A Dec. 28 NewsBusters post (containing the byline of "NB Staff" but, according to the URL, posted from the account of Rich Noyes) touts how "other journalists" have promoted the Media Research Center's (desperately lame) annual list of insufficiently conservative quotes. Missing from the post: any explicit admission of the conservative slant of most of those "other journalists."
The closest the post comes to admitting the bias of some of the writers is in describing the American Spectator's Quin Hillyer as "a judge of this year's awards and Denver radio host Mike Rosen as "longtime Notable Quotables judge." But if they're taking sides by working with a conservative organization to further its agenda, they're not exactly journalists, are they?
The post touts how "The Washington Examiner's "Yeas & Nays" column was first out of the box with the official results," but there's no mention of the Examiner's right-wing bias. It's similarly noted that "Often, the New York Post also runs an editorial with their observations on the worst quotes of the year," but again, no mention of the Post's right-wing bias.
It's not exactly newsworthy that right-wingers are merely serving as a echo chamber for other right-wingers -- though NewsBusters wants you to think otherwise.
WND Perpetuates Another Obama Lie Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily just can'tstoplying about President Obama, can it? Even Joe Kovacs' Dec. 27 list of "funniest news stories of 2009" is anchored in a lie.
Kovacs' lead-off item carries the subhead "Barack Hussein the Ogler. Mmm, mmm, mmm!" and is centered around a photo of Obama purportedly ogling a girl walking past him, which, according to Kovacs, makes Obama a "bozo" who is "doing his best in the role of buffoon in chief."
Kovacs added: "In all fairness, watching video of the event may provide a slightly different picture of what really happened." If by "slightly different" Kovacs means completely opposite, then sure. (And to assume that WND is actually interested in fairness when it comes to Obama is truly the height of comedy.)
Of course, the entire premise of Kovacs' smear is that the picture is accurate -- something he will never admit is not true because he clearly despises Obama too much to be honest with his readers.
Congratulations, Joe -- you've helped further solidify WND's reputation as the most dishonest news organization in America. You must be so proud of yourself.
Von Campe doesn't explicitly liken President Obama to Hitler -- as he has frequently done -- in his Dec. 26 WND column, but the implication is unmistakable:
Most Americans do not have a clue what a totalitarian system is. Let me tell you from experience: It is a godless society where there is no justice. The totalitarian leaders are always right, while the opposition is always wrong. Rules are based on lies forced upon people by godless and corrupt functionaries. Totalitarian systems grow out of immorality. Immoral people can be manipulated; moral people cannot. Protest, and you will be sanctioned. We will experience the end of freedom and the rule of the lie. Founding Fathers will be presented as greedy capitalists. There will be multi-religious "faiths," which includes watered-down Christianity. We had that in Germany. The "German Christians" promoted National Socialism in religious language.
You will be told by our unconfirmed president, Barack Obama, and the godless bunch of politicians what to believe. In the global ideological battle for the role of God in human society, they stand contrary to our founders. They are neither Christians nor patriots but enemies of God and the Constitution. They aim to replace God's commandments by making people believe that they know how to solve every crisis. We are not in a battle between socialism and capitalism. That is only the outside. The real battle is between God and almighty man, between truth and lies.
Von Campe also delves a bit into his past as well:
When I began to figure out how the Nazi atrocities could happen, I noticed that many people, including churchgoing Christians, lived as I had done: for myself, not bothering about what went on in government. I realized that as I am so is my nation. I was a liar who lied for small personal advantages, and if all German people were like me, it was no wonder Hitler could get away with his atrocities. He lied for big political stakes. With my lies I, who detested the Nazis, was closer to Hitler than to Jesus Christ. Going to church did not make me a Christian.
But von Campe has not changed -- he's still telling lies and not acting like a true Christian and, thus, is still "closer to Hitler than to Jesus Christ." Will von Campe tell his readers of the "small personal advantage" for which he's telling his current lies?
During this Christmas season, America should be reminded that President Barack Obama has perpetrated more vicious attacks against the Christian faith than any other president in the history of America.
Is President Obama our "public servant" or are We the People his slaves? I believe that the Obama administration and his puppet masters, like billionaire George Soros, the unions, the Hollywood movie moguls, militant gay and feminist activists, as well as legal organizations like the ACLU and the American Trial Lawyers Association, have nothing but utter disdain for the Constitution and the inalienable rights of the people founded under Natural Law.
Obama and his socialist minions have always hated American exceptionalism and since the advent of the progressive movement in the 1890s for over 120 years have worked ceaselessly to replace the Judeo-Christian traditions that have made America the greatest nation in the history of humanity, making it the greatest debtor nation in the history of humanity.
Obama did not cause this sudden catastrophe alone. It was caused by many so-called progressives, intellectuals, academics, social engineers, lawyers, judges, liberal special-interest groups and Machiavellian politicians of both political parties.
President Obama is not a patriot. Obama and his socialist legions are arrogant, deceitful political thugs who, along with the corrupt hacks of the Democratic Party, have defiled the austere grandeur of the White House and Congress.
(Washington, by the way, offers no evidence that Obama "has perpetrated more vicious attacks against the Christian faith than any other president in the history of America" -- or, for that matter, any "vicious attacks against the Christian faith." We're also disappointed that Washington appears to have run out of evil people to liken Obama to.)
Sheppard's Hollow Attack on PolitiFact Topic: NewsBusters
A Dec. 20 NewsBusters post by Noel Sheppard criticized PolitiFact for naming Sarah Palin's claim about "death panels" in the health care reform bill as its "lie of the year" by attacking the purported bias of PolitiFact. Sheppard complained that PolitiFact's list of "Pants on Fire" lies are "all by Conservatives " and even regurgitates Matthew Vadum's similar bias attack on PolitiFact.
What you won't find: any refutation of the claim that "death panels" are a lie.
Sheppard followed up with a Dec. 23 post that called the "lie of the year" award a "dubious honor" -- despite not offering any evidence to counter PolitiFact's claim. Instead, Sheppard reposts Palin's statement from her Facebook page responding to it "with skill and aplomb." Palin, it seems, is now trying to change the subject by saying that "death panels" was merely a "metaphor" and offers no evidence that the alleged "rationing" she speaks of is in any way a "death panel."
Of course, Sheppard gives Palin a pass (indeed, he seems creepily obsessed with her). He concludes by stating "The clock is now ticking as we await the inevitably dishonest fact-checking of Palin's response." Again, Sheppard offers no evidence that the initial fact-checking of Palin was "dishonest."
WND Columnist Likens Liberals to Child-Killers Topic: WorldNetDaily
Hey, liberals, here's your Christmas present from WorldNetDaily columnist Frank Rosenbloom -- he likens liberal politicians to child-killers and liberal voters as stupid children who succumb to the child-killer's charms. From Rosenbloom's Dec. 25 column:
When I was growing up in Buffalo, N.Y., and was about 7 years old there was a woman in the neighborhood who was kidnapping children. The people in the neighborhood labeled her the "bad lady." She would go to one of the playgrounds in the area, play with the children and offer them candy. When the opportunity presented itself, she would lead one of the children off. She was finally caught after the deaths of, I believe, three children. Children tend to follow people who offer them gifts. They don't look more deeply into the character of the individual. Therefore, we teach our children not to trust everyone, especially people bearing unsolicited gifts.
Yet liberals trust only those people bearing undeserved gifts. They follow politicians like children followed the bad lady, caring not about the liberal politicians' motives but only about the free goodies they may receive. They haven't grown intellectually to a point where they will question the motives behind the gifts.
Rosenbloom goes on not only to smear Nancy Pelosi as a "bad lady" child-killer but also to revive an old discredited smear, that a 200-seat aircraft is "[t]he jet favored by Nancy Pelosi." In fact, there's no evidence that Pelosi has ever specifically requested that large of a jet to return to her home district in Califormia -- only" whatever Air Force craft is available."
The president's case is slightly different. Unlike most presidents we've had, Barack Obama is a dedicated ideologue. He believes developed nations are obligated to financially support the entire world. Should plebeians in the West be forced into an 18th century level of subsistence to bring the Third World into the Bronze Age, so be it. This is only fair. For Obama, the personal gain factor – while definitely a consideration – is almost secondary.
Molotov Mitchell's endorsement of the "abolition of homosexuality" by killing gays in Uganda is not the only manifestation of WorldNetDaily's anti-gay agenda in recent days.
A Dec. 22 WND article by Bob Unruh expresses shock that conservatives might be within close proximity to gay people, highlighting a campaign by fellow anti-gay activists Peter LaBarbera and Matt Barber to bar a gay conservative group from sponsoring next year's Conservative Political Action Conference. Despite the fact that the group, GOProud, broke away from another gay group, the Log Cabin Republicans, for not being conservative enough and its apparent acquiescence to CPAC's strictures, as Unruh reported, that it will have no speakers and will not be allowed to debate gay issues, that apparently isn't enough for LaBarbera.
Unruh quotes LaBarbera as saying that "GOProud supports the same radical homosexualist agenda as other GLBT organizations – which is corrupting children and tearing apart America’s moral fiber." Barber added that "This group is pushing a radical leftist agenda that is an affront to the GOP platform, conservatism and, most importantly, the Word of God."
Given that WND tacitly endorses killing gays through its hosting of Molotov Mitchell's video, it's a surprise that it didn't allow Barber to express his full-on hatred of gays, such as his description of homosexuality as "one man violently cramming his penis into another man’s lower intestine and calling it 'love.'" (Which raised a bit of controversy when LaBarbera repeated it in attacking GOProud.)
This was accompanied by another article from Unruh that went the self-pitying sour-grapes route, declaring that because CPAC barred WND from doing a forum on Barack Obama's birth certificate yet is allowing "homosexual sponsorship," CPAC is "is stepping away from its conservative foundations."
UPDATE: Media Matters' Jamison Foser notes that WND hasn't said a thing about the ultra-right John Birch Society taking part in CPAC.
New Article: Helping Huckabee Topic: Newsmax
Newsmax works (most of the time, anyway) to defend Mike Huckabee against criticism of clemencies he granted as Arkansas governor that had deadly consequences. Read more >>
Chuck Norris Takes Obama Out of Context Topic: WorldNetDaily
What is with right-wing celebrities smearing President Obama by quoting him out of context?
Following in the footsteps of Pat Boone, Chuck Norris uses his Dec. 20 WorldNetDaily column to attack Obama by heavily editing what he said to present it in a false light:
First, even during his campaign for the presidency, Obama sarcastically belittled America's Judeo-Christian heritage and degraded its adherents with trite remarks typical of any atheistic antagonist: "Whatever we were, we are no longer a Christian nation"; "The dangers of sectarianism are greater than ever"; "Religion doesn't allow for compromise": "The Sermon on the Mount [is] a passage that is so radical that our own defense department wouldn't survive its application"; and "To base our policy making upon such commitments [as moral absolutes] would be a dangerous thing." (See the YouTube video: "Barack Obama on the importance of a secular government.")
Second, President Obama has already denied America's rich Judeo-Christian heritage before the eyes and ears of other countries, as he publicly declared in Turkey on April 6, 2009, for the whole world to hear: "We do not consider ourselves a Christian nation." (Who are the "we" to whom he refers? Would our former presidents agree with his "we"?)
Norris has ripped the first statement and the similar Turkey statement out of context. Here's the full version of what Obama said in Turkey, according to the video Norris links to:
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 -- modern Turkey was founded with a similar set of principles. And yet what we're seeing in both countries is that promise of a secular country that is respectful of religious freedom, respectful of the rule of law, respctful of freedom, upholding these values and being willing to stand up for them on the international stage.
The other statements Norris cites come from a November 2008 speech that, as he notes, focuses on the importance on a secular government. Norris doesn't explain why he apparently opposes secular government.
Of course, lyingaboutObama and taking him out of context is old hat for WND writers. Indeed, WND reinforced Norris' distortions by quoting them in a Dec. 22 article by Bob Unruh attacking Obama over a single ornament on a large White House Christmas tree that has, among the many images on it, a tiny image of Chairman Mao.
We already knew that Molotov Mitchell has issues with the mere existence of homosexuals -- after all, his extremist Christian movement, inspired by the straight-edge punk lifestyle claims to embrace "sexual purity through ... the abolition of homosexuality."
Now, he's endorsing one method of achieving that abolition -- literally, through capital punishment. Mitchell's Dec. 23 WorldNetDaily video is dedicated to defending a proposed draconian anti-gay law in Uganda that would, among other things, make homosexual acts punishable by life in prison at minimum or the death penalty for those caught engaging in it more than once. It even punishes knowledge of homosexual activity with a prison sentence.
But that's cool with ol' Molotov. He complained that pastor Rick Warren finally came out against the law "after a week of merciless taunting from some lesbian chick at MSNBC" (accompanied by an image of Rachel Maddow). Not only is killing gays endorsed by the Bible, Molotov claims, "our founding fathers also made homosexuality a capital offense. Molotov even finds further justification for the law, claiming that in the 1800s, the country "was oppressed by an evil homosexual king, King Mwanga."
Besides, Molotov lectures, "Uganda is a soverign, democratic nation that's free to make its own laws." Despite his admission earlier in the video that the law would make homosexuality a capital offense, Molotov goes on to claim: "They don't want to kill the homosexuals; they just want them to stop practicing homosexual acts." That follows in the footsteps of anti-gay activists who attempt to separate homosexual behavior from homosexual orientation.
Molotov then claims: "If gay Ugandans don't like the law, they are more than free to leave." He doesn't mention that the law would also apply to Ugandans living outside the country, even in countries where homosexuality is legal.
Molotov again insists that "don't think that our founding fathers wouldn't support this legislation all the way." The on-screen text when he says this? "When Character Was King..."
Leave it up to Molotov to equate killing people you don't like with "character."
Most shockingly -- or maybe not -- Molotov concludes by quoting Martin Luther King: "The moral arm of the universe is long, but it bends toward justice." He adds: "Ugandans, stay on the right side of history."
"Abolition of homosexuality," indeed. Molotov must be wetting himself at the prospect.
The lawyer for the co-author of a book attacking the Council on American-Islamic Relations is taking an unusual response to CAIR's lawsuit against the writer: CAIR doesn't legally exist.
No, really. A Dec. 21 WorldNetDaily article lays out the defense being offered by Daniel Horowitz, lawyer for David Gaubatz and his son, Chris Gaubatz, who used his job as a CAIR intern to steal documents from the group:
An exhibit filed by Horowitz with his reply to CAIR shows a search on the Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs website for the name Council on American-Islamic Relations produced no results. Further, a search for "name availability" on the same site showed Council on American-Islamic Relations was available while the names Council on American-Islamic Relations Action Network and Council on American-Islamic Relations Foundation were not. Both of the latter names turned up in a search for incorporated names.
"CAIR is not a valid entity and even if it were, the exposure of its inner workings is part of the price it pays for being a controversial group in a hotly contested arena," Horowitz says in the brief's conclusion. "If the press or publishers had to prove the purity of their sources before publishing we would never hear about the various romances of Tiger Woods (which might be a relief) but we also never have heard of the Pentagon Papers."
That seems to be a bit of a desperate effort on Horowitz's part. After all, he had already capituated to CAIR to return the purloined documents (until the FBI conveniently intervened).
Pretending that CAIR doesn't technically exist is Horowitz's apparent attempt to get out of the most damning issuethe Gaubatzes face -- that Chris Gaubatz reportedly signed a confidentiality agreement when he began the internship. The article offerds no indication that Horowitz is claiming Gaubatz never signed one; rather, he notes that CAIR has not been able to produce evidence any agreement was signed, and that even if one was signed, "this document would have been signed between a non-existent corporate entity and Chris Gaubatz. There need to be two parties to a contract."
That's trying to escape on a technicality. While that's argably Horowitz's job as a lawyer, it's also a demonstration of the bad faith in which the Gaubatzes operated in their little, and possibly illegal, sting operation.
Farah Buys Into Idea That Obama's Nobel Is Unconstitutional Topic: WorldNetDaily
Joseph Farah writes in his Dec. 22 WorldNetDaily column:
Many have questioned whether Barack Obama truly deserved the Nobel Peace Prize.
That's not the purpose of this column.
As far as I am concerned, the Nobel ceased to have much in the way of honorific qualities after it was bestowed on such unsavory and unworthy candidates as Al Gore, Yasser Arafat, Jimmy Carter, Mikhail Gorbachev and Kofi Annan.
My concern about Barack Obama's acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize is that it was patently unconstitutional.
I guess that should surprise no one given Obama's penchant for unconstitutional activity.
Yet, this one is flagrant, personal and, worst of all, petty.
Speaking of flagrant, personal and petty, Farah goes on to suggest that Obama "ignore[d] this constitutional provision" -- he claims that "an act of Congress would be necessary for him to accept the emolument" -- because "he considers himself above the law and the Constitution and/or because he really wanted to benefit personally from the award" and because "he actually seeks to undermine the foundational document of American government." Farah answered the first question earlier in the column by noting that Obama planned to donate the prize money to charity.
What Farah doesn't mention, of course, is that the emoluments clause has, in practice, routinely been ignored; there was no agitation to enforce it when Woodrow Wilson and Teddy Roosevelt won the Nobel Peace Prize. Nor do we recall any outcry from Farah when Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf was awarded an honorary knighthood from Queen Elizabeth.
So unless Farah is also demanding that Stormin' Norman relinquish his knighthood, he might want to give up this particular battle. After all, he has many other hateful Obama conspiracies to focus on.
David Limbaugh Repeats False Smears of Jennings Topic: WorldNetDaily
In his Dec. 18 syndicated column -- published by WorldNetDaily and Newsmax -- David Limbaugh makes numerous false, misleading and anti-gay claims about "known homosexual activist" Kevin Jennings. Media Matters has the details.
Few pieces of legislation have as many devils in their details as this now-2,700 page monstrosity.
But let's focus on one example of Obamacare's future victims so that men, women and children can grasp what it means for them:
1. Obamacare could kill Santa Claus.
2. Pundits have long noted that Santa is among the most politically incorrect role models in our culture. He wears fur and exploits reindeer and elves. He threatens our global climate by operating a toy factory at the pristine but environmentally fragile North Pole.
3. Santa may be associated with the religious right and is judgmental — rewarding children not equally or by favoring minorities, but based on his subjective assessment of who has been “naughty” or “nice.”