CNS Still Spreading Lie About Ex-TSA Nomimee Topic: CNSNews.com
Matt Cover doubles down in a Jan. 20 CNSNews.com article, repeating his previous false assertion that now-withdrawn Transportation Safety Administration nominee Erroll Southers was using "Christian identity" in a generic sense in an online video:
Following Southers' union and ethics problems, video of a controversial 2008 interview surfaced on the Internet. As reported by CNSNews.com, Southers made several troubling statements, including labeling the violent, anti-Christian racist group the World Church of the Creator as "Christian-identity oriented," and saying that the war on terror should be given "parity" with other issues such as global warming and education.
[...]
Southers comment that some white supremacist groups were "Christian-identity oriented" also attracted attention, due mainly to the fact that he claimed such groups were the nation's most important domestic terror threat.
Cover leaves out the part that it got attention because Cover doesn't seem to understand that, as we've detailed, Christian Identity is the name of a specific group, not a generic reference to Christianity.
Either Cover actually believes what he's writing, or he's deliberately perpetuating a lie. Given CNS' anti-Obama agenda and the fact that Cover's goal over the past several days has been to attack Southers, we're betting on the latter.
Wash. Examiner's Double Standard on Election Fraud Topic: Washington Examiner
In a Jan. 19 Washington Examiner blog post, David Freddoso highlighted Scott Brown's reaction to accusations of voter fraud by Martha Coakley's campaign, highlighting "Sen. John Kerry's 2004 campaign guidebook in Colorado, which called for a 'pre-emptive strike' with accusations of voting irregularities."
Freddoso might have a point had his employer not published a pre-emptive strike of its own against Coakley the day before in the form of a column by Douglas MacKinnon headlined "How Coakley will steal the election from Brown." In it, MacKinnon speculated that Coakley would "steal the election from Brown and the people of Massachusetts" and referenced "a Massachusetts Democratic operation that clearly has the skill sets necessary to deprive the voters of an honest and unpoliticized outcome."
New Article: WorldNetDaily's Favorite Hate Group Topic: WorldNetDaily
WND teams up with MassResistance -- designated a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center -- to peddle false and misleading claims about Obama administration official Kevin Jennings. Read more >>
Newsmax's Patten Flip-Flops on Election Fraud Topic: Newsmax
It seems like only a day or two ago that Newsmax's David Patten was howling about ballot fraud leading to the Massachusetts Senate election being stolen. Oh, wait -- it was.
But now that the only evidence of election fraud in that election is showing up on the Republican side, Patten is singing a different tune. In a Jan. 19 article, Patten notes that "Marc Elias, the controversial attorney whose legal maneuvers helped Democrat Al Franken go from being 700 votes behind to winning his election against incumbent Republican Sen. Norm Coleman, has joined with the Martha Coakley campaign to prepare for a major legal initiative to contest the integrity of the election if necessary."
Thus, Patten again suggests that Franken stole the election from Coleman, which is not true.
Patten states that "While claims of fraud are routine in tight elections, they usually do not materialize into serious legal contests" -- a statement curiously missing from his previous article on the subject, in which he approvingly quoted NewsBusters' Noel Sheppard falsely claiming the Minnesota election was stolen and that Democrats "very much aware of how to stuff ballot boxes."
Why doesn't Patten care about election fraud when Republicans are allegedly committing it?
CNS Falsely Asserts Abortion 'Mandate' in Health Care Bill Topic: CNSNews.com
A Jan. 19 CNSNews.com article by anti-abortion activist Penny Starr uncritically repeats the false claim that health care reform "would mandate abortion coverage and mandate government funding for abortion."
In fact, the Senate version of the abortion bill contains no "mandate" -- in fact, it contains a prohibition on federal funds for abortion in line with the Hyde Amendment, and it segregates funds charged enrollees for abortion coverage from federal funds, which even CNS editor-in-chief Terry Jeffrey has conceded.
Having forwarded that false claim, Starr also penned a Jan. 19 column in which she sneers at the EPA for recognizing environmental risks to fetal development but not opposing abortion: "Last time I checked, removing an unborn child limb by limb definitely will cause not only rapid changes in physiology and anatomy, but most certainly that irreversible state called DEATH."
Is Starr too biased to report fairly on the subject of abortion? It appears so.
More Catholic-Bashing At WND? Topic: WorldNetDaily
A Jan. 18 WorldNetDaily article shockingly does the right thing by disproving Pat Robertson's claim that Haitians made a deal with the devil a couple hundred years ago that somehow resulted in the recent earthquake, citing "distinguished Haitian Christian minister and scientist" Jean R. Gelin. But then, WND appears to indulge Gelin in a little implicit Catholic-bashing:
Gelin responded to questions from WND, confirming he has yet to find "any evidence for the pact or for a curse from God – even after this quake."
He said his research shows that the one steady influence that has helped Haiti is the growth of Protestantism.
How come only the Protestants get credit for bringing the Gospel to Haiti? The Catholics are there too -- indeed, the Catholic cathedral in Port-au-Prince was heavily damaged by the quake.
Apparently, only aggressive Protestant evangelists count; Gelin is affiliated with the Church of God, a charismatic evangelical sect.
WND does have an anti-Catholic strain to its reporting. Bill Donohue, where are you?
ConWeb Practically Orgasmic Over GOP Win in Mass. Topic: The ConWeb
Think the ConWeb was excited to see Scott Brown win the special election in Massachusetts for the Senate seat formerly held by the late Ted Kennedy? They're so giddy, they're practically orgasmic with venom toward President Obama.
Here's the lead of a Nov. 19 Newsmax article by David Patten:
In one of the most shocking turnabouts in modern political history, GOP underdog Scott Brown has single-handedly captured the so-called "Kennedy seat" in Massachusetts, wiped out the Democratic supermajority in Congress, and pushed the president's Obamacare agenda to the very brink of a stunning defeat.
Patten goes on to quote Dick Morris, who's just as slap-happy:
In an exclusive Newsmax interview, Fox News commentator and best-selling author Dick Morris discussed the astounding result: "It certainly is the revisiting of the shot heard 'round the world, which was originally made in Lexington and Concorde, Mass. … that absolutely was what happened tonight.
"A shot was fired that will be heard around the world. The most liberal seat in the most liberal state went Republican. And it didn't go for a squishy Olympia Snowe Republican. It went for a real Republican."
Morris added: "It marks the last bill Obama is ever going to pass of any consequence, except for bipartisan stuff. This is the end of the Obama ascendancy, because he has so systematically alienated the 40 Republicans, that now that there are 41, none of them is going to give him the right time of day.
And this really marks the end of Obama's attempts to reshape the United States," Morris said. "He'll try, but he won't succeed.
Patten followed up by drooling over Brown's victory speech, delcaring it "rousing," and even more reaction to the win, including a recycling of Morris' anti-Obamagasm.
Over at WorldNetDaily, Michael Carl asserted that the election result is "Obama's worst nightmare ever." Somehow, we suspect that's not true. Joseph Farah gloated that "The Democratic Party has self-destructed" (which we're also pretty sure is not true).
CNS Still Hasn't Corrected False Southers Article Topic: CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com has apparently chosen to let Matt Cover's Jan. 14 article on TSA nominee Erroll Southers stand as is, despite its blatant error in portraying Southers' references to "Christian Identity" as a generic reference to Christians rather than the reference to a specific extremist group it clearly is. After all, it was the top story of the day for CNS on Jan. 15 -- apparently, it has decided that the embarassment of retracting a false story is much worse than promoting it as true.
Meanwhile, Cover iscontinuing on his merry way of taking Southers' comments out of context to present is views as somehow inflammatory and out of touch, even though, in the context of the full scope of the interviews Cover is plucking statements from, they represent a pragmatic approach to national security.
A Jan. 18 WorldNetDaily article touts how touts how Arizona lawmakers have bought into the Obama birther conspiracy by proposing a law "that would require state officials to begin independently verifying the accuracy of newly required documents affirming the constitutional eligibility of any candidate for the U.S. presidency." But WND has been curiously silent about a very prominent congressional candidate who appears to be buying in as well.
Scott Brown, the Republican candidate for a special election to fill Ted Kennedy's Massachusetts Senate seat, reportedly suggested in a 2008 interview that Barack Obama was born out of wedlock. This is something that WND has been hinting at for months, with its own repeated suggestions that Barack Obama Sr. and Stanley Ann Dunham, Obama's parents, were not living together has husband and wife at the time of Obama's birth.
Brown's spokesman has since walked back the claim. But WND has curiously avoided any mention of Brown's claim, even though the issue is very much in its wheelhouse, to put it mildly (a more accurate description might be hate-fueledobsession). It is in a perfect position to set Brown right on the issue of Obama's birth, yet it has not done so. Why?
Perhaps because, deep down, WND editor Joseph Farah knows that birtherism is the kiss of death for most politicians, and would certainly be so for Brown if he were to be associated with it. So we get the treat of Farah, in his Jan. 19 column on Brown, being completely silent about Brown's birtherism. Why? Because he wants Brown to win today and further instigate what he calls "the end of the Democratic Party."
That seems to show that even Farah doesn't believe the birther bullshit his website peddles -- or that he simply doesn't have the courage of his convictions to either publicly embrace Brown's birtherism or criticize his walkback (at least not before the election).
MRC's Motley Still Peddling False Claim of 'Attempted Ouster' of Fox News Topic: NewsBusters
In a Jan. 18 NewsBusters post, Seton Motley cited as evidence that the Obama administration doesn't care about the First Amendment "their attempted ouster of FNC from a press event with White House 'Pay Czar' Kenneth Feinberg. Which led FNC's competitors - NBC, ABC, CBS and CNN - to begrudgingly stand with FNC and the First Amendment against the Administration."
But as we've detailed, there was no "attempted ouster" of a Fox News reporter from the Feinberg event, and those "competitors" were surprised by the portrayal of the incident by Fox News and its MRC fellow travelers like Motley as a First Amendment issue since that's not what happened.
S.E. Cupp Gets Fact-Checked Topic: Newsmax
At the Huffington Post, Chris Kelly examines how S.E. Cupp plays fast and loose with the facts in a Jan. 6 Newsmax column, with particular focus on her claim that "Islamic pirates from the Barbary Coast captured, imprisoned and slave-traded more than 1 million European Christians." Turns out the number is closer to, um, a few thousand.
Farah's Wikipedia-Bashing Doesn't Hold Up Topic: WorldNetDaily
As we've noted, Joseph Farah is continuing to whine about vandalism of the WorldNetDaily entry on Wikipedia, and Farah is continuing to demand an apology from Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales for something he didn't do. In his Jan. 13 column, Farah announced an "coming offensive against Wikipedia" and sought donations to WND's legal defense fund.
But let's take a look at some of those nasty things that popped on Wikipedia about Farah and WND -- and how long those remained posted:
The lead claim in Chelsea Schilling's Dec. 30 WND article denouncing the malicious edits was a claim that Farah was described as a "Zionist Twit and Jew Loving Pig." But according to the Wikipedia archives, that statement was removed after just eight minutes.
The statement that WND is written from a "pro-white point of view" was removed after 39 minutes.
The statement on Farah's entry calling him "a closet homosexual and has been repeatedly criticized for his hypocrisy" was removed after 32 minutes.
At no point does Schilling or Farah note the brief amount of time these statements were actually live on the Wikipedia site.
Despite Farah's complaint about ineffective "editors and approved moderators who are presumably charged with screening out such material," it seems like the system is working pretty well for such an operation.
Meanwhile, WND itself seems to be lax in that department, allowing numerousdeath threats against President Obama to be posted in its forums.
Also, it's worth noting that Clark Jones had to wait more than seven years for an apology and retraction from WND for publishing numerous false and libelous claims about him -- statements WND not only did not remove in the interim but aggressively defended. One could argue that what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
(Of course, we've been libeled by Farah, and he hasn't exactly made an effort to apologize.)
One does have to wonder: Is Farah still pissed that WND and Aaron Klein got caught red-handed (by us) creating a story for the sole apparent purpose of attacking Wikipedia?
Newsmax Still Falsely Portraying Minn. Senate Election As Stolen Topic: Newsmax
As we've detailed, David Patten was Newsmax's foremost promoter of the discredited idea that Al Franken was committing vote fraud in the aftermath of the Minnesota Senate election. Even though no less than an authority than the Minnesota Supreme Court declared Franken to the fair-and-square winner, Patten is still pushing this discredited claim.
A Jan. 18 Newsmax article by Patten starts by asserting: "The specter of Minnesota's bitterly contested election contest between Al Franken and Norm Coleman now hangs over Tuesday's special election in Massachusetts, with Republicans and conservative pundits warning that anything less than a clear-cut victory for GOP challenger Scott Brown over Democrat Martha Coakley risks a 'stolen election.'" patten goes on to quote NewsBusters' Noel Sheppard -- who has his own notable record of fabulism -- baselessly asserting that Democrats "obviously stole the Franken seat several months ago."
That's simply not true. As Media Matters details, the Minnesota Supreme Court stated that "[n]o claim of fraud in the election or during the recount was made by either" Franken or Coleman . Further, numerous experts attest to the fact there there was, in the words of one expert, a "lack of crookedness in the election."
WND Agitates Again Over U.N. Press Coverage, Mum on Tea Party's Topic: WorldNetDaily
A Jan. 17 WorldNetDaily article by Stewart Stogel complains that U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon visited quake-ravaged Haiti "with a small group of carefully selected and managed journalists."
No mention, howeer, of the small group of carefully selected and managed journalists -- including WND -- that are being allowed to cover the National Tea Party Convention, at which WND editor Joseph Farah is speaking.
