
CNS' Jeffrey Manipulates Numbers To Downplay Issue Of Minimum-Wage Workers Topic: CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com loves to play fast and loose with economic numbers. Editor in chief Terry Jeffrey demonstrates again how it's done in an April 30 article:
A majority of the Americans who worked for the minimum wage or less in 2013 were 24 years old or younger, according to data released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and only 0.8 percent of American workers were 29 or older and worked for the minimum wage or less.
In total in 2013, according to the BLS, 143,929,000 people were employed in some kind of job in the United States. Of these, a total of 3,300,000—or about 2.3 percent—earned the minimum wage or less. Of those earning the minimum wage or less, 1,663,000 were between 16 and 24 years old. That equaled about 50.4 percent of the people earning the minimum wage or less.
Another 436,000 earning the minimum wage or less were from 25 to 29 year of age.
That leave 1,201,000—or 0.8 percent of American workers—who earned the minimum wage or less and were older than 29.
What Jeffrey fails to spell out: These numbers mean that 36% of people making minimum wage were older than 29.
But for some reason he's rather compare it to the much larger pool of all workers -- making the number deceptively insignificant. Wonder why that is...