A Feb. 10 WorldNetDaily article by Bob Unruh is a veritable symphony of gay-bashing, baselessly portraying a bill by a "homosexual congressman from Colorado" as a power grab for favorite WND whipping boy Kevin Jennings to institute his "homo-genda" -- a phrase that, despite appearing in quotes in the headline, appears nowhere in the article, quoted or otherwise. As an authority for what the bill purportedly does, Unruh consulted rabidly anti-gay right-winger Linda Harvey, who even admits that she can't prove a thing she's saying.
CNSNews.com makes its contribution to Avatar Derangement Syndrome with a Feb. 11 article by Penny Starr detailing "Best-selling author and screenwriter" Andrew Klavan's attacks on "Avatar":
On the other hand, “Avatar” is blatantly critical of the United States and the military, he said. And even if Cameron has changed from touting his film as being one that reflects how America is waging the war on terror to one about environmentalism, the message is clear.
"Of course, it's anti-American and anti-military," Klavan said. "(The U.S. military) are sadists and killers. They are happy to march over the indigenous, native people to get their resources."
Ironically, Klavan says, the natural world inhabited by the peaceful blue creatures on the planet Pandora in "Avatar" is really filled with the technology and democracy that has made the world a better place: even if aviation is in the form of flying dragons, it is the trees that light up and have Internet-like connections to power and wisdom, and the female species are treated as equals to males.
In other words, Cameron has successfully blended fantasy with his ideological message.
"He hit the sweet spot of environmental irrationality," Klavan said.
Starr baselessly claims that "Klavan is an insider when it comes to understanding liberalism in popular culture, especially when it comes to Hollywood." She doesn't disclosejust how right-wing Klavan is -- he regularly posts videos on the the right-wing PJTV, and has appeared on Glenn Beck's radio and TV shows numerous times.
Anti-Abortion Activist Calls Out Stanek's Condoning of Tiller Murder Topic: WorldNetDaily
As we detailed last year, WorldNetDaily initially sought to distance itself from the shooting death of abortion doctor George Tiller by Scott Roeder (despite having repeatedly labeled him as "Tiller the Killer" prior to his death), depicting Roeder as mentally ill and not a part of the anti-abortion movement (even though he was). So it's interesting that most recent mentions of Roeder at WND sought to condone his murderous behavior.
Jack Cashill defended the murder as a "frontier justice" necessity in columns on Nov. 12 and Jan. 14. And in a Feb. 3 column, Jill Stanek tried to have it both ways, claiming that she had "a problem with Scott Roeder murdering Tiller" while simultaneously lamenting that Roeder was not allowed to mount a "necessity" defense because it is "is anathema to both pro-aborts and the U.S. legal system thanks to abortion," going on to cite "Tiller's continued avoidance of justice."
This prompted a response by Gregg Cunningham, head of the anti-abortion Center For Bio-Ethical Reform, chastising Stanek's condoning stance, which WND surprisingly published on Feb. 8:
Regarding the murder of abortionist George Tiller, she argues essentially that Scott Roeder's jury should have been allowed to find that stalking, ambushing and blowing out the doctor's brains wasn't murder because George Tiller was an abortionist. Jill emphasizes that she is personally opposed to vigilante assassinations. She says that she might not have voted to reduce Scott Roeder's offense to manslaughter had she been given that option as his juror. But she then asserts that jurors should be permitted to consider the horror of abortion as a mitigating circumstance when deciding the fates of those who kill abortionists. This chilling, "eye-for-an-eye" ethic is difficult to distinguish from the barbaric apologetic used by the "Army of God" anarchists who cheer on sociopaths such as Scott Roeder. It is a license to kill.
Jill also endorses Roeder's failed attempt to establish that killing George Tiller wasn't murder because Tiller was allegedly committing illegal abortions for which he wasn't being brought to justice. George Tiller was never convicted of aborting unlawfully. A very pro-life Kansas prosecutor named Phill Kline couldn't even nail him for what amounted to paperwork violations. And even if bias by other prosecutors protected Tiller from further pursuit, is a lynch mob really the proper antidote for prosecutorial corruption?
Jill concludes by lamenting that the babies were denied "their day in court" when the Roeder judge placed abortion off limits as a proper consideration in determining the defendant's guilt. But she has chosen the wrong forum for a fight over rights of personhood for unborn children. There are two issues here. The first is whether Scott Roeder did or did not murder George Tiller. The second is whether abortion should or should not be legal. The first is a criminal-justice issue, and the second is a public-policy matter. If those two questions are not resolved in separate arenas, the rule of law becomes the real victim.
This puts Stanek in a bit of a spot, since she previously praised Cunningham for writing an "absolutely fabulous, must read letter" in support of using graphic images of abortion during protests of President Obama's speech last year at Notre Dame; Cunningham had written that Notre Dame students who voted for Obama "must not be allowed to graduate in comfort" and called Obama a "serial-killer."
Interestingly, Stanek has yet to respond to Cunningham, either in her column or on her blog. Meanwhile, a similar letter by Cunningham to anti-abortion extremist Randall Terry got a much different response -- derision and scorn from another extremist, George Offerman.
So, any chance Cunningham can pen a letter to Jack Cashill?
In the poem, Obama seems to be confronting Gramps with the realization that he is actually his father. Obama calls the poem "Pop," after all, not "Gramps."
"Under my seat, I pull out the Mirror I've been saving," writes Obama. Yes, the two look alike, they smell alike, they have the same ears, and Pop even has "the same amber stain on his shorts that I've got on mine." (I'll leave the last one alone.)
Obama is right. They do look alike. Obama does not, however, look like Barack Sr. – and, Abercrombie concedes, the grown-up Obama does not sound at all like him, either.
As Obama admits in "Dreams," Gramps hangs out in otherwise all-black bars and pals around with his communist soulmate and sex merchant, Frank Marshall Davis.
Did a black woman – perhaps a friend of Davis' – give birth to a child of Dunham's? Might that explain what Obama describes as "the complicated, unspoken transaction between the two men"? Or, another possibility, was Davis the father of Ann's baby, as he, too, matches the description of "Pop" in all salient details?
Will Kincaid Call Out WND's Klein for Appearing on Al-Jazeera? Topic: Accuracy in Media
A Feb. 10 Accuracy in Media column by Cliff Kincaid keeps up his longtime censorship effort in trying to keep Al-Jazeera unavailable in America, denouncing it as an "Arab government-funded propaganda channel" that airs "anti-American programming designed to incite Arabs and Muslims to hate and kill Americans and Jews." But will Kincaid call out right-wingers who appear on it?
At the top of that list, interestingly, is WorldNetDailiy's Aaron Klein. He has appeared on Al-Jazeera atleastfivetimes in the past year.
If Klein has been aiding and abetting Al-Jazeera's mission of disseminating propaganda, shouldn't Kincaid denounce him for doing so? Or is his rage limited only to those who can be reliably pegged as liberal?
Kessler Copies-And-Pastes Lie About Obama Topic: Newsmax
Ronald Kessler asserted in a Feb. 8 Newsmax column: "In a Sept. 6, 2001, radio interview, Obama expressed regret that the Supreme Court hadn’t engaged in wealth redistribution."
Where have we heard that before? It's almost the exact same language Kessler used in a July 2009 column.
Unfortunately for Kessler, it's just as false now as it was then -- or any othertime Kessler has asserted it. As we've detailed, Obama actually said that because the Supreme Court under Earl Warren did not address "redistributive change," it was evidence that the court was not as far-left as its critics have claimed. And Obama's "regret" was specifically aimed at the civil rights movement for overly relying on the court system to advance its agenda.
This lie, by the way, comes in the midst of an unsubstantiated attack on Obama by someone who, Kessler tells us, "now considers himself a conservative," purportedly had a discussion of Marxism with Obama while they were college students. Another alleged participant in the conversation won’t corroborate it, and a fourth person “did not respond to a request for comment.”
Dolce Compounds Unfunny 'Humor' With Falsehoods Topic: WorldNetDaily
Humor, theoretically, is funniest when based on the truth. But the WorldNetDaily "News! News!" segements by D.J. Dolce (aka Mrs. Molotov Mitchell), in addition to notbeingfunny, can't get the truth part right either.
One of the "jokes" in the latest video is premised on the claim that "feminist monster" Nancy Pelosi "has cost American taxpayers over $2 million in transport costs for her and her brood, $101,000 of that was spent on in-flight food and alcohol." In fact, as we've detailed, that $2 million was actually spent on transport for congressional delegations arranged by Pelosi's office, not for her personal and familiy travel.Some of those passengers, by the way, included Republican members of Congress.
The Mitchells seemed to have picked up that lie from -- where else? -- WorldNetDaily.
Of course, we already knew that Molotov can't get his facts right in his supposedly "For the Record" videos for WND, so it was probably too much to expect his "humor" to be fact-based. Or, for that matter, to be funny.
Did Noel Sheppard even watch the video he's claiming about? We have to wonder.
Sheppard devotes an entire Feb. 9 NewsBusters post to getting huffy over Stephen Colbert calling Sarah Palin a "f**king retard" -- even though he explains the setup for it by noting that Palin excused Rush Limbaugh's use of "retard" because it was satire.
Sheppard even quotes a good portion of the relevent Colbert transcript: "And Sarah Palin knows that it is okay to call someone a retard if like Rush you clearly don't mean it. Which is why we should all come to her defense and say, "Sarah Palin is a f**king retard." Get it."
But Sheppard gets the end of it wrong: "Get it" is not a declaration by Colbert, it's a question, as in "Get it?" Sheppard also conveniently failed to transcribe what Colbert said immediately after that: "You see? It's satire!"
Instead, Sheppard huffs: "And so, it's come this: it is now acceptable for members of the media to say anything they want about this woman no matter how vulgar. Can you imagine the outrage if anyone on television did this to a liberal woman regardless of the comedic intent?"
Sheppard, meanwhile, is silent about Limbaugh's use of "retard," satiric or otherwise -- or, really, anything else Limbaugh has said, no matter how vulgar.
Mychal Massie's Feb. 9 WorldNetDaily screed against allowing gays to serve in the military is chock-full of homophobic craziness, starting with the headline: "Is cross-dressing in fatigues next?"
Among other things, Massie suggests that gays in the military would be a terrorist recruiting tool a la Gitmo, speculates about “Obama's true motivations for supporting the compromising of troop morale and the true values of our country.” He also references “Jamie Gorlick's wall between the FBI and CIA.”
Massie also writes:
A reader who is in a position to know told me that the "last survey among military folks [revealed] that 25 percent won't re-up if this happens. This means that to allow [the] 2 percent of those out there who choose this lifestyle into the military, we'd lose 25 percent of the experienced military folks who have morals."
Actual facts not advanced by some murky, anonymous guy tell a different story. A Military Times poll found that 10 percent of active-duty service members surveyed "said they would not re-enlist" if Don't Ask, Don't Tell is repealed. Further, a 2003 article in Paramaters, the journal of the U.S. Army War College, states:
In a 1985 survey of 6,500 male soldiers, the Canadian Department of National Defence found that 62 percent of male service members would refuse to share showers, undress, or sleep in the same room as a gay soldier, and that 45 percent would refuse to work with gays. A 1996 survey of 13,500 British service members reported that more than two-thirds of male respondents would not willingly serve in the military if gays and lesbians were allowed to serve. Yet when Canada and Britain subsequently lifted their gay bans, these dire predictions were not confirmed.
Massie gets extra points for working in the word "Erebusic," which is one of his favorite five-dollar words.
A Question Les Kinsolving Won't Ask Topic: WorldNetDaily
Les Kinsolving's Feb. 9 WorldNetDaily column is dedicated to wondering why CBS' Katie Couric "has not, reportedly, offered to share some of her income to save dozens of her fellow CBS employees – whom the New York Observer and the New York Post, among others, reported are being laid off." He even asked White House press secretary Robert Gibbs a question to that effect.
Media Matters details the false and misleading claims in a Feb. 7 WorldNetDaily article by Bob Unruh attacking Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon's appointment to President Obama's council of governors and a report issued by the Missouri Information Analysis Center on right-wing extremism. WND falsely claimed that the report "linked Christians with violence."
And Richard Bartholomew details WND's misleading fear-mongering in a Feb. 7 article by Michael Carl claiming that "the Muslim Brotherhood is effectively employing a strategy of presenting 'Islam lite' to organizations" and hiding "some of the harsher truths about Islam."
Newsmax Distorts Foxman's Comments to Bash Obama Topic: Newsmax
In an interview for Newsmax, Anti-Defamation League national director Abe Foxman described President Obama's efforts on the Israeli-Palestinian situation this way: "I would give him an A for effort, a C-minus for strategy, and an F for accomplishment." Guess how Newsmax played it?
"ADL's Foxman Gives Obama 'F' Grade for Accomplishment" reads the headline of a Feb. 8 Newsmax article by Jim Meyers based on the interview. Meyers states in his lead paragraph that Foxman "gives President Barack Obama an 'F' – a failing 'report card' grade after his first year in office for his 'accomplishments' in dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict."
It's not until the sixth paragraph that Meyers gets around to providing the entire Foxman quote.
Meyers then tries to frame Foxman's comment as evidence of Jewish discontent with Obama:
Foxman’s impatience and disappointment in Obama seems to reflect a growing unease among American Jews about the president’s Middle East policies.
Malcolm Hoenlein, executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, expressed concern about Obama in a June interview with Newsmaxs Chief Washington Correspondent Ronald Kessler.
“There’s a lot of questioning going on about what he really believes and what does he really stand for,” Hoenlein said.
“[Jews] are genuinely very concerned,” he added.
As we've detailed, Kessler has long endeavored to drive a wedge between Jews and Obama. But Meyers doesn't report that Hoenlein backed away from his comments as reported by Kessler, and even the transcript of the interview that Kessler was forced to post at Newsmax made it clear that Kessler wastrying to get Hoenlein to attack Obama and then took liberties with Hoenlein's words to portray them as providing the bashing Kessler wanted.
Newsmax's embrace of Foxman is strange given that just two weeks ago, Newsmax columnist Pamela Geller was smearing Foxman as having a "sickness of the soul" for committing the offense of criticizing Rush Limbaugh.
Then again, maybe that Geller column is because this interview was being done. Interviewer Kathleen Walter provided a lengthy introduction for Foxman, noting that he "is known throughout the world as a leader in the fight against hatred" and "is the recipient of numerous awards including the French Legion of Honor." At no point in the 14-minute-long interview does Walter bring up Limbaugh or Geller's smears.
New Article -- Out There, Exhibit 51: Avatar Derangement Syndrome Topic: The ConWeb
The ConWeb -- led by professional right-wing movie prude Ted Baehr -- goes nuts criticizing James Cameron's blockbuster movie. Read more >>
Another Farah Birther Lie: He Claims He's Not Questioning Obama's Citizenship Topic: WorldNetDaily
Joseph Farah writes in his Feb. 8 WorldNetDaily column:
Here's how the Hill played the story Thursday: "'Birthers' who question whether Obama is a U.S. citizen have raised questions about his birth certificate since the 2008 campaign. Even after proof has been offered of Obama's birth in Hawaii, some critics have questioned its legitimacy. Most mainstream politicians have dismissed questions about whether Obama is a citizen."
Seldom has so much disinformation been packed into a single paragraph. But that's been par for the course with media mangling of the eligibility issue.
First, Obama's claim that Americans are questioning his "citizenship," and the press' acquiescence to that assertion, is both deliberate and a lie.
The real question raised is legitimate: Is Obama a "natural-born citizen," a qualifier for only one office – the presidency. Obama has steadfastly refused to release his long-form birth certificate, the only document that could ever begin to answer that constitutional question.
Farah is lying when he says birthers like himself do not question Obama's "citizenship." To cite just one very recent example: a Feb. 4 WND article by Chelsea Schilling references "the growing ranks of officials and prominent commentators who say they are unsure of whether President Barack Obama is a U.S. citizen."
Is Farah going to lie to our faces and say that questioning "whether President Barack Obama is a U.S. citizen" is not questioning his citizenship? It appears so. But Farah has done this before, falsely claiming that "I am not making accusations about where Obama was born" when he has a history of doing exactly that.