WND Quietly Makes False Obama Attack (Mostly) Disappear Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily has published so many lies about Barack Obama that it makes no effort whatsoever to correct that it's a shock when it actually tries to disassociate itself from a false claim it forwards.
On May 24, WND published the following article:
Revealed: 'The Obama birth certificate protection act'? Bill would prohibit compelling executive branch from releasing documents
WASHINGTON – A bill approved by the House of Representatives and referred to the Senate would prohibit federal employees of the executive branch from being compelled to release any document unless a court makes a specified determination by a preponderance of evidence – legislation at least one group suspects is designed to protect Barack Obama's elusive birth certificate from release.
The legislation, HR 985, resides in the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Sovereignty Alliance has issued a "red alert" about the bill it calls "stealth legislation ... to protect Obama from providing his birth certificate."
"It wouldn't surprise me a bit if this were one of the intended consequences of this legislation," said Joseph Farah, editor and chief executive officer of WND, who last week initiated a national billboard campaign to bring attention to the issue of Obama's missing birth certificate and what it might say about his claim to be a "natural born citizen," a status necessary to serving in the White House.
"In any case, this bill puts the lie to this administration and this Congress being the most ethical and transparent in American history," Farah said. "They're very open when it comes to the secrets of previous administrations, but when it comes to their own work, it is shrouded in secrecy. Even the president's birth certificate and student records are well-guarded state secrets."
Why did it disappear? Presumably because it's totally false. Here's what HR 985 actually does:
Prohibits a federal entity (an entity or employee of the judicial or executive branch or an administrative agency of the federal government), in any matter arising under federal law, from compelling a covered person to testify or produce any document unless a court makes specified determinations by a preponderance of the evidence, including determinations: (1) relating to exhaustion of alternative sources, (2) that the testimony or document sought is critical; (3) that disclosure of the information source's identity is necessary; and (4) that the public interest in compelling disclosure of the information or document involved outweighs the public interest in gathering or disseminating news or information. Allows a court, in making the last of those determinations, to consider the extent of any harm to national security.
Defines "covered person" as a person who regularly gathers, photographs, records, writes, edits, reports, or publishes information concerning matters of public interest for dissemination to the public for a substantial portion of the person's livelihood or substantial financial gain, including a supervisor, employer, parent, subsidiary, or affiliate of such a person. Excludes from that definition foreign powers and their agents and certain terrorist organizations and individuals.
In other words, the bill does the opposite of what WND claims it does. Rather than "prohibit[ing] federal employees of the executive branch from being compelled to release any document," it prohibits federal officials from demanding documents from journalists except under certain circumstances.
Even though WND editor Farah himself is quoted in the article, at no point has WND acknowledged to its readers that it published a false article or issued a correction for it, even though numerous people were suckered into believing it.
Right-wing writer Sher Zieve, for example, posted an article based on the WND report before realizing that "my (and others') interpretation of HR 985 may not be as accurate as first thought," adding: "I don't often make this type of mistake and I plan to have a slice of humble pie."
WND manages to commit a bad-journalism twofer: not only did it publish a false story, it refused to formally retract it and tell its readers that the story is false. It's just one of the many, many reasons that WND is a journalistic failure.
Meanwhile... Topic: WorldNetDaily Richard Bartholomew notes that WorldNetDaily's mocking of Muslim conspiracy theories runs counter to WND's own heavy promotion of conspiracy theories, such as "the convergence of multinational corproations, foundations and political and social instruments to assemble a one-world government and the 'New World Order.'"
WND Embraces Anti-Semite Again Topic: WorldNetDaily
We've previouslynoted how WorldNetDaily has embraced the claims of Andy Martin's promotion of the Obama birth certificate conspiracy -- Jerome Corsi is apparently following in Martin's footsteps -- despite Martin's longhistory of anti-Semitism and questionable behavior.
WND does so again in a May 28 article, in which Bob Unruh promotes the lawsuit-happy Martin's latest legal action to order the release of Obama's long-form birth certificate from Hawaiian officials. Unruh describes Martin only as a "Chicago activist" and a "self-described Internet 'writer/columnist/investigative journalist,'" omitting anything that might cast doubt on his credilibity (just as WND has done in hiding unpleasantfacts about fellow birth certificate obsessive Orly Taitz from its readers).
Unruh also leaves out one highly relevant fact regarding any legal action by Martin: a 1985 injunction against him from, among other things, "filing new lawsuits, actions, proceedings, or matters in federal fora" without first obtaining permission from the issuing court. While Martin appears to have filed his latest action in a state-level court rather than a federal one (to which the injunction appears to be limited), the fact that he is considered to be such a source of nuisance lawsuits that an entire court system has placed restrictions on his filings is a warning sign that Martin should not be taken seriously.
Or, at least it would be for anyone who doesn't work for WorldNetDaily.
Your WND Hate Crime Lie of the Day Topic: WorldNetDaily
A May 28 WorldNetDaily article once again repeats the false claim that the hate-crimes bill before Congress "would establish the first special legal protections for pedophiles and those with an array of other sexual proclivities." As we've detailed, WND has repeatedly told this lie to its readers.
Surprisingly, even though the article prominently references the mother of Matthew Shepard, it describes Shepard only as "a murdered homosexual" and refrains from repeating bogus claims from Shepard's killers the they killed him in a robbery attempt, not because he was gay.
Kessler Takes Sotomayor Out of Context Topic: Newsmax
In a May 28 Newsmax column, Ronald Kessler takes Sonia Sotomayor's statement that "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life" out of context, baselessly asserting that the statement "underscores" a "skewed view" endorsed by President Obama that "empathy should work in one direction — in favor of minorities and the poor."
In fact, Sotomayor was talking specifically about race and sex discrimination cases when she made that statement -- a fact Kessler refused to tell his readers.
CNS Spins for Liberty U. on Democrat Club Crackdown Topic: CNSNews.com
A May 28 CNSNews.com article by Adam Brickley gives ample space for Liberty University to spin its crackdown on a College Democrats club on campus, bashing the "liberal media" for reporting that the school "banned" the club when it merely "revoked offical recognition and school funding."
It's not until the 21st paragraph, however, that Brickley gets around to reporting the point of view of an actual member of the College Democrats:
[Jan Michael] Dervish said the lack of university certification creates a problem for the club.
“If we did continue as an unrecognized club on campus, we would not be able to post flyers, have information tables, or make announcements on the internal Web site,” Dervish said. “This would be a rather huge handicap, if we wanted to hold an event to try and recruit members, we would not be able to advertise it on campus.”
Brickley does not explain why the university's forbidding the club to recruit new members or even to publicize events is not the functional equivalent of a ban. After all, it does little good to have the ability to, in the words of Liberty president Jerry Falwell Jr., "still meet on campus" if you're not allowed to tell anyone that there's a meeting.
Indeed, it seems that Liberty is treating its College Democrats much like communist China treats churches that lack official government sanction.
NewsBusters Hops Aboard the Conspiracy Bandwagon Topic: NewsBusters
The group of ConWebbers embracing the unproven GOP Chrysler dealer conspiracy continues to grow.
The Media Research Center endorses it with a May 28 NewsBusters post by Mike Sargent, who rants about how the media won't address right-wing blogosphere claims that "many of the Chrysler dealers that have been chosen for closing have made a habit of donating money to Republicans. The blogosphere, asserts Sargent, "has, once again, proven itself a worthy investigator."
Sargent comes close to stumbling over the truth at one point, noting that "One might assume that, since they are small-business owners, they are overwhelmingly supportive of the GOP." But he quickly adds: "But assumption is not the job of a vigilant press." Of course, Sargent is assuming all of this is true and avoiding an investigation of his own, which would reveal that, yes, car dealers are indeed overwhelmingly supportive of the GOP, thus it is not surprising that a large number of Chrysler dealers would be as well.
But hey, why report facts when you're getting paid to smear Obama and the "liberal media"?
Most hilariously, though, Sargent concludes by likening this partisan witch hunt to Watergate: "The Times is already accused of letting the Watergate scoop slide to the Washington Post. One would hope that they will not repeat their mistake."
Examiner's Tapscott Joins the Conspiracy Topic: Washington Examiner
With Mark Tapscott's May 28 column, the Washington Examiner is the latest ConWeb outlet to promote the right-wing conspiracy that the Obama administration is deliberately targeting Republican-owned Chrysler dealers for closure.
While Tapscott claimed that the assertions that bubbled up from the right-wing blogosphere "were all couched with important qualifiers," he quickly dismisses them: "That said, when multiple dealers who have been closed are found to have contributed millions to Republicans and mere hundreds to Obama, the serious number-crunching cannot be completed too soon."
But as we've detailed, auto dealers are disproportionately owned by Republicans, so it's utterly unsurprising that many closing Chrysler dealers are also owned by Republicans.
Tapscott did add an update to the online version of his column citing someone claiming that "more Chrysler dealers in general are likely to be Republican contributors, which would mean more of the closed dealers would be seen to be GOP supporters than Democrat supporters." But he still wants to cling to the conspiracy even as it's discredited before his eyes:
But two points should be noted here. First, even if we accept the proposition that most car dealers are more likely to be Republican than Democratic donors, there would still be a "disparate impact" from closings on one class of dealers, compared to the other. When the federal courts see a disparate impact on racial groups, the policy or action in question is typically held to be inappropriate.
Race and car dealer closings, of course, aren't analogous. But the lesson remains that when government makes economic decisions that ought to be left to the private market, it is impossible to avoid disparate impacts. And there is always the question of would the Obama White House be so quick to close hundreds of dealerships if the owners of those dealerships were predominantly Democratic donors?
Second, since neither Chrysler, nor the White House have made public the criteria used to select dealers for elimination - and because a significant number of those being closed were profitable - the only way to resolve the inevitable controversy about political considerations in political decisions is to make the criteria public and allow independent outside observers to assess how those criteria were applied.
Tapscott isn't content with echoing one baseless right-wing smear in his column, however -- he also adheres to the dictates of the noise machine in claiming that Obama is acting like a mobster:
In other words, companies that want to prosper in the anti-capitalist world Obama is creating in America will first have to make their peace with Big Labor before heading to Washington hat-and-checkbooks-in-hand to seek favor from the strong men in the White House and their enforcers in the Treasury Department and elsewhere in the executive branch.
Obama calls it “change we can believe in.” Vito Corleone called it “making them an offer they can’t refuse.”
UPDATE: Nate Silver details just how disproportionately car dealers are Repubican. Will Tapscott get around to telling his readers about that anytime soon?
UPDATE 2: In a later update, Tapscott acknowledges Silver's analysis, but he's not willing to loosen his grip on the conspiracy:
That's true, of course, but I'm not sure that it ends the discussion. In fact, it may even make the discussion of possible partisan considerations behind the closings even more relevant. Think of it this way: If 88 percent of all car dealers were Democratic contributors, rather than GOPers, how likely is it that the Obama folks would be delivering such an egregious economic blow to the group, a blow that put thousands of people out of work and deprives hundreds of Democratic donors of their means of making contributions?
Multiple indictments are a problem for most people. Not for Newsmax -- at least as far as Bernard Kerik is concerned.
As part of Newsmax continuingrehabiltation of Kerik, a May 26 article by Dave Eberhart aims to spin the most recent indictment of Kerik, for making false statements to White House officials, by painting Kerik as the innocent victim of overzealous prosecutors who "appear to be indictment shopping." In his spinning, Eberhart engages in numerous misleading claims.
He asserts that the most recent indictments, filed in Washington, D.C., were filed "after similar indictments had failed to stick in New York," asserting that the dismissal "apparently angered the federal prosecutors who decided to open up a new indictment against Kerik in Washington, including charging him with crimes already dismissed by Judge Robinson." But as we've noted, the charges dropped in New York by Robinson were done so specifically so they could be filed in Washington -- as other news outlets have reported. Eberhart describes this as "apparent federal forum shopping," even though the judge essentially told prosecutors to do exactly what they did -- as Newsmax itself reported on May 16.
Eberhart also asserts that "the judge overseeing the case has dismissed key charges and questioned the handling of the case by the Justice Department’s Southern District of New York office." But he makes things look better than they actually are by obfuscating the actual numbers involved. As we've noted, Kerik was originally indicted on 15 counts, of which one count and part of another have been dismissed by the judge. Plus, charges dropped earlier in May in New York were refiled in Washington, so that's not a net reduction of indictments.
Eberhart then claims that "the unusual handling of Kerik’s case by federal prosecutors has drawn parallels to the recent acquittal of Republican Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska. Stevens had been charged for not properly reporting renovations to his home residence." But contrary to the Stevens case, which was dismissed due to prosecutorial misconduct (not because he wasn't guilty), Eberhart has offered no evidence of prosecutorial misconduct in the Kerik case beyond comments from Kerik's attorney, and he's not exactly objective on the issue.
Waters Misleads on Alito, Princeton Topic: Media Research Center
In a May 27 TimesWatch post, Clay Waters noted a New York Times article stated that Supreme Court Justice Sam Alito graduated from Princeton "just a few months before" Sonia Sotomayor arrived there, and that Alito "belonged to one of the groups that protested" the "increasing ranks" of women at the university. Waters then parenthetically adds: "Hmm. Did Alito protest against more women at Princeton? He was a nominal member of a conservative student group, Concerned Alumni of Princeton, which protested affirmative action, but that's not quite the same thing, except perhaps among ultraliberals."
In fact, as Media Matters has detailed, there's plenty of evidence that Concerned Alumni of Princeton did oppose coeducation. And Alito thought enough of his association with the group that he included it in his 1985 application for the position of deputy assistant attorney general with the Reagan administration -- which would seem to belie Waters' claim that his membership was "nominal."
WorldNetDaily's Joseph Farah began an email sent May 27 to WND's mailing list by asking, "Is Barack Obama Crazy?" He continues:
I KNOW.
"Is Barack Obama Crazy?" is a pretty provocative subject for an email.
I admit, I don't know the answer to the question.
But, given Barack Obama's actions in the first few months of his administration, it's a valid question.
And so, the May issue of WorldNetDaily's acclaimed monthly Whistleblower magazine takes it on.
Yes, it's a plug for the Whistleblower magazine claiming that Obama's a narcissist -- which, as we've detailed, is just another slab of Obama-hate.
But really, the question is how much of a crazy narcissist Farah is.
Narcissist, yes -- he has made himself the personification of WND's hate campaign against Obama and enjoys silly stunts like the "Where's the Birth Certificate?" billboard campaign.
Crazy, a little less so -- after all, he's not putting any of his own cash into buying those billboards, relying on other suckers to pony up. And he's certainly not going to provide the transparency he demands from Obama and disclose those donors to the public. So, really, he's more cowardly than crazy, afraid to put his money where his mouth is.
Newsmax's Ken Timmerman takes a bite on the right-wing conspiracydujour -- that the Obama administration is deliberately targeting Chrysler dealers for closure whose owners have donated to Republican candidates.
Timmerman appears to embrace the conspiracy in this May 27 article, but it's not until the latter half of his article that he divulges a major debunking fact:
Auto-dealers as an industry tend to give more to Republican causes than to Democrats, according to an analysis done by Center for Responsive Politics, a nonprofit organization that compiles FEC data and operates the Open Secrets Web site.
During the 2008 election cycle, the center found that auto dealers and their associated political action committees made a total of $9 million in campaign contributions, giving by a 3-to-1 margin to Republicans.
The automobile industry as a whole made $18.5 million in donations in 2008, also breaking roughly 3-to-1 in favor of Republican candidates and causes.
That's right -- the reason it seems that more Republican-supporting Chrysler dealers are losing their franchises is because car dealers tend to support Republicans. Timmerman (or any of the other conspiracy-mongers) offer no evidence that Chrysler dealers losing their franchises are any more or less Republican than that of auto dealers as a whole.
Then, Timmerman pretends he didn't just debunk the central point of his article and launched back into conspiracy territory:
One company that stands to benefit in a major way from the Chrysler restructuring is called RLJ-McLarty-Landers, a start-up owned by Democratic Party insiders that operates six Chrysler dealerships throughout the South.
Co-owners Robert L. Johnson, founder of Black Entertainment Television, and Mack McLarty, chief of staff to president Bill Clinton, provided capital and political clout to the partnership, which they formed in September 2007.
Johnson is a major donor to Democrat party causes but sharply criticized Obama during the primaries for his admitted drug use as a young man. He later apologized to Obama for the personal attack.
Timmerman neglects to mention that McLarty didn't stumble into selling cars a couple years ago. His family's connection to auto dealerships dates back to 1921 and had grown into a group of 19 dealers by 1998, when an ownership interest was sold to New York-based Asbury Automotive Group; McLarty was later named Asbury vice chairman and, then chairman and CEO.
Timmerman made no mention at all of the other partner in the group, Steve Landers, yet his presence may very well be the key to why, as he noted, "RLJ-McCarty-Landers will retain all of its six dealerships." Landers was the owner of a Chrysler dealer in Benton, Ark., that was the world's largest Chrysler dealer for several years. Why would Chrysler sever its relationship with one of its best dealers?
WorldNetDaily -- not wanting to be left out of an Obama conspiracy -- jumped on this bandwagon as well. A May 27 article by Chelsea Schilling breathlessly taouts the conspiracy while failing to note the fact, as reported by Timmerman, that car dealers as a whole overwhelmingly support Republicans.
MRC: Legal Experts Aren't Qualifed to Label Sotomayor's Views, But We Are Topic: Media Research Center
In a May 26 MRC item, Matthew Balan asserts that since CNN legal expert Jeffrey Toobin has admitted "there is a 'real unknown' about how [Sonia] Sotomayor would rule if she is confirmed," therefore he cannot accurately label Sotomayor as "moderate liberal." The MRC, however, is not applying that same labeling rule to itself.
Another May 26 MRC item by Brent Baker complained that network evening newscasts "applied more 'conservative' tags to Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor's critics than 'liberal' labels to her, as the coverage suggested calling her a liberal was a hasty judgment from accusatory partisans." And a May 27 TimesWatch item by Clay Waters similarly complained that a New York Times article "never directly acknowledged Sotomayor's liberal outlook."
So legal analysts are not permitted to label a judge as "liberal" but teh MRC is, even though it, like Toobin, can't know how Sotomayor will rule if she's confirmed? We're confused.
UPDATE: A May 27 "Media Reality Check" asserts that Sotomayor is "a liberal judge with an activist approach" while failing to note Balan's item accepting Toobin's view that "there is a 'real unknown' about how Sotomayor would rule if she is confirmed," which would seem to undermine that assertion.
WND's Washington: Michael Savage = Jesus Topic: WorldNetDaily
We've noted how WorldNetDaily columnist Ellis Washington worships at the altar of hate-filled radio host Michael Savage. Washington deposits his biggest offering yet (well, it's a big pile of something, anyway) at Savage's feet in his May 27 column, in which he defends Savage's smears of his fellow right-wing radio hosts and revels in a near-orgasmic fit of exultation by likening Savage to, yes, Jesus Christ:
These conservative commentators realize that Savage is head and shoulders above them intellectually, philosophically and spiritually. Because of their lack of inner truth and intellectual honesty, rather than learning from Dr. Savage or taking his criticisms of them to heart, they take the intellectually dishonest approach, put on their hypocrite's hat and do the very things against Savage that they for 20 years have so incessantly and bitterly complained that the Democratic Party and the liberal mainstream media did to them – ignoring them, slandering them, libeling them, mocking them. It is shameless hypocrisy writ large!
Savage was specifically chosen for crucifixion over Rush, Hannity and O'Reilly because he, more than any other philosopher, politician, intellectual or media figure, gives America the brutal truth about the hijacking of their country by the fascist Manchurian Candidate, President B. Hussein Obama. Furthermore Savage, more effectively than anyone else I know passionately delineates what America must do to regain her "borders, language and culture."
[...]
Like it was with the iconoclast Jesus Christ 2,000 years ago, so it is with the iconoclast Dr. Michael Savage in modern times; Savage lives by Veritas (truth) and he will die by Veritas. Yes, Jesus called names and wrecked the Temple to purify it. Yes, Savage oftentimes uses ad hominem attacks against other conservative radio hosts, against his ideological detractors and against the mainstream media and the political powerbrokers in Washington, D.C. In my book, that makes him a truly heroic figure in the tradition of an Elijah, Socrates, Richard the Lionhearted, Ronald Reagan or a Sen. Joseph McCarthy, not merely a bomb thrower.
I believe that history will one day judge this man, Michael Savage, and his entire oeuvre over the past 30 years, to be the singular genius that he is.
My suggestion to the GOP, the RNC, Fox News, Rush, Hannity, O'Reilly, Beck, Scarborough, conservative think tanks and any member of the mainstream media that has a beef against Savage is to contact him, set up a time to appear on his show and air out your grievances – man to man, point by point, line by line, precept by precept. If you are able to prove Savage's ad hominem attacks against you to be spurious or wrong, I assure you that Dr. Savage is a big enough man to apologize to your face and to his 10 million listeners.
In conclusion, regarding Savage's ad hominem attacks, the great Greek philosopher Socrates would perhaps ask this dialectical question: Do these people or media entities have the courage and intellectual honesty to enter the crucible of the Savage Nation? I answer with the ancient legal rule of law – Res Ipsa Loquitur, the thing speaks for itself.
Examiner Columnist Bashes Obama's Lack of Military Service Topic: Washington Examiner
Gregory Kane's May 26 Washington Examiner column is a weird rant against President Obama for never having served in the military:
If the military is indeed our most trusted institution, then why did one Barack Hussein Obama pass on serving in it?
After college Obama enrolled in Harvard Law School. Later, he became a community organizer in Chicago. I have no problem with either of those callings. Thousands have gone to Harvard Law, and tens of thousands to other law schools across the nation. And being a community organizer is a noble calling.
But for those who opt for the career path that leads from Harvard Law to community organizing to state senator to U.S. senator, I expect one thing: Don’t come before me years later running for president, in essence asking to be commander-in-chief of a military force you didn’t think was worthy of your commitment.
Maybe I’m just funny this way, but I would never, under any circumstances, vote for a presidential candidate who had no military experience, either as an officer or an enlisted man or woman. I have a laundry list of reasons why I didn’t vote for Obama; his passing on military service is in the top three.
Obama promised the graduates that he’d only “send them into harm’s way when it is absolutely necessary.” That promise would mean a lot more coming from a president who’d experienced at least some of the rigors of basic training.
But military service is not a constitutional requirement for being president. Indeed, a significant number of presidents never served in the military.
Kane is also curiously silent about whether he himself has "experienced at least some of the rigors of basic training."
WND does so again in a May 28 
