AIM Chairman Obsesses Over The Proper National Motto Topic: Accuracy in Media
In a Dec. 11 blog post, Accuracy in Media chairman Don Irvine complained that University of Maryland president Wallace Loh, in defending the decision to drop the name of a former school president with a history of racism from the school's football stadium, "managed to quote the wrong official motto of the United States" by bringing up the phrase "E Pluribus Unum."
Irvine added: "Considering that 'In God we Trust' has been the official national motto since 1956, it’s hard to figure out how Loh committed such an atrocious mistake, except to say that the official motto wouldn’t have fit his narrative as he caves to the left and practices revisionist history."
In fact, Loh never said "E Pluribus Unum," was the "official motto" but, rather, "our national motto engraved on our coins" (as Irvine directly quotes Loh). And "E Pluribus Unum," while not the "official motto," is unquestionably *a* national motto.
History professor Thomas Foster points out that "'E Pluribus Unum' has long been acknowledged as a de facto national motto. After all, it is on the Great Seal of the United States, which was adopted in 1782. Moreover, in the 1770s and ’80s Congress opposed a theistic motto for the nation, and many of the founders worked hard to prevent one from being established." It was founding fathers John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson who approved putting that motto on the Great Seal. "In God We Trust," by contrast, "was made the official national motto in 1956, at the height of the Cold War, to signal opposition to the feared secularizing ideology of communism," Foster writes.
If this debate sounds familiar it should: The ConWeb had a cow in 2010 when President Obama did something similar.
WND's Erik Rush Thinks People Fear Him Topic: WorldNetDaily
Poor Erik Rush: He thinks he is feared.
So much so, in fact, he feels compelled to explain why he is feared. Indeed, his Dec. 9 WorldNetDaily column is called "Why the left fears me." He opines:
I can always tell I’ve hit a nerve when something I’ve written causes the left-wing websites to go berserk in their efforts to ridicule me following its publication. When anyone hits a nerve, we typically see more hyperbole, mischaracterization and ridiculous extrapolations than usual from the left. By hitting a nerve, I mean articulating concepts truly threatening to the agenda of the left.
Black conservatives tend to grind on those aforementioned leftist nerves by their very existence; this is why such vigorous efforts are made by the left to marginalize them. Part of this stems from leftists’ thinly veiled racism; they resent black conservatives for not “minding their place” by rejecting liberal doctrine and liberals’ largesse.
Another factor is a fallacy or stereotype the left itself created, and which is a component of negrophilia: The notion that black Americans possess some mysterious, sage wisdom originating in their unique collective experience on this continent.
Following this line of reasoning, it’s all well and good for a right-wing nut job like me and my ilk to howl at the moon about communists and conspiracies, but it’s an entirely different proposition if people start seriously considering what we have to say.
We -- and, we presume given that WND remains his highest-profile platform, the vast majority of the planet -- haven't seriously considered anything Rush has had to say for years. What little we've written on him has mostly been relegated to clipping his rants for ObamaDerangementSyndromeposts.
And his self-described "howling at the moon about communists and conspiracies" has pretty much guaranteed that Rush will never be taken seriously. For example:
Rush's obsessive hatred of President Obama, starting with likening him to a prison rapist and going from there.
Rush's declaration that all Muslims should be killed, which he was forced to walk back as "sarcasm."
MRC Whines That 'Spotlight' Is Just A 'Liberal Reporter Movie' Topic: Media Research Center
See how many extraneous ideological labels the Media Research Center's Matthew Balan sticks in his Dec. 2 post on the new film "Spotlight." We'll help by putting them in bold:
CBS Celebrates 'Very Powerful,' 'Fantastic' Liberal Reporter Movie
Wednesday's CBS This Morning raved over the new movie Spotlight, which touts the work of the investigative reporters at the liberal Boston Globe who chronicled the Catholic priest sex abuse scandal in the Archdiocese of Boston. Gayle King gushed, "Gosh, that movie was so good." She later labeled the movie "very powerful." Fill-in anchor Kristen Johnson asserted that the new release was "such a fantastic movie." [video below]
The morning newscast brought on left-wing actor Mark Ruffalo and the Boston Globe correspondent he played in the movie, Mike Rezendes. Johnson set up Rezendes to praise the movie, along with his profession: "When you saw the movie, were you pleased with how real it was?" The guest replied, "Yeah. I think the movie is incredibly authentic....I love the message that it gives about investigative reporting. I love the message it gives about clergy sex abuse."
Anchor Charlie Rose followed up by underlining that "there are two stories here. One is a story of reporting; two is a story about something like this could go on for so long." Rezendes returned to praising the movie: "I like the movie, because it keeps public attention focused on this issue, which is still really important." Rose asked him to clarify: "Meaning that the Church has not done anything, or hasn't done enough?" The journalist responded, "I think the Church has...taken several meaningful steps. I think most victims/survivors will tell you that the Church has not done enough."
King then prompted Ruffalo to give his take on the issue, as she continued her praise for the motion picture. The left-wing actor included his inaccurate summary of Catholic theology on the priesthood:
Near the end of the segment, the Obama-supporting TV personality asked Rezendes, "Did it change, Mike, how you felt about your religion, when you were reporting the story — working on it?" The journalist answered, "Yeah. Even though I was a lapsed Catholic at the time, I still considered myself a Catholic. I still identified Catholic. And it did change how I felt about the Church — no question about it." King and Johnson ended the segment with their "very powerful" and "fantastic" superlatives about the movie.
For all the label-tossing Balan does, he never explains why he's doing it -- perhaps it's an attempt to dismiss the film as a "liberal" enterprise, something the MRC has been doing for a while. But even if the Boston Globe is the "liberal" paper he claims it is, does that make the story it reported on sexual abuse in the Catholic Church any less accurate? Does Ruffalo being a "left-wing actor" -- something Balan is compelled to state twice -- have any bearing whatsoever on his role in this movie? And what does Balan's labeling of Gayle King as an "Obama-supporting TV personality" have on anything in his post? Obama has nothing to do with either the events depicted in "Spotlight" or the contents of the interivew.
Witih no actual hook to base his criticism, Balan is effectively complaining that a film he doesn't like is being promoted. That's not "media research" -- that's an attempt at censorship.
WND Frets Over Trump-Nazi Comparisons, Ignores Its History of Obama-Nazi Comparisons Topic: WorldNetDaily
Joe Kovacs seems a little upset in a Dec. 9 WND article:
Achtung, political fans!
Images of Donald Trump on swastikas are now making their debut into this presidential race.
Police in northeast Atlanta spent much of Wednesday morning trying to scrape the swastikas from at least two bridge supports in the area.
The symbols feature a cartoon of Trump sporting a Hitler-style mustache and a bow tie made out of a $100 bill.
Their appearance comes only days after Trump’s controversial call to ban Muslims from entering the U.S. until a proper vetting process is developed. Trump said in a statement released Monday there should be a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.”
Kovacs being conserned that Trump is being portrayed as a Nazi is particularly rich given WND's own history of smearing President Obama as a Nazi.
As we've documented, WND not only has published numerous attacks on Obama likening him to various and sundry Nazis, it actually defended doing so. WND also published a columnist, Hilmar von Campe, whose apparent sole purpose in life was to hurl Obama-Nazi smears, showing that he learned well from his childhood as a member of the Hitler Youth.
Kovacs doesn't mention that actual neo-Nazis and white supremacists and nationalists are totally down with Trump's plan to bar Muslims from entering the country. That's something that lends a little heft to those Trump-Nazi accusations, unlike with anything involving the Obama-Nazi smear.
Newsmax Advertiser Now Using Hawking, CNN To Sell Dubious Supplement Pills Topic: Newsmax
Remember a week or so ago when we highlighted a Newsmax ad for "brain pills" that featured an obviously fake endorsement by Marco Rubio on an obviously fake news website? Well, our shady advertisers are back with a different fake endorser on a different fake website -- and Newsmax still doesn't seem to care.
This time out, the ad blurb on the Newsmax "feed network" reads, "Stephen Hawking Says This Smart Pill Is Proven to Double IQ." This time, readers are taken to a page that doesn't even really try to look like an actual CNN website page -- the URL readers "cmn.com--news.info" -- leading with this fake endorsement from Stephen Hawking:
The product's name this time is Geniux, which is probably the same thing as the "Accelerin" promoted in the Rubio ad. The page even ropes in CNN's Anderson Cooper for his own fake endorsement:
The ad repeats a fake endorsement from Denzel Washington, but also adds Bill Gates and Elon Musk. At the bottom of the page is a bunch of fake comments designed to look vague like a Disqus thread.
The actual product pageis even more vague than the Accelerin page about what, exactly, is in its little brain pills. There's a link at the bottom of the page that states "Click here to find evidence of a test, analysis, research or study describing the benefits, performance or efficacy of product ingredients based on the expertise of relevant professionals." But when you click on the link, it returns a listing of what it calls the "components of the nutraceutical formula found in The Geniux Brain Supplement," and that "one or more of the components in The Geniux Brain Supplement formula were present" in the referenced studies. It references bee pollen extract and tyrosine, neither of which are exactly known for their energy and memory-enhancing properties. And the two tyrosine-related studies examined their effects on phenylketonuria, an inherited disorder.
So, again, Newsmax is using its former syndicated news feed to promote a supplement of questionable value using fake celebrity endorsement. Are there no standards at Newsmax?
MRC's Graham & Bozell didn't Read Their Own Website Before Railing Against Celebrities With Political Views Topic: Media Research Center
Tim Graham and Brent Bozell spend their entire Dec. 11 column denouncing celebrities who weigh in on political issues, ranting about "Hollywood hypocrisy" and whining that "all these Hollywood hacks are only offering is Twitter hashtags and lame YouTube mantras." Needless to say, they ranted against only those who expressed a liberal point of view.
They might have a point if their organization, the Media Research Center, didn't engage in the exact same celebrity-promoting.
Indeed, on the same day Graham and Bozell's column appeared, the MRC's "news" division, CNSNews.com, published the following:
An article touting how actor Kurt Russell "said that gun control won’t do anything to stop terrorists and that to think otherwise is 'absolutely insane.'"
An article regurgitating a tweeted critique of President Obama's foreign policy by game-show host Chuck Woollery.
A column by country singer Charlie Daniels rangting against socialism.
CNS hilariously placed Daniels' column right next to the one by Graham and Bozell on its front page (the screenshot at the top of this post), conveniently demonstrating their utter hypocrisy in railing against celebrities in politics.
With the possibility fading of Barack Obama’s Justice Department prosecuting the inevitable Democratic Party presidential nominee, a new independent campaign has arisen to expose Hillary Clinton’s criminal actions and prosecute her at the state level.
It’s called the Hillary Clinton Investigative Justice Project, and it was conceived by two veteran investigative journalists who plan to take their findings to state attorneys general in jurisdictions in which the nonprofit, tax-exempt Clinton Family Foundation does business.
“The Clinton Family Foundation is effectively a criminal, money-laundering operation principally established to enrich the founders with political payoff money, including millions from foreign donors,” said Joseph Farah, founder and chief executive officer of WND. “It’s a racketeering enterprise protected by the Democratic Party dons – including the president of the United States and his attorney general.”
Farah and WND senior staff writer Jerome Corsi, a two-time No. 1 New York Times bestselling author, have teamed up with the express purpose of bringing the Clintons to justice. Farah and Corsi have been investigating and reporting on the Clintons for 23 years.
On top of that, both Farah and Corsi are documented liars, making anything they have to report highly suspect -- WND is arguably the most dishonest "news" organization in America, after all.
WND makes clear later in the article that this isn't a "project" but, rather, a witch hunt:
“The project is an effort by WND and its dedicated investigative reporting team, private investigators, judicial watchdogs, state officials and attorneys who recognize it’s not enough just to document Clinton crimes, but to bring them to the attention of prosecutors who will bring them to justice before she can even accept the nomination of the Democratic Party for the presidency of the United States,” says Corsi. “We need help to hire the private investigators needed to prove that Bill and Hillary Clinton, along with a cadre of close associates, have used the Clinton Foundation to be a personal piggy bank, in complete disregard of state and federal laws that strictly prohibit what is known as ‘inurement,’ the crime of using a tax-exempt foundation to defraud charitable donors so their contributions can be diverted to personal use.”
All it will take to close down the Clinton Foundation is one or more state attorneys general who develop the investigative proof the Clintons have violated with impunity laws regarding the filing of the audited financial statements and regulatory reports needed to prove a charitable foundation is being run honestly, Corsi adds.
A state attorney general, armed with proof and a well-crafted criminal complaint, can get from a state judge a temporary restraining order that would shut down the Clinton Foundation, replacing the board and officers with qualified individuals appointed by the court.
In addition to hiring private investigators, attorneys are needed to draft and file criminal complaints with attorneys general in states throughout the nation.
It's kind of cute how WND is portraying Farah and Corsi's witch hunt as an "independent campaign." By declaring they intend to destroy the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, they are effectively on the payroll of the Republican Party, as well as whoever wins the Republican nomination.
Corsi is also quoted as saying that "I have teamed up with Wall Street analyst and investor Charles Ortel to expand the series of articles we have been writing in WND.com on the Clinton Foundation scandals." But the fact that Ortel is teaming up with the dishonest likes of Corsi and WND tells you all you need to know about the quality of the so-called evidence he has.
And, of course, it wouldn't be WND if it was begging readers to pony up to fund the witch hunt, declaring that "Fund will be used to hire legal talent, private investigators and pay expenses for continued investigative reporting efforts." They add, "Those who contribute $5 or more to this fund will be provided regular insider updates on the progress of the campaign." Just $5? That's it? Sounds a little desperate.
Remember what happened the last time Farah begged for money to fund his political causes -- in this case a super PAC to benefit right-wing candidates in the 2014 midterm elections. It raised a pittance, much of it from WND itself, and nearly all of the money went to advisers and administrative expenses and none was spent on candidates. Presumably those "insider updates" won't include updates on how their money is being spent.
So two utterly dishonest people want us to believe any hateful thing they write about Hillary Clinton in the next year, and they want us to fund their dishonest misadventures even though previous fundraising campaigns have lacked transparency or accountability, while not putting their own skin in the game.
CNS Touts Right-Wing Extremist's Call For 'Muslim Control' Topic: CNSNews.com
Mairead McArdle writes in a Dec. 4 CNSNews.com blog post about how "Long-time conservative columnist and author Don Feder remarked Friday that perhaps what the United States needs is not more gun control, but 'Muslim control.'" McArdle goes on to uncritically promote Feder's anti-Muslim sentiments, but she little to say about Feder himself; along with the above description, she adds only that he is "a former syndicated columnist and editorial writer for the Boston Herald."
What McArdle won't tell you: Feder is a far-right activist who's anti-gay and leans toward white nationalism.
We've documented how Feder served as a "communications director" for a documentary called "Demographic Winter," which frets that white right-wing Christians are not having enough babies and will soon by overrun by brown people who have more children. Feder has (dishonestly) defended white nationalist and anti-immigration leader John Tanton.
On top of that, Feder is communications director for the World Congress of Families, a right-wing group that is not only virulently anti-gay but has grown closer to Russian dictator Vladimir Putin, endorsing his anti-gay policies and even planning to hold a meeting in Moscow until Russia invaded Ukraine (the meeting went on, but WCF had to drop its name from it).
Our treasonous war-criminal president’s policies have set America up quite nicely for a major terrorist attack, perhaps of a much wider scope than the recent attacks in Paris. These include everything from a refusal to even rhetorically associate Islamic terrorism with Muslims, to the nationwide Syrian refugee drop, to the clandestine importation of Muslims from destabilized nations in the Middle East and Africa, to an absolute refusal to effectively monitor who comes and goes in this country.
Americans will die, and despite his feigned outrage after the fact, it will have been due to the deliberate intention of Barack Hussein Obama.
A nation like ours does not go from respecting personal liberties and the rule of law to “I’ve got a pen, and I’ve got a phone” overnight. Are there really so many ethically compromised individuals in our government that there is no hope for any among them finally deciding to exercise the rule of law and remove this tyrant? Are they just cowards, willing to let Obama touch off World War III rather than risk the Black Lives Matter crowd setting America ablaze for “taking down” our precious first black president on account of his proclivity for treason and crimes against humanity?
Or are they, as some suspect, party to a much broader agenda, perhaps one rooted in the belief that our planet’s human population cut by three-fourths – even overnight – would be much better for everyone going forward?
Seven years into his presidency Barack Obama finally found his mojo and declared war!
Americans were astonished that within three weeks of the bloody Paris attacks, the U.S. leader dropped everything to jet to the city where the carnage occurred and, after laying a rose at the Bataclan Concert Hall, spoke persuasively to 150 world leaders.
This usually mild-mannered man was extraordinarily forceful when he urged those assembled to “take action” in order to save the world against a growing threat that “could define the contours of this century more dramatically than any other.”
Obama did not mince words when he warned nations large and small that “there is such a thing as being too late!”
Our 44th president astonished those present when he boldly proclaimed, “The United States not only recognizes our role in creating this problem, we embrace our responsibility to do something about it!”
What clarity! What decisiveness!
Unfortunately, this call to arms was not against the Islamic State, which is gobbling up land in the Middle East at an alarming rate and sending its followers to the West to wage war on the civilized nations of the world. It was, alas, a call to battle an unproved theory of global warming.
In featuring this clip, even C-SPAN headlined it, “Did President Obama Just Admit He Was Muslim?” The video deserves to be watched. Obama emphasized the “we.”
This is not the first time Obama has opened the closet door on a possible double life. WND has well chronicled his flirtations with the Prophet.
Most notoriously, on the campaign trail in 2008, Obama fueled the debate on his religious inclinations with a gaffe, Kinsley or otherwise, when he said to ABC's George Stephanopoulos, "You are absolutely right that John McCain has not talked about my Muslim faith."
The ever-protective Stephanopoulos corrected him with a sotto voce "Christian faith," and Obama went with the correction. This was hardly the right time for Obama to "out" himself as anything but a straight, patriotic, Christian, middle-of-the-roader.
In his final year of the presidency, we may get to meet the real Obama, and God only knows what form that reality will take.
If he is in a confessional mood, I am just hoping Obama will reveal who did the real writing on "Dreams from My Father."
Barack Obama continues his seven-year run as the nation’s top firearm salesman, raising the question in many Americans’ minds whether they might be facing their last chance to purchase the guns they want. Mass shootings and terrorism, along with the Democratic Party’s open embrace of gun control as a campaign issue, are assisting Obama’s unintended effort to push gun sales to new records.
Barack Hussein Obama hasn’t the courage to call militant Islam the enemy – which it is – because he favors Islam. Regardless of the reason, the result is clear. He is on their side, not on ours. In fact, with all the attacks on the West by militant Islam worldwide, Obama has never used the words militant Islam in connection with terrorism and almost never uses the word terrorism.
Newt Gingrich, historian and former speaker of the House, said last week, “Barack Obama is the greatest national security threat to ever occupy the White House.”
I agree. Obama’s inaction leaves the door wide open for terrorists – whether by a massive attack or smaller random attacks – to have their way with us.
Experts say, without hesitation, we will be attacked again.
Come on, Americans: Are you willing to see a smoking Washington or New York or maybe have this terror come to your backyard?
We’re living on borrowed time – and the clock is ticking.
Barack Obama is ignoring the ringing alarm. Wake him up or replace him.
Obama assured America that his administration would be the most transparent one in history. Specific to that point in the aftermath of another act of Muslim terrorism, there are three things glaringly transparent: 1) Obama favors Muslims terrorists over Americans; 2) Obama is not inclined to hide his affections for terrorists over Americans; and 3) for all of President Roosevelt’s negatives, thank God Obama wasn’t in office when Pearl Harbor was attacked.
As Americans, we enjoy knowing details about our newsmakers, but none of us knows one single humanizing fact about the history of our own president.
We are all aware of the lack of incontestable birth records for Obama; that document managing has been spectacularly successful.
There are, however, several additional oddities in Obama's history that appear to be as well managed as his own birth issue. For example, due to a lack of transparency there are questions about the birth records of his own daughters.
It's also interesting that no one who ever dated him has shown up. The charisma that caused women to be drawn to him so strongly during his campaign certainly would, in the normal course of events, lead some lady to come forward, if only to garner some attention for herself.
It's virtually impossible to know anything definitive about this fellow.
Who was the best man at his wedding? Start there. Then check groomsmen.
Then get the footage of the graduation ceremony. Has anyone talked to the professors? It is odd that no one is bragging that they knew him or taught him or lived with him.
When did he meet Michelle, and how? Are there photos there? Every president gives to the public all their photos, etc. for their libraries. What has he released?
Ever wonder why no one ever came forward from President Obama's past saying they knew him, attended school with him, was his friend, etc.?
Not one person has ever come forward from his past. It certainly is very, very strange.
This should be a cause for great concern. To those who voted for him, you may have elected an unqualified, inexperienced shadow man.
Obama has never successfully run a candy store, yet Americans stand down and allows him to destroy their country.
For many American citizens, the murder of nearly 3,000 of our own on 9/11 by Muslim fanatics was a wake-up call. The naïve way many of us had viewed the world melted under shattering reality in the space of one chilling morning.
Unfortunately, after the immediate shock passed, most went back to sleep and stayed asleep. Just seven years later, a man with a Muslim name and sympathies, Barack Hussein Obama, was elected president, and four years later, was re-elected. Now after Paris and San Bernardino, it couldn’t be clearer that he sides with the enemy. God help us.
Terry Jeffrey's Hypocritical (And Dishonest) Anti-D.C. Snobbery Topic: CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com editor Terry Jeffrey had a huge fit of anti-Washington snobbery this week. First, there was a Dec. 9 article in which he wrote:
Five of the nation's Top Ten wealthiest counties--when measured by median household income in 2014--are suburbs of Washington, D.C.; and the three wealthiest are all in suburban Virginia, according to data released today by the Census Bureau.
Falls Church, Va.--an independent city which the Census counts as a county--led the nation with a median household income of $125,635 in 2014.
Loudon County, Va., was second with a median household income of $122,641.
Fairfax County, Va., was third with a median household income of $110,507.
The “county” that the Census Bureau reported yesterday had the highest median household income in the nation in 2014 is disproportionately populated by people who work for the government.
The City of Falls Church, Va.--which the Census Bureau treats as a “county” because it is an independent city that is not a part of any county—had a median household income of $125,635 in 2014.
That put it first on the Census Bureau’s list of the 30 counties in the nation with the highest median incomes.
In the five-year period from 2010-2014, according to the Census Bureau’s estimate, there were 7,290 Falls Church City residents 16 and older who were employed.
2,389 of these—or 32.8 percent—worked for government.
Nationwide, during the same time period, only 14.6 percent of workers were employed by government.
Thus, workers in the nation’s wealthiest county were more than twice as likely as workers nationwide to be employed by government.
Of course, this is nothing but read-meat government-bashing for the benefit of CNS' right-wing readers (and, hopefully, a few traffic-driving clicks). But Jeffrey isn't telling you the whole story -- like how utterly hypocritical his sneering attacks are.
CNS and its parent organization, the Media Research Center, are headquarted in Reston, Va. -- located in Fairfax County, the third-wealthiest U.S. county that Jeffrey was mocking. And Reston is just a 12-mile drive from Falls Church, Va., which is located in the middle of Fairfax County.
Reston, being located in that wealthy county, is not too shabby on the median income front -- $110,321 according to the Census Bureau. So the denizens of CNS' hometown are living quite well.
As is Jeffrey. We don't know where exactly Jeffrey lives in the Washington area, but with a salary of $122,400 in 2011 -- which has surely increased since then -- he can easily afford a place in Falls Church. Indeed, the salaries paid to all top MRC officials help to prop up that lofty median salary in Fairfax County.
Further, Jeffrey's sneering assertion that "workers in the nation’s wealthiest county were more than twice as likely as workers nationwide to be employed by government" is utterly dishonest. It's ridiculous for Jeffrey to express surprise that a town near the capital of the most powerful country in the world has a large number of government workers.
Also, notice that Jeffrey offers no breakdown of the income of government workers vs. private sector workers in Falls Church. It's entirely possible, if not likely, that the salaries of these private-sector workers are what's driving up the median salary there. If he can't do that, all he's doing is smearing government workers.
If Jeffrey feels so strongly about this and looks down on his fellow Fairfax County residents so severely, why doesn't he talk his boss, Brent Bozell into moving the MRC far out of the Washington area, to that "flyover country" heartland conservatives speak so highly of? Or stop playing the Washington game he purports to despise and leave CNS -- and his six-figure salary -- behind?
Obama Derangement At Its Finest, Courtesy of AIM's Kincaid: 'Is Our Stoner President Mentally Impaired?' Topic: Accuracy in Media
It's hard to fine a better distallation of Obama Derangement Syndrome than Cliff Kincaid's Dec. 7 Accuracy in Media column, starting with the headline "Is Our Stoner President Mentally Impaired?" Let's see if we can pick the highlights and not excerpt the entire column in the process:
Members of Congress concerned about America’s survival have shied away from impeaching President Obama on national security grounds. They either think impeachment would take too long or that the political process of impeaching the first black Democratic President would be too polarizing. There is an alternative: removing Obama from office because of cognitive impairment.
Rather than accuse Obama of being a secret Muslim blinded by Marxist ideology, perhaps the way for Congress to save our nation is to invoke the 25th Amendment to the United States Constitution dealing with presidential disabilities. This amendment allows Congress to review whether or not the president is able to discharge the powers and duties of his office. If it is determined that he is not, then he can be replaced. A case can be made that he is so affected by previous drug use that he is just not capable of comprehending reality. As a former member of the “Choom Gang” of heavy marijuana users, Obama seems indifferent to the facts on the ground concerning the Muslim terrorist threat.
The charge that Obama has been impaired by marijuana is not made lightly. Interestingly enough, however, a new study has just been released regarding the “psychosis-like effects” of marijuana.
Obama is, presumably, not smoking marijuana in the White House. But he talks and acts as if he is still under the influence. Indeed, the long-term impact of the weed on his intellectual processes is a subject of concern. David Maraniss, author of a book on Obama, notes that the word “choom,” taken from “Choom Gang,” means to smoke marijuana. He said Obama “started a few pot-smoking trends,” suggesting the future president understood ways to make the “high” from the drug even more powerful and lasting. One method they used was to smoke dope in a car and then inhale or suck in what was left of the smoke in the ceiling of the car.
What Maraniss leaves out of his book on Obama is the role played by Obama’s mentor, Communist Party member Frank Marshall Davis, another dope smoker who probably gave the young Barry some tips on inhaling the drug for full effect. Davis, a pedophile, probably also taught young Barry about experimenting with sex.
If Congress doesn’t want to find Obama guilty of having an ideology that explains his sympathy for radical Islam and disqualifies his continued service as President, the only alternative is to diagnose his medical condition with public hearings and conclude that he has lost touch with reality and is mentally ill. A Congressional Research Service study cites evidence that section four of the 25th amendment is designed for “a sick president who refuses or is unable to confront his disability,” or “a president who is disabled but unwilling to step aside.”
This section is complicated, but it explicitly allows for Congress to establish a committee or another body to review the president’s disability and recommend his removal from office. It refers to several ways the president can be removed, including through a body “as Congress may by law provide.” This would begin the process of congressional action.
The main objection will be that using Obama’s dope-smoking days against him is going back too far in his life to justify his removal from office. But many observers see that something is seriously wrong with this President’s approach to his job. Blaming his performance on the lingering effects of the heavy use of illegal drugs makes as much sense as any other explanation at this point.
Indeed, with impeachment on ideological grounds off the table, it is within the jurisdiction of Congress to decide that Obama has done enough damage to the nation and the world and that he must go. Since Obama seems to be AWOL in the War on Terror, dereliction of duty by Congress in this case would only increase the danger and risk to the nation.
Poor Cliff Kincaid. His ODS just makes this way too easy.
WND Already Pushing Conspiracy Theories In San Bernardino Shooting Topic: WorldNetDaily
There are few things WorldNetDaily loves more than a good conspiracy theory, and it's going full conspiracy mode on the San Bernadino shootings.
WND was already conspiracy-mongering just a couple of days after the shooting in a Dec. 4 column by Stu Tarlowe (italics in original):
Are we now a nation of the arithmetically challenged?
Anyone who’s ever owned a dog will concur with this: If you think a dog can’t count, try putting three dog biscuits in your pocket, and give him only two.
Apparently, even a dog can count better than the Obama regime, its “authorities,” its sycophant media and all but a teeny-tiny percentage of the American public.
Because, after almost a full day, Wednesday, of reports (including those from eyewitnesses) of three perpetrators in the attack in San Bernardino, plus hours of reports of police searching for three suspects in a black SUV and then, having dispatched two of them in a gun battle, still searching for the third (including reports that a third individual was being “detained”), suddenly Thursday came and went with nary a mention of any suspect other than Sayed Farook and Tashfeen Malik.
Overnight, three had become merely two.
Who is Stu Tarlowe? We have no idea, though he appears to have an extensive archive of articles at the far-right-fringe American Thinker website. WND's end-of-column bio for Tarlowe describes him only as "a native New Yorker living in the Heart of America" whose "pantheon of heroes and role models" includes not only domestic terrorist G. Gordon Liddy but domestic terrorist Meir Kahane, whose Kach movement and its successor, Kahane Chai, are banned in Israel for inciting racism and violence and considered terrorist organizations in the U.S.
With such an impeccable source to go on, WND executive news editor Joe Kovacs devoted a Dec. 9 article to pushing the third-shooter conspiracy:
A week after the terrorist attack in San Bernardino, California, that killed 14 people and left 21 injured, some are wondering whatever happened to the supposed third shooter that witnesses say shot up the Inland Regional Center.
The two Muslim suspects who were killed in a police shootout have been identified as Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik, who were reportedly planning the deadly assault a year in advance.
But witnesses on the day of the Dec. 2 massacre insisted there were three shooters.
Kovacs goes on to cite Rush Limbaugh, among other right-wingers, approvingly pushing this conspiracy.
Leo Hohmann piled on in a Dec. 10 article, invoking not only the third-shooter conspiracy but also other "lingering questions about how the incident occurred and the way it is being handled by the FBI." Hohmann wants to know "why there has been no video footage" of the shooting released, why reporters were allowed to go "traipsing through the apartment" of shooters Syed Farook and his "jihadist wife" so soon after investigators were done with it, and why the Council for American-Islamic Relations held a press conference denouncing the shooting "before the FBI even ruled the crime to be an act of terrorism."
Needless to say, the whole third-shooter conspiracy has been debunked; the San Bernardino Sun reports that the so-caled third shooter sought immediately after the shooting was actually someone fleeing the area of the final gun battle, possibly for his own safety. He was caught and detained, but was determined to not have been involved. Since the man did nothing wrong (but was booked on an outstanding misdemeanor warrant), authorities aren't releasing his name.
Don't expect WND to tell you any of this or, if it does, to present it at face value. Those conspiracy theories, discredited as they may be, are what keeps the rubes coming to the website.
Oops: Anti-Muslim Activists Fall For Fake Story Topic: Accuracy in Media
A story at the Free Wood Post, claiming that "The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) has officially designated Donald Trump and his campaign as a hate group," has captured the attention of anti-Muslim activist (and member of the Accuracy in Media's increasingly discredited "Citizens' Commission on Benghazi") Clare Lopez:
Lopez's tweet was approvingly quoted by another anti-Muslim activist and right-wing favorite, Frank Gaffney:
Just one problem with the story: it's a fake.
The first clue is the banner on the Free Wood Post website, which proclaims "news that's almost reliable." There's also a prominent link to a "satire disclaimer" at the top of the page, which states: "Free Wood Post is a news and political satire web publication, which may or may not use real names, often in semi-real or mostly fictitious ways. All news articles contained within FreeWoodPost.com are fiction, and presumably fake news. Any resemblance to the truth is purely coincidental, except for all references to politicians and/or celebrities, in which case they are based on real people, but still based almost entirely in fiction."
We found nothing on the SPLC website designating the Trump campaign as a hate group, though it has criticized the "extreme, anti-Muslim rhetoric" peddled by Trump and Gaffney, among others.
If Lopez and Gaffney fall so easily for fake stories, that doesn't say much about their supposed expertise in bashing Muslims.
The latest study shows that 15 percent female freshmen are raped their first year at college or university.
It’s a shocking statistic.
But it gets worse.
These freshman women are raped, according to the study, while they are incapacitated by drug or alcohol use.
But still it gets worse.
Do you realize that many colleges and universities don’t require – and even discourage – that local police departments investigate rapes, preferring that reports are merely filed with campus police?
Still it gets worse.
Do you realize the federal government spends tens of millions of your hard-earned tax dollars on programs telling students how to reduce sexual assaults but never mentions even once that excessive drinking is the leading factor in campus rapes?
How is this possible?
The answer is “political correctness.”
If the statistics are right, then college campuses, run by the most “progressive” minds in the country, are the least safe place for young women in America. To me, any parent who believes the statistics would be out of his or her mind sending his or her daughter off to college.
What Farah won't tell you: Rape and alcohol are also problems at private Christian schools, including the one to which Farah sent at least one of his daughters.
The New Republic reported last year about issues of rape at Patrick Henry College, a homeschooler-friendly right-wing Christian school in exurban Washington D.C. -- close enough to Farah's home in wealthy Fairfax County, Va., that at least one of his daughters, Alyssa, attended college there. According to the New Republic, Patrick Henry has a rather callous attitude toward female students who have been sexually assaulted, tending to blame the victim, especially if she had been drinking, and failing to hold of the alleged male perpetrators accountable for their actions.
An independent review of the allegations conducted by the school's alumni association found that the school officials had stonewalled the investigation and misled about the number of sexual assaults involving students, and that half of Patrick Henry students don't understand that nonconsensual behavior is a key component of sexual assault.
This investigation may or may not have played a role in the abrupt resignation of college president Graham Walker a couple months after the independent review came out. (Walker's rampant homophobia that stood out at a place already notoriously unfriendly to gays and an overall authoritarian attitude that included threatening journalism students out of reporting an unflattering story about a professor at the school probably didn't help matters either.)
But as we noted, you didn't read about this story at WND. Why? Farah is a huge booster of the school -- he even devoted a column to begging readers to donate to it -- and its founder and chancellor, Michael Farris, is close enough to Farah that at one point he had his own WND column. One WND article touted how the school has "Ivy League-caliber scholastics paired with a distinctly Christian worldview." The author of that article? Alyssa Farah.
Are parents equally out of their minds to send their daughters to a school with as callous an attitude toward victims of sexual assault as Patrick Henry College has been demonstrated to have? Farah doesn't seem to want to answer that question.
CNSNews.com has long had an obsession with specific words President Obama says, or doesn't say. Thus, we get things like this Dec. 6 blog post by Lauretta Brown and Katie Yoder:
President Obama showed solidarity with the nation’s No. 1 abortion provider this weekend by expressing that America is “a people who stand up for the rights of women to make their own decisions about their health,” according to a statement that never once mentioned "abortion."
In case you were wondering, Yoder doesn't work for CNS proper; she's technically an employee of its parent organization, the Media Research Center. Which tells us that CNS is ceasing to be an actual "news" organization (if it ever was one) and is now becoming more than the MRC in journalese.