Kagan's educational and professional biography reveals disturbing associations with some of the country's best-known leftist radicals and judicial activists, including Bill Clinton, President Barack Obama (the most leftist president in American history) and liberal activist judges Abner Mikva and Thurgood Marshall, whom Kagan clerked for in 1987 and 1988, respectively.
Until Congress gets the guts to do its sacred constitutional duty, to impeach all progressive and socialist activist judges whose jurisprudence imposes social justice (Marxism) rather than equal justice under rule of the law, until Congress begins to purge the judiciary of all judges who legislate from the bench and pervert the ideas of the constitutional framers, then political scoundrels like President Barack Obama and other future presidents will continue to insult the collective intelligence of America by nominating such an unremarkable, anti-intellectual anti-constitutionalist as U.S. Solicitor General Elena Kagan.
This time, Klein asserts that Kagan was a "listed member" of and donated money to a "pro-abortion group," the National Partnership for Women & Families. At no point does Klein identify where Kagan was a "listed member"; while Kagan has previously described herself as a member of the group, she also stated in a questionnaire for her nomination for solicitor general that "I have no current memory of whether such contributions ever made me a member of this organization." That seems to run contrary to Klein's assertion that Kagan was a "listed member" of the group.
Klein also misportrays the nature of the group she may or may not have been a "member" of. As Media Matters details, the National Partnership for Women & Families "promote[s] fairness in the workplace, reproductive health and rights, access to quality affordable health care, and policies that help women and men meet the dual demands of work and family." Portraying it only as an abortion-related group is highly dishonest.
But hey, dishonesty is what Klein is all about when it comes to "reporting" on Kagan.
MRC's Waters Outs His Secret Commenting Identity: Will MRC Punish Him? Topic: Media Research Center
Via Romenesko, we learn that Clay Waters, operator of the Media Research Center's TimesWatch, accidentally (maybe) posted the same comment on a Columbia Journalism Review article under both his own name and that of a pseudonym, "SamTyler."
This obviously raises serious ethical questions -- namely, why is a supposedly professional media analyst resorting to pseudonymous media criticism on media websites? It is, at a minimum, clearly unprofessional.
Yet, we have as of this writing seen no response from the MRC regarding this, or it Waters has been disciplined for his unprofessional behavior. Meanwhile, Waters has continued to post items at TimesWatch, suggesting that any discipline, if indeed there was any, was mild at best.
The MRC's silence is strange given that it has a record of disdaining the use of pseudonyms -- a 1989 MRC article was offended to find out that the person who wrote for CJR under the name William Boot was not using his real name.
Ah, the irony: Writing for CJR under a fake name was offensive, but Waters sees no apparent problem hiding his real identity when commenting at CJR.
UPDATE: The scandal grows: Turns out that Waters, as "SamTyler," has posted comments at his nemesis (and our employer), Media Matters, despite the fact that the "MRC, as a rule, doesn’t comment on Media Matters."
MRC's Baker Endorses Military Insubordination Toward Obama Topic: Media Research Center
In a May 14 NewsBusters post, Media Research Center vice president Brent Baker dismisses as "sycophantic" at a new book by Jonathan Alter on Barack Obama's first year in office, and goes on to portray an anecdote from the book cited by Alter in an appearance on the "Today" show as "a laudatory anecdote about Obama told to him by self-interested members of Obama's staff," in which "Obama supposedly lectured those who dared criticize him," specifically military generals.
But Baker didn't tell the rest of the story. From a May 3 Associated Press article:
President Barack Obama reprimanded top Pentagon officials last year for pressing publicly for a troop increase in Afghanistan.
That's according to "The Promise," a book on Obama's first year in office by Newsweek writer Jonathan Alter. It goes on sale May 19.
The book says Obama laid into Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs Chairman Mike Mullen in an Oval Office meeting last October.
Obama was irked by the leak of a confidential report by Gen. Stanley McChrystal calling for an expanded military presence in Afghanistan, and by McChrystal saying he could not support a strategy relying on special forces and unmanned drone attacks.
Obama was conducting a lengthy review of operations in Afghanistan at the time. He largely sided with the generals and agreed to deploy 30,000 more troops.
So Obama wasn't merely "lecturing those who dared criticize him." He was criticizing generals who were trying to influence policy by speaking outside the military chain of command and through strategic leaks to the media.
It seems that Baker is endorsing military subordination against the President of the United States. Does anyone think Baker would encourage this behavior if these generals were doing the same thing to a Republican president?
Also, Baker's knee-jerk description of a book he has clearly not read as "sycophantic" is, unsurprisingly, at odds with the facts. A Washington Post review of the book by Matthew Dallek points out that Alter's book "reveals the gap between Obama's image as a great orator and his flagging efforts to communicate his policies lucidly," and notes that his administration "lost control of the message on bailouts, health care and jobs," and that "He is seen having difficulty escaping 'the bubble' and anticipating how the politics will unfold on a given issue." Some sycophant.
WND Columnist: Women on Birth Control Are Like Rutting Cattle Topic: WorldNetDaily
After starting her May 15 WorldNetDaily column with an anecdote about trying to keep a bull from impregnating a cow because "we didn't want a calf born in the middle of winter," Patrice Lewis finds a disturbing analogy she likes and runs with it:
Right now feminists are celebrating the 50th anniversary of the Pill, lauding its effects and congratulating society for allowing women to act like rutting cattle. See how far we've advanced in the past half-century?
Just think of the implications if America kept its pants on. If women kept their bloomers buttoned. If men kept their wick zipped.
But no, instead we got the Pill, lauded by feminists the world over for allowing us to rut like cattle.
"For the first time in human history," says Letty Cottin Pogrebin, a founding editor of Ms. Magazine, "a woman could control her sexuality and determine her readiness for reproduction by swallowing a pill smaller than an aspirin. Critics warned that the Pill would spawn generations of loose, immoral women; what it spawned was generations of empowered women who are better equipped to make rational choices about their lives."
Empowered, that's it. Women acting like rutting cattle are empowered.
Proponents of the Pill point out the ability for couples to plan their families rather than having more kids than they can support. While the Pill has undoubtedly been used for this, it's pretty obvious the majority of women who take it aren't planning families with their husbands. They're single women enjoying the freedom to rut like cattle with no side effects. And if there should be a "side effect," then Planned "Parenthood" (what a laughable name) stands in the wings waiting to "liberate" them. Gosh, I feel empowered.
Economic historian Claudia Goldin says, "The Pill was a great 'enabler.' With the Pill, large numbers of college women could embark on careers that involved long-term, up-front time commitments in education and training as physicians, lawyers, veterinarians, managers and academics, among others. The Pill fostered women's careers by effectively lowering the costs of training."
Well, for Pete's sake, it's the easiest thing in the world to obtain all the education and career advancements you want. You simply keep your pants on. But this isn't good enough for "liberated" women. Somehow they've concluded that mindless rutting is empowering.
Sure, go ahead and rut like an animal, sweetie. I hope it makes you feel empowered.
Are feminists telling me they can't control themselves? That, like our cow in heat, they are mindlessly controlled by hormones? That they are incapable of keeping their pants on and therefore need artificial methods to allow them to advance their careers between sessions of mindless rutting? This is empowerment?
Oh, and it gets better, for she explains how she handled her impregnated cow problem:
Because of our cow's ill-timed heat cycle, we will be giving her a shot of Lutalyse (an abortant) so she won't have her calf in the middle of a bitterly cold north Idaho winter. Bingo, problem solved.
But is this really how you want to "solve" the problem of your teenage daughter's ill-timed pregnancy? A quick trip to Planned Parenthood and bingo, an abortion? Have we really "advanced" this much?
I suppose 50 years of the Pill has done some good. It's shown us that returning to the roots of our morality isn't such a bad thing. It's demonstrated that sinking into the depths of hedonism doesn't bring lifelong peace and joy.
C'mon, folks, don't let a bunch of cows show us up. Keep your pants on, America.
This sounds like a job for Amanda Marcotte (who has, coincidentally, written on a related subject).
When you don't care about reporting all the facts -- as WorldNetDaily has repeatedlydemonstrated it doesn't when it comes to birther lawyer Orly Taitz -- you come off as a lazy, biased hack. And that's exactly what Bob Unruh looks like in a May 11 WND article promoting a lawsuit against one of Taitz's opponents for secretary of state.
Unruh's first bit of lazy hackery in his article is to bury the connection between the filer of the lawsuit, Pamela Barnett, and Taitz. Unruh describes Barnett as "a lead plaintiff in the case Barnett v. Obama that sought a court ruling that Obama does not qualify to be president under the Constitution's demand for the president to be a 'natural born citizen.'" Unruh adds, "Some of the plaintiffs in the case were represented by Taitz, an attorney and dentist who has spearheaded several of the high-profile cases against Obama. Other plaintiffs were represented by Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation."
What Unruh never states: Taitz represented Barnett in the case. Kreep, as we've noted, represented only two plaintiffs, Wiley Drake and Markham Robinson, who were originally represented by Taitz but switched to Kreep because they believed Taitz was "in over her head."
Unruh also curiously mentions another connection between the two: Barnett is apparently managing Taitz's campaign for secretary of state. This raises serious conflict-of-interest questions -- namely, whether Barnett is acting under Taitz's orders in filing the lawsuit -- but because Unruh is a lazy hack, that question goes unexplored.
Unruh's second bit of lazy hackery is ignoring evidence that the Barnett/Taitz lawsuit is without merit.
The lawsuit claims that Damon Dunn, who's competing with Taitz for the Republican nomination for California secretary of state, is not qualifed to run because he was registered as a Democrat less than a year before running as a Republican, which state law prohibits. We'll let the OC Weekly explain:
Dunn freely admits to being a "recovering non-voter" who made his voice heard at the polls for the first time in last May's special election on ballot measures. He has said that he registered shortly prior to that election--as a Republican.
That checks out. OC voter registration records show Dunn registered as a Republican on March 17, 2009. He then voted absentee in the May 19 election.
But a Sacramento Bee article from November of last year says that Dunn previously registered as a Democrat. Taitz has seized upon that information, claiming that Dunn was technically a Democrat until he registered as a Republican last year, and thus fails the test of not being affiliated with another party within a year of filing to run.
Taitz, though, hasn't checked her facts. According to database records, Dunn registered as a Democrat in Jacksonville, Florida on May 12, 1999. Dunn spokesman Hector Barajas says this happened while he was playing football for the Jacksonville Jaguars and was snagged by a DMV "motor voter" registration drive.
Dunn's Florida registration is now expired, according to Angelia Wiggins of the Duval County Registrar of Voters. According to Florida law, she says, if the registrar's mail to your registered address begins bouncing back, as it did for Dunn, your registration becomes inactive. If you then fail to vote in two consecutive federal elections, your registration expires. That's what happened to Dunn, leading his Democratic registration in Florida to become void on June 16, 2005.
Unless Dunn was registered elsewhere between then and now--and Taitz has presented no evidence that he was--Dunn should be fine, legally.
That OC Weekly article was posted on May 8 -- three days before Unruh's article. Unruh could have included this information in this article, but he didn't. Instead, all he does is quote a Dunn spokesman saying about Taitz, You're looking at someone who's really trying to get her name in the paper."
And in Unruh, we are looking at someone who's a lazy, biased hack. There's really no other way to describe it.
WND, CNS Published Buchanan's Jew-Bashing Column Topic: WorldNetDaily
Pat Buchanan has gotten a lot of attention, and not the good kind, for his May 14 column essentially claiming that there are too many Jews on the Supreme Court and lamenting the lack of white Protestants on the court.
Any chance WND or CNS will explain why they found Buchanan's column acceptable to publish despite his borderline anti-Semitic statements? Well, we know WND doesn't care; after all, it decided one Ann Coulter column wasn't offensive enough and restored an attack on Helen Thomas that had been removed by Coulter's syndicate.
In political campaigns, we consultants are always seeking opportunities for our candidates to speak for themselves without passing through the prism of editorial and journalistic opinion. We buy ads, we schedule debates, we set up town hall meetings, all to reach and communicate directly with the public without media intermediaries.
Imagine the frustration of a dead historical figure from the past, now able to communicate with modern generations only through the distorted lens of history. If you think journalists are bad, wait until you meet historians!
Now, Daniel Ruddy has freed former President Theodore Roosevelt from these shackles and given him a chance to address us directly, articulating his view of American history without the varnish of modern historical fashion. In his new book, Theodore Roosevelt's History of the United States, Ruddy has mined the words of the great man and organized them into a newly created history of the US up to the time of TR's death in 1919.
But the most fascinating aspect of Ruddy's history is what it tells us about our modern era. As we see history through the eyes of a president writing from 1890-1919, we realize how distorted is our view of our past. We come to see that to take for granted what we have been told about our ancestors is a bit like only learning about our modern era from the New York Times! We come to realize a need to step outside of ourselves and learn about the past as our ancestors saw it without the bias and prejudice with which a largely liberal group of historians has jaundiced it.
Daniel Ruddy, by the way, is Christopher Ruddy's brother. The latter disclosed this conflict of interest in his column shilling for the book; Morris does not.
Then again, Morris has a history of failing to disclose his personal or financial interests in the causes he shills for.
P.S. The logrolling isn't confined to the website. The May issue of Newsmax's magazine contains Christopher Ruddy's column on Roosevelt -- as well as a full-page ad for Daniel Ruddy's book.
Laura Bush Derangement Syndrome Topic: WorldNetDaily
America is getting soft on sin.
The latest example is Laura Bush coming out of the closet on her views in favor of abortion and same-sex marriage – just in time to promote her new book.
It's really sad.
Man's ways are not God's ways. That's tough for people to swallow. But, if you read the Bible and accept it as God's Word, you can't come to any other conclusion. Sure, you can make up your own rules. You can do what's right in your own eyes. But it always ends badly when you do.
I'm sorry to hear Laura Bush is at war with God.
She's probably a role model to many American women.
I truly hope she repents for misleading so many and encouraging our culture to follow man's laws at the expense of God's.
'The Least Informative Elena Kagan Discussion Ever' Topic: CNSNews.com
How lame was CNSNews.com's panel discussion of Elena Kagan? Right Wing Watch has the answer:
When I saw that Ed Whelan of the Ethics and Public Policy Center and Carrie Severino of the Judicial Crisis Network had spent nearly an hour discussing Elena Kagan's nomination to the Supreme Court with Terry Jeffrey, editor in chief of CNSNews.com, I certainly wasn't expecting it to be exciting.
But I didn't expect it to be downright painful ... but that is exactly what it was, as Jeffrey tried to use the Citizen's United decision, which he held up as a fundamental victory for the First Amendment, to make the case that Kagan should have resigned her position as Solicitor General rather than try to strip Americans of their basic rights.
To their credit, both Whelan and Severino repeatedly shot down Jeffrey's claims ... but it didn't matter, as every explanation they offered just seemed to further convince Jeffrey that government lawyers and Supreme Court justices and basically all lawyers are morally unfit to hold public office on the grounds that they are willing to argue positions with which they might not agree.
All of this eventually leads Jeffrey to start asking random hypothetical questions about whether an anti-choice Solicitor General who worked for a pro-choice administration would be morally fit to hold the office ... as if that is relevant to anything at all.
Alan Caruba, Amateur Media Critic Topic: Accuracy in Media
Alan Caruba has decided he wants to demonstrate the difference between right-wing media critics and real media analysts in his May 12 Accuracy in Media column:
If I were to date the rapid decline of both newsmagazines, I would point to the endless succession of weekly covers from 2008 onward that featured Barack Hussein Obama or his wife Michelle. Not since Princess Diana has anyone received such constant exposure beyond their inherent merit.
A newsmagazine or newspaper must retain its credibility if it is to have any hope of retaining its readers. It also helps if it hopes to retain its advertisers as well.
I am not discounting the obvious impact that the Internet and all manner of technology has had on these two organs of news, but I am suggesting that the availability of a vast amount of alternative, valid, documented, and reasoned information has rendered them useless by comparison.
Caruba thus joins the right-wingers like the Media Research Center in claiming that the only logical reason Newsweek could be failing is because it publishes article that conflict with its worldview, thus giving short shrift to the actual reasons it's occuring. We don't recall Caruba biased editorial content for the impending demise of the Washington Times, though the logic is exactly the same.
Klein, Elliott Dishonestly Respond to Criticism of Their Book Topic: WorldNetDaily
Why don't Aaron Klein and Brenda J. Elliott want to have an honest discussion about their WorldNetDaily-published book "The Manchurian President"?
We don't know. Instead of that honest discussion, they have instead chosen to misrepresent criticism of the book issued by me and my employer, Media Matters.
A May 6 WorldNetDaily column by Klein -- curiously published the day before under Elliott's name on her blog, The Real Barack Obama -- purports to respond to a blog post by my Media Matters colleague Simon Maloy heaping deserved ridicule on the tenditious guilt-by-association evidence Klein cites to claim that Obama was under the sway on William Ayers as an 11-year-old child through the Sunday school he attended. Klein is apparently devoid of a sense of humor, for he twists that blog post around to misrepresenting it as claiming that this was the only evidence Klein had presented of an Obama-Ayers link:
Media Matters, however, simply quoted from the opening of the new book's chapter on Ayers – 3 pages out of a 17-page chapter – clearly giving the impression the entire chapter focuses simply on that one aspect of Obama's boyhood years and that I do not have any other documentation linking Obama to Ayers.
The rest of Klein's (or Elliott's?) column reads like it was taken from the book's PR kit for all the empty boilerplate praise it spews forth.
Meanwhile, in a May 6 RBO post, Elliott takes offense at another blog post by Maloy, this time taking aim at more ridiculous aspects of the book, such as its sninster red-drenched cover, with (supposedly) Obama's eyes framed to give, as Maloy writes, "the unmistakable impression that the President of the United States is peering out at you from behind a keffiyeh." Elliott demonstrated she has the same sense of humor as Klein:
Anyone with half an ounce of common sense can clearly identify a sheet of paper with a printed red marble design that has a strip torn out. The mismatched edges are clearly visible.
Who knew there was such a thing as Toreador Red?
And then we have the reference to a keffiyeh, which is a “traditional headdress typically worn by Arab men made of a square of cloth (“scarf”), usually cotton, folded and wrapped in various styles around the head.” Perhaps Maloy should have taken the time to do a bit of research. Maybe he meant a Tagelmust (left), which has “the appearance of both a veil and a turban.”
Close but no cigar? Not even.
Then she linked to a MoveOn-published book with a similar cover.
Klein ranted further about Media Matters on the May 9 edition of his WABC radio show. He repeated the same misrepresentation about Maloy's Sunday school blog as he did at WND -- "This is an absolute smear against my book!" he exclaimed -- then highlighted a different Maloy post (this one more focused on the clownish Matthew Vadum -- who had expressed his pride that his questionable "research" was cited in the book -- than Klein) calling the book "a sloppy, guilt-by-association smear job that features some of the worst, most dishonest 'journalism' the right has to offer." This totally set Klein off:
That's it. No proof that it is sloppy or dishonest. In fact, I can guarantee you that Media Matters is going through page after page, footnote after footnote of this book, and they have not yet until today, with all of the smears of the book, released one piece of false information in this book. They have not found one mistake in this book. They have not found one piece of, quote, dishonest journalism in the book. So to just blindly say that this book is a "smear job that features some of the worst, most dishonest 'journalism' the right has to offer" without giving one proof, one piece of evidence that the book has anything in it that is sloppy or dishonest, well, to me that is sloppy and dishonest, and that is a total attempt to smear my book, whicih I guess I should be proud of. ... "Dishonest journalism" -- how dare they? How dare Media Matters lob such a claim without any evidence whatsoever?
What Klein didn't tell you: Two days after that latest Maloy post -- and two days before Klein's radio show -- I published a detailed analysis of Klein's book at Media Matters demonstrating the false claims, discredited conspiracy theories, birther arguments, deceptive editing, and guilt by association Klein uses.
In other words, Klein appears to be lying. Sloppy and dishonest, anyone? (Later in the show, he does claim he was emailed the analysis during a commercial break.)
At this writing, it has been a week since that analysis was published, and Klein has said absolutely nothing about it, let alone make any attempt to rebut it.
Meanwhile, Elloitt's attempt to rebut my analysis was lame at best, focusing only on the claim in the book that Ayers "may have" written Obama's book "Dreams From My Father" and, even more narrowly, on Oxford don Peter Millican's debunking of the conspiracy theory:
Media Matters provides a fair amount of disinformation regarding its top item, our statement that unrepentant 60s terrorist, and longtime Barack Obama associate and Hyde Park neighbor, Bill Ayers, “may have ghostwritten” Obama’s 1995 autobiography, ‘Dreams From My Father.’
Not only does the meaning of “may have” escape Media Matters but it also discounts what it calls “purported evidence” we attribute to WND columnist Jack Cashill. Cashill has conducted extensive research on the possible Ayers’ collaboration since 2008.
Media Matters profers two pieces of key disinformation to support its contentions.
1. “Oxford don conducted computer study, found claim to be ‘very implausible.’” As cited below, the “Oxford don”, Peter Millican, clearly states on his website that he did not conduct a computer study.
2. “The Sunday Times of London reported on November 2, 2008, that Peter Millican, a philosophy don at Hertford College, Oxford, who ‘devised a computer software program that can detect when works are by the same author by comparing favourite words and phrases,’ was contacted by Republican activists who offered him $10,000 to ‘assess alleged similarities’ between Dreams From My Father and Ayers’ book Fugitive Days.”
First, Elliott writes:
The fact is that it was not The Sunday Times of London who reported about Millican on November 2, 2008. On that date, the newspaper published two articles that were written by Peter Millican and submitted to it for publication.
In fact, only one of the articles cited is a column by Millican. The second is in fact, a news article carrying the byline of "Sarah Baxter in Washington." It's an article about Millican's claims, sure, but it's not a column by Millican.
The rest of the article nitpicks about how much analysis Millican did of the comparison, ultimately dismissing him as "obviously not unbiased in his assessment." And Jack Cashill is unbiased? Please.
At no point does Elliott note that the book has no mention whatsoever of Millican's analysis; instead, she presents only the conspiracy-minded claims of Cashill and biographer Christopher Andersen -- who, in part, was relying on Cashill.
That's it. That's all Klein and Elliott have had to say about this substantial criticism of their book. Are they afraid of the truth? Or do they just want to tell it where I'm not watching?
I guess I won't be going on Klein's radio show anytime soon, even I'm probably the most knowledgable person in the country about the book and its claims (besides the authors, of course). It seems that these two are little more than gutless wonders who are eager to smear but go into hiding when they're directly challenged and are afraid to honestly confront their accusers.
Obama is not a fool. He is not incompetent. He is not a madman. He knows exactly what he's doing. He is purposely overwhelming the U.S. economy to create systemic failure, economic crisis and social chaos – thereby destroying capitalism and our country from within. But the bonus is brilliant: As he taxes to death business owners, he also cripples his political opposition.
Rahm Emanuel cynically said, "You never want a crisis to go to waste." It is now becoming clear that the crisis he was referring to is Obama's presidency. As Glenn Beck correctly predicted from day one, Obama is following the plan of Cloward and Piven, two professors at Obama's Columbia University. They created a devious plan to socialize America by overwhelming the system with government spending and entitlement demands. Add up the clues below. Taken individually, they're alarming. Taken as a whole, it is a Machiavellian game plan to overwhelm the system and turn the U.S. into a socialist/Marxist state with a permanent majority that desperately needs government for survival.
Make Puerto Rico a state. Why? Who's asking for a 51st state? Who's asking for millions of new welfare recipients and government-entitlement addicts in the middle of a depression? Obama's plan all along has been to use Puerto Rico to add new Democratic senators, House members and loyal Democratic voters who are dependent on big government. Who but a socialist revolutionary would support this reckless scheme in the middle of a depression? Why now? There is only one answer – OVERWHELM THE SYSTEM.
Jackie Mason Suddenly Likes Black People Topic: WorldNetDaily
Jackie Mason's latest WorldNetDaily video begins with a rant that Obama didn't nominate a black person to the Supreme Court and hasn’t nominated a black person to a job "that's any good or any important or has any top quality to it or top level about it." Um, Eric Holder?
By contrast, Mason insisted, President Bush "surrounded himself with nothing but black people in the White House. You would think white people didn't even exist in America."
Mason eventually acknowledged that Holder is in the Obama cabinet, complains Obama hasn’t nominated any other blacks in the cabinet.
Then Mason says, "I wanted him to be president so we could have more nominations of black people in top jobs." Really? Isn't this the same guy who denigrated Obama as a "schvartze"? Isn't this the same guy who cried reverse racism by complaining, "Black people say the most racist things every day about white people. How come they're never defensive about it?"
Is Mason's sudden love for black people his idea of a joke? It's hard to tell, since his Obama-bashing rants have not been known for the existence of anything remotely humorous.