CNSNews.com has been pushing to the right for some time, trying to mainstream fringe figures like Franklin Graham and Rafael Cruz. Now a couple of fringe-right brothers are benefiting from the CNS whitewash treatment.
Penny Starr -- who uses her position at CNS to serve as an anti-abortion activist despite ostensibly being a "reporter" -- is now promoting Jason and David Benham, who are best known around these parts as WorldNetDaily columnists. Starr writes lovingly in a Dec. 2 article about how the Benhams insist that a true pro-lifer wouldnot have committed the Colorado Planned Parenthood massacre and, in fact, "would have felt called to have taken the bullet on the behalf of those three people that lost their lives." Starr then adds benignly: "The Benham brothers, the sons of an evangelical pastor, said they grew up in a 'pro-life family.' The reporter said the brothers have taken part in protests at Planned Parenthood clinics."
There's a lot more to the Benham story than Starr will tell you. The brothers' father is Flip Benham, one of the more notorious anti-abortion extremists. Right Wing Watch notes that in 2011, Flip Benham was found guilty of stalking an abortion provider after passing out hundreds of "wanted" posters with the physician’s name and photo on it. He's also virulently anti-gay.
And Starr is definitely not going to tell you the nature of the brothers anti-abortion protests: David Benham is on video praising his fellow demonstrators for taking a stand at “the gates of hell” and confronting the “altars of Moloch.”
Starr serves as the Benham's public relations agents again in on Dec. 7, getting an entire blog post of a single tweet:
In a tweet posted on Sunday, Jason Benham said his 11-year-old son was concerned that expressing one’s belief in Jesus Christ could put one in danger.
“So my 11 yr old says, ‘daddy, please stop talking about Jesus - I don't want someone to kill you.’ Yes, it's time for that conversation,” Benham tweeted.
Aww. Starr then does some more whitewashing:
The brothers first gained national recognition for being tapped by HGTV to host the “Flip it Forward” show focused on their real estate dealings, but the cable network canceled the show after a liberal media outlet reported that they are opposed to same-sex marriage and abortion.
The truth -- which Starr will not tell you -- is that the Benhams are not merely opposed to abortion, they rant about the "altars of Moloch." And they are not merely "opposed to same-sex marriage," they are virulently anti-gay.
Right Wing Watch -- the "liberal media outlet" Starr is blaming for the loss of the Benhams' TV show -- has documented the Benhams calling homosexuals "destructive," "vile," and controlled by "demonic forces." And since Right Wing Watch's claims are fully documented, including audio and video, and the Benhams have never questioned the accuracy of what it documented, it's irrelevant whether the outlet is "liberal" or not, except for Starr to indulge the Benhams by letting them play victim (which they love to do).
A real media outlet wouldn't let a reporter get away with such massaging of the facts, not to mention all the obsequious fawning, but that's CNS for you.
Yes, WND, Muslims Do Denounce Terrorist Attacks Topic: WorldNetDaily
The idea that moderate Muslims never denounce terrorism has never been true, but WorldNetDaily loves to promote it anyway, especially after the Paris attacks.
For instance, David Limbaugh huffed in his Nov. 16 WND column:
Well, if 95 percent of Muslims are peaceful wouldn’t they join us in condemning these murders by Islamists? Do they think for a second that rational people aren’t associating global terrorism with their religion? Isn’t the burden on peaceful Muslims to demonstrate to us how much they abhor what is going on in the name of their religion?
Gina Loudon sneered in her Nov. 22 WorldNetDaily column:
We ask this question after every terror attack and one or two may appear on the scene, but is anyone else beginning to wonder if those moderates are really the ones who are wrong about Islam? Are the moderates the ones who are skewing the teachings of the Quran and ignoring the teachings of their imams, who call for the destruction of Western civilization?
And Ben Kinchlow really hammered on it in his Dec. 6 WND column:
Moderate Muslims have proclaimed with real, or feigned, anger that these extremists have hijacked the real Islam – the “religion of peace.” If the moderate Muslims – “the good people” – trulybelieve their “religion of peace” has been hijacked by extremist elements that do not represent the teachings of the prophet and of Islam, why don’t they step forward and speak up?
Why don’t we hear impassioned speeches or see massive protests in the street by Muslims – who claim it is a “religion of peace” – speaking out against these acts of terrorism? Why don’t they call out terrorists as “terrorists”? Why don’t they?!
Ask yourself: When was the last time you saw a moderate Muslim nation, group or even an individual Muslim speak out vigorously and publicly to condemn these radical extremists’ terrorist activities?
If only 15-20 percent (or fewer) of Muslims are radical extremists, then why won’t the other 80-85 percent (or more) stand up and publicly condemn these rogue hijackers and the nations or individuals that sponsor or commit acts of terrorism? Why won’t they?
Hey, guys, guess what? Numerous Muslim groups around the world did, in fact, denounce the Paris attacks. And Muslim groups also condemned the San Bernardino attack.
Yet Loudon, Limbaugh and Kinchlow don't want you to know that. Nor do we recall WND telling its readers this.
It suits their anti-Muslim agenda better if Muslims aren't portrayed as less than human, as monolithic terrorists and terrorist sympathizers -- never mind that it's a lie.
But what else would you expect from the most dishonest news organization in America?
Yes, Tim Graham, The MRC Does Conflate Opinion With News Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's Tim Graham devotes a Dec. 7 NewsBusters post to whining that a Washington Post reporter has called out conservatives' repeated bleating about "liberal media bias" as usually "unfounded or greatly exaggerated" because "What they often fail to recognize -- or deliberately ignore -- is the separation of news and opinion."
Once again, Graham complains about the sincerity issue, huffing that the Post writer "cheaply tagged Republicans as insincere exploiters of media bias accusations" while suggesting, as he has before, that his own intentions are completely sincere despite getting paid very well to promote them and inculcate them into other conservatives. Remember, Graham's boss, Brent Bozell, proclaimed that hearing Republicans talk about media bias was "better than sex." Conservatives usually don't talk like that in a sincere way.
While Graham goes on to rant that "Republicans think many news reports in the Times (and the Post) are loaded with opinion and “news analysis” that blurs whatever divide they think they are maintaining," the point remains -- and Graham never counters it -- that conservatives conflate opinion with reporting to press their "media bias" case. The MRC frequently criticizes liberals who are being paid to express liberal opinions for the mere act of expressing that opinion -- or for simplyappearing on TV at all -- which cheapens their case.
Case in point: A Dec. 1 NewsBusters post by Kristine Marsh is headlined "Journalists Freak Out on Twitter: Pro-Life 'Extremists 'Want to Kill' Women." She goes on to cite what she called "the worst examples of journalists blaming pro-lifers for the violence that ensued last week."
But all of the people she cited are columnists or bloggers or employees of opinion journals; none of them are reporters for major media outlets, as Marsh's use of "journalists" suggests.
That's how conservatives (and the MRC) fail to recognize "the separation of news and opinion" in making their "media bias" claims. Graham doesn't counter that, because he knows it's true -- and that the right's whole "liberal media bias" argument rests on a shaky foundation.
WND's Loudon Pushes Ridiculous Conspiracy Behind Obama's Use Of 'ISIL' Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily believes President Obama has a sinister motive for referring to ISIS as ISIL. WND columnist Gina Loudon is the latest to buy into the conspiracy:
Am I the only one shocked that the only people in the world who use the term “ISIL” rather than ISIS are the Obama administration officials and a few Republican senators who share Obama’s zeal for removing Assad? ISIS describes lands it holds in Iraq and Syria and accurately represents who it is. The Levant refers to a Syrian and Palestinian territory, land it does not hold, and ignores the existence of Israel all together. Why give ISIS that propaganda boost[?]
In fact, ISIL more accurately reflects the name of the Islamic State group and its ambitions describing the region it wants to establish an Islamist caliphate in, which would emcompass much more than Iraq and Syria. And as we've noted, the Obama administration says it uses ISIL in part because it doesn't share the name with a Greek goddess and those named after her, as ISIS does.
Loudon is so committed to her conspiracy theory that she failed to mention that Obama and other administration officials are on the record referring to the Islamic State as Daesh, which the group considers a derogatory name despite being based on the group's acronym in Arabic.
CNSNews.com's pattern of distortion of the latest unemployment numbers follows what it has been doing for the past several months by obsessing over the labor participation rate, as Susan Jones does this time around:
The number of Americans not in the labor force last month totaled 94,446,000--a slight improvement from the 94,513,000 not in the labor force in October--and the labor force participation rate increased a tenth of a point, with 62.5 percent of the civilian noninstitutional population either holding a job or actively seeking one.
(The labor force participation rate of 62.4 percent in September and October was the lowest in 38 years.)
CNS won't tell you that the labor participation rate is pretty misleading if you're suggesting, as Jones and CNS clearly are, that there are 90 milion Americans who can't find a job. Even the conservative American Enterprise Institute agrees, pointing out that 41 million of them are retired, and an additional 15 million are not looking for work because they are in school.
We don't recall CNS ever providing a breakdown of thenot-in-labor-force for its readers -- presumably because it wants to make the unemployment numbers look as bad as possible for Obama, even when they are not.
When I wrote the syndicated Nov. 16, 2004, column, “Darth Democrat” exposing Obama’s reprobate commitment to the systematic extermination of the most defenseless among us – I knew he was evil and godless. When I wrote “Nero in the White House” Aug. 8, 2011, I detailed his unmitigated disregard and dishonesty for the American people. And when I wrote “Why I do not like the Obamas,” Feb. 23, 2012, I provided specific details pursuant to why I felt as I did.
From the beginning I was not fooled by Obama nor was my objectivity blinded by his skin color. But of all the heinous things Obama (and his wife) has done since he was elected in 2008, I am stunned at his unbridled commitment to place the American public at the mercy of those sworn to destroy us.
It is criminal negligence for this presidential family to have Michelle Obama shuffling and staggering around in the White House dancing the conga, as Americans outside their taxpayer-secured confines are placed in peril because of her husband’s contumacious dismissiveness.
How could America have twice elected a president who not only can’t stand America but also won’t perform his constitutional duty of defending it?
It will be a sheer joy when we have a new president, God willing, who genuinely loves this nation and sees it as a force for good throughout the world and begins to return it to that path. No, this nation is not over, but it needs to turn back to its founding principles and believe in itself again.
I have noticed that whenever Barack Obama approaches a microphone for a press conference or other speech he sounds like a programmed, unfeeling college professor bored with his job. His lack of passion or anger is apparent whenever he is forced to talk about things he feels he must address in order to appease the American people. However, his anger, disgust and passion do emerge every time he speaks about the Republican Party, when he can’t hide the vitriolic sarcasm and contempt he feels.
It has become obvious that Obama and the Democratic Party do not want competition or opposition anymore, so they are risking the safety of America to wipe out their most hated adversary – the Republican Party.
It is widely known among those who do not get their news from the alphabet TV networks that Obama has been clandestinely importing Muslims from Syria, Iraq, Somalia and other destabilized Muslim nations for several years. Now, on the pretext of humanitarianism, he intends to prey upon Americans’ sympathy to import tens of thousands more.
In the 50 or so years the left has been dictating the rules of racial etiquette, the life chances of the average black person have cratered, and race relations, if recent campus rumbles are any indication, have collapsed.
Seven years ago, millions of white Americans voted for Barack Obama in the hope of reversing this trend, but by design Obama has only aggravated it. Progressives, after all, progress. It’s in their nature.
The important lesson here is that America has moved closer to tyrannical dictatorship through the last seven years. I fully expect that to be even more true during Obama’s last year in office. In other words, there will be a lot of work to do beginning January 2017 to get our Constitution back.
While the presidential race is well under way and all of the candidates are promising what they will do when, and if, they become the president of the United States, not one of them has stated that he will right all of the wrongs concerning the past and present administrations.
If you look and listen closely (Jeremiah 5:21-23) to what these candidates say and contrast what they do, you will see that things just do not line up. Instead, they simply stand in direct contradiction (Matthew 23:3).
There is not one of the candidates, not one, who has drawn up Articles of Impeachment (Article II, Sections 4, of the United States Constitution; Jeremiah 5:1). Nor have any of them stated they would seek to prosecute the current occupant of the White House for his treason and crimes. Not one! Yet, they would have you believe that they are going to right the wrongs when they become the president – but not in their current position!
It’s also part of Obama’s agenda to “fundamentally transform America” before he leaves office in January 2017 by bringing in as many likely Democratic voters as possible.
But, also, you need to understand that Obama doesn’t care about the national security threat and the risks to public safety that his plan, in conjunction with the United Nations, spells for America. He doesn’t even consider it. It’s simply collateral damage as he sees it. If you want to make an omelet, as Josef Stalin explained, you have to break a few eggs.
Obama wants to make an omelet out of the greatest and freest nation in the history of the planet – a really bad, poisonous omelet.
First, there are the cases I (and others) brought challenging the eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama to run for and be elected president of the United States. Despite the strong election laws in Florida, my home state, where any taxpayer or voter can challenge a candidate on the basis of fraud or misconduct, the courts there, in three successive cases going all the way to the Florida Supreme Court, dismissed all challenges without nary writing a coherent word explaining why. A similar result occurred in Alabama, although the chief judge there, Roy Moore, had the integrity to write a dissenting opinion agreeing with me. The hard fact: No judge in this country, other than Moore, would make such a ruling against an African-American president like Obama, who has spent his career, a la Al Sharpton playing and using the race card to destroy anyone of a different color who gets in his way. While judges are supposed to adjudicate cases and controversies regardless of political, economic and social pressures, it is revolting at best that they have bent over to this despot and his black and white leftist racist allies and apologists in the media. The result: The country has been sold out to foreign and Muslim interests, including the terrorists Obama refuses to even call Islamic, lest he offend his own bloodline.
The Founding Fathers clearly inserted this [eligibility] requirement into the Constitution to avoid a president being too close to foreign influences – a tragedy if not a disaster we have seen played out and foisted upon us by one President Barack Hussein Obama, our first and hopefully only “Muslim president,” born to a Muslim father, educated in Islamic schools in Indonesia, and likely birthed in Kenya and not Hawaii.
Here’s what Obama actually said: “Groups like ISIL cannot defeat us on the battlefield, so they try to terrorize us at home – against soft targets, against civilians, against innocent people. Even as we’re vigilant, we cannot, and we will not, subcumb (sic) to fear. Nor can we allow fear to divide us – for that’s how terrorists win. We cannot give them the victory of changing how we go about living our lives.”
I don’t know if the “subcumb” was a Teleprompter glitch or a Freudian slip.
Was he about to say “we cannot submit to fear” and switched verbal gears in a split second? Is succumb not in his vocabulary? Did he misread the word and place the “b” in the wrong place?
I don’t know. I do know that the actual meaning of the word “Islam” is submission. Is that significant? Or am I reading too much into a simple verbal gaffe?
Nothing has ever happened to the United States that is worse than the presidency of Barack Hussein Obama. A committed Marxist collectivist, he has stood throughout his presidency against that very principle of individual rights that made America great. In abandoning our allies and aligning with the Muslim Brotherhood and other sinister groups, he has aligned with the most evil forces of the 21st century and overturned the order of the world. In abandoning and even actively turning against our allies (most notably Israel), he has made the United States of America, for so long the beacon of freedom in the world, into an untrustworthy ally, a nation that cannot be taken at its word.
We will be paying for Obama’s presidency for decades to come. The full dimensions of the damage he has caused – the gutting of the economy, the new polarization of the races, the Iran nuclear deal and more – is likely only to be known once he is out of office. And America may never recover from this catastrophe.
Newsmax Advertiser Uses Marco Rubio To Sell Dubious Supplement Pills Topic: Newsmax
Last month, in the wake of questions about Ben Carson's involvement with the shady nutritional supplement maker Mannatech, the Washington Post's David Weigel reported on how conservatives are a key constituency for supplement makers. He notes that Newsmax is a major purveyor of such supplements and "features links to miraculous-sounding products next to original reporting." He then quotes Newsmax editor Christopher Ruddy saying, “When I saw Mannatech being discussed at the debate, I looked up the company and said, ‘Reach out to them, they should be advertising this product on Newsmax.’ ”
That would explain the extremely low caliber of supplement firms that advertise on Newsmax.
Newsmax's "Top Stories" sidebar is a "feed network" that is also syndicated to numerous other websites with the promise of revenue-sharing. It used to contain headlines from Newsmax articles, but now is almost exclusively advertising for various and dubious products.
The other day, amid the other cheesy come-ons, we caught this headline on it: "Marco Rubio Shocks Country and Media With Latest Campaign News."
Like the sucker Newsmax believes us to be, we clicked on it. Which took us to this incredibly fake-looking "news" page under the fake-looking domain name "com--news.co" (we swear we saw an earlier version of this made to look like an equally fake-looking Fox News page).
As an apparent artifact to that fake Fox News page, the "news" article claims that "Marco Rubio shocks Bill O'Reilly by revealing his secret to working longer and more productive hours." IT goes on to serve up this terribly written "news" copy:
As a senator, Rubio is a big fan of reading books, the news, and doing puzzles but according to O'Reilly, he also credits his success to an IQ boosting, brain pill that helped him with memory, cognition and recall. This is the real magic says Rubio, referring to Accelerin Rubio wouldn't comment but when billionaire pal Warren Buffett said, "I had to tell Marco about (product name) I mean, this is something that I've used for years, it is in fact kind of a secret because you know, it's not heavily advertised but that's what's great about it, Accelerin puts all their money into finding the most organic, pure all natural ingredients and that it, it all goes into the formula, so you kind of have to be "in the know" to get your hands on it, but I tell everyone I meet my "secret" so I guess it's not really a secret anymore.
So Accelerin is the product being shilled here. It's presented as a and claims to be "the inspiration for the movie ‘Limitless'" and a "safe alternataive" to Adderall.
The article goes on to claim endorsements by Denzel Washington, Bradley Cooper and Dr. Oz, and includes a sidebar with fake covers of National Geographic and Time magazines, the latter accompanied by a fake endorsement from Tiger Woods, saying things like "I feel like I have opened up extra space in my brain."
(Oddly, those fake magazine covers reference a completely different product, "Brain Storm Elite," which may or may not be the same thing as Accelerin.)
It also claims "MIT scientist Peter Molnar" said, "We tested Accelerin Vs. Adderall with 1000 subjects, over a 10 day period and the results were shocking... Accelerin - out performed Adderall and we concluded that it was 600% more effective and subjects doubled their IQ while taking Accelerin." There is a Peter Molnar who's a scientist, but he's an geological scientist who likely wouldn't be conducting research on nutritional supplements, and he left MIT in 2001.
The web page also asserts that Accelerin is "clinically proven" to:
Sky-rocket Concentration by 32%
Improve Creative Thinking
Enhance Memory Recall
Increase IQ Scores by 47%
The website concludes with an obviously bogus "verified real" comments section:
What is in Accelerin? We have no idea; the actual sales page for it linked in the fake "news" page claims it has "100% Pure Phosphatidylserine Complex," whatever that is. It also admits (in small type at the bottom of the page) that "The statements made on our websites have not been evaluated by the FDA."
So, we have an ad for a questionable product using wild, unproven (and unprovable) claims and almost certainly made-up celebrity and politician endorsements. (If the makes of Accelerin have proof to back up any of this, they are free to share it with us and the world.) It may sell some pills, but this and other shady supplement sellers that also peddle their pills on Newsmax -- which apparently has no advertiser standards it's interested in enforcing -- sure doesn't make Newsmax look like a credible place to get information from.
WND's Flip-Flop On Crime Motive Speculation Flips Again Topic: WorldNetDaily
It was literally earlier this week that WorldNetDaily exposed its flip-flopping double standard on presuming a motive in a horrific crime: We weren't supposed to presume that the guy who killed three people at a Planned Parenthood clinic while ranting "no more baby parts" is a right-wing nutjob, but we must presume that a black guy who killed two white women during a rampage in which he also randomly fired shots into a house and a municipal bus was obviously a racist.
Well, WND is demanding we presume that -- despite the investigation only beginning and no firm conclusions being made -- the shooters in the San Bernardino massacre must be "Islamic terrorists." WND reporter Douglas Ernst is mad that President Obama just won't jump to his pre-determined conclusions:
The California massacre on Wednesday was carried out by a devout Muslim with an “IED factory” in his garage, but President Obama still thinks an Islamic terrorism designation is premature.
“At this stage, we do not yet know why this terrible event occurred. We’ll get to the bottom of this and be vigilant getting the facts before we issue decisive judgments on how this occurred,” Obama said Thursday during an address from the White House.
Assistant Regional FBI Director David Bowdich said the same thing late Wednesday.
“It’s possible it goes down that road. It’s possible it does not,” Bowdich said, WND reported.
Did Ernst not read what his own website published on speculating motive just a few days before? Or did he just skip over it and go a couple days further back for the point of view that jibes with the WND narrative of the day?
MRC's Bozell: Admitting Prayer Hasn't Stopped Gun Violence Causes Terrorism Topic: Media Research Center
The New York Daily News' provocative front-page headline after the San Bernardino mass shootings -- "God Isn't Fixing This," pointing out Republicans calling for prayers for the victims of the shooting are just offering "meaningless platitudes" in the absence of any GOP effort to address the issue of gun violence -- was sure to get some reaction. And Media Research Center chief Brent Bozell offers some of the dumbest.
Bozell rushed out a ranting statement denouncing the cover, complete with list of demands:
“The cover of today’s New York Daily News is offensive and disgraceful. For a major city newspaper to use their front page to mock people who are praying after what happened yesterday is unconscionable and unbefitting a publication that purports to be a serious media outlet.
“I am calling on the publisher of the New York Daily News to publicly do three things today:
1) Apologize not just to the GOP presidential candidates and Speaker of the House but every person of faith it offended;
2) Fire the person who is responsible for approving the front page story immediately; and
3) Launch an investigation into the personnel and policies that allowed this to happen so that it never happens again.
If the news media want to be atheists, that's their business. But how dare they now ridicule people of faith. This kind of anti-religious bigotry is precisely what fuels Islamic terrorists' hatred toward Americans."
Wait, what? First, it's not "anti-religious" (or, in the words of the MRC's Scott Whitlock, "anti-prayer") at all; it's pointing out the lack of deeds behind that religion.
Second, it's laughable that Bozell is demanding that the Daily News "fire the person who is responsible for approving the front page story immediately" when he himself lied for 15 years about having a ghostwriter for his syndicated column and never faced any consequences for it.
Third: Is Bozell really claiming that pointing out how Republicans are offering nothing but platitudes on gun violence is causing terrorist attacks? That's odd, since Bozell (and Tim Graham, the now-exposed ghostwriter of his columns) used his column the day before to mock the idea that the anti-abortion movement's rhetoric inspired Colorado Planned Parenthood shooter Robert Dear, despite the fact he ranted "no more baby parts" during his rampage, something he obviously heard in right-wing media coverage of the anti-abortion Center for Medical Progress' dishonestly edited undercover videos targeting Planned Parenthood officials.
BOZELL: This may rattle some people. But it is precisely this kind of behavior that is fueling the terrorism against America. It is not deliberate by any stretch of the imagination, but they see America as the Great Satan, as godless. And here is the New York Daily News insulting people of faith. This only gives them more impetus to come after us.
Bozell went on to rant that reason the Daily News comes up with the media is full of atheists and sneered that President Obama "is not a commander in chief. You see a community organizer."
Finally, Bozell declared: "This is not a terrorist attack, folks. This is an act of war. We are at war with these people." Is he talking about the media?
UPDATE: Bozell's not done ranting: He has a new press release out criticizing a couple TV people -- whom he has conflated into the entire news media -- who didn't obediently follow Bozell by denouncing the Daily News cover:
“The leftists 'news' media have unapologetically adopted the left’s anti-Second Amendment, anti-faith agenda and it has been on full display since this horrific attack. America is under attack and they want us disarmed. America offers prayerful comfort to the victims and the media ridicule it.
The news media’s solutions are as ridiculous as their values are repulsive.”
More or less repulsive than spending 15 years lying about writing your own column, Brent?
And Bozell appeared again on Fox Business in which he rehashed his anti-media and anti-Obama attacks and his deliberate misinterpretation of the Daily News front page.
Meanwhile, Bozell's "news" outlet, CNSNews.com, has a column by Alex McFarland saying that the victims of the shooting deserved to die because America has "turned its back" on God: "Well, what do we expect? God is just and his justice prevails, along with His love and mercy. But God is not weak or soft, and in a nation that has turned its back on Him, suffering will occur as a consequence."
AIM's Kincaid Twists Planned Parenthood Shooting To His Own Right-Wing Obsessions Topic: Accuracy in Media
We know the ConWeb loves to distract from right-wingers who commit massacres, but leave it to Accuracy in Media's Cliff Kincaid to take it to the next level by twisting the Colorado Planned Parenthood shooting to focus on his own obsessions.
in a Nov. 30 AIM column, Kincaid dismissed alleged Planned Parenthood shooter Robert Dear as a "crazy nut living in a shack" and rants about ... Bill Ayers:
We don’t remember any outrage from the media over the alleged roles played by Obama associates Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn in the 1970 bombing murder of San Francisco police officer Brian V. McDonnell. In fact, the media peddled the nonsense that Ayers and Dohrn, who helped launch Barack Obama’s political career, were “anti-war activists” who bombed a few buildings and never hurt anyone.
Since “domestic terrorism” is now a topic of concern for the media, in the wake of the attack on the Planned Parenthood facility in Colorado, can we expect the media to pressure Obama Attorney General Loretta Lynch to gather new evidence in the McDonnell case? It’s not likely.
The claim that Ayers and Dohrn are linked to to McDonnell's death comes from Kincaid buddy and former FBI information Larry Gratwohl, who only came forward with this alleged link in 2008 in an apparent attempt to sabotage Obama's presidential bid. (Kincaid cited this 2008 article in claiming that "For more than seven years Accuracy in Media has been calling on the media to join the campaign to get justice for McDonnell’s family.")
By contrast, the San Francisco Chronicle reported that "investigators have found no evidence that links the Weather Underground to the bombing" that killed McDonnell.
Kincaid goes on to rant: "This is why the left-wing rhetoric from the media about protecting women’s health and women’s lives in the wake of the Colorado killings cannot be taken seriously. They see this violence as a political opportunity to smear conservatives. They don’t care a whit about 'domestic terrorism,' except when it serves their political purposes." Given that Kincaid is a rabid Obama-hater who has served a conduit for the utterly discredited Joel Gilbert, Kincaid cannot be taken seriously on this or, really, any other subject -- after all, he doesn't care a whit about 'domestic terrorism,' except when it serves his political purposes.
Two days later, Kincaid was back with a column titled "Planned Parenthood Killer Was a Deranged Pothead." And -- we are not making this up -- this is all somehow Obama's rault (oh, and George Soros too):
The liberals were quick to blame conservative Christians, Republicans, and others on the right for the carnage in the Colorado Planned Parenthood clinic. It turns out the killer was a paranoid pothead who probably moved to Colorado because it offered him plenty of legal weed. The murders were just the latest example of President Obama’s pro-pot policies causing “active shooter” cases in which innocent people get maimed and killed.
While President Obama blames easy access to guns for these acts of madness and death, it appears that easy access to high-potency marijuana is really to blame in the Colorado case. Marijuana is legal in Colorado, which passed a marijuana legalization measure on the state level in 2012, thanks to “progressive” groups funded by pro-drug billionaire George Soros.
Under Obama, a heavy marijuana user in his youth, the Justice Department has refused to enforce federal laws and treaties against the use and cultivation of marijuana. So the Colorado legalization “experiment” has continued.
Hence, Obama’s pro-pot policies may have cost the lives of those in the Planned Parenthood clinic. No wonder Obama wants to blame guns.
Obama was a member of the Choom Gang, a group of heavy marijuana users. Speculation has mounted that Robert Lewis Dear was on “Obama choom,” as it’s known on the street, or “speed weed,” a high potency form of marijuana perhaps mixed with other drugs.
Kincaid didn't mention that Dear ranted "no more baby parts" during his rampage, was described by neighbors as a Kincaid-level Obama-hater, and believed that anti-abortion extremists like the Army of God were doing "God's work."
Leave it to Kincaid to do anything he can to distract from the fact that extreme anti-abortion rhetoric now has a (larger) body count.
MRC Doesn't Care About Jailed Journalist, Except As A Tool To Bash 'Liberal Media' Topic: Media Research Center
Washington Post reporter Jason Rezaian was arrested in July 2014 in Iran on vague charges -- but it took a year for the Media Research Center to notice. (Rezaian has since been convicted in a secret trial and sentenced to an unspecified prison term.) The Post is part of the hated "liberal media," after all, so he wasn't exactly a priority.
Until he could be used as a tool in the MRC's right-wing agenda, that is.
The MRC has written nine items referencing Rezaian, all since July 2015. Three of them are attacking other media for not reporting on developments in Rezaian's case, despite the fact that the MRC itself ignored Rezaian for a year after his arrest.
Five others invoke Rezaian to attack the Obama administration for not doing enough to free prisoners like him in connection with the nuclear arms deal with Iran. The final article references Rezaian in attacking the New York Times for sponsoring a tour to Iran.
If the MRC genuinely cared about Rezaian's situation, it would have said something long before it did, it would be fighting for his release, and it wouldn't cynically treat him as a tool to be used to bash President Obama and the media.
It seems the MRC is no better than Iran in treating Rezaian as a political pawn. Remember that the next time Tim Graham complains about the MRC's anti-media agenda not being recognized as "sincere."
WND Doesn't Mention Its History of Obama Birtherism In Cruz Birther Article Topic: WorldNetDaily
In a Nov. 26 WorldNetDaily article, Cheryl Chumley writes about how Florida congressman Alan Grayson plans to "challenge Sen. Ted Cruz’s citizenship via a formal lawsuit if the Texan wins the GOP nomination for the White House" because he was born in Canada.
Chumley doesn't mention, however, the fact that her employer virulently attacked President Obama's "eligiblity" to be president or explain why WND won't aggressively pursue the issue with Cruz like it did Obama.
As we'vedocumented, WND has steadfastly and hypocritically refused to make an issue of Cruz's eligiblity despite the fact that Cruz is, under WND's preferred yet never-court-endorsed definition of "natural born citizen," Cruz is even more ineligible that Obama because, unlike Obama, Cruz was born outside the U.S. -- thus demonstrationg that WND never cared about the Constitution and cared only about smearing Obama.
The closest Chumley gets to recognizing this is quoting radio host Alan Colmes noting that "people who had a problem with … Obama’s birth certificate don’t have a problem with Ted Cruz, who literally was born in another country." But, presumably on orders from WND's higher-ups, she takes it no further.
WND owes a clear explanation to its readers for its indisputable birther double standard. Will it ever provide one?
MRC Blogger Is Sad Anti-Muslim Prejudice Is Being Criticized Topic: NewsBusters
In a Nov. 15 NewsBusters post, Dylan Gwinn takes issue with Green Bay Packers QB Aaron Rodgers' criticizing a fan who yelled "Muslims suck!" during a moment of silence for victims as displaying the kind of "prejudicial ideology that puts us in the position we are today as a world":
The first part of Rodgers comments there are fine. Clearly, if he wants to point out being personally disappointed in someone using that moment of silence to have an outburst like that, he can. That’s his right.
But to take it to the next level by then saying that anti-Muslim prejudice is somehow responsible for “where we are today as a world,” is beyond ignorant and not supported by any evidence of any kind. After all, where was the prejudice in France, when France brought in thousands and thousands of Muslim migrants over the past several months? And yet Muslims, including migrants, still attacked those who were welcoming them.
Now, if he meant that the prejudice of Muslims towards the rights of others to simply exist as non-Muslims is responsible for “where we are today as a world,” then he would really be onto something.
I’m guessing that’s not what he meant.
So Gwinn is saying there isn't enough anti-Muslim prejudice in the world? It sure looks that way. After all, this is the guy who defended Curt Schilling's likening of Muslims to Nazis.
CNSNews.com isn't the only part of the ConWeb trying to deflect coverage of the shooting at the Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado away from the anti-abortion aspect of the story.
WorldNetDaily's Bob Unruh has already complained about folks on Twitter (liberal folks, that is, but that's understood) jumping to conclusions about the shooter before all the facts are in. Then, oddly, WND does exactly that in an article published not too long after that one:
Throughout Friday’s six-hour armed standoff at the Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood facility that left three dead and nine wounded, social media feasted on the fact the gunman was described as a white man, as WND reported.
It didn’t take long for that meager piece of information to morph into “Christian,” “pro-lifer,” and “Republican,” even though authorities had not then — or even yet — released any information about the gunman’s motive.
So far, Robert Lewis Dear, 57, of Hartsel, Colorado, is disappointing those who tried to stereotype pro-life Christians as terrorists.
No evidence of Dear’s involvement or even opinion on the issue of abortion or religion has surfaced. Pro-life groups denounced the shooting and indicated they had neither interacted with or heard of him.
As it turns out, Dear’s not even a Republican — he’s registered to vote in Park County, Colorado, as unaffiliated. And as a female!
Voter registration information posted by Gateway Pundit gives Dear’s address and notes, “Her voting status is: Active. She is unaffiliated.”
The fact that WND is getting its information from the Dumbest Man on the Internet is a major clue to its veracity. Needless to say, WND's suggestion that Dear is a transgender leftist is not true at all.
First, the mugshot of Dear (above, also in the WND article). Does he look transgender? The voter information form identifying Dear as a female is most obviously explained as a typo. And he actually more closely fits the profile of the ideal WND reader: Buzzfeed quoted a neighbor of Dear describing how Dear was "handing us anti-Obama pamphlets” and saying that “Obama was ruining the country and needed to be impeached.”
Nevertheless, the counterfactual portrayal of Dear has made it all the way to Ted Cruz. And WND is totally cool with that; a WND headline on a story stolen from CNN reads, "CNN's panties in bunch over 'transgendered' shooter." Meanwhile, WND's original story remains uncorrected.
So, mission accomplished, WND -- once again putting an untruthful narrative ahead of the facts. And, hilariously, mere hours after complaining others were doing the same thing.
CNS Follows Right-Wing Playbook In Distracting From Abortion Clinic Shooting Topic: CNSNews.com
When the shooting that killed three at a Colorado Planned Parenthood clinic -- where the alleged killer, Robert Dear, reportedly ranted about "baby parts" during the crime -- occured, the anti-abortion folks at CNSNews.com knew what it had to do: change the narrative. And that's what it tried to do.
First on the agenda: dismiss the shooter as crazy, despite the fact that no psychological evaluation of Dear has been performed or otherwise made public. Here's how that narrative was advanced:
Susan Jones declared that Dear was "an apparently unstable man" and quoted GOP presidential candidate Mike Huckabee calling Dear a "madman" and "very unstable."
Jones, in a separate article, highlighted Dear's "several run-ins with police" and a peeping-tom charge against him.
Eric Scheiner copied a Republican congressman's discussion of "mental problems" because “No one would say, 'I’m standing up for life by going to take a life'. That is completely inconsistent with the movement that is so focused on individuals protecting life."
Melanie Hunter played up Republican presidential candidate Carly Fiorina's comments on the shooting, noting that she said Dear "appears deranged."
If this tactic sounds familiar, it is. CNS has repeatedlyportrayed Scott Roeder, killer of abortion doctor George Tiller, mentally unstable despite the fact that he did not mount an insanity defense at his trial and a psychologist hired by the defense found Roeder competent to stand trial.
The next step was to separate Dear from the anti-abortion movement, even though he was echoing its attacks on Planned Parenthood. Lauretta Brown (pictured above) -- who we last saw peddling misinformation about birth control and portraying extremist pastorsas "conservative black leaders" -- suddenly found her sense of journalistic balance in her article, in which she counters statements by NARAL Pro-Choice America president Ilyse Hogue condemning the killings and those who apparently inspired Dear with statements from anti-abortion groups denouncing violence.
Brown quoted the Center for Medical Progress' denunciation of the killings -- in which Dear was dismissed as a "violent madman" -- and proudly noted CMP's "undercover videos over the summer showing Planned Parenthood’s harvesting of aborted baby parts," but she did not mention that Dear was ranting about "baby parts" during his rampage.
Similarly, Brown highlighted Operation Rescue's statement denouncing the incident, but she didn't mention that Operation Rescue official Cheryl Sullenger spent time in prison for plotting to blow up an abortion clinic.
Because Hogue specifically called out Operation Rescue president Troy Newman, Brown went further into defense mode:
Hogue was likely referencing comments in a 2000 book, “Their Blood Cries Out,” co-authored by Newman, and which Australian MP Terri Butler recently invoked to deny Newman’s visa for a speaking tour on character grounds.
The Guardian reports that Butler pointed out this passage of the book: “In addition to our personal guilt in abortion, the United States government has abrogated its responsibility to properly deal with the blood-guilty. This responsibility rightly involves executing convicted murderers, including abortionists, for their crimes in order to expunge bloodguilt from the land and people.”
“Newman has never advocated violence against abortion providers or facilities and has instead adamantly encouraged pro-life activists to work through the legal, legislative, and justice systems to bring abortionists who are breaking the law and harming women to justice,” Operation Rescue replied in a September statement.
But claiming that abortion doctors should go through the legal system before being executed is still demanding that they be executed, no matter how much Operation Rescue tries to deny it; his "Their Blood Cries Out" statement does not differenctiate between abortion docctors doing their job legally and "abortionists who are breaking the law."
Brown concluded her article with an apparent attempt to justify the shooting and blame Planned Parenthood itself for it by invoking Mother Teresa:
Planned Parenthood also tweeted Sunday: “To all of the trolls who spew hatred and lob attacks at us, PP family, or supporters online, you are a part of the problem.”
Mother Teresa, at the 1994 National Prayer Breakfast attended by the pro-abortion President Bill Clinton and first lady Hillary Clinton, called abortion “the greatest destroyer of peace today.”
[I]f we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another?” said Mother Teresa. “Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching its people to love one another, but to use any violence to get what they want. This is why the greatest destroyer of love and peace is abortion.”
But CNS was not done. Managing editor Michael W. Chapman tried to change the subject altogether with an article on "The latest abortion surveillance report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention," in which "55.4 percent were performed on black or Hispanic mothers."
Chapman was silent on the ethnicities of the people Robert Dear murdered while apparently inflamed by anti-abortion rhetoric.