People magazine exploited the “transgender journey” of 65-year-old Olympic legend Bruce Jenner, exaggerating a family split that seems to be more about his divorce than his gender confusion (although they’re quite related, surely). This family is in television, so they can’t afford to look “transphobic.”
People felt compelled to announce it would acknowledge physical reality, but bow to political correctness: "In keeping with advice from experts, PEOPLE is taking its cues from Jenner's family in regard to the use of male pronouns." No one skeptical of “gender journeys” is allowed to speak.
Graham didn't explain why any article about Jenner's transgender journey must include someone trashing him. The haters can easily to to right-wing outlets like WorldNetDaily to get their fill of hate.
Later that day, Graham cranked out another transgender freakout:
Following in the footsteps of The New York Times Magazine in 2012 and Slate.com in 2013, the March 30 edition of Time is promoting the photographs of Lindsay Morris. The headline was "Happy Campers: Documenting a rural retreat for gender-creative kids.” As opposed to most children, who are apparently “gender-stodgy.”
Morris is coming out with a book titled You Are You in which they call these children “gender-unique.” The book blurb says through “sensitive images the viewer will experience an important moment in history where the first gender-creative childhood is being openly expressed with the support of friends and family. Morris reaches beyond the confines of the camp to contribute to a dialog about the crucial role that support plays in the lives of gender unique children.”
Of course, applying the "gender-stodgy" label to Graham would be redundant since he more accurately fits under a different one: transphobic.
In an apparent bid to balance his hate, Graham engaged in a Twitter hissy fit over Expedia featuring a same-sex couple in a promotion giving away a "romantic getaway to Great Britain." Graham sneered, "Gay romance 'promoted by Expedia,' all right."
The anti-gayagenda of Graham and the MRC is so kneejerk that they run the risk of nobody paying attention as they slide further to the wrong side of history.
WND's Farah Perpetuates Lie That U.S. Removed Iran, Hezbollah From Terror List Topic: WorldNetDaily
Joseph Farah rants in his March 24 WorldNetDaily column:
When I first saw this report, I really thought it was an early April Fools’ Day joke.
The director of national intelligence, James Clapper, removed Iran and Hezbollah from the list of world terrorist threats.
The report has been sent to the U.S. Senate, where it should be renounced in the strongest terms possible and publicly rejected.
As we documented when NewsBusters' Tom Blumer, Clapper does not control the official list of what the U.S. considers terrorist threats -- the State Department does, and it still lists Iran and Hezbollah -- and any omissions to that effect in the DNI report means nothing in that regard.
But Farah is an inveterateliar, so nobody expects the truth from him anyway -- which would seem to be a strange position for someone who operates a "news" website to be in.
AIM's Kincaid Declares HuffPo To Be A 'Gay Porn Outlet' Topic: Accuracy in Media
Cliff Kincaid's March 24 Accuracy in Media article carries the headline "Obama Gives Interview to Gay Porn Outlet." Wow, that's pretty offensive if true.
So, what is this "gay porn outlet" Obama gave an interview to? The Huffington Post. No, really.
Kincaid names various random articles on sex that HuffPo has run, adding that "Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth notes that The Huffington Post’s 'Gay Voices' section has run a video of movie scenes with full-frontal male nudity." And that's all the evidence Kincaid cites to justify calling HuffPo a "gay porn outlet."
Kincaid's piece also appears at BarbWire, the rabidly homophobic website operated by professional gay-basher Matt Barber.
Kincaid conludes by writing of HuffPo: "One has to wonder if the editors realize how ridiculous their bias makes them look." One has to wonder if AIM president Don Irvine realizes how ridiculous Kincaid makes his organization looks.
WND Straight-Up Lies About Margaret Sanger Topic: WorldNetDaily
It's a general accepted legal principle that the dead can't be libeled. WorldNetDaily takes full advantage of that in an unbylined March 24 article that simply makes up things about Margaret Sanger:
Barack Obama says a little girl wrote to him asking why there were no women’s faces on U.S. currency.
That started a movement by a group called Women on 20s, which is now conducting an Internet poll on which of 15 candidates should be the first to replace President Andrew Jackson, ironically the founder of Obama’s party.
But creating the biggest stir on the list of candidates is Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, a eugenicist who advocated aborting as many black babies as possible for the benefit of society.
In Sanger’s book, “Pivot of Civilization,” she characterized African-Americans and immigrants as “human weeds,” “reckless breeders” and “spawning … human beings who never should have been born.”
WND's claim that Sanger "advocated aborting as many black babies as possible for the benefit of society" is an out-and-out lie, since Sanger never advocated abortion for anyone -- she considered it a "horror."
While Sanger held eugenicist views that were unfortunately popular in her day, those views were not racially driven. Planned Parenthood notes that Sanger's advocacy of family planning ran against the views of some eugenicists who believed that healthy and "fit" women should have as many children as possible.
Further, WND is simply making up quotes from Sanger's "Pivot of Civilization." The terms "human weeds" and "reckless breeders" appear nowhere in the book, and their approximate substitutes are taken out of context.
A search of the text of "Pivot of Civilization" shows that three of the four references to "weed" refers to child laborers removing weeds in beet fields. The fourth is a quote of another researcher highlighting " the ruthless struggle for existence in China" because of its poverty and high birth rate, adding that" Nature's law will therefore continue to work out its own pitiless solution, weeding out every year millions of predestined weaklings."
The book does attack "reckless" breeding, but Sanger does not specifically single out "African-Americans and immigrants" as such -- indded, there are two mentions of the word "Negro" (the preferred term at the time for African-Americans) in the entire book. And the word "immigrant" appears only once in the book,
By contrast, Sanger spends much more time fretting over native white Americans -- "pure American stock," as she quotes another writer calling them -- who aspire to nothing more than having children and working in farm fields.
Sanger's statement about "children who never should have been born," therefore, has nothing to do with blacks or immigrants. And the closest the word "spawning" appears to that direct phrase in the book is in chapters 3; the "children who never should have been born" phrase appears in chapter 4.
WND has simply decided to make up stuff about Sanger. But we're sadly used to WND makingupstuff.
NEW ARTICLE: The MRC's Blind Eye To Right-Wing Journalistic Misdeeds Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center couldn't scream loud enough over Brian Williams' exaggerations. But when Bill O'Reilly and other right-wing journalists are caught in similar exaggerations, the MRC doesn't want to hear about it. Read more >>
Fringe WND Doctor Likens Obama To Reichstag Fire Topic: WorldNetDaily
Lee Hieb -- the fringe AAPS-linked doctor and WorldNetDaily fave who's already on record spouting dubious medical claims and outright lying about statistics involving vaccines -- is back at it in a March 22 WND article by Paul Bremmer, in which she blames Obamacare for an allegedly increased rate in the closing of rural hospitals because Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements to doctors and hospitals have been cut under the Affordable Care Act. She doesn't hesitate to go Godwin:
“Up until now, hospitals have failed and succeeded, they’ve come and gone just like businesses,” Hieb said. “Some are better-run than others, but the economic deck was not totally stacked against them. Now, unfortunately, the economic deck is stacked against them in such a way that, universally, smaller hospitals are disenfranchised.”
Dr. Hieb went so far as to compare the shuttering of rural hospitals to the infamous Reichstag fire, which some believe was a false flag attack by Nazi Germany.
“This is going to be like the Reichstag fire,” Hieb proclaimed. “It’s going to be an excuse to say, ‘Look, the free market failed, and now we can go in and institute universal health care, because you see, these people in these rural areas need healthcare, and you’re not getting it to them.’
Yes, she really did liken Obamacare to the Reichstag fire.
But if one reads the Washington Post article that inspired Bremmer's item and Hieb's rant, the answer is much more complicated, and no single cause can be blamed. But one of the causes is the refusal of some states to to expand state Medicaid programs in the face of federal cutbacks:
Experts and practitioners cite declining federal reimbursements for hospitals under the Affordable Care Act as the principal reasons for the recent closures. Besides cutting back on Medicare, the law reduced payments to hospitals for the uninsured, a decision based on the assumption that states would expand their Medicaid programs. However, almost two dozen states have refused to do so. In addition, additional Medicare cuts caused by a budget disagreement in Congress have hurt hospitals’ bottom lines.
But rural hospitals also suffer from multiple endemic disadvantages that drive down profit margins and make it virtually impossible to achieve economies of scale.
These include declining populations; disproportionate numbers of elderly and uninsured patients; the frequent need to pay doctors better than top dollar to get them to work in the hinterlands; the cost of expensive equipment that is necessary but frequently underused; the inability to provide lucrative specialty services and treatments; and an emphasis on emergency and urgent care, chronic money-losers.
Rural hospitals took a second hit from the health law’s reductions in special Medicaid payments to hospitals with large numbers of indigent and uninsured patients. Federal officials made the cuts assuming that most states would embrace the Medicaid expansion envisioned in the law, thus sharply reducing their number of uninsured. But 23 states, including Texas, have declined to do so.
But, apparently, it's easier to play the ol' Nazi card than it is to do any actual research.
NewsBusters' Double Standard on Reporting Background Info Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's Scott Whitlock grumbles in a March 22 NewsBusters post:
On Sunday, 60 Minutes devoted 12 minutes towards fawning over celebrity scientist Neil deGrasse Tyson. Yet, the Charlie Rose-hosted segment never mentioned his repeated fake quotes, including a slam against George W. Bush that Tyson repeated for years. Instead, Rose fawned that the TV personality has followed “Carl Sagan as the country's most captivating scientific communicator.”
Whitlock might have a point if, the very next day, the MRC's Matthew Balan hadn't devoted a post to another segment from that same edition of "60 Minutes," in which "Lara Logan refreshingly brought new attention to the plight of the ancient Christian communities in Iraq on Sunday's 60 Minutes, as they face annihilation by ISIS."
Nowhere does Balan mention that Logan spent several months suspended from her "60 Minutes" correspondent job after a report featuring "an actual eyewitness of the attack" on U.S. diplomatic facilities in Benghazi, Libya; it was later revealed that the purported eyewitness, Dylan Davies -- who went by the pseudonym "Morgan Jones" -- told authorities he didn't witness the attack. Logan also failed to disclose a book by Davies was published by a division of CBS, which airs "60 Minutes." The publisher pulled Davies' book from the shelves.
If you'll recall, the MRC studiously ignored Logan's bad reporting, even though "60 Minutes" is a prime MRC target, because Logan was supporting the cause of perpetuating Benghazi as a right-wing cudgel against the Obama adminstration.
WND's Birthers Atempt To Ignore Birther Issue With Cruz Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily is way enthusiastic about the idea of Ted Cruz running for president:
A March 23 article by Cheryl Chumley touts how "the fiery tea party Texan" told an mandatory convocation at right-wing Liberty University about "what he described as the greatness of America: that our rights come from God.
Garth Kant gushed over how Cruz "will follow the playbook of the right’s greatest hero, Ronald Reagan."
The king of all gushers, though, is WND editor Joseph Farah, who slobbered:
It’s been a long time since I’ve heard any political figure do what Sen. Ted Cruz did yesterday in his announcement he is seeking the Republican nomination for the presidency.
He delivered an electrifying, motivational, rousing case for liberty – explaining why it’s not too late, why Americans don’t need to lower their expectations, how this country has overcome greater odds in its history.
I am not making an endorsement for the presidency here. But I am giving Ted Cruz a big hallelujah, a heartfelt amen.
This is the way I wish other Republicans and conservatives would talk. There’s a reason Ronald Reagan, with similar views, was able to win landslide victories in the 1980s. It’s because he was the Great Communicator. Ted Cruz may be one, too.
Unmentioned in all of these articles: Discussion of Cruz's eligibility to bne president. (Farah huffed that Cruz's critics noted that "There are questions about his constitutional eligibility for office.")
WND has long promoted the idea that the Constitution's requirement that the president be a "natural born citizen" -- which the Constitution does not define -- should be defined only as someone born in the U.S. to parents who are both American citizens. In the process, WND has studiously avoided reporting the existence of court rulings that support the idea that citizenship can be conveyed at birth through other means.
WND's strict definition of "natural born citizen" hits the wall when it comes to Cruz -- not only was he born in Canada, his father was not an American citizen and did not become one until 2005. Thus, under the definition WND has embraced, Joseph Farah's favored candidate for president cannot run legally run for office.
Further, Cruz held dual citizenship in Canada before renouncing it only last year. WND -- which made a big deal out of Obama having dual citizenship in Kenya, which he automatically lost on his 23rd birthday -- has touted the birther argument that "the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural-born."
But when Donald Trump -- who sought the aid of Farah and WND when he wanted to attack Obama's eligibility in 2011 -- played the birther card on Cruz, it was only then that WND was moved to address the issue.
Even though WND has a ridiculously large archive of articles about Obama's "eligibility," Cheryl Chumley didn't reference any of them in her March 24 article, instead pushing definitions of "natural born citizen" that included Cruz (which are in the mainstream of constitutional thought).
Farah previewed WND's strategy a year ago when he washed his hands of Cruz birtherism after his Obama birther crusade bombed so spectacularly. Now, it seems WND is trying to bury the idea that it ever raised eligibility issues.
NewsBusters' Blumer Don't Need No Stinkin' Facts, Context Topic: NewsBusters
NewsBusters blogger Tom Blumer has had a very bad past couple of days.
First, in a March 20 post, he threw a fit over PolitiFact rating Ted Cruz's assertion (echoing right-wing climate deniers) that there has been no global warming for 17 years "mostly false." Blumer is very upset that PolitiFact put the claim in context, noting that it "contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression." PolitiFact also points out that deniers who make the claim are "cherry-picking a timeframe that starts at an extremely warm year and ignores that the first decade of the 21st century."
But Blumer don't need no stinkin' context:
Ocean temperatures aren't rising, and there is some evidence of serious data manipulation issues in the ocean-related data (and elsewhere). Antarctic sea ice has recently reached record levels.
Cruz's statement to Meyers was and remains absolutely true.
As a result, I rate [PolitiFact writer] Lauren Carroll's work "Completely Lame."
How very mature of Blumer to do that.
Blumer followed up this performance with a March 22 rant headlined "Not News: Obama Admin's 'Lying Weasels' Delisted Iran and Hezbollah As Terror Threats." He begins by ranting:
From all appearances, only Fox News, CNS News, and a few Israel-based outlets and U.S.-based center-right blogs care about the fact, acknowledged by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, that Iran and Hezbollah, in the words of Fox's Greta Van Susteren, "are suddenly MIA from the U.S. terror threat list."
Just one problem with that for Blumer: It didn't happen.
As PunditFact points out, the only U.S. government list of terrorist organizations that counts is from the State Department, and that list still has Iran and Hezbollah on it. The DNI assessment being referred to by Blumer is not an official list of terrorist organizations but is, as its title states, a "Worldwide Threat Assessment of the U.S. Intelligence Community."
Blumer does note that DNI told CNS the purported downplaying of Iran and Hezbollah was due to a "format change" in the report, but he doesn't mention that State, not DNI, keeps the official terrorist list. CNS, in the March 18 article by Patrick Goodenough Blumer is referencing, also fails to report that DNI does not keep the official terrorist list.
But as with context, Blumer don't need no stinkin' facts. He concludes his post by ranting, "There is no defensible reason why these disturbing developments have not received wider media visibility."
Um, how about because it's not true? That seems like an entirely defensible reason.
WND vs. Hagee 'Blood Moons' Credit Battle Continues Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily's war with pastor John Hagee over the "blood moons" idea goes to the next level in a March 22 WND article describing the response by a Hagee spokesman to WND's demand that Hagee retract his claim to be the "discoverer" of the "blood moons" idea.
The spokesman, Ari Morgenstern, claims that Hagee was referring to his personal discovery, not claiming to be the first person to have discovered it. Farah sneered in response that this was “parsing words in a way that would make Bill Clinton proud.”
WND engaged in its own Clinton-esque parsing later in the article, when it responded to Morgenstern's claim that "WND falsely claimed that Hagee does not believe that Jews need Jesus to be saved." WND's response: "WND never reported on what Hagee currently believes, only on the controversy he set off when he said in a commercial what would be found in his book," followed by more sneering from Farah that "I’m happy to hear that Hagee no longer subscribes to those anti-biblical positions."
As before, WND buries its financial interest in this issue -- it published a bookon the subject by Mark Biltz, who does claim to have discovered the issue, and made a movie about it. WND demonstrated more than a little butthurt when the Hagee spokesman pointed this out:
Morgenstern concluded in his letter: “While these facts clearly call into question WND’s objectivity, they pale in comparison to the conflict of interest associated with Farah’s apparent financial stake in advancing this false narrative. Not surprisingly, in the piece, WND repeatedly advertises and links to purchase options of Biltz’s relevant book and film – which as the WND piece mentions, Farah is, respectively, publisher and producer.”
“I do hope that Farah will exhibit the strength of character to acknowledge that he’s made what I believe are a series of financially motivated blunders,” Morgenstern continued. “However, either way, I would note that in our view, WND is obligated to issue corrections to those errors discussed above.”
Farah responded by saying: “I am accused of standing up for Mark Biltz because of my own financial interests. Yet it is Hagee who has made millions off Mark Biltz’s discovery, far more than Biltz and I combined ever expect to make as a result of our work on this subject.”
Note that Farah never denies that financial issues are a motivation for his actions against Hagee.
As before, the WND article doesn't carry a byline despite the fact it's one of the more balanced (if still self-aggrandizing) pieces of reporting it's published in years.
Meanwhile, Farah devoted his March 22 column to telling his side of the story, insisting that "I think we have presented Hagee and his team with a simple, inexpensive and honorable way to do the right thing for Mark Biltz, his book, his movie and his reputation" but that so far they "have acted like the offended party, claiming WND and Biltz have mischaracterized the facts."
Given WND's long history of mischaracterizing facts, Hagee's team does have a point.
MRC Excuses Netanyahu's Racist Appeal As Just A Get-Out-The-Vote Effort Topic: Media Research Center
Last time we checked in with the Media Research Center's manufactured outrage over media figures calling out Benjamin Netanyahu's racist, anti-Arab appeal to fearmonger his supporters to get to the polls, it was justifying it by claiming that Arabs are anti-Semitic.
The MRC has now expanded on its defense of Netanyahu. Rich Noyes complains in a March 21 NewsBusters post:
In attacking Netanyahu’s campaign tactics, some liberal journalists smeared American conservatives as well: “In what appeared to be a panicked last-ditch ploy to turn out right wing voters today, he took another page in the American playbook, resorting to demagoguery,” MSNBC’s Chris Hayes announced on Tuesday night, saying of Netanyahu: “He is Israel’s George W. Bush.”
On Wednesday, The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg hit the same note on MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell Reports: “He kind of played the Israeli version of the Southern Strategy and basically tried to scare his base into coming out and giving their votes to him by saying, essentially, ‘the Arabs are coming.’...He used that as a scare tactic. So it’s a pretty brutal 48 hours from certain perspectives.”
Here’s what Netanyahu posted on his Facebook page on Tuesday that so offended journalists: “The right-wing government is in danger. Arab voters are coming out in droves to the polls. Left-wing organizations are busing them out.”
The various Arab parties that cooperated to form a Joint List for Tuesday’s election all vehemently opposed Netanyahu for Prime Minister. So how is it wrong to point out, in essence, that “the other side seems to be getting its voters out, so we’d better, too.”?
That's right -- Noyes is justifying Netanyahu's racist appeal as a mere get-out-the-vote tactic.
Any U.S. politician making a similar appeal by singling out an entire race or ethnic group would be called out for doing so -- and if that politician were a liberal, the MRC would be at the head of the pack. But because Netanyahu is a popular right-winger, he gets a pass from the MRC.
First Two Sentences Of A Farah Column Are Lies Topic: WorldNetDaily
The first sentence of Joseph Farah's March 19 WorldNetDaily column is a lie:
First, Barack Obama provided taxpayer dollar [sic] to a nonprofit group he assembled to sabotage the re-election campaign of Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
In fact, the OneVoice Movement -- the group that spearheaded a political movement in Israel to oppose the re-election of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu -- was founded in 2002, and Obama did not "assemble" it. While the group did receive $350,000 in federal grants, there's no evidence any of it was used in its work in Israel, and State Department officials said the funding stopped in November, ahead of the announcement of the Israeli election.
The second sentence of Farah's column is a lie as well:
He never liked Netanyahu for standing firmly for the security of his country.
Not only does Farah not know this, he cannot know this, and Obama is not on record ever saying such a thing. Therefore, Farah is lying again.
We'd go through the rest of Farah's column, but when the first two sentences are lies, and they're coming from a inveterateliar, we don't need to prove our point any further.
Race-Baiter Colin Flaherty Pops Up At AIM To Promote New Book Topic: Accuracy in Media
Colin Flaherty's new book, "Don't Make the Black Kids Angry," appears to be another race-baiting tome like his last, "White Girl Bleed A Lot" -- the rogue's gallery of mug shots of black men on the book's cover would seem to bear that out. It's also a self-published tome as his earlier book started as; the fact that Flaherty went this route again appears to mean that he's not expecting WorldNetDaily to pick it up, which it did with "White Girl."
So Flaherty must go downmarket to find someone to promote his race-baiting. Accuracy in Media's Cliff Kincaid obliges in a March 19 article, in which he lets Flaherty rant that the racial situation in Ferguson, Mo., is about nothing more than traffic tickets:
Colin Flaherty, an award winning reporter and author of Don’t Make the Black Kids Angry: The hoax of black victimization and those who enable it, says that what happened in Ferguson was a carefully orchestrated hoax. He notes how in an amazing turnabout, the false claims about an unprovoked murder of a young black man became complaints about too many traffic tickets for black people.
“We now know the Ferguson riots were all about racist traffic tickets and not the relentless white racism and violence that killed yet another black person,” Flaherty notes. “The greatest bait and switch of our generation and few reporters even seemed to notice. Why would they? They are used to it by now.
“First they told us about ‘hands up, don’t shoot.’ When that turned out to be a lie, they told us about the Gentle Giant. It continued for months, one lie after another, each discarded, replaced and sometimes recycled.” Flaherty reminds us of several of the lies. We were told that Michael Brown was shot in the back, that he was minding his own business, and trying to surrender.
It turned out, according to the DOJ, that Ferguson was all about traffic tickets. “Funny: At the time, no one mentioned the traffic tickets that now stand with the firehoses and police dogs of Selma as icons of racist oppression,” Flaherty notes.
The facts were such that the Attorney General had to grudgingly admit what many others had been saying from day one. “The facts of the death and the fairy tale that followed were all concocted, spoon fed to a willing press corps that did nothing but ask for more,” he points out.
Then, suddenly, in another diversion from the essential truth of what happened, the media picked up on another narrative—that blacks were the victims of too many traffic tickets. “The day after the Attorney General’s confession, the manufactured outrage of Chris Cuomo of CNN was on full display as he and the Brown family attorney railed against the injustice of too many traffic tickets,” commented Flaherty.
Of course, like a lot of thingsFlahertysays, he's being dishonest to promote his race-baiting. Traffic tickets were the symptom; official racial bias was the disease.
The DOJ report showed that Ferguson police routinely violated the constitutional rights of black citizens by stopping drivers without reasonable suspicion, making arrests without probable cause and using excessive force. Ferguson police officers also sent out racist emails, including one showing a bare chested group of dancing women apparently in Africa with the caption, “Michelle Obama’s High School Reunion.”
Why do we get the feeling that's one email Flaherty would not have any reservations in sending out to his friends?
The fact that people like Flaherty pretend that the only racists in America are black is one reason things like Ferguson happened. But as long as Flaherty can find an outlet, however increasingly far-right that it may be, he'll continue to spout his racial know-nothingness and pretend he's some kind of expert.
When Barack Obama is asked about mass conspiracy and wrongdoing at the VA and he responds by saying that he just found out about it from watching the evening news, there’s only two concise ways to view that explanation. Mr. Obama, you’re either incompetent or a liar. There’s really no other way to spin that, and I’m not sure which one’s worse.
The question I ask is why does Obama make it a priority to go after American citizens and crush them as though they were enemies of the state? On the flip side, why does he cozy up to the Castro regime in Cuba, the mullahs in Iran, and let the atrocities of ISIS, Boko Haram and other terrorist groups continue day after day? Why does he paint the entire police force in the U.S. with a broad brush and insinuate that they are “racists”?
It should be obvious to everyone by now that Mayor Rudy Giuliani was right when he said that Barack Obama does not love this country. Add it up, folks. Now who in Washington has the guts to do something about it?
In this time of increasingly distinct lines being drawn between Americans who recognize the abject wickedness of this administration and its enablers and those who do not, it is profoundly sad that Obama’s presence in Selma was further dignified by some who ought to know better. Obama, his foul wife and their spawn were joined in Selma by a delegation that included former President George W. Bush, former first lady Laura Bush, around 100 members of Congress and other dignitaries.
Yes, Obama profaned the anniversary of the “Bloody Sunday” march in Selma with his very presence, because he is a liar and a fraud who has actually harmed race relations in America and under whom the lot of black Americans has become substantially worse. In character, he is the antithesis of those who suffered and struggled during the Civil Rights Movement.
The irony that punctuates this Selma travesty is the fact that since Obama self-identifies as black and is recognized as such, his attendance supposedly lent more significance to the event than if he had not been a person “of color.”
Only the talk-show hosts and a few intrepid commentators have it right: Obama’s latent anti-Semitism is coming to the fore. In fact, it’s no longer latent – if it ever were. It’s open. It’s active. It’s visible for all to see.
There’s one tiny Jewish state in the world – and that’s apparently one too many for Obama.
Some people think Obama’s a Muslim, and that’s why he’s always bending figuratively and sometimes literally to our sworn enemies. Some people believe he’s a Christian, even though he doesn’t attend church, read the Bible or share the typical Christian’s concern for Israel’s survival.
Still, even among that latter group, there are many who wonder what sort of Christian could attend a church for 20 years where the sermons often involved blasphemous attacks on America, and where 9/11 was justified as a case of America’s finally getting its comeuppance.
I have said it before, and I will say it again. It’s time that we stop mincing words and call it like it is. We have a president who lied his way into the White House and continues to lie while in office. He is not a Christian. He is a Muslim, through his father and given his Islamic education as a child, as well as his continuing association with black-Muslim despots, Jew-haters like Rev. Louis Farrakhan and a host of others who are well-known for their racism and bigotry. This explains how he acts and does not act with regard to Israel and its prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and the rest of us. Thus far, in the media only Andrea Tantaros of Fox News has raised the issue of Obama’s apparent anti-Semitism, suggesting Obama is a racist and an anti-Semite, plain and simple.
Americans are realizing that Obama’s arrogance and his hatred of the military, like his ambitions for “transformative actions,” know no bounds. What we do not yet know is what price our politicians will pay in 2016 for ignoring their constitutional duty to impeach and remove this increasingly dangerous impostor.
Finally! MRC (Briefly) Mentions O'Reilly Honesty Scandal Topic: Media Research Center
This week marked the first time in two weeks that the Media Research Center has made even an oblique reference to the growing controversy over the accuracy of statements Fox News' Bill O'Reilly has made about his reporting.
A March 16 post by Kyle Drennen grumbles that NBC's Chuck Todd praised how his network handled similar allegations against news anchor Brian Williams while Fox tried to deflect the accusations against O'Reilly by running a "political campaign." Drennen comments no further on O'Reilly.
A March 17 MRC item by Jordan Ecarma is focused on repeating Barney Frank's criticism of Hillary Clinton's email controversy. Almost as an afterthough, Ecarma noted that Frank was asked "if he was 'enjoying' the current controversy surrounding O’Reilly. The TV host was recently accused of lying about or exaggerating his war experiences, similar to the revelations that crumbled the reputation of longtime NBC anchor Brian Williams." Like Drennen, Ecarma does nothing further with it.
Previous to these posts, the last mention of the O'Reilly scandal at the MRC was on March 2, and that was to attack George Soros for funding groups that have highlighted it.
By contrast, the MRC couldn't say often enough that Williams was a liar despite doing basically the same thing O'Reilly has been proven to have done.