In an Oct. 20 Newsmax article ostensibly trying to prove that what the obama campaign calls "smears" against their candidate are in fact "mostly true," Lowell Ponte focuses on one that is utterly false -- questions about Obama's birth certificate:
As proof, the Obama’s campaign has produced a “certificate of live birth” from Hawaii indicating that Barack Hussein Obama II was born Aug. 4, 1961. Critics, however say the document could have easily been forged and is not a substitute for a certified birth certificate.
No reporter has been allowed to see the original certificate of live birth or its certificate number, which is blacked out on copies of it on the Obama site.
Ponte fails to note that FactCheck.org proves the critics (and Ponte) wrong:
FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate. We conclude that it meets all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S. citizenship. Claims that the document lacks a raised seal or a signature are false. We have posted high-resolution photographs of the document as "supporting documents" to this article. Our conclusion: Obama was born in the U.S.A. just as he has always said.
Ponte further fails to note that even his right-wing fellow travelers at WorldNetDaily agree (even if WND forgets that it did so):
A separate WND investigation into Obama's birth certificate utilizing forgery experts also found the document to be authentic. The investigation also revealed methods used by some of the bloggers to determine the document was fake involved forgeries, in that a few bloggers added text and images to the certificate scan that weren't originally there.
(Ponte's not the only Newsmax writer embracing the birth certificate lie; Geoff Metcalf insisted in an Oct. 20 column that a "Certified copy of original birth certificate" has not been released.)
Ponte also perpetuates other falsehoods under the guise telling the "truth."
Ponte writes of the Obama website's statements regarding William Ayers: "It does not mention that Obama and Ayers worked together on the board distributing millions of dollars with the aim of radicalizing Chicago schoolchildren. Nor does the site acknowledge that Obama kicked off his first political campaign in the living room of Ayers, the former Weather Underground leader."
Ponte fails to mention that the Chicago Annenberg Challege, on which both Obama and Ayers worked, was funded by prominent Republican Walter Annenberg, and contrary to his claim that it had "the aim of radicalizing Chicago schoolchildren," educational reviewers found that the project, in fact, "reflected ... mainstream thinking among education reformers." Further, according tothe Chicago Sun-Times' Lynn Sweet, "Obama's formal kick-off to announce his run for state senate was at the Hyde Park Ramada Inn on Sept. 19, 1995," and the coffee reception in Ayers' living was one of several held around the same time.
-- Ponte also claims that Obama "pocketed more than $105,000 in political contributions, the third-highest amount given to any lawmaker, directly from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac." But he fails to mention that McCain McCain has accepted at least $169,000 from "directors, officers and lobbyists" connected to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac during the 2008 election cycle.
-- Ponte repeats his previous false claim that Project Vote was run by ACORN when Obama ran an operation for the group in 1992.
-- Ponte falsely suggested that when Obama said of his daughters, "[I]f they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby. I don't want them punished with an STD at the age of 16," that he was referring to abortion. In fact, Obama was answering a question on sex education.Ponte also claims that "Nurses have reported instances in which surviving aborted babies were left by abortionists to die without water, food, or warmth," without also noting that the claims made by that nurse, Jill Stanek were never substantiated.
-- Ponte suggested that the reason that Obama canceled a planned visit to wounded soldiers in a German military hospital was because Pentagon officials said he "could not have his visits with hospitalized soldiers videotaped by the media," adding, "Prominent liberal mainstream media reporters such as NBC’s Andrea Mitchell rushed to defend Obama, saying that the press had never planned to cover his visits to military sickbeds." But Ponte never disproves Mitchell's claim.
It's January 22, 2009, for 911 News, I'm Janet Porter. Two days after the inauguration of Barack Obama as president, the Middle Eastern reaction is the same. (VIDEO: TERRORISTS DANCING IN THE STREETS.) Obama campaign supporters from al-Qaida to Hamas to Hezbollah, to Islamic Jihad and the Muslim Brotherhood, continue to dance in the streets.
The "Death to America Coalition" released a statement: "We have not celebrated like this since 9/11!"
President Obama thanked campaign contributor William Ayers by appointing him as director of Homeland Security. Ayers, who bombed the Pentagon, and after 9/11 said he wished he could have done more, in a statement released today, said, "Now I can."
WND Misleads on GOP Voter Fraud Arrest Topic: WorldNetDaily
An Oct. 20 WorldNetDaily article by Drew Zahn reports on the arrest of a Republican activist for alleged voter fraud but reported only the man's defense, curiously omitting the evidence against him.
Zahn largely relies on the claims of Hector Barajas, communications director for the California Republican Party, in defense of Mark Jacoby, uncriticially reporting Baraja's claims that Jacoby was within his rights to claim his "childhood home" as his legal residence.
But that was not the charge against him; rather, that the address he put down as his legal address in California was not where he resided:
Authorities say Jacoby on two occasions fraudulently registered to vote at a California address where he does not live in order to satisfy a law requiring that signature gatherers be eligible to vote in the state.
Miller said investigators went to the Los Angeles County address he listed as home and spoke with the people who live there.
"They've never heard of him," Miller said. "They've lived there for years."
Jacoby's attorney, Dan Goldfine, said he has advised his client to decline interviews. But, Goldfine said, Jacoby's mother lives in LA County and that Jacoby was within his rights to declare her home as his residence. He said authorities had not revealed the address associated with the charges, though he suggested that Jacoby might have mistakenly put the wrong address on his registration form.
Zahn does not indicate that Barajas provided any evidence that Jacoby's "childhood home" is, in fact, the "legal residence" he declared.
Zahn buries the much more serious charge against Jacoby -- that, according to the Los Angeles Times, registrants were they were tricked by Jacoby's firm, Young Political Majors, into switching parties to Republican while signing what they believed were petitions for tougher penalties against child molesters -- by portraying it as a distraction from voter registration fraud allegations against ACORN. Indeed, five paragraphs of Zahn's article reference ACORN -- even though his article is not about ACORN -- while only two paragraphs reference the voter-duping charge against Jacoby's firm.
If we want a totalitarian, pansexual society, with its accompanying disease, dysfunction and abuse, and no room for nobility, goodness and tradition, then we need to make sure we vote for Obama with all his various revolutionary hangers-on.
Where Is Kessler's -- And Newsmax's -- Moral Compass? Topic: Newsmax
An Oct. 20 Newsmax column by Ronald Kessler accuses Barack Obama of 'lack[ing] a moral compass." We would argue that, by his flip-flop embrace of a candidate he despises out of an apparent desire to stay on the good side of his Republican buddies, Kessler has demonstrated the same lack of moral compass he accuses Obama of having.
Kessler cites Obama's "being 'friendly' with admitted domestic terrorist William Ayers" as evidence of Obama's purported lack of moral compass. The question thus arises: What's Ron Kessler's relationship with unrepentant domestic terrorist G. Gordon Liddy?
There doesn't appear to be much of one. Kessler and Liddy appearedtwice together on CNN in May 2005 to discuss the revelation that Mark Felt was the Watergate scandal's "Deep Throat," and while they didn't appear to agree on whether Felt was a hero, neither did Kessler take the opportunity to condemn Liddy for his actions in Watergate, as well as the murders and bombings he planned. Liddy earned only a passing mention in Kessler's book on the FBI, "The Bureau."
But Kessler's employer, Newsmax, has had closer ties-- and even less criticism of Liddy's domestic terrorism:
A January 2003 article by Dave Eberhart sycophantically referred to Liddy as "the G-Man" and listed "Watergate fall-guy" among his accomplishments, even though there's no question about his guilt.
A June 2003 column by Humberto Fontova stated of an alleged "plan for 500 kilos of TNT to kill thousands of New Yorkers" hatched by Fidel Castro: "ortunately, we had a crackerjack FBI back then, J. Edgar Hoover's outfit, employing such as the 'G-man' Gordon Liddy."
An August 2003 article by Wes Vernon took Liddy's side as part of a "rising chorus ... vehemently rejecting the claim by onetime Nixon campaign deputy director Jeb Stuart Magruder that President Richard Nixon order the break-in at the Watergate Hotel in 1972."
Geoff Metcalf whined in an April 2005 column: "Gordon Liddy went to jail. Sandy Berger goes on the speaking circuit and waits for Hillary?"
A June 2005 article by Phil Brennan authoritiatively cites Liddy in an effort to rebut "myths" about Watergate.
Newsmax listed Liddy among its "top 25 most influential talk radio hosts.
AIM Embraces Andy Martin-Citing Author Topic: Accuracy in Media
An Oct. 19 Accuracy in Media "briefing" by Irene Warren ("an intern at the American Journalism Center, a training program run by Accuracy in Media and Accuracy in Academia") features the book "Obama: Why Black America Should Have Doubts," which appears to be yet another right-wing attack book. It also appears to be self-published; author William Owens Jr. seems to be the same William Owens who runs iTouch/Higher Standard Publishers, or it could be his father.
There are a couple things that raise questions about Owens' book. The first is the blurb page, whichfeatures the usual right-wing suspects -- Jerome Corsi, Jesse Lee Peterson, Alveda King, Star Parker. The second is treating Andy Martin seriously, which Warren does as well. Warren wrote:
“Barack Obama does not and cannot relate to our past as Black Americans because in reality he is not a Black American,” explained Owens, as he reiterated a passage from the book titled, Obama: The Man Behind the Mask, by author Andy Martin. “Obama is a Muslim who has concealed his religion. Obama has a great opportunity to be forthright. Instead, he has treated his Muslim heritage as a dark secret.”
Warren fails to mention that Martin is a discredited anti-Semite who shouldn't be trusted just because he says nasty things right-wingers like to hear about Obama. Indeed, Warren writes nothing at all about Martin's background, let alone what it says about Owens for his embrace of Martin.
So, for her ignorance of Martin, does AIM and AIA give intern Warren a failing grade for this story -- or a passing one?
Some folks over at RightNation.us don't like the idea that we've exposed Jerome Corsi's fake documents. Rather than addressing the evidence, they're attacking us. One choice comment: "Krepel's mother was inseminated by the same leaking colostomy bag that Paul Krugman's and Michael Moore's were. Must have been some party."
Yousef, if you'll recall, was Klein's go-to guy earlier this year when he needed an quick and dirty Obama smear. The "senior Hamas official" appeared with Klein on John Batchelor's radio show, where he said that he hoped Obama would get elected. Klein inflated this into an "endorsement" of Obama by Hamas, making sure to downplay Obama's actual opinion of Hamas -- that it should be isolated until it recognizes Israel.
But it's getting late in the campaign, and Klein needs a little October surprise. So he's getting the band back together for another appearance on Batchelor's radio show, this time to slime Joe Biden. From Klein's Oct. 19 WND article:
In an exclusive interview tonight, a senior Hamas official heaped praise on Sen. Joe Biden, calling him a "very nice" person and a "great man" whose record "speaks volumes" and who can be counted on by the terror group to engage in the "right policy" toward the Middle East.
During the interview with WND's Aaron Klein and WABC Radio's John Batchelor, the Hamas figure also expressed hope regarding Sen. Barack Obama's "vision for change," announcing Hamas will send Obama a letter of congratulation "the moment he will win the election."
Ahmed Yousef, Hamas' chief political adviser in the Gaza Strip, called Biden a "very prominent figure when it comes to the politics of the region."
It's not disclosed until nearly the end of Klein's 22-paragraph article that both Obama and Biden have previously criticized Hamas.
This raises even more questions about collaboration between Yousef, Klein and Batchelor. As he did earlier, Yousef just happens to pop up regularly on Batchelor's show, with Klein as a co-interview, to advance Klein and Batchelor's partisan anti-Obama agenda. Klein seems to want his readers to believe this is not a coincidence.
Are Klein and Batchelor working with Yousef to clear his remarks? Would Yousef be allowed to appear on the show if he didn't endorse Obama and Biden? Indeed, there appears to be a working relationship with Yousef that Klein and Batchelor have not disclosed.
Perhaps Klein should concentrate on reporting the news instead of manufacturing it -- and fully disclose the nature of his relationship with Yousef.
NewsBusters Pretends Obama Comment Wasn't Taken Out of Context Topic: NewsBusters
An Oct. 19 NewsBusters post by Dave Pierre criticized Los Angeles Times columnist Rosa Brooks for writing that Barack Obama's words were "enthusiastically ripped out of context" by the McCain campaign when he remarked in 2007 about the need for more troops on the ground in Afghanistan so that the U.S. military is not "just air-raiding villages and killing civilians." Pierre asserted that "nothing was taken out of context," then linked to a YouTube clip of Obama saying the words. But the clip is only 12-seconds long -- the very definition of taking someone out of context.
Pierre's own quoting of Brooks takes her out of context as well. Pierre cuts off his excerpt of Brooks' column after the words, "
Not exactly eloquent, but Obama's fundamental point is unassailable," hiding from his readers what Brooks wrote next, which put Obama's words in their proper context:
With so many U.S. troops bogged down in Iraq, our troops in Afghanistan are spread dangerously thin. As the Afghan insurgency picks up steam, overwhelmed U.S. ground troops increasingly call in close-air-support bomb attacks. These airstrikes are, in turn, far more deadly for Afghan civilians than U.S. ground attacks, for the simple reason that while a soldier can usually tell the difference between an unarmed child and an insurgent, a bomb dropped from thousands of feet can't. So far this year, at least 395 Afghan civilians have been killed in NATO airstrikes, and the civilian death toll from NATO airstrikes is up by 21% over last year.
In fact, at the time Obama made his statement, the Associated Press reported: "A check of the facts shows that Western forces have been killing civilians at a faster rate than the insurgents have been killing civilians."
So: Obama is right, Brooks is right, and Pierre is not just wrong but dishonest by pretending he's offering the full context of Obama's (and Brooks') words while hiding the full truth.
WND Laughably Pretends To Be Moral Arbiter of News Media Topic: WorldNetDaily
The new issue of WorldNetDaily's Whistleblower magazine has the theme, "The Day the Media Died." It's ostensibly about how "America's 'mainstream media' have finally, during 2008, dropped the façade of fairness and impartiality" -- a rather hilarious argument from a "news" outlet that never bothered with the pretense and tells outright fabrications to its readers.
Indeed, the entire issue appears to be an in-kind contribution to the McCain campaign (like much of WND's news coverage). Among the featured claims:
The pregnancy of Sarah Palin's teen daughter is national news, as is the presence in the Alaska governor's mansion of a tanning bed (which Palin paid for herself). But Obama being mentored and nurtured for years by terrorists (William Ayers), communists (Frank Marshall Davis) and America-hating racists (Rev. Jeremiah Wright), which helped shape him into the most left-wing, America-blaming, radically pro-abortion and tyrant-appeasing presidential candidate in U.S. history, is not news.
"It doesn't matter how dangerous the reality of Obama is – a hardcore leftist whose intended tax-and-spend policies would, experts say, plunge American into a full-bore depression," said WND Managing Editor and best-selling author David Kupelian. "It doesn't matter how surreal and creepy his campaign gets – enlisting sheriffs and prosecutors to intimidate voters, exploiting children into singing 'Obama's gonna lead us' songs stunningly reminiscent of Chinese Maoist indoctrination. The mainstream press ignores it all, because, very simply, they just really want Obama to be president."
Of course, at WND, it's a steady diet of Obama sleaze, hate, lies, and fake documents while refusing to report anything negative about McCain. And Kupelian curiously fails to mention his own partisan affiliation -- he has endorsed McCain, and WND's news coverage is a direct reflection of that endorsement.
In other (italicized) words, WND ignores all negative news about McCain because, very simply, Kupelian just really wants McCain to be president -- making a mockery of boss Joseph Farah's claim to support "none of the above."
Kupelian is also quoted as saying, "By pushing so unashamedly and openly for Obama, the Old Media are throwing away what little is left of their credibility." Given that Kupelian's own website is outright lying about Obama, how much credibility could he and WND possibly have?
Which makes Kupelian and WND setting themselves up as moral arbiters of media behavior so roll-on-the-floor hilarious -- that is, if it wasn't so utterly dishonest and pathetic.
If a "mainstream media" outlet lied as much as WND, it would have died a painful death a long time ago. Yet WND remains in business. Where's the justice?
New Article: Jerome Corsi's Bogus Journey Topic: WorldNetDaily
The WorldNetDaily writer's trip to Kenya on a quest to smear Barack Obama resulted in a run-in with authorities -- and a fistful of documents are clearly fake. Read more >>
WND Whitewashes Anti-Abortion Extremist -- Again Topic: WorldNetDaily
An Oct. 19 WorldNetDaily article by Jay Baggett features a case involving anti-abortion extremist Neal Horsley, a fringe candidte for governor in Georgia, being charged with obscenity for carrying around a campaign sign displaying the head of an aborted fetus. But Baggett whitewashes Horsley's background, though not as much as a 2003 WND article that, as we detailed, airbrushed all controversy out of Horsley's behavior.
Horsley is perhaps better known for operating the "Nuremberg Files" website in the late 1990s that featured names of abortion practitioners. He was accused by abortion advocates of inciting violence for crossing out names of doctors who had died or who had been killed.
His website featured prominently in Planned Parenthood vs. American Coalition of Life Activists, despite the fact the defendents did not own or operate the Nuremberg website and its actual owner, Horsley, was not a named party in the case. Nonetheless, the Portland, Ore., pro-life activists were hit with a judgment of $109 million for creating "Deadly Dozen" posters on which the names of 12 abortion doctors were listed.
But Horsley didn't just "cross out names of doctors who had died or who had been killed"; as Salon wrote, those "Deadly Dozen" posters -- which also included the doctors' home addresses, their social security numbers, and the names of their children and where they went to school -- appeared on Horsley's website.HOrsley also posted thousands of photographs and videos of patients, clinic workers and clinic defenders as an apparent attempt at intimidation.
Further, contrary to Baggett's assertion that Horsley's website was not linked at all to the group at the center of the lawsuit, Salon stated: "The now defunct American Coalition of Life Activists morphed into the aboveground political apparatus of the violent Army of God -- with Horsley as its most prominent front man. Indeed, the Army of God Web site celebrates Horsley as 'A Hero of the Faith.'"
None of this information appears in Baggett's article.
Baggett also fails to mention that Horsley's actions were condemned by none other than anti-abortion activist and WND favorite Alan Keyes. From Salon:
Horsley clearly expected a sympathetic reception from the uncompromisingly pro-life Allen Keyes. But he was in for a painful surprise. After reminding viewers, "I don't think that there's a stronger advocate of the pro-life position in America today than I try to be in everything that I do and say," Keyes went on: "But I want to tell you quite bluntly that I think that what you are doing is wrong, that it's harmful to the pro-life movement, that it represents the kind of tactic that will disgrace and discredit what we are trying to do, and that it involves a tactic that, because it disregards what ought to be our own principle of care and concern for life, is actually contrary to the truths we're supposed to stand for. And I want to say quite bluntly on behalf of the pro-life movement itself, I wish you'd stop it."
Stunned, Horsley began by praising his host's godliness, saying, "You represent to me a man who's blessed my soul." But then he fired back, saying, "I think you're ignoring the fact that these people are going to kill God's children ... a woman who goes and kills her baby is involved in some degree of homicide and she's going to be punished. And we can pretend she's a victim, but the reality is she knows what she's doing. And God knows she knows what she's doing. And we've got to start acting like that's the truth or else we confuse people."
Keyes countered: "I believe deeply in the injunction 'Speak the truth with love.' And love means that you don't endanger somebody, that you don't approach them in a way that will actually possibly bring harm and grief upon them because, in your self-righteousness, you think you're the instrument of God's punishment ... I think the question of conscience and punishment ought to be left in his hands."
Horsley started to reply but Keyes cut him off. "[W]e must not unleash greater evils in what we do to stop the evil we're looking at," Keyes said. "And if we go forward in a way that suggests we're declaring some kind of physical war on people, then the end result will be a worse situation, and we'll be to blame for it."
Horsley denied he was doing what Keyes accused him of, but Keyes insisted Horsley's actions were "going to hurt" the pro-life movement.
One would think that such information would be relevant to WND readers. But then, WND has some peculiar ideas about journalism.
ConWeb Mostly Mum on McCain-Liddy Link Topic: The ConWeb
Following David Letterman's mention of John McCain's links to domestic terrorist G. Gordon Liddy during McCain's appearance on Letterman's "Late Show" Oct. 16, one would think it would have gained mention somewhere on the ConWeb.
One would be mostly wrong.
Newsmax,NewsBusters, CNSNews, the Media Research Center and Accuracy in Media all maintained silence about Letterman's mention. WorldNetDaily didn't mention it either, but an Oct. 17 column by token liberal Bill Press detailed Liddy's dirty deeds without noting Letterman.
The Heathering of David Brooks Continues Topic: NewsBusters
NewsBusters keeps up its Heathercampaign against David Brooks with an Oct. 18 post by P.J. Gladnick:
The New York Times "House Conservative" seems to know his place. Pretend to be a "conservative" while advancing the liberal agenda of getting Obama elected (along with slamming Rush Limbaugh). Should the "House Conservative" veer from that path, he will find his invites to exclusive Manhattan parties, where they probably now express "strange new respect" for Brooks, dry up along, perhaps, with his job.
Would Gladnick continue to be allowed to write at NewsBusters if he didn't write stuff like this, attacking fellow conservatives who deviated even slightly from right-wing dogma? We wonder...