We've already noted how WorldNetDaily financial columnist Porter Stansberry is prepared to flee the country. Now it appears that Stansberry is facing a $1.5 million sanction from the Securities & Exchange Commission.

We have the details at Media Matters.

Posted by Terry K. at 8:52 PM EST

Share This Post

Permalink

Cliff Kincaid's March 7 Accuracy in Media column carries the headline, "Was the Pentagon Shooter an Obama-approved Pothead?" In it, Kincaid declares that Pentagon shooter John Patrick Bedell "was a psychotic pothead," and asserted that the answer to "the question of how he became criminally psychotic and a patsy for conspiracy theories" is "marijuana, which alters the ability of the mind to comprehend reality but which is depicted by most of the media as safe and harmless":

This connection--between pot and mental illness--is a matter of the medical record but is conveniently being ignored in the many stories about this young man's strange journey and tragic end.

The book, "Marijuana and Madness," cites studies and evidence from around the world, some of it going back 40 years, linking the use of marijuana--supposedly a "soft" drug--to mental illnesses, including schizophrenia and psychosis. One of the latest studies finds that "Marijuana use at a young age significantly increased the risk of psychosis in young adulthood..."

Has Kincaid been watching "Reefer Madness" on a constant loop? It seems so:

The public laughs at the old propaganda films such as "Reefer Madness," which depict marijuana smokers as crazed zombies. However, the Pentagon rampage was likely triggered by marijuana-induced psychosis. Bedell was not only a heavy marijuana user and had been busted for possession and growing the drug, but dedicated much of his life to glorifying the substance.

So, you may wonder, how exactly Kincaid has shoehorned President Obama into this little conspiracy. He clears that up:

The rampage at the Pentagon has also raised disturbing questions about the Obama Administration's policy of allowing "medical marijuana" dispensaries in such places as California, where Bedell was living, to operate free from fear of federal prosecution. President Obama and his Attorney General Eric Holder have been accused of encouraging marijuana use by refusing to use federal resources to prosecute "medical marijuana" users and the "dispensaries" which supply them with the illegal dope. 

Actually, no, it doesn't raise "disturbing questions" about medical marijuana, since Bedell was not using medical marijuana. He also doesn't say who outside the Kincaid household is accusing Holder of "encouraging marijuana use" by not prosecuting medical marijuana dispensaries. As the Justice Department said last October, when the federal guidelines were issued, the feds have decided it's not a good use of their time to arrest people who use or provide medical marijuana in strict compliance with state laws.

Still, DOJ officials said, the government will still prosecute those who use medical marijuana as a cover for other illegal activity. The memo particularly warns that some suspects may hide old-fashioned drug dealing or other crimes behind a medical marijuana business. Kincaid doesn't mention that.

Kincaid also throws George Soros (of course) into the conspiracy, since "drug legalization has been mostly a left-wing cause."

Oops -- it appears to be time for Kincaid's regularly scheduled viewing of "Reefer Madness."

Posted by Terry K. at 1:44 PM EST

Share This Post

Permalink

And what are Dr. O’s credentials? Medical experience? Zip. Economic expertise? Nada. Political experience? Precious little. Ever run a business? Nope. Brass and charm? Well, sure, he got elected president of the United States!

He reminds me of that guy Leo DiCaprio played in “Catch Me if You Can,” the great imposter Frank Abagnale, Jr. Tall, good looking, and, with gall of a burglar, he pretended to be an airline captain among a number of other preposterous things — even a surgeon! He faked his way through surgeries, with absolutely no knowledge or training, with a patient’s life literally in his hands.

He simply exuded confidence, and was so persuasive he even persuaded himself he could do things he had no qualifications for at all.

I’m terribly concerned we have that situation here, now, in this country. This Dr. O’s resume shows he has no experience at all that would prepare him for forcing such a drastic, completely unaffordable, unwanted, unreasonable dose down the national throat. We may end up having to gag and throw it up.

Much like the turpentine and castor oil Mama gave to me.

-- Pat Boone, column published March 6 at WorldNetDaily and March 8 at Newsmax

Posted by Terry K. at 8:23 AM EST

Share This Post

Permalink

CPAC is dead to WorldNetDaily's Joseph Farah -- and he spends his entire March 8 column explaining why.

Most of the reason is that CPAC wouldn't let Farah speak about President Obama's birth certificate, which he blames on conservative blogger Jon Henke, who raised the idea last year of getting conservatives to not advertise on WND because of its embrace of conspiracy theories (like birtherism). Farah even gives a shout-out to Media Matters, where we noted Henke's boycott idea:

It began when Republican blogger Jon Henke declared an ill-fated boycott of WND. I say ill-fated because WND had a banner year for revenues and traffic. That should tell you something about his level of influence in the world of politics and news. Henke did his best to get the Republican Party to withhold advertising from WND, never thinking, of course, to suggest the same to the Democrats, who outspent Republicans nationally and in WND in the election year 2008.

Nevertheless, Henke was rewarded with multiple appearances on MSNBC and became a darling of the George Soros-backed slime machine Media Matters as a result of his attack on WND.

His next step was calling CPAC to ensure that I would be banned from speaking there in 2010.

Meanwhile, Henke tells the Washington Independent's Dave Weigel that he appeared on MSNBC only once. Further, regarding Farah's claim about Democrats advertising at WND, it's misleading at best. What Farah has usually offered to back up this claim is contextual advertising through Google AdWords -- in which the ads that appear in the Google ad space are driven by the content of the page they appear on -- which is not the same as directly purchasing ad space from WND. (It's ironic that Farah would defend hosting Google-generated ads on WND, given that he devoted an entire chapter of his 2007 book "Stop the Presses!" to bashing Google as an "immoral" company that "may not be able to discern right from wrong.")

Farah goes on to trash CPAC director Lisa De Pasquale for blocking his birtherism, calling her an "arrogant, know-it-all wannabe" who exhibits "ill manners, unprofessionalism and condescension."

But being denied a forum to spread his birtherism is not the only reason Farah is shunning CPAC. He's also annoyed that CPAC "made the conscious decision to include in its sponsors for 2010 a group promoting same-sex marriage. How stupid is that?"

There's a third reason as well: WND is creating its own activism conference. The first Taking America Back National Convention (named after Farah's 2003 manifesto) gathers in September in Miami. The list of speakers is mostly the usual WND suspects -- Farah, Jerome Corsi, Alan Keyes -- as well as one CPAC holdover, WND columnist Tom Tancredo, whose CPAC appearance was notable for his insulting the intelligence of Obama voters and calling for a "civics literacy test" as a requirement for voting.

Farah makes clear how his shindig will be different from CPAC:

This one is about the ultimate issues of God, the Constitution, the tea-party uprising, freedom and justice.

There will be no two-headed monkeys.

There will be no same-sex marriage sponsors.

But there will be free and open discussion of issues like the constitutional eligibility of the man occupying the White House.

Of course, when you're paying for the venue, you can talk about any goofy thing you want.

(Cross-posted at Media Matters.)

Posted by Terry K. at 7:17 AM EST

Share This Post

Permalink

Why is CNSNews.com suddenly skeeved out by bisexuality?

Two similar March 8 articles by Nicholas Ballasy use the B-word in their headlines: "Sen. Lieberman Proposes Legalizing Bisexual Behavior in the U.S. Military" and "Senate Armed Services Chairman Did Not Know That Bill He is Sponsoring Would Legalize Bisexual Behavior in the Military."

CNS doesn't explain why it's focusing so heavily on bisexuality. You'd think it would be more accepting of it since opposite-sex attraction is part of the equation. Or does CNS find the whole idea of being sexually attracted to people of both sexes to cause its collective heads to explode?

Posted by Terry K. at 12:33 AM EST

Updated: Tuesday, March 9, 2010 12:34 AM EST

Share This Post

Permalink

Newsmax and Zogby, with a history of polling stupid questions, polls another one:

If Americans could have a former living U.S. president run the country and deal with the problems facing the nation today, they would pick Bill Clinton by a wide margin, a Newsmax/Zogby poll reveals.

Buried at the end of the article, was this interesting result:

Despite Obama’s weakening popularity, Americans still would elect him president if he were in an electoral showdown with former President George W. Bush.

Asked whom they would chose if a presidential election took place today between Obama and Bush, 48 percent said Obama, 38 percent chose Bush, 12 percent said neither, and 2 were not sure.

A year of relentless attacks on Obama by Newsmax hasn't convinced people that he's worse than Bush.

Posted by Terry K. at 11:07 PM EST

Share This Post

Permalink

The headline on Porter Stansberry's March 5 WorldNetDaily "Investor Insights" column reads: "Stocking up on meds and ammo, NOW!" The actual article manages to be even crazier than that.

Read the rest at Media Matters.

Posted by Terry K. at 10:01 PM EST

Share This Post

Permalink

Back in December, WorldNetDaily made a big deal out of a report of a purported hijacking "dry run" by Muslim terrorist on an AirTran plane, a story that spread by a "widely circulated e-mail." WND got a few more stories out of the claim, even after it became clear that the person who wrote the email, Tedd Petruna, wasn't even aboard the flight.

A couple weeks ago, Talking Points Memo obtained FAA documents on its investigation of the incident:

In the end there was no amateur porn viewing. There was no shout of "infidel dog!" There were no Muslim hijackers.

FAA documents obtained by TPMmuckraker through the Freedom of Information Act thoroughly debunk NASA diver Tedd Petruna's tale of a thwarted hijacking aboard AirTran Flight 297 in Atlanta last November.

[...]

What really happened on AirTran Flight 297 is this, according to the flight attendant reports that are included in the FAA investigation documents:

A man traveling with several others did not comply with flight attendant requests to put away a camera and stop taking pictures before takeoff. Other passengers complained about the "unruly" group of about four -- reportedly Muslim -- passengers. The plane was taxied back to the gate to let the man with the camera off, but the compatriots of the man complained when a flight attendant asked him to leave. Other passengers said they were uncomfortable and did not want to travel with the group.

A replacement crew of flight attendants was put on the plane and it later took off from Atlanta's Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport bound for Houston.

WND has yet to report on this release of documents that debunk its earlier reporting on the incident. Surprised? Don't be -- WND tends to offload or ignore reporting that conflicts with its own, even (or perhaps especially) if it proves WND wrong.

Posted by Terry K. at 5:18 PM EST

Share This Post

Permalink

Here's how a March 7 Newsmax article begins:

In the days of the old Pravda, one could determine who was winning secret Politburo power struggles by just looking at the official Soviet newspaper. Those winning simply got better press.
 
Perhaps it may be no different here in the United States.
 
This week two of the heaviest guns in American media, The Washington Post and The New York Times, unloaded their missiles at Obama adviser David Axelrod while heralding White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel as a centrist and pragmatist.

Newsmax has no evidence of any palace coup, of course -- the article's anonymous writer has merely let his imagination run wild (perhaps that's why he has chosen to remain anonymous). Nevertheless, the article concludes: "Kremlinologists can see the handwriting on the wall. Axelrod will soon be ousted or sidelined. Rahm emerges, and so does a more pragmatic and moderate Obama."

The funny thing is, Newsmax acts in a rather Soviet fashion as well. Misbehaving columnists such as John L. Perry and Bernard Kerik were disappeared from Newsmax without explanation to readers -- one day they were there, the next they were gone. Similarly, columns deemed offensive post-publication quietly vanish into the ether also without explanation.

Posted by Terry K. at 10:45 AM EST

Share This Post

Permalink

Is Sarah Knoploh clairvoyant? Apparently so -- she has decided that she can read another reporter's mind.

In a March 4 MRC Culture & Media Institute item on the legalization of gay marriage in the District of Columbia, Knoploh delcares that Washington Post reporters "cheered that the 'fight' for gay marriage had won in the district" and were "giddy" about it."

How does Knoploh know the reporters were "giddy" and "cheer[ing]"? She doesn't, of course -- as before, she's merely imparting motives she cannot possibly know to people she has in all likelihood never met. In her mind, all reporters are biased, and if they don't work for a right-wing outlet like CMI sister organization CNSNews.com, they are hopelessly liberal, and all liberal reporters inject their stories with liberal bias. That's just axiomatic in MRC-land.

Knoploh appears to be so invested in this mindset that she doesn't see her own bias, which causes her to impute motives she cannot possibly know. Such failures of logic may not fly at most places of employment, but they are embraced at the MRC.

Posted by Terry K. at 12:05 AM EST

Share This Post

Permalink

or centuries, Western civilization has prided itself in being founded on the Judeo-Christian traditions of intellectual thought. But then came the advent of a Darwinian worldview in the 1860s, which removed mankind from his lofty perch of special creation by God and placed humanity equal to (or beneath) animals, and the ascendancy of the progressive movement in the 1890s that intellectualized and codified Darwinian thinking into public policy, culture, medicine, education, law, politics and economics.

Humanists and social egalitarians of today contend that people are no higher or better than animals.

Now, because of perverse ideas of egalitarianism, modern society is reluctant to kill Tilikum, the killer whale who willfully killed three people on three different occasions, but instead we rationalize that it wasn't the whale's fault. SeaWorld, therefore, felt emboldened to conduct a big press conference with a back drop of the offending killer whale swimming carefree in his tank, while the body of the murdered Dawn Brancheau lies six feet underground in a cold, dark grave in Chicago, Ill.

America, is this justice? Have we not lost our way, our humanity and our moral virtue when a serial-murderer killer whale acting according to its name and nature can frolic in his holding tank in front of millions of people all over the world and not be killed for his multiple murderous acts? This makes no sense to me on any level.

-- Ellis Washington, March 6 WorldNetDaily column

Posted by Terry K. at 10:03 PM EST

Share This Post

Permalink

In a March 5 CNSNews.com article on comments made by Obama administration adviser Ezekiel Emanuel, Christopher Neefus noted that "Betsy McCaughey, the former lieutenant governor of New York State, wrote a commentary for the Wall Street Journal on Aug. 27, 2009, about Ezekiel Emanuel that was headlined, 'Obama’s Health Rationer-in-Chief.'" Neefus later added that "Emanuel came to be known as the 'deadly doctor' and by August was defending himself in TIME Magazine, saying he was taken out of context."

What Neefus failed to note, however, is that McCaughey -- who has a long history of making false and misleading claims about health care reform -- repeatedly distorted and took statements by Emanuel out of context. Indeed, McCaughey had to walk back her false assertion that Emanuel wanted to "eliminate" the Hippocratic Oath.

Indeed, in portraying Emanuel as the "deadly doctor," Neefus follows in McCaughey's footsteps by taking Emanuel's statements out of context:

In a 1996 paper written for a nonpartisan bioethics research group, the Hastings Center, Emanuel outlined a scenario in which people might decide in a public forum which health care treatments are “basic” and should be socially guaranteed, and which are not. He mentioned that some health care providers might consider not guaranteeing services to those “prevented from being or becoming participating citizens.”
 
“An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia,” wrote Emanuel.  “A less obvious example is guaranteeing neuropsychological services to ensure children with learning disabilities can read and learn to reason.”

In fact, as Media Matters noted, Emanuel was describing a "consensus" view on the issue, not his own personal beliefs, as Neefus suggests.

Posted by Terry K. at 12:45 PM EST

Share This Post

Permalink

Jim Fletcher's March 1 WorldNetDaily column looks at two upcoming books on President Obama, whom he describes as " the fellow I like to call 'The Man From Kenya.'" (Wait, -- wasn't Joseph Farah insisting that birthers weren't questioning Obama's citizenship?)

One, by David Remnick, is published by a major publisher, Knopf.  Fletcher dismisses it this way:

In fact, the whole project reminds me of that comical old saying, that description of flattering pieces written by fawning hacks: glow jobs. That journalistic epithet appears to be dead-on with this propaganda piece by Knopf and the White House.

Rounding out the press release for Remnick's book is the announcement that the book will also include letters Obama wrote to his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham. I find this interesting only if someone explains why her name was Stanley. Perhaps she was chummy with Oliver Hardy.

[...]

This book will worship Obama in a way that the commander-in-narcissism couldn't get away with in a memoir.

In fact, Dunham's name has been explained -- her father wanted a boy.

By contrast, Fletcher said this about Aaron Klein's upcoming Obama hatchet job:

The Manchurian President: Barack Obama's Ties to Communists, Socialists and Other Anti-American Extremists," by the investigative team of Aaron Klein and Brenda Elliott, will be released by WND Books.

I've seen an advance copy of the book and let me say this: You and I have never read anything like it and likely will not again. It is explosive like an atom bomb is "explosive." That is to say, "The Manchurian President" will reduce the Obama myth to a mere shadow as it blasts the political landscape upon release.

In fact, the book is so revealing in its investigation of this consummate change agent … well, I've put even my beloved Westie, Ralph, into witness protection (our other dog, a Jack Russell, is on his own). I can only imagine what kind of heat will come Klein's and Elliott's way.

[...]

I will go so far as to say that this book will be a key reason Obama will be a one-term, Jimmy Carter-esque president. It's that stunning. Klein and Elliott leave no stone or acorn unturned as they peel away the layers of Obama's public face. The thing underneath is flat-out scary. There is original research into Obama's ACORN ties, his giddiness over black liberation theology (a hallmark of leftist ideology) and the mysterious "college years."

It's important to remember that Fletcher is writing at (and presumably getting paid by) WorldNetDaily -- whose editor and CEO has turned in a positive blurb for one of Fletcher's books and is selling said book at the WND store -- and praising a book by a WND reporters that is published by WND.

In other words, Fletcher's opinion can't be trusted.

Posted by Terry K. at 12:34 AM EST

Share This Post

Permalink

In their morality, leftists are remarkably like Islamist radicals.

Islamists want the entire world ruled by a monolithic Caliphate theocracy, another flavor of collectivism.

And to achieve such domination over others, both leftists and Islamists are willing and eager to use both coercion and deceit.

[...]

But by leftist morality, it is virtuous to impose socialism and destroy capitalism. To them it makes no difference whether this is achieved by coercion, deceit, corruption or a coup d’etat against the Constitution and long-established Senate rules.

Under Barack Obama’s morality, the collective is everything and individuals like you are nothing.

Radical Democrats might share another value with radical Islamists. Both are ideologically zealous enough to become martyrs, throwing away their lives or careers to advance their collectivist cause.

[...]

The winning side of this culture war’s battle could determine whether the future of humankind for the next thousand years is collectivist or individualist. 

-- Lowell Ponte, March 4 Newsmax column

(By the way, reconciliation -- the process by which Democrats will apparently approve health care reform -- is not "a coup d’etat against ... long-established Senate rules"; it is in Senate rules.)

Posted by Terry K. at 11:23 PM EST

Share This Post

Permalink

Brent Baker asserts in a March 5 NewsBusters post that "the allegations against [Democratic Rep. Eric] Massa of inappropriate same-sex harassment parallel those against [former Republican Rep. Mark] Foley toward subordinates."

No, they don't. Massa is accused of "inappropriate" behavior toward an single employee, while Foley sent numerous inappropriate emails and explicit instant messages to several teenage House pages. Further, the Foley scandal also involved the widespread failure of Republican members of Congress and their staffs to appropriately address Foley's behavior; by contrast, there's no evidence that Democratic congressional leadership tried to cover up Massa's alleged behavior.

Posted by Terry K. at 11:15 AM EST

Share This Post

Permalink