Sycophantically quoting yet another attack on President Obama by "talk-radio titan" Rush Limbaugh, this time for going to India, Fitzpatrick writes:
Obama's trip to Mumbai reportedly will cost American taxpayers "a whopping $200 million per day" according the Press Trust of India.
President and Mrs. Obama are reportedly bringing along a tremendous entourage of about 3,000 people, ranging from U.S. government officials to journalists to Secret Service agents to private chefs, for a two-day visit beginning Nov. 6.
Since Fitzpatrick is apparently only interested in copy-and-pasting instead of doing actual reporting, it should be no surprise to learn that the claim is bogus.
According to Media Matters, White House spokesman Matt Lehrich responded, "The numbers reported in this article have no basis in reality. Due to security concerns, we are unable to outline details associated with security procedures and costs, but it's safe to say these numbers are wildly inflated."
Fitzpatrick could have done that, but he chose not to. In WorldNetDaily, he seems to have found a place that will tolerate his lazy "reporting" since bashing Obama is more important than the facts.
Newsmax Repeats Bogus Attack on Gore Topic: Newsmax
An Oct. 31 Newsmax article reports that, according to the UK's Daily Mail, "Climate crusader Al Gore did his part to warm the planet last week, leaving his car idling for an hour as he gave a lecture on sustainable development in Sweden." But there's no evidence that this ever happened.
The Daily Mail sourced its claim to Marc Morano's Climate Depot, which, in turn, repeats a claim by "journalist and communications consultant" Einar Du Rietz that is "Reprinted from CFACT.EU." But both CFACT.EU and Climate Depot are operated by the same group, the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, and Du Reitz offers no proof to back up his claim.
Meanwhile, a Gore spokesman told Media Matters that the story is false and that Gore did not leave his car idling.
Four days after its original post, Climate Depot appended an update asserting that "Swedish Newspaper GT Expressen Has Photographic Proof & Eyewitnesses of Gore's Limo Idling." But the GT Expressen article (translation) cites no "eyewitnesses," and the "photographic proof" -- a picture of a guy standing next to a car -- is hardly proof of anything. (GT Expressen is a right-leaning tabloid.)
A day later, Climate Depot appended another update noting Gore's denial and adding:
Rebuttal to Gore: 'Our post is accurate. The bottom line is this: Al Gore continues to arrogantly refuse to make himself available to journalistic inquiry. Mr. Gore continues to make travel and lifestyle choices that reveal his belief that making do with less is for you and me, but not for him.'
But Climate Depot has yet to offer any actual proof to back up its claim, and it has never conclusively demonstrated that its "post is accurate."
As we've detailed, Morano, a former reporter for CNSNews.com, has a history of pushing bogus attacks on global warming.
NewsBusters' Blumer Still Blames Liberal Bias for Newspaper Woes Topic: NewsBusters
Two years ago, we detailed how NewsBusters' Tom Blumer believes the only possible explanation for shrinking newspaper circulation is those papers' supposed liberal bias, ignoring all other, more plausible causes. He's still at it.
Blumer took a stab at advancing the false meme again in an Oct. 31 NewsBusters post:
As usual, they'll blame the Internet, and reject the possibility that persistent, pervasive bias and blind adherence to politically correct reporting priorities have anything to do with the results. But as I've similarly asked before, how does one explain away the fact that the only daily paper in the nation's top 25 that has shown consistent gains during the past several years is the (usually) fair and balanced Wall Street Journal?
[...]
Excluding the Wall Street Journal, circulation at the nation's top two dozen papers has dropped over 28% in the past 5-1/2 years -- and we're supposed to believe that it's all due to technology? If bias weren't a signfiicant problem, we would expect that the same players who dominated print media for decades would be dominant forces in Internet-based news -- but to a large extent, they're not.
Blumer ignores the fact that aside from the Wall Street Journal -- whose circulation presumably has more to do with its $15 million effort to move into local news in New York City than the overall quality of its reporting, which is becoming as conservative as the paper's editorial pages -- other conservative newspapers have seen circulation drops (i.e. the New York Post). Most notably, the Washington Times has plunged by nearly half in the past two years.
Technology is a bigger issue than Blumer makes it out to be. Much of the content of newspapers like the Washington Post and the New York Times is free (though both papers offer electronic subscriptions), which much of the content of the Journal is behind a pay wall, requiring a subscription to access it. The Journal is by far the biggest e-newspaper with nearly 450,000 electronic subscriptions. Since e-subscriptions count toward total circulation, that boosts the Journal's circulation numbers.
So Blumer is still wrong and, like his MRC bretheren, still too blindered by its "liberal bias" tunnel vision to bother with the facts.
WND's Farber: Liberals No Different From Nazis Topic: WorldNetDaily
During World War II, America launched a "de-Nazification" campaign to try to erase Hitlerism from the hearts and minds of German POWs. We could now use a de-liberalization campaign. My friends know the ugly truth about me. I'm not really a conservative. I'm a liberal in remission. I speak their language.
The NewsBusters website has been down pretty much the entire day today.
Perhaps the Media Research Center should have spent some of that $2.1 million from its "Tell the Truth!" campaign that it blew on billboard trucks and hastily organized protests and used it for some working servers.
UPDATE: There's an explanation for the outage on the main MRC site:
It appears we were overwhelmed with traffic this morning which led to a cascade of events which took us offline. Our vendors are working studiously to correct the situation which has continued for much longer than we anticipated. We have conveyed our anger and distress.
I can assure you that changes will be made so that this does not occur again. On a big news day like today, this is embarrassing.
AIM's Irvine Loses MD State Senate Race Topic: Accuracy in Media
While yesterday's election provided mostly bad news for Democrats, one ConWeb candidate lost his race.
Accuracy in Media chairman Don Irvine was seeking a seat in the Maryland state senate, promoting himself as "a fiscal conservative who understands that Maryland citizens are overtaxed by a state where spending is already out of control."
That didn't work out so well for him -- Irvine was defeated by a 2-to-1 margin.
During the runup to the midterm elections, Newsmax allowed Dick Morris to tout his prediction that Republicans could win 100 seats. For instance, Morris wrote in a Sept. 27 column, "Pessimism is the only limit on the potential of Republican gains this year. If we go for 100, we can win 100!" and Newsmax reported on Oct. 27 that Morris said "the GOP can win as many as 100 House seats on Nov. 2."
Then, Newsmax let Morris revise his prediction downward.
An Oct. 29 article by Jim Meyers highlighted how Morris "believes his 'fantasy' of the GOP winning 100 House seats could come true," but waited until the 11th paragraph to give the entire quote: "I’m not predicting 100, I’m predicting 60 to 80. But I fantasize 100, and I think that fantasy may come true."
Newsmax's acquiesence to Morris' downward revisions was completed during the election in a Nov. 2 article:
Looking at early House races, Republicans picked up six of eight contested seats, and political expert Dick Morris says this can be projected to a resounding win in the House races, with the Republicans picking up between 60 and 70 seats.
In the Senate races, Morris says the Republicans will pick up at least six seats, but doubts they will reach the magic number of 51.
With incumbent Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer leading in California, Morris cautions that exit polling does not include the early voting numbers, which he feels will lean Republican.
There's no mention of the 100 seats Morris boasted the Republicans could win.
WND, WJC Still Promoting Discredited Impeachment Book Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily is marking the day after Republican election victories by promoting its "Case for Impeachment" book:
[Steven] Baldwin, a senior research fellow at the Western Journalism Center, says the issue of impeachment "is no longer a laughing matter."
"With the economy continuing to implode, the coming collapse of the dollar, high unemployment rates, the government takeover of entire industries, the administration's weak and naïve response to the worldwide jihadist threat, and the ongoing frontal assault on our Judeo-Christian heritage, the impeachment option is one that can no longer be ignored," he finds.
Impeachment, after all, is based on "high crimes and misdemeanors," an "old English common law phrase which, in the 1600s, meant negligence, abuse of power, and abuse of trust," says Baldwin.
"Not only has the Obama administration promoted dangerous and unsustainable policies, but it has also engaged in corrupt and illegal activities such as bribery, a crime the Founders specifically cited as an impeachable offense. Moreover, this report details numerous instances of Obama lying to the American people, a pattern which clearly indicates a character defect that in itself endangers America. Given this, we believe impeachment is necessary for the future survival of America," says the author.
But as we've documented, Baldwin's book -- a joint project with WND, which it still won't admit in public -- is filled with lies and misleading claims, making the so-called "case for impeachment" nothing more than a joke.
We've yet to hear from Baldwin, the WJC, or WND responding to our research, which can only be taken as an admission that we are correct.
UPDATE: WND's Bob Unruh has a follow-up article headlined "GOP sweep revives talk of impeachment." WJC president Floyd Brown's pro-impeachment advocacy is noted, but not the fact that Brown's case is discredited.
CNS Dedicates 3 Stories to Obama's 'Hip Hop Radio' Comments Topic: CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com really, really wants you to know that President Obama spent the final day before the midterm elections talking to "hip hop radio stations" -- so much so it dedicated three entire articles to the subject.
A Nov. 2 article by Fred Lucas, as demonstrated by the headline "Obama Closes Election Season Campaigning on Hip Hop Radio," gets right to the point, even highlighting the names of the DJs Obama would talk to and songs on the station's playlist:
At 11:35 a.m. Eastern time (8:35 a.m. Pacific time), Obama was scheduled to speak live with KPWR in Los Angeles—which bills itself as “Where Hip Hop Lives/Power 106 FM” Their morning show—5:00 a.m to 10:00 a.m Monday through Saturdays—is called “Big Boy’s Neighborhood” and features DJs Big Boy, Luscious Liz and Jeff G.
At 11:50 a.m., the president is set to tape an interview with WGCI in Chicago, 107.5 FM. Among the songs on WGCI’s playlist this morning were “Sex Room” by Ludacris and Trey Songz. The lyrics to this song include: “Welcome to my sex room … Hi, welcome to my little sanctuary … Better call your boss and tell him that your daddy’s home ... Take a couple days off and take it off and leave nothing but your T-shirt and your panties on ... Feeling high but I’m hung real low, looking kind of like a tripod … It’s about to get real x-rated, can you handle what I’m about to do…”
Obama will tape an interview with WSOL 101.5 FM in Jacksonville, Fla. at 12:05 p.m. One of the songs on WSOL’s playist this morning is “Do You Think About Me” by 50 Cent. Its unexpurgated lyrics include: “This relationship, sh— it’s too much for me/ I wanna f--- your friends and live comfortably.”
At 12:20 p.m. Eastern (9:20 a.m Pacific), Obama will appear on KVEG, Hot 97.5 FM, a contemporary music station in Las Vegas. KVEG’s DJs from 5:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m are J Noise and Krazy Kat.
Lucas followed up with an article on one Obama appearance, which also makes sure to include "hip hop radio" in the headline. Lucas goes on to point out in the lead that Obama was "campaigning on hip hop radio station KPWR 106 FM in Los Angeles."
A third CNS article, by Nicolas Ballasy, managed to avoid working "hip hop radio" into the headline, but Ballasy made sure to point out that Obama appeared on "Las Vegas-based hip-hop radio station KVEG" and that the morning show was "hosted by J Noise and Krayzie Kat."
Gee, what message could CNS be sending by these articles? That Obama is a black, black, black man who loves gangsta rap and misogynist hip-hop? It seems so.
After all, we're willing to venture that the number of articles CNS dedicated to this very small story is significantly greater than the number of CNS employees -- nay, the number of Media Research Center employees -- who regularly listen to hip-hop.
MRC Desperate to Dismiss Stewart-Colbert Rally Topic: Media Research Center
NewsBusters ran a live stream of Glenn Beck's "Restoring Honor" rally. It, along with the rest of the Media Research Center, is working overtime to dismiss and denigrate the Jon Stewart/Stephen Colbert Rally to Restore Sanity And/Or Fear.
As we previously detailed, the MRC went on a misleading attack over the presence of the former Cat Stevens at the rally. But that wasn't the only attack:
Matthew Sheffield whined that he "couldn't quite figure out the point" of the rally and took pictures of rally signs he didn't like, claiming that they proved the rally "had its share of hatred."
Tim Graham complained that the Washington Post portrayed the rally as "not 'liberal,' but merely 'distinct' from conservatism" and that it used "the conservative label twice in the 'sanity' story, but never 'liberal.'"
NOel Sheppard crowed about how Dick Armey and Cokie Roberts refuted Ariana Huffington's "typical left-wing nonsense about the significance of the previous day's Jon Stewart/Stephen Colbert rally."
Scott Whitlock groused that "Good Morning America on Sunday skipped the hateful signs at Jon Stewart's rally."
Kyle Drennen was upset that CBS dared to 'chide conservative figures for divisiveness" without noting "Stewart's own long list of vulgar name-calling incidents."
At the MRC's Culture and Media Institute, Alana Goodman insisted that "The crowd at the event appeared to be highly political and divisive – and almost exclusively liberal."
At TimesWatch, Clay Waters was offended that New York Times reporters were "enjoying the rally both in print and through live blogging while hyping the numbers."
A CNSNews.com article by Dan Joseph insisted that "Much of the crowd at liberal comedian Jon Stewart’s “Rally to Restore Sanity,” held Saturday on the National Mall, expressed criticism of the Tea Party and the Republican Party while praising President Barack Obama and other figures on the political left." Josephfurther complained: "While the rally was billed as being “non-partisan,” signs carried by participants almost exclusively attacked conservative politicians and commentators such as Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin and the Fox News Channel, e.g., 'Keep Fear Alive, Watch Fox News.'"
That's a lot of work to try and shoot down one little rally. Then again, the MRC repeatedlydefended Beck's rally and highlighted about how clean the grounds were afterwards. We don't recall anyone at the MRC noting that Stewart made a point of asking rally participants to clean up after themselves.
WND's Election Day Scaremongering Topic: WorldNetDaily
It's election day, so WorldNetDaily has one last change to scare people into supporting its far-right agenda. So today's WND commentary page is littered with such scaremongering:
Though thoroughly trained in Marxist theory and tactics in his early career as a community organizer, Barack Obama abandoned the strategy of gradualism and turned the Long March into a headlong charge. Aided by Reid and Pelosi, he staged a frontal assault, above the radar and in full view, on any remaining vestiges of constitutional constraints. As a result, in an irony so sweet as to suggest divine intervention, the proud community organizer was responsible for the organization of a new and vibrant political community: the tea-party movement. Named for the original Boston Tea Party of 1773, these grass-roots organizations provided a vehicle for political action for mainstream Americans who are not by nature political animals.
Barack Obama will hug Hugo Chavez, meet with Ahmadinejad, bow to the king of Saudi Arabia, but he calls freedom-loving Americans "enemies."
[...]
This is not new. Barack Obama's Department of Homeland Security refuses to use the word "terrorist" when referring to Islamic groups that have declared war on us. No, Obama's administration reserves the word "terrorist" for American citizens who oppose his agenda. The Obama "terrorists" include Americans who are pro-life, pro-marriage, pro-Second Amendment, pro-Constitution citizens, including veterans in the line of fire for our freedom. The Department of Homeland Security exists to defend us from our enemies. Instead, Obama has used it to declare us – freedom loving Americans – as the enemy.
In 2008, many tried to warn voters that Obama was not remotely close to what he was portrayed. We tried to warn voters that he would be a disaster and that the damage his administration would wreak would be calamitous to the fabric of our nation. People didn't listen – they bought the lie – they bought the creation. They bought the feel-good fictional account because to buy the truth would have first meant confronting the truth.
People who voted for Obama are like those who have an opportunity to get a real job or make something productive of themselves, but instead choose to languish in a nowhere job and make excuses for never climbing out of the basement of life. People could have made different choices separate from Obama or McCain before it came down to them being the only choices, but they chose not to. Now, the nation will be paying for his agenda for generations to come.
Election Day isn't the candidate's day – it is our day to have our say, and either we treat it as such or we buy into a theatrical production, and stay mired in the same dead-end position we're in.
Newsmax's Patten Takes the Apocalyptic Route Topic: Newsmax
Newsmax's David Patten goes apocalyptic in describing what he thinks will happen to Democrats in today's election, as intimated by the headline "Debacle of Historic Proportions Looms for Democrats":
Tsunami. Earthquake. Hurricane. Even as pundits struggle to find new metaphors to describe the scope of the GOP landslide expected on Tuesday, the latest polls indicate the midterm grass-roots wave could be even more powerful than analysts are predicting.
Respected political gurus Charlie Cook and Stuart Rothenberg said Monday morning that a 60-seat GOP gain in the House is possible, and a six- to eight-seat GOP gain in the Senate is likely.
"If we're wrong, it's higher," Cook told the audience of MSNBC's "Morning Joe."
Like a clarion warning of an impending catastrophe, a new Gallup/USA Today poll released Monday indicates that Democrats could be in for a political bloodletting of historical proportions.
Patten also quotes "Longtime GOP strategist Roger Stone" offering his opinion (which, needless to say, mirrors that of Patten's). This would be the same guy who we saw marching in the New York gay pride and exchanging licks with a fellow participant.
Stone's outside-the-GOP-lifestyle life surfaced most recently when New York gubernatorial candidate Carl Paladino -- whom Stone had been advising to the tune of $1 million -- made some anti-gay remarks.
Patten had previously touted how "Paladino's campaign reportedly received an important boost from GOP political operative Roger Stone," but Newsmax did not report on the Paladino-Stone gay controversy.
MRC Subordinates Love Bozell's Pelosi Smear Topic: Media Research Center
In case you thought there was any doubt that the Media Research Center places partisan attacks over media research, MRC chief Brent Bozell seals it with this Tweet:
AIM's Kincaid: Yes, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar Really Is Scary Topic: Accuracy in Media
Several comments were implicitly directed at Bill O’Reilly of Fox News for stating on ABC’s “The View” that Muslims had attacked the U.S. on 9/11, when he obviously meant to say that Muslim extremists had done so. To drive his point home, during a fake debate with Stephen Colbert, Stewart introduced former basketball star Kareem Abdul-Jabbar as a Muslim (“Kareem Abdul-Jabbar is Muslim.”) who didn’t scare anybody except for other basketball players.
“We’re all on the same team,” Abdul-Jabbar proclaimed.
It was this effort to minimize the Muslim threat that was offensive, coming as it did just hours after explosive packages had been mailed to Jewish synagogues in the U.S. and intercepted before they could injure, kill, and destroy.
In his arrogance and condescension, Stewart cannot fathom that Americans understand that Kareem Abdul-Jabbar is not scary. But we also know that Muslims are behind most of the terrorism targeting America, and that Muslim countries are facilitating these attacks. Except for one brief and esoteric comment to the effect that there are things that we have reason to fear in life, Stewart pretended that the threat didn’t exist. He failed to deliver the sanity he promised.
As far as Colbert was concerned—despite the facetious title of his own rally—the fact is that fear is sometimes justified, especially when the nation is under attack from within and without. It is this fear that is driving action in America today, as tens of millions of Americans work to avoid the destruction of the American dream and the American way of life. The only thing Stewart said in their defense was that they were not all racists.
-- Cliff Kincaid, Oct. 31 Accuracy in Media column
Who Doesn't Farah Want to Impeach? Topic: WorldNetDaily
Interesting, isn't it, that not one member of Congress has come forward to call for the impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton for moral turpitude in light of the accusations of Juanita Broaddrick?
So, let the chorus begin here: It's way past time to throw this bum out of office. He's a disgrace to his office. He's a detriment to his country. And he's an embarrassment to the human race.
Pat Buchanan, former communications director to President Ronald Reagan, former presidential candidate and WND commentator, has come to the conclusion that a courageous Republican legislator should move a bill for impeachment of President Bush.
I reluctantly agree – and for the same reasons.
President Bush has had nearly five years in office to honor his oath of office and enforce immigration laws in this country.
He has not only failed, he has intentionally neglected this sworn duty, instead claiming he prefers to promote a vague immigration "reform" plan that involved a "guest worker" program that has served as an encouragement to the most massive influx of illegal immigration this country has ever seen.
Obama must be challenged on every front – even if we don't win every battle. It's time to go on offense, buddy.
We won't get a second chance this time.
Obama should be impeached.
This isn't just about policy disagreements. It's about the biggest and most egregious abuse of power in American history.
If you think I'm exaggerating, tell me how.
It's time to step up to the plate. Americans are not sending Republicans to Congress this year in record numbers because they want a counterbalance to Obama in Washington. They are sending them there to change the direction of the country – radically.
What's wrong with impeachment?
Impeachment is a political process. It's part of the Constitution. It might fail, because there are plenty of wimps among Republican members as well as a fair number of Democrats apparently sworn to overthrowing our constitutional system.
Nevertheless, political battles are won on offense, not defense.
