MRC's Spin Fails Again on News Corp.'s RGA Donation Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's attempt to spin away News Corp.'s $1 million contribution to the Republican Governors Association gets another failed turn by Tim Graham, who uses an Aug. 18 NewsBusters post complaining that the Washington Post's article on the donation is "ruined by reality" because the Post also noted that "Until now, the News Corp./Fox political action committee had given 54 percent of its donations to Democrats and 46 percent to Republicans, according to the Center for Responsive Politics."
But as Ben Demiro of Media Matters points out, Graham ignores the key words "Until now" and the obvious implication that such a balance in News Corp.'s political contributions no longer exists due to the $1 million donation.
Like fellow MRC employee Dan Gainor before him, Graham can't point to a similar cash donation made by a news organization to a liberal political group, which would also seem to undermine his premist.
For most of Aug. 17, the above-the-nameplate story on WorldNetDaily's website was a piece by Bob Unruh on CNN's Jeffrey Toobin retracting a suggestion that Terry Lakin, the Army officer throwing away his career to promote birther fantasies, was racist.
Needless to say, WND does not treat its own retractions that way.
As we've detailed, WND makes its retractions as quietly as possible. One false story was simply deleted from WND's website without explanation; another was replaced with a completely different story with a note at the top that downplays the extent of the changes made.
And rather than the public shame WND tries to impose on Toobin and CNN, WND treats its falsehood promoters with great respect -- just a week after executive news editor Joe Kovacs wrote the story that had to be completely replaced, WND did a puff piece on his WND-published book.
WND has no publicly disclosed policy for dealing with corrections -- which is strange consideringallthefalsehoods that make it into print.
Newsmax's Walsh Smears Unemployed As Lazy, Greedy Topic: Newsmax
Apparently, all the people James Walsh hangs out with on his "Florida barrier island" are as reactionary as he is. From Walsh's Aug. 16 Newsmax column:
I purchase gas and some lottery tickets. Mom looks bewildered and says, “The lottery? You aren’t the type.” I reply, “As my eldest son says, it is a tax on the stupid, but I see it as a donation to the state. I would rather the state have it, than have Mr. Obama redistribute it.”
Mom’s eyes light up, “Can you imagine Obama and Congress passing 99 weeks of workers compensation for those lazy bums? Like clockwork at noon every day, they start filing in for 6 packs and 12 packs of beer and bottles of wine. At 6 or thereabouts, they wander over to the bar and stay for hours, even until dawn. I have found them sleeping on our gas islands. They couldn’t make it across the street.
"They joke about living off workers comp and welfare and their girlfriends’ paychecks. They say they will not work for peanuts and that the government owes them a living. These bums just expect handouts. What is Congress thinking? There are some legitimate unemployed but, these people never work.”
Mom sighs, “I get up at 5 every morning and start cleaning the area by 5:30. While our young people are fighting in Iraq, these loafers just demand more and more handouts. The bleeding hearts in Washington give it to them.”
Heading for the door, I say, “They vote and that is what the pols count on.” Mom’s parting words are, “They are too lazy to vote, unless they are paid. I saw it in Chicago and Milwaukee.”
Next I head for the supermarket. Gathering my groceries, I choose the checkout line manned by a retired businessman, who is working for the health benefits. His business in the Midwest employed 150 workers, but he sold it when the labor union problems began to intensify. He notes that, although his employees made more than he did, Obama would classify him as “the rich.”
He laments the class warfare mentality of the president and most Democrats but admits to being a lifelong Democrat. Current Democrats, he says, lack the stature of Harry Truman, Scoop Jackson, and Jack Kennedy. Today he has something to show me — a lengthy supermarket receipt for items including steaks, shrimp, and crab-meat purchased using a food stamps credit card.
The remaining balance on the card is in excess of $2,000.
“Wow,” I comment. “That is some card, some money, some good deal. Was it a local or a tourist?” He says it was a person who spoke very little English but managed to question the amount of the purchases.
The teenage bagger, hearing the conversation says, “I never saw $2,000 in my life. Some people get it all.”
A 60-something man behind me in line laughs, “What do you expect from the redistribution of wealth — Obama economics. It ain’t his money, and what’s ours is now everyone’s. You wanted change, and you are getting it. The Democrats have the greatest scam going — a sucker is born every minute.”
Walsh doesn't explain how the supermarket manager obtained a copy of the receipt or is able to speak so knowledgably about how much was purportedly on the "food stamps credit card."
New Article: WorldNetDaily Rewards Liars Topic: WorldNetDaily
WND executive Joe Kovacs penned a completely false article. Not only was he apparently not punished for it, WND did a puff piece on his book a week later. Read more >>
Gainor's False Equivocation on Media's Political Donations Topic: Media Research Center
The MRC's Dan Gainor writes in an Aug. 17 Twitter post regarding News Corp.'s recent $1 million donation to the Republican Governors Association: "Left up in arms about News Corp contributions. Open Secrets: Media contributions 3-1 Dem over Repub."
But Gainor doesn't really support his point. As evidence to support his claim, Gainor links to a OpenSecrets.org page titled "Books, Magazines & Newspapers: Top Contributors to Federal Candidates and Parties." But most of the entries on that page don't run news operations -- they publish magazines and books.
Of the organizations of the list that own news operations -- News Corp., Advance Publications, Newsmax Media, Ogden Newspapers, Greenspun Media Group, Landmark Media Enterprises, Harris Publications and Meredith Corp. -- only Meredith matches News Corp. for the amount of donations made by the company itself; all the other media firms' donations are by employees, not the company.
Further, News Corp. as an entity far outstripsthe political donations of others; it's listed as making $270,000 in donations. Meredith, by contrast, made only $23,550 in donations.
Oh, and Gainor offers no evidence of a news organization making a similar corporate cash contribution to a liberal political cause as News Corp. made to the RGA. Is that because there isn't such a thing?
Joseph Farah takes the lead in his column, which attacks Glenn Beck for not opposing gay marriage, which somehow demonstrates that he "shares a materialistic worldview with Marx, Engels and Saul Alinksy [sic]":
Beck doesn't care about one of the most blatant and despicable examples of judicial tyranny in the history of our country. He doesn't care about the institution of marriage and its 5,000-year history. He doesn't care that the Bible says God created marriage way back in Genesis and that Jesus affirmed that. He doesn't care that the family is the building block of a society and that smarter men have explained how you simply can't have freedom and self-governance without it. He also doesn't seem to care about what might become of children adopted into such unions.
That, my friends, is the perfect illustration of what's wrong with the materialist worldview – whether it is held by a raving Marxist or a conservative entertainer.
Farah was followed by his chief toady, David Kupelian, who like Farah argued that if you don't hate gays, you're not a real conservative:
Very simply, most people in today's America, including conservatives, are afraid of "the gay issue." Although most know deep down there's something wrong with homosexuality, they don't want to be called "intolerant," "bigoted," "hateful" or "homophobic." Even though they don't really want open gays in the military, and disapprove of same-sex marriage, are repulsed by Obama's appointment of notorious gay activist Kevin Jennings as the nation's "safe schools" czar, and on and on – the "gay issue" no longer registers on their radar screen as one on which they should take a public stand.
The answer is: You better care, because once gay marriage is legalized in America – something for which there is virtually no precedent in the 5,000 years of Western Civilization – your schools will be required to teach your children that homosexuality is totally normal, your pastors and rabbis will fear preaching their faith's core moral values, and gender confusion and immorality will reign supreme in America.
Moreover, polygamy will inevitably be legalized also, since there simply will no longer be any legal basis for keeping polygamy illegal. For Muslims living in the U.S., for whom polygamy is allowed under the Quran (up to four wives), we will see large numbers of polygamous marriages within the United States of America, just as there are in France today – where polygamy is still illegal! (The French so fear their Muslim subculture, they don't enforce the law. In fact, French taxpayers pay for free housing for many polygamous Muslims, subsidizing special multi-room apartment units to accommodate the various wives and their children.) And of course, polygamy's legalization in the U.S. will serve as a powerful magnet to draw vastly more Muslims to immigrate to the U.S., and no doubt will encourage more American men to convert to Islam to give religious cover to their dreams of convening their own personal harem.
Beyond man-man, woman-woman and polygamous "marriages," every other type of degenerate combination imaginable – and unimaginable – will be civilly sanctified in America as marriage. If two men can be married, then three men can be married. It's difficult to grasp just how perverse life will be in that kind of nightmare America.
Perhaps most ominous, the official normalization of homosexuality, including same-sex marriage, has the unique potential to undermine Christianity and render it effectively illegal.
The two competing worldviews cannot mutually co-exist: Traditional, Bible-believing Christians believe homosexuality – like adultery and fornication – is a serious sexual sin. On the other hand, the goal of gay rights is the total normalization and de-stigmatization of homosexuality, to render sexual orientation officially equivalent to race, color and gender as a minority characteristic to be protected. If the latter view becomes sanctified in American law and culture, then a person who expresses the belief that homosexuality is a sin will become a social outcast, like the Ku Klux Klansman is today. That is, opposing sexual immorality because it violates God's laws of life will be considered identical to, and equally reprehensible as, an irrational hatred of blacks and Jews.
Even Les Kinsolving, as is his wont, tries to get in on the gay-bashing festivities, embracing the fallacious reasoning that homosexuality equals pedophilia equals bestality equals necrophilia:
Surely there is an enormous majority of the United States that has very strong moral disapproval of the Massachusetts-based NAMBLA – the North American Man/Boy Love Association.
If the adult males in this organization can demonstrate to Judge Vaughn Walker of San Francisco that their young boyfriends are with them in bed by choice, why should moral disapproval be any proper basis to deny rights to adult pedophiles and their (often younger than teenage) lovers?
Will the New York Times also endorse a constitutional right for polygamy?
Polygamy's practitioners are so often arrested and imprisoned, though polygamists have nothing of the AIDS and syphilis rates of this nation's homosexuals, who co-habit with multiple partners.
Another alternative sexual orientation with none of the AIDS and syphilis rates of homosexuality are the zoophiliacs, or practitioners of bestiality.
Should this alternative orientation also be tolerated if the human practitioner can demonstrate that his animal lover did not resist or run away but willingly participated?
And when will there be such tolerance for that sexual orientation called necrophilia, or the sexual attraction to corpses?
Or for those who engage in incest? Does the New York Times editorial department believe that if marriage is a constitutional right for two men or two women that there also is a constitutional right of brothers to marry brothers (or their fathers) and sisters to marry their sisters (or mothers)? And if not, Times people, why not?
Remember when Christopher Ruddy hated Bill Clinton? Not any more. The rapproachement took a further step when Clinton actually paid a visit to Newsmax's offices, and had this picture taken of him and Ruddy:
The once great and powerful country called America now sits by and allows an insane tyrant Ahmadinejad to obtain nuclear weapons as the leftist in the White House takes a bow for imposing the toughest sanctions against Iran yet. Tough but worthless, Mr. President, and you better hope Iran doesn't give a bit of that radioactive material to some crazy friend who hates America. Heck, that person may be working for you! Your administration is filled with hate-America folks.
Members of this Chicago dictatorship view murderers like Mao Tse-Tung as their heroes. Saul Alinsky clones now head up many areas of government. What will become of this once great nation if this group is allowed to continue unchecked?
Have we lost our country? Are we now under a dictatorship? I am getting that very feeling more and more each day. I sense the people have lost any ability to change the course we are on. Even the media, who once protected us from government corruption, are delighted to aid in the destruction.
Congress arrogantly ignores the will of the people. Voters are now having their votes overturned by one judge. Meanwhile, the most powerful man in the free world plays footsies with dangerous and determined crackpots. All of this has me seriously asking the following question: Can we survive another two years of team Obama?
Can the elections in November honestly bring us back from a total meltdown of our nation?
Unlike any other time in U.S. history, our First Amendment freedoms of speech and religion are in jeopardy. As if recently passed "hate-crime" laws and a politically correct culture weren't bad enough, now our president is using international pressure and possibly law to establish a prohibition against insulting Islam or Muslims.
Let me remind us how we got here.
Speaking for most founders in his day, John Jay, America's first chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, appointed by George Washington himself, said, "Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers."
Two hundred years later, 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."
Then there was Cairo in June 2009, when President Obama vowed to establish "a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world … I also know civilization's debt to Islam. … I also know that Islam has always been a part of America's story. … And since our founding, American Muslims have enriched the United States. … So I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed."
Another big question is: What did the president mean when he said, "That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn't"? It makes no sense at all to refer to a partnership between a country and religion – America and Islam. Why not say partnership between America and Muslim nations or a partnership between Americans and Muslims or even a partnership between Christianity and Islam? That comment is very strange to me and has a much deeper meaning.
(Next week in Part 2, I will discuss how the Obama administration has changed course in just this past year regarding passing anti-First Amendment defamation of religion resolutions, as well as demonstrate how Obama has been prejudice in his treatment of Islam versus Christianity).
Aaron Klein's Mighty Wurlitzer Strikes Again Topic: WorldNetDaily
There's actually nothing all that interesting in Aaron Klein using his radio to get a member of Hamas to endorse building an Islamic community center near Ground Zero, as WorldNetDaily has promoted (and promoted and promoted). This fundamentally dishonest strategy is how Klein operates.
In 2008, Klein got a member of Hamas to "endorse" Barack Obama for president, and his book "Schmoozing With Terrorists" is filled with such conversations. As we detailed at the time, there's no evidence that the terrorists he gets to talk to him are aware of his ulterior strategy -- to use their words against them to inflame anti-Muslim sentiment in America.
That is likely the case with the Hamas endorsement of the mosque. Of course a group proclaiming itself to be Islamic and anti-American would endorse a mosque in New York -- that's not news. The point is that Klein did this interview with the explicit purpose of using the endorsement to inflame public sentiment against the mosque.
This has nothing to do with Hamas and everything to do with Aaron Klein. This isn't reporting; it's nothing more than Klein pressing a key on his Mighty Wurlitzer.
UPDATE: We expand on this a little over at Media Matters, where we also highlight that Klein's media strategy still relies on the terrorists being too stupid to figure out how he's using them.
Graham Pretends Angle Isn't An Extremist Topic: NewsBusters
The Media Research Center hates it when the media tells the truth about conservatives, and Tim Graham demonstrates it again in an Aug. 15 NewsBusters post, complaining that the Washington Post reported the indisputable fact that "It has not been especially difficult work" for Harry Reid to "exploit perceptions" that Sharron Angle, his Republican opponent for his Nevada Senate seat, "is a dangerous reactionary."
Graham even goes so far as to suggest than an extremist Christian-based movement isn't all that extremist. After noting that the Post reported that Reid has been promoting the idea that Angle is a Christian reconstructionist and that it is indeed true that "some of Angle's views mirror those of Christian Reconstructionists," Graham tries tochange the subject: "Of course, to any group of secular leftists, it's frightening for any conservative politician to talk about God, regardless of whether the Rushdoony arguments have a scintilla of merit."
As we've noted, reconstructionism endorses the idea of the death penalty for "moral crimes," such as homosexuality. While it may not be a movement of significant size -- indeed, the Post reports that it "dried up" after founder R.J. Rushdoony died -- it is significant if a candidate holds such views. Rather than investigating whether Angle does, Graham chose to play dumb instead -- whcih suggests that he knows it's true but won't admit it.
Further, as we've previously noted, Porter spearheaded a "May Day" rally at the Lincoln Memorial that was so sparsely attended that speakers to beg for money from the audience to defray the cost of staging it, and she lost her radio show after the evangelical Christian ministry that had been offering production and transmission services for it pulled the plug due to Porter's embrace of Christian dominionism.
Right Wing Watch notes that Porter has descended further into dominionism, speaking at a conference run by dominionists and Christian reconstructionists.
It's unlikely that WND canceled Porter's column -- after all, WND editor Joseph Farah holds reconstructionist views, and WND tolerateslies (and perhaps even encourages them) as long as they're about its political enemies, like President Obama. So the evidence points to Porter abandoning it, for whatever reason.
Caruba uses his Aug. 16 CNSNews.com column to one-up Washington in Obama derangement via likening him to various vile historical figures and go where even Washington didn't:
On November 18, 1978 the world was shocked to learn that more than 900 members of the People’s Temple had committed suicide in Jonestown, Guyana. They took their lives – drinking poisoned Kool-Aid -- at the urging of Jim Jones, charismatic preacher who founded the Temple in the 1950s in Indiana, later moving it to California and then to Guyana.
It is increasingly evident with every passing day that Barack Obama is America’s Jim Jones, undermining the U.S. Constitution while urging Americans to drink his Kool-Aid lies. Need a reminder? Here are a few:
Stimulus Act Kool-Aid Obamacare Kool-Aid Financial Reform Kool-Aid Reach out to Muslims Kool-Aid Mosque at Ground Zero Kool-Aid Amnesty for illegal Aliens Kool-Aid Bailout General Motors Kool-Aid Cash-for-Clunkers Kool-Aid Union Card Check Kool-Aid Green Jobs Kool-Aid Close Down Gitmo Kool-Aid Climate Change Kool-Aid Regulate Carbon Dioxide Kool-Aid Gulf Oil Drilling Moratorium Kool-Aid
WND Columnist: We Need More White Babies! Topic: WorldNetDaily
America, we have a problem. We are killing our babies and our posterity through abortion, birth control and by intentionally limiting our family size to one or two children. I'd like to ask a tough question of those most incensed about the anchor babies.
God said to "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth" (Genesis 1:27).
What have you done to uphold or restore this God-given mandate?
The good news is that there is a recent trend back toward "large" families, although that definition is certainly different than in our grandparents' day. My great-great grandfather was one of 11 siblings, a story often heard about that era of mid 19th to early 20th century America. We now define a "large" family as three or more.
Please understand that I don't criticize childless couples or "small" families. Every married couple should seek God's plan for their family and then trust Him to direct the size. However, the reality is that most of us do not do so but decide we are going to play God. My wife and I did that in our early marriage.
After we were blessed with both a boy and a girl, we decided we could not afford more and weren't sure we still wanted the original four we had "planned." Thankfully, after a five-year "disobedience" period, we were challenged by Bill Gothard at an Advanced Seminar of Institute in Basic Life Principles to turn the reigns back over to a loving God.
Lisa Renee, Jennifer Michelle, Rebecca Leigh and Richard Douglas were added as blessings to our quiver, joining David Jr. and Stephanie Joy. We of course cannot imagine life without them, and only regret those five years in wondering who else God had planned to bless us with.
I also remember the response of many in our conservative, evangelical church when we became pregnant with No. 3 and No. 6 in particular – both times it was essentially, "Oh, you are one of those families." Thanks to leaders like Bill Gothard, whose leadership birthed the homeschool movement, that paradigm has changed a little in the church.
As a nation, we have not changed and in other critical ways are continuing our destructive ways. Removing Hispanic births from the equation, we are below the replacement rate to sustain our nation.
Melissa Clouthier writes in an Aug. 15 NewsBusters post:
So Matt Lewis writes a column decrying, I think, the Political climate's nastiness. I say, I think, because after reading it, I'm not quite sure what he's saying.
Matt brings up two pieces of evidence: Matt Yglesias saying that lying is okay was one distressing example. Well, duh. Yglesias is a liberal and I have yet to read a liberal blogger who doesn't believe the ends justify the means. There is no true objective truth, after all. And, really, lying is fine, if a greater truth is served yada yada. This is not new. Nor is it shocking. Everything from science (Al Gore and global warming) to social science (single mothering is as good as dual-parent families) to religion (Christianists!) to media coverage is manipulated to serve the statist i.e. Democratic good. And to make the arguments, lying isn't just recommended, it's necessary.
Here’s another thing: In basketball, there is a winner and a loser. There are two teams. Some politicians and pundits get all mushed up and confused. They act as though we’re in a system where getting along means winning. No, it doesn’t. Getting along means Democrats winning, because getting along means compromising on government programs which, by definition, expands the size, scope and reach of the government. When compromise wins, government wins. People lose.
So, how does Clouthier's mindless liberal-bashing fit in with NewsBusters' declared mission of "Exposing & Combating Liberal Media Bias"? Near as we can tell, it doesn't.
Clouthier obviously has the right to be as hateful as she wants -- indeed, her entry was cross-posted on another blog. But shouldn't NewsBusters have editorial standards that keep the blog from straying from his declared (not to mention tax-status-mandated) mission?