Whose interest was President Obama serving when on March 30 he ordered Chrysler to either conclude a merger with Italian automaker Fiat within 30 days or lose federal bailout funds which would lead to its immediate demise?
Why would Obama undercut a U.S. company, involved in a heated negotiation, in favor of a foreign company’s interest?
Clear answers are not available, but there is one very curious shareholder in Fiat that raises some interesting questions. The African nation of Libya owns at least a 2 percent stake in Fiat and thus makes Moammar Gadhafi, who controls the wealth of Libya, a direct beneficiary of the deal favoring Fiat.
Meanwhile... Topic: NewsBusters Media Matters catches NewsBusters' Warner Todd Huston blaming President Obama for funding a $2.6 million National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant to "help train Chinese prostitutes to 'drink responsibly on the job.' " In fact, the grant was awarded in November 2008 -- by the Bush administration.
WND Columnists Take Obama Out of Context Topic: WorldNetDaily
Mychal Massie asserted in his May 12 WorldNetDaily column: "On April 6, 2009, Obama told the Turks that America was not a Christian nation." In a May 13 WND column, Roy Moore similarly stated, "On April 6, while in Turkey, Obama stated at a press conference that 'we [American citizens] do not consider ourselves a Christian nation.' And Obama has acted in accordance with his views!"
Both Massie and Moore are taking Obama out of context (as Moore and other WNDwriters have previously done on similar statements made by Obama). Here's what Obama actually said, in full context:
I think that where -- where there's the most promise of building stronger U.S.-Turkish relations is in the recognition that Turkey and the United States can build a model partnership in which a predominantly Christian nation and a predominantly Muslim nation, a Western nation and a nation that straddles two continents -- that we can create a modern international community that is respectful, that is secure, that is prosperous; that there are not tensions, inevitable tensions, between cultures, which I think is extraordinarily important.
That's something that's very important to me. And I've said before that one of the great strengths of the United States is -- although as I mentioned, we have a very large Christian population, we do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation; we consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values.
I think Turkey was -- modern Turkey was founded with a similar set of principles, and yet what we're seeing is in both countries that promise of a secular country that is respectful of religious freedom, respectful of rule of law, respectful of freedom, upholding these values and being willing to stand up for them in the international stage. If we are joined together in delivering that message, East and West, to -- to the world, then I think that we can have an extraordinary impact. And I'm very much looking forward to that partnership in the days to come.
Joseph Farah also took Obama's words in Turkey out of context in an April 14 WND column, declaring that "Obama told the world that whatever America once was, it is no longer a 'Christian nation'" and ignoring the fact that Obama stated that America is "a predominantly Christian nation."
Why are Massie, Moore and Farah afraid to put Obama's words in their proper context? Perhaps because it would demonstrate that they are resorting to making up stuff to attack Obama.
A May 13 Newsmax article by Dan Weil reported on Janeane Garofalo "being questioned this week by Griff Jenkins of Fox News" about "her comments that those attending anti-tax tea parties last month are racist." But Weil fails to note the deceptive circumstances through which Jenkins obtained the interview.
As the Washington Independent details, Jenkins and a radio host ambushed Garofalo outside of a Starbucks in Boston. At no point does Jenkins give his name or identify himself as working for Fox News.
Weil even cites "another questioner, who identified himself as a blogger" in the ambush of Garofalo. That, in fact, was Jenkins, according to the Independent.
Farah also repeats the right-wing revisionist claim that "'Hate' was not a motivation for" the killers of Matthew Shepard; "'Love' was the motive – love of money, that is, which the Bible says is the root of all evil." Farah's claim ignores the fact that one of his killers used a "gay panic" defense during his trial and relies on trusting the word of convicted killers.
What good is a newsman who tells lies? None that we can think of.
Klein Channels Catholic-Bashing in Israel Topic: WorldNetDaily
A May 12 WorldNetDaily article by Aaron Klein uncritically repeats attacks by right-wing Jews on Pope Benedict XVI during his visit to Israel.
Klein reported a claim by aid Joseph Gerlitzky, chairman of the Rabbinical Congress for Peace, that if the pope claims "the Holy Land must be divided to make room for a Palestinian state," then he should "divide Rome." As we've noted, the Rabbinical Congress for Peace -- a favorite Klein source -- is a right-wing group that has opposed Olmert's plan of disengagement from Gaza and the West Bank. Klein did not note the political slant of the group, as he regularly refuses to do.
Klein also quoted Knesset Speaker Reuven Rivlin's attacks on the pope -- Rivlin claimed that he wanted "to hear an apology and a request for forgiveness from those who caused our tragedy, and among them, the Germans and the church. But to my sadness, I did not hear any such thing."
Klein not only fails to note that Rivlin is a member of the right-leaning Likud party, he fails to include Rivlin's harshest remark -- as Reuters reported, Rivlin referred to the pope as "a German who joined the Hitler Youth and ... Hitler's army." (Only Barack Obama is permitted to be described as a Nazi at WND, it seems.)
It's not until the final two paragraphs of his 25-paragraph article that Klein permits the Vatican to respond to the attacks.
WND has a history of repeating anti-Catholic claims.
Farah's Double Standard on Treason Topic: WorldNetDaily
Bashing Wanda Sykes' criticism of Rush Limbaugh at the White House Correspondents Dinner, Joseph Farah wrote in his May 12 WorldNetDaily column: "Accusing people of treason, terrorism and wishing they would be tortured and die – that's what passed for high comedy at the White House Press Correspondents Dinner Saturday."
It appears that Farah has decreed it bad form to accuse people of treason.
Another NewsBuster Shocked By the Non-Shocking Topic: NewsBusters
Noel Sheppard Syndrome -- the act of professing to be shocked by something that's not very shocking at all -- seems to be spreading among other NewsBusters bloggers.
A May 11 post by Mike Sargent declared it "shocking" that a conservative (Joe Scarborough) would criticize the media for fawning over Barack Obama. While Sargent does concede that Scarborough is "one of MSNBC’s token conservatives, such as he is," he still insists it's shocking that "a member of the media is actually talking about media bias."
Porter Keeps the Lie Machine Going Topic: WorldNetDaily
Janet Folger Porter keeps the hate-crime bill lie machine grinding on in her May 12 WorldNetDaily column:
I am the victim of a hate crime.
I've been targeted. Stalked. Threatened. All because I'm … pro-life.
Back when I was working to pass the nation's first ban on partial birth abortion, my car burst into flames when I started it. The arson investigator said the attack was deliberate. The banner headline of the Cleveland Plain Dealer on Friday, May 13, 1994, read: Right to Life Leader's car Sabotaged, Odds are it is connected to abortion issue, police say." The sticker on the bumper read: "Abortion? Pick on someone your own size."
Why don't I have an elevated level of protection in the so-called "hate crimes" bill soon to be heard in the Senate Judiciary Committee? I'll tell you why. Because I'm not a lesbian, an exhibitionist, or a practitioner of one of the American Psychiatric Association's list of 547 sexual deviancies, which includes pedophilia.
Porter is a liar. As we'vedetailed, the bill does not cover pedophiles. Nevertheless, Porter piles on the deception:
For those who say the "Pedophile Protection Act" isn't accurate. Here's a bit of a review. In committee, Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, offered the amendment to exclude pedophiles from receiving elevated protection in the House version of the bill (H.R. 1913):
The term sexual orientation as used in this act or any amendments to this act does not include pedophilia.
It's straightforward. And it was rejected.
And -- Porter will refuse to tell you -- it was unnecessary. As we've also noted, pedophilia is not considered a sexual orientation, a disability or a gender identity but, rather, a criminal act. Further, the Americans with Disabilities Act specifically excludes pedophilia as a disability, thereby precluding protection for pedophiles from the hate crimes bill.
Porter can't be bothered to tell the truth, instead pretending that a statement on the House floor by an impeached judge is the equivalent of a detailed legal analysis. Yet WND legitimizes her false claims by repeating them in a May 11 "news" article.
Janet Porter is a liar, no matter how much she pretends otherwise. She is dishonoring God by her lies. Does she really hate gays that much that she will dishonor God?
Sheppard Ignores Reason Van Susteren Was Called Palin's 'Handler' Topic: NewsBusters
Noel Sheppard, in a May 11 NewsBusters post, shared Fox News host Greta Van Susteren's annoyance that she was accused ... ... of being Todd Palin's 'host AND handler' at a pre-White House Correspondents' dinner brunch," adding that "This was at least the second time in two months Politico has implied an improper alliance between Van Susteren and the Palins." But Sheppard fails, in both this post and a March 29 post to which he linked to support his claim of a previous violation by Politco -- to mention the reason why the Politico would think that in the first place.
As Think Progress points out, Van Susteren's husband, John Coale, has served as an adviser to Sarah Palin and runs her Washington-based PAC -- a relationship that van Sustern has been loath to discuss on air.
Sheppard curiously didn't mention Van Susteren's husband or his relationship to the Palins in that March 29 piece, even though it was a focus of the Politico article he was criticizing , and even though he goes on to complain that "given some of the high-profile liberal journalists with politically connected husbands, why is she being so singled out? Is it because she works for Fox News?"
It's hard to make a coherent argument when you refuse to acknowledge the central point.
Newsmax's writers, we can safely say, are on board with that particular right-wing talking point. So why is Newsmax CEO Christopher Ruddy looking to cash in on Obama's supposed socialism?
An email sent out to Newsmax's mailing list on May 10 carries the subject line, "Can You Actually Profit from Socialism?" It begins with a letter from Ruddy that concludes, "Read the report below if you are interested in actually profiting from Washington’s socialist spending policies."
The "report" is a rehash of a email from a few days earlier touting the $1 million Rudy (well, Newsmax) has pledged to build (at a hoped-for annual rate of growth of 50 to 70 percent a year) according to the precepts of a financial guru that he will make public (for those willing to pony up a "charter membership fee" of $1,295).
Isn't just a tad disingenuous for Newsmax to bash Obama's supposed socialism with one hand while trying to profit from it with the other?
Media Matters notes that during a May 8 appearance on Sean Hannity's Fox News show, the MRC's Brent Bozell said of Guantánamo detainees: "There's no one there who should be released." In fact, the Bush administration reclassified a group of detainees belonging to the Uighur ethnic group as "no longer enemy combatants."
Bozell's appearance was on a panel that included at least one non-conservative, but we'll assume that it followed the template by failing to identify Bozell as a conservative. (It's impossible to tell from the heavily edited segment posted on NewsBusters, but we'll let history be our guide).
First, it is no longer possible to doubt that [Nancy] Pelosi knew as of September 4, 2002 that the CIA included water-boarding among its tools for interrogating high-value terrorists like al Qaeda operative Abu Zubaydah. She knew this because, according to then-House Intelligence Committee Chairman Porter Goss, R-FL, he and Pelosi received a detailed classified briefing from the agency.
In view of these facts, Pelosi’s April 23, 2009, claim that “we were not - I repeat - were not told that water-boarding or any of these other enhanced interrogation methods were used” was untrue and she knew it to be untrue.
In fact, the CIA document to which the Examiner is referring does not prove that Pelosi was briefed on the use of waterboarding against Zubaydah, only stating that she was briefed on "use of EITs [enhanced interrogation techniques] on Abu Zubaydah."
Further, the Examiner fails to note that, as we've detailed, the CIA report was accompanied by a letter from CIA chief Leon Panetta stating that the report is, in part, based on "notes that summarized the best recollections of those individuals" who did the briefings, and that the committee to which the report was submitted "will have to determine whether this information is an accurate summary of what actually happened." In other words, the CIA isn't vouching for the accuracy of the claims in the report.
The editorial also states that waterboarding of detainees such as Zubaydah and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed "further deadly terrorist attacks were thereby prevented from taking place in this country. A CIA spokesman confirmed to CNSnews.com, for example, the May 30, 2005, Justice Department memo describing how the 'second wave' attack on Los Angeles was unraveled." But as we've also detailed, CNS has failed to report that the Bush administration has claimed that the Los Angeles plot was foiled a year before Mohammed was captured, which would mean that his waterboarding could not have "unraveled" the plot.
CNS Non-Disclosure Watch Topic: CNSNews.com
A May 11 CNSNews.com article by Fred Lucas noted that "The Cardinal Newman Society, a national student Catholic group, has circulated a petition that has gained almost 360,000 signatures asking Notre Dame not to have Obama speak and not to award him an honorary degree" without mentioning that CNS president Brent Bozell is on the Cardinal Newman Society board of directors.
WND Hiding Allegations Against Ortiz Topic: WorldNetDaily
We've detailed how WorldNetDaily uncritically reported allegations made by litigious Obama birth certificate obsessive Orly Taitz against her former webmaster while making little effort to allow that person to respond to the charges -- even though the response was on the person's website for the taking.
We've also noted that a complaint has been filed against Taitz with the California bar, accusing her of unethical behavior and making false and misleading claims in court filings.
It's been three weeks since both the complaint and the webmaster issue first became public -- and WND still has yet to tell the full story on them.
Here's something else that we don't expect WND to write about anytime soon -- a intra-birther war.
Philip Berg, who filed some of the earliest legal actions over the birth certificate -- which WND first endeavored to shoot down until it decided that Berg's legal actions served its anti-Obama agenda -- has filed a lawsuit against Taitz, accusing her and various associates of "harrassing" Berg and fellow plaintiffs (among them Taitz's former webmaster), and filing "falsified police and law enforcement reports" regarding her claims against the former webmaster. Berg notes in his filing that "Taitz is no stranger to falsifying stories and falsely claiming to be the victim of 'hacking' of her websites" and accuses Taitz of plagiarizing the briefs he filed in his birth certificate-related actions for her own filings.
Berg also claims that an investigator working for Taitz dug up alleged information about an employee of Berg's and "sent the information to Taitz and a reporter with World Net Daily" complete with the employee's full Social Security number, which neither the investigator nor Taitz had "permissible purpose to obtain."
Berg seeks a judgment against Taitz and the other defendants of $432 million (computed as $3,000 for each of the 140,000 emails sent out by Taitz and others containing the employee's Social Security number), plus $11.5 million from each defendent in compensatory and punitive damages. And that's just for the Social Security number disclosure; there are also specific slander, libel, invasion of privacy, harassmentand other claims seeking millions more in damages.
We're not taking sides in this battle, since both of them are pursuing a false cause with their nuisance lawsuits. It's worth noting, however, that even though this story broke nearly a week ago, WND has yet to report it -- just like all the other news that makes Taitz look bad. It has, however, found time for a May 9 article by Bob Unruh touting Taitz's claims that "she'll be returning to the high court, this time seeking a petition for the extraordinary writ of mandamus" over the birth certificate.
No mention, of course, of Berg's lawsuit against her, let alone the California bar complaint. And WND has made no further effort to tell the webmaster's side of the story.
Why is WND protecting Ortiz? What relationship do the two have? Important questions -- but since we're dealing with a "news" organization that brazenlylies to the public, questions we won't get answers to anytime soon.