WND Joins Freak-Out Over Gay Valentines Topic: WorldNetDaily
We've previously noted how an NPR story on gay valentine cards sent the MRC's Tim Graham into a fit of anti-gay apoplexy. Now the gay-bashers at WorldNetDaily have taken that apoplexy to the next level.
A Feb. 15 article by Drew Zahn grumbles: "This Valentine's Day, National Public Radio chose two curious ways to celebrate the holiday: It thanked President Obama for proposing an increase in its federal funding, then it used its taxpayer money to promote greeting cards for the homosexual lifestyle."
Zahn then details the federal government's funding of NPR, suggesting that its doing this story is a reason to defund it. Um, isn't that censorship?
NewsBusters Goes On One More Anti-Gay Freak-Out Over Gay Art Exhibit Topic: NewsBusters
Ken Shepherd complains in a Feb. 11 NewsBusters post that "The Washington Post Style section mounted its latest favorite hobby horse again this morning with yet another article devoted to the controversial 'Hide/Seek' Smithsonian exhibit," but he mounts the MRC's favorite manufactured controversy hobby horse by denouncing the exhibit yet again.
Shepherd does at least acknowledge the MRC's role in manufacturing the controversy over the exhibit by noting that "NewsBusters sister organization CNSNews.com broke the story in late November that sparked the controversy." Shepherd then asserts that a video in the exhibit that the MRC's manufactured outrage caused to be removed was "offensive" -- as if that was an indisuputable fact and a universal view -- but he, like many of his MRC colleagues, do not explain the artist's intent with the video's imagery, which would place it in must eyes in a different light than the one the MRC has labored to paint it.
Shepherd complained that "The decision to remove the video was decried as censorship by liberal critics, a criticism magnified by the Post's Style section coverage of the row," concluding, "Of course, no one disputes the right of artists to free expression. The issue at hand is taxpayer sponsorship of offensive art, particularly art that is offensive to millions of religious Americans."
Well, actually, the MRC is very much attacking the idea of free expression. The MRC has a not-so-hidden anti-gay agenda, and its attack on the Smithsonian exhibit -- a collection of gay-themed portraiture -- is very much an attempt at censorship, something it actually accomplished by forcing the removal of the supposedly "offensive" video. The MRC is less offended by a single video than it is that gay-themed art was allowed to appear in public -- which statements by MRC chief Brent Bozell and other MRC officials have made all too clear. Shepherd should just admit it.
Further, Shepherd falsely claims that the art in question received "taxpayer sponsorship." In fact, the exhibit was assembled using private funds.
Farah Lies Yet Again That WND Never Claimed Obama Wasn't Born in U.S. Topic: WorldNetDaily
Joseph Farah's notorious thin skin about criticism of him and his website shows up yet again in his Feb. 15 WorldNetDaily column -- as if his childish opening reference to the Wall Street Journal as the "Wall Street Urinal" wasn't a clue.
This time Farah has his undies in a bunch about WSJ columnist James Taranto's claim that WND publishes "demonstrable falsehoods about Barack Obama's birthplace," specifically "claim[ing] falsely that Obama was born outside the U.S." Cue Farah in freak-out mode:
I immediately challenged Taranto to provide just one example of WND ever claiming Obama was born outside the country. I have not heard from him with such an example, nor do I expect to hear from him – for the simple reason it has never happened.
Be my guest – search for the accusation in WND's free public archives. You will not find any such accusation or characterization by WND or any of its staff writers, columnists or even letter writers. I invite the George Soros-sponsored Media Matters organization to assist Taranto in his futile search. They won't find any such assertion in the hundreds of stories WND has published seeking the truth about Obama's still mysterious origins.
By the way, it would not be a lie to say Obama was born in a foreign country. It would just be an unsubstantiated assertion. However, it is a lie to say WND has made such an assertion.
Well, I work for Media Matters, so that may be close enough for Farah's purposes. It's an indisputable fact that WND -- including Farah himself -- has characterized Obama as being born outside the U.S. Here are just a few examples:
"The only living person who claims publicly to have been present at Obama's birth is his paternal grandmother, Sarah Obama, who says the birth took place in Mombassa, Kenya."-- Farah, July 23, 2009
"Of course, the only living person in the world who claims to have been present for Obama's birth is his paternal grandmother, Sarah Obama, who says it took place in Mombasa, Kenya." -- Farah, July 15, 2009
"California attorney Orly Taitz, who has filed a number of lawsuits demanding proof of Barack Obama's eligibility to serve as president, has released a copy of what purports to be a Kenyan certification of birth and has filed a new motion in U.S. District Court for its authentication. ... WND was able to obtain other birth certificates from Kenya for purposes of comparison, and the form of the documents appear to be identical." -- WND, Aug. 2, 2009
(Of course, the claim attributed to Obama's grandmother has been discredited, and the "Kenyan birth certificate" was ultimately found to be a fake, but not before WND published it without bothering to verify it first.)
We can keep going if Farah wants. For example, here's a Nov. 23 column by Jim Fletcher calling Obama "the Man from Kenya" (something he does again in columns on July 19 and Sept. 14).
That pretty much destroys Farah's claim that there is no "such accusation or characterization by WND or any of its staff writers, columnists or even letter writers" that Obama was born outside the U.S.
Farahfrequentlyclaims that he and WND have never claimed or suggested that Obama wasn't born in the U.S. He's lying every single time he does so.
Now That CPAC's Over, MRC Finally Admits It Boycotted CPAC Topic: Media Research Center
We've detailed how the Media Research Center has been extremelyreluctant to tell its readers that it boycotted CPAC over the appearance of GOProud. Now that the conservative gathering has come and gone, it's finally ready to come out of the closet.
A Feb. 14 CNSNews.com article by Penny Starr lists the MRC as among conservative groups that "chose not to participate in the event" due to the presence of "the homosexual lobby group GOProud" -- the first time to our knowledge that this has been straightforwardly reported on an MRC webslte. Starr doesn't explain why she didn't report this until now, even though it's been public knowledge for more than a month.
Starr's article contains this curious "correction": "Several conservative organizations chose not to participate in CPAC this year; they did not boycott the event." It's not explained why several organizations choosing not to "particpate" in CPAC in protest of the presence of another group does not amount to a boycott; that seems like a distinction without a difference.
Graham's Latest Anti-Gay Freak-Out: LGBT Valentines Topic: NewsBusters
How much does the Media Research Center's Tim Graham hategays? He's furious that there are gay valentine cards.
In a Feb. 14 NewsBusters post, Graham fumes that NPR "would use Valentine's Day as another day to celebrate identity politics and social liberalism with a Monday Morning Edition story on 'Greeting cards that celebrate a rainbow of loves.'" NPR asking Hallmark if it offered gay valentines, Graham declared, was nothingmore than "shov[ing] Hallmark toward 'mainstreaming' the LGBT line of valentines." Never mind that Hallmark official's statement in the NPR report (quoted by Graham) that the company's same-sex wedding cards are "performing on par with our regular wedding cards" shows such a market already exists and doesn't need to be created by NPR.
Graham also huffs, "Since this is NPR, there is no room anywhere for a critical conservative voice." Graham should probably be grateful for that, since any right-winger freaking out about gay valentine cards would come off as petty and hateful as Graham does.
Ellis Washington Likens Reagan to Jesus Topic: WorldNetDaily
A year and a half ago, Ellis Washington likened hateful radio host Michael Savage to Jesus Christ (followed by a likening of him to Prometheus, among many others). Washington is raising the Jesus comparison again, this time to a somewhat less unsavory character.
I'm certain most of you reading this column have been profoundly touched by Reagan's conservatism, which was both organic and authentic. He often would say, "I didn't leave the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party left me." Over half of his life was spent being our John the Baptist, a clarion voice of reason, freedom, truth and constitutionalism piercing the cacophony of Social Darwinism, progressivism, welfare statism and moral relativism to show America that truly there was better way.
In this respect I believe Reagan's life and legacy to be similar to Jesus Christ. No, Reagan wasn't perfect: He signed a pro-abortion bill as governor of California; as president Reagan raised taxes, committed deficit spending, gave amnesty to illegal aliens, made horrible foreign policy moves in Nicaragua and Lebanon and allowed his wife, Nancy, to wield secret powers way above her pay grade.
[...]
Christ did not attend the rabbinical schools of his day, and Reagan did not graduate from Ivy League schools like most U.S. presidents. Reagan, like Christ was a suffering servant, the despised and forgotten (political) prophet. Both men endured constant humiliation, contempt and perversion of their ideas to this day as many antichrists and antireagans abound – yet both are ultimately vindicated because they loved the truth and gave love, liberty and truth to the world.
Not quite as appalling as likening Savage to Jesus, but still...
AIM, WND Treat Boehner's Refusal To Condemn Birthers As Affirmation Topic: Accuracy in Media
When House Speaker John Boehner was asked by NBC's David Gregory on "Meet the Press" whether he would criticize a focus panel on Fox News' "Hannity" that mostly believed that President Obama is a Muslim, or at least not a Christian, Boehner refused, claiming that "it's not my job to tell the American people what to think." As Slate's William Saletan points out, that refusal to criticize a lie -- echoed by other Republican leaders -- only perpetuates the lie and demonstrates a lack of GOP leadership.
As if to illustrate the point, two of the leading media outlets that have promoted the idea that Obama is not a real American were eager to embrace Boehner's refusal to criticize those beliefs.
WorldNetDaily framed it this way in a Feb. 13 article by Joe Kovacs: "Despite intense egging on by NBC newsman David Gregory, House Speaker John Boehner refused today to attack people who have doubts about Barack Obama's eligibility for the presidency."
Cliff Kincaid served up a similar framing in a Feb. 14 Accuracy in Media column:
NBC “Meet the Press” Host David Gregory berated House Speaker John Boehner on Sunday because members of the public and the Congress have doubts about President Obama’s professed Christian faith and alleged birth in the United States. Gregory wondered if all the doubts about Obama were undermining his legitimacy as President. He wanted Boehner to denounce these questions and concerns as “ignorance.” Boehner refused to do so.
[...]
In fact, as AIM has noted, calling yourself something is not the same thing as proving it is the case. Obama’s Christian claim deserves to be scrutinized, even when it involves a sensitive and personal matter such as religious belief. Our media are supposed to question the statements of those in power.
The facts show that there is no evidence that Obama was baptized in a traditional Christian sense of the term. Indeed, Muslims could join the church in Chicago that Obama attended.
[...]
Here are the facts, from Obama’s own perspective. Obama acknowledges in Dreams from My Father that his grandfather was a Muslim (page 104) and that he spent two years in a Muslim school in Indonesia studying the Koran (page 154). In The Audacity of Hope, he says (page 204) that “my father had been raised a Muslim” but that by the time he met his mother, his father was a “confirmed atheist.” His stepfather was not particularly religious and his mother professed “secularism,” Obama wrote (pages 204-205), but as a child he went to a “predominantly Muslim school,” after being first sent to a Catholic school. His mother, he said, was concerned about him learning math, not religion.
Kincaid went on to complain that "Pro-Obama journalists have consistently ignored questions about the constitutional eligibility of the current occupant of the oval office." Gotta love how Kincaid denigrates Obama as ann "occupant," as if he wasn't genuinely elected to the job.
In a Feb. 14 CNSNews.com article, Dan Joseph writes that "the director of the Congressional Budget Office was testifying in the House Budget Committee that the health-care law President Barack Obama signed last year will kill about 800,000 American jobs over the next decade."
But that's not what Douglas Elmendorf said. As Media Matters explained, the one-half percent labor force reduction Elmendorf talked about comes from "reducing the amount of labor that workers choose to supply" as a result of increased health care benefits motivating people to "work fewer hours," not from top-down job eliminations.
Joseph does try to explain that later in his article, but his lead claiming that health care reform will "kill about 800,000 American jobs" is an inaccurate portrayal of reality.
Newsmax vs. Newsmax on Donald Trump Topic: Newsmax
This year’s Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) focuses on the new kids on the block, the conservatives elected with tea party backing to overturn the liberal spending agenda in Washington. Nobody could have fit that description better than Donald Trump, who was a surprise speaker at CPAC and is planning to run for president.
Perhaps because Republicans won the House and are not gearing up for an imminent election, the 11,000 attendees seemed a bit less exuberant this year than last. But Trump electrified the crowd with a combination of shots across the Democratic bow and his trademark candid comments and boasts.
[...]
CPAC’s exhibit hall had the usual carnival–like atmosphere. Signs at booths said “Kill the Death Tax,” and “Defend Your Healthcare.” Everyone seemed to be interviewing everyone else.
But the star of the show clearly was Trump, who is gearing up to announce his candidacy in June. “If I run and if I win, this country will be respected again,” Trump promised to wild cheers.
First, this CPAC event shamed itself by inviting Donald Trump to speak.
He is not, nor has he ever been a conservative. How quickly CPAC organizers forget Trump’s support of and praise for both Bill and Hillary Clinton in all their campaigns — as well as the scores of other liberal Democrats he has financed in states where he has business interests.
This is someone to be listened to? Especially as he trashes the one candidate, Ron Paul, who has maintained steady and consistent principles for over 30 years?
Last Sunday we celebrated the 100th birthday of America’s greatest conservative leader, Ronald Reagan. But by Thursday we were listening to Donald Trump comment on public issues?
Do we need any more proof how far off the rails the right has gone?
The president is supposed to listen to the people and pay attention to their desires and demands for what they expect for their country.
Unfortunately, this president has his own agenda and intends to get what he wants. Listen to his speeches as he talks about health care, gays in the military, illegal immigration, government growth, deficits and more. It's what he wants, and everyone else be damned.
The message of the midterm election was that the people want lower taxes, smaller government, less spending and less debt.
Everybody heard, except Obama. His speech was filled with how the government will solve all the problems.
That he already tried it to the tune of billions doesn't faze him. It's what he wants and by God, he intends to do it.
He managed to slip and slide through issues of his choosing, ignoring those that most Americans consider critical.
The real question is whether Americans will hold Obama's feet to the fire, forcing him to act like an elected American president and not like our own version of a dictator.
In the summer of 2009, when the world witnessed brave Iranians taking to the streets in an effort to overthrow the Islamofascist regime that was terrorizing them, the president of the United States merely shrugged his shoulders and shuffled his feet. Encouraging words somehow failed him. But today, as the world watches the Egyptian Revolution of 2011 occur right before its eyes, Obama suddenly sees it fit to stretch out a hand of solidarity to the Muslim Brotherhood – giving the Islamist group a green light to share power in a post-Mubarak Egyptian government. In other words, instead of taking a concrete stand against a jihadist entity, a U.S. president has given it his own personal blessing and stamp of approval. It's the Jimmy Carter-1979 shah betrayal all over again – and with horrific deadly consequences once again on the horizon.
None of this, of course, should come as any surprise; rather, it should be completely expected. Barack Obama is, after all, a man of the left, and the left is always charmed by adversarial terrorist forces that seek to do harm to free democratic societies. Thus, helping to pave the road for the Muslim Brotherhood to take power in Egypt is only to be expected from America's radical in chief.
Two years ago, for the first time since Nixon, I did not attend the Presidential Inauguration. I went instead to the Holy Land to pray for a country that would elect a man without leadership or executive credentials, a tragically unqualified rhetorical celebrity – and give him control of Congress. I also prayed for our new president, who needs all our prayers. Thankfully, the people, and the tea party, realizing their error, recently elected a new Congress in which the House began, for the first time, with a reading of the Constitution, a document second only to the Bible in historical import (amazingly, some on the left criticized the reading!); and required that future congressional actions have constitutional authority. Imagine that!
In the summer of 2009, when the world witnessed brave Iranians taking to the streets in an effort to overthrow the Islamofascist regime that was terrorizing them, the president of the United States merely shrugged his shoulders and shuffled his feet. Encouraging words somehow failed him. But today, as the world watches the Egyptian Revolution of 2011 occur right before its eyes, Obama suddenly sees it fit to stretch out a hand of solidarity to the Muslim Brotherhood – giving the Islamist group a green light to share power in a post-Mubarak Egyptian government. In other words, instead of taking a concrete stand against a jihadist entity, a U.S. president has given it his own personal blessing and stamp of approval. It's the Jimmy Carter-1979 shah betrayal all over again – and with horrific deadly consequences once again on the horizon.
None of this, of course, should come as any surprise; rather, it should be completely expected. Barack Obama is, after all, a man of the left, and the left is always charmed by adversarial terrorist forces that seek to do harm to free democratic societies.
Obama made an excuse that "They just don't know me." BS! People who dislike Obama don't have to know him on a personal level. As president he should put his best foot forward, but he hasn't. I don't need to know the president personally to know his policies are ridiculous, or that he's arrogant and one-sided. Obama is looking out for Obama. He seems to think he can do no wrong and that he's turned this country around for the better. He needs to take the rose-colored glasses off and humble himself before he falls into an even deeper hole.
Obama, give us education? What is he, the King? Is he God? Uh, I guess it means give more taxpayer money for the public education system, which is a complete failure no matter how much money you throw at it! It cost my Dad $1 to teach me how to read, and he did it in one day. He bought a pencil, a piece of paper and a "Dick and Jane" book. He wrote down cat, dog, rat, hog. He made me sound them out. Presto! I could read!
Last Thursday, President Hosni Mubarak stuck it to the "mullah in chief " when the Egyptian strongman told Obama to stick it – that is, stay out of the country's affairs – and declared that, despite Obama's outrageous demand that he leave and allow the Muslim Brotherhood into any new government, he would remain Egypt's leader through September 2011. While no Vaudeville act, this was the ultimate banana cream pie in Obama's face. By the next morning, Mubarak had backed down and resigned in the face of obvious threats by the Obama administration to cut off economic aid to Egypt. Nevertheless, Mubarak had made his point on his way out by having given his middle finger to our "fearless leader."
In his Feb. 2 WorldNetDaily video, titled "America's blood-stained hands," which was one long anti-abortion rant insisting, among other things, that MTV's "No Easy Decision" was a "30-minute pro-abortion commercial" (actually, it dared to be even-handed on the subject, a concept ol' Molotov is extremely unacquainted with). Mitchell concluded his video by saying that "all the money in the world can't buy that blood off your hands," adding: "May God have mercy on our nation. But if he doesn't -- if he chooses to destroy our economy, if he chooses to take away our life and our freedom, if he chooses to punish us -- well, we certainly deserve it."
Speaking of blood-stained hands, let's look at Mr. Mitchell. You'll recall that, as a part of his gay-bashing efforts to achieve "the abolition of homosexuality," Mitchell endorsed a proposed law in Uganda that would make mere homosexuality punishable by death, while denying that it did any such thing.
What have been the fruits of Mitchell's enthusiastic endorsement of killing gays? In October, a Ugandan newspaper published the names and pictures of "Uganda's Top Homos" with the additional headline, "Hang Them." Sure enough, inJanuary, one of the people the newspaper identified, David Kato, was murdered. As we've noted, while Ugandan police have claimed that Kato was killed by, in the words of anti-gay activist Scott Lively, a "live-in male prostitute who murdered Kato for failing to pay him as promised," no proof to back up the claim has been forwarded, and some have noted that police may try to cover up a motive of homophobia in Kato's death to protect the Western aid upon which the country relies. And the publisher of the paper that put the "Hang Them" headline next to a picture of Kato says, "I have no regrets about the story. We were just exposing people who were doing wrong."
That sounds a lot like Mitchell's attitude, doesn't it? We suspect that if Mitchell thought he could get away with telling people to hang gays, he would do it. "Abolition of homosexuality," remember?
Before Mitchell starts moralizing about the blood on other people's hands, he might want to do something about the blood on his own. May God have mercy on him.
P.S. The same goes for Mitchell's fellow gay-hater, Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy in Media.
It wouldn't be Joseph Farah if he wasn't acting thin-skinned about his media competition, and he has devoted a couple recent columns to this thin-skinned attitude.
In his Feb. 4 WorldNetDaily column, Farah complains that "two big newspapers – one in the U.S. and one in the U.K. – chose to rewrite WND news stories, using content exclusively from WND, without ever once citing their source for the information." Farah names them both -- the New York Daily News and the UK's Daily Mail, dismissing them as "trashy tabloids" that "have their place" as "tomorrow's birdcage liners" which "have no professional standards" and "do very little real reporting"and are "mouthpieces for fat-cat corporate owners who have agendas."
But Farah went further in attacking one of those papers:
One of the reports, in the Daily News, even had a byline attached to its story, suggesting a reporter had demonstrated some enterprise in gathering the facts. Well, to me, it was like a thief who left behind a calling card.
So, I dashed off a note to Daily News staff writer Michael Sheridan with a little challenge: "I'm getting pretty sick of your uncredited rewrites of WND content. Do I need to complain to your editor and go public with this example of shameless unprofessionalism? Or do you want to just knock it off because it's the right thing to do?"
I never heard from Sheridan – so here we are.
Farah didn't mention that he made any similar attempt at reparations from the Daily Mail. Perhaps that's because WND uses the Daily Mail as a source. Over the past three months, WND haspublishedfourarticles citing the Daily Mail as a source.
That runs counter to Farah's claim that the Daily Mail doesn't have "anything worth stealing." Which, of course, is exactly what WND is doing, credited or not.
Farah also claimed:
Have you ever noticed the way WND credits other media all the time?
If we get information from another news source, we typically cite that source – whether it's a major newspaper or wire service or a one-man blog.
In his Feb. 11 column, Farah was aghast that "AOL has agreed to purchase the Huffington Puffington Post for some $300 million and to place left-wing activist and non-journalist in charge of the entire AOL news operation," going on to call Ariana Huffington "a good shakedown artist."Farah goes on to lament that "it's amazingly sad what money can do to buy credibility where none actually exists.
It seems like Farah is having a fit of professional jealousy. Farah has been running WND a lot longer than Huffington's website has been around, and the value of his website is a lot closer to the $1 the Washington Times sold for than the $315 million AOL bought HuffPo for.
Farah complains that Huffington "made a name for herself with the Huffington Puffington Post by opening up her website to a parade of celebrity know-nothings to hurl the most irresponsible and groundless accusations against public figures with whom she disagrees." This conveniently ignores the fact that WND's main function upon its 1997 founding was to attack President Clinton, and functions today as a font of anti-Obama attacks.
Farah concludes with a personal attack on Huffington and her alleged devotion to an Indian guru. Given that the top two officials at WND have ties to accused cult leader Roy Masters, Farah has little room to complain about such things.
Waters' Slobbering Review of Anti-NY Times Book Topic: Media Research Center
In a Feb. 11 MRC TimesWatch post, Clay Waters serves up a laughably fawning review of William McGowan's anti-New York Times book, "Gray Lady Down." Waters hyperbolically calls it "a carefully researched and devastatingly convincing critique of the Times losing its commitment to objective reporting."
Waters' employer, of course, operates a "news" division that doesn'tknowthemeaning of objective reporting.
Throughout his slobbering review, Waters fails to identify McGowan as a conservative or a book as a conservative-oriented attack. Waters also injects his own right-wing bias into the review, at one point denouncing Obama's speech on racial issues as "unmemorable." According to who? Does anyone who isn't predisposed to denigrating every word that comes out of Obama's mouth think that?
Then again, perhaps he doesn't have to identify McGowan as a conservative, since he tacitly admits it in a sad bit of self-promotion:
In a brief foray into partisan politics, McGowan cites a fine media watchdog site called Times Watch, which analyzed a month of stories the Times did on Barack Obama and Republican John McCain during a slice of the 2008 campaign and found that positive portrayals for Obama outnumbering negative ones by a 3:1 ratio. When it came to McCain, that positive/negative ratio was reversed.
Still, Waters does attempt to keep up the pretense of McGowan being a nonpartisan writer, asserting that McGowan just wants "a much better version of the Times than is being produced by the current regime," a conclusion with which "all but the most politically in denial Americans would surely agree."
Lincoln Derangement Syndrome Watch Topic: WorldNetDaily
Tomorrow is Abraham Lincoln's birthday. Familiar Lincoln idolaters will gather to celebrate the birth, on Feb. 12, 1809, of the 16th president of the United States and finesse his role in "the butchering business" – to use professor J. R. Pole's turn-of-phrase. Court historian Doris Kearns Goodwin is sure to make a media appearance to extol the virtues of the president who shed the blood of brothers in great quantities and urged into existence the "American System" of taxpayer-sponsored grants of government privilege to politically connected corporations.
[...]
The "pseudo-intellectuals who [are] devoted to pulling the wool over the public's eyes" have a lot to answer for. Lincoln's violent, unconstitutional revolution took the lives of 620,000 individuals (including 50,000 Southern civilians, blacks included), maimed thousands and brought about "the near destruction of 40 percent of the nation's economy." "The costs of an action cannot be dismissed as irrelevant to morality," wrote the Mises Institute's David Gordon in "Secession, State & Liberty." Almost every other country at the time chose the path of peaceful emancipation. Yet today's Americans look upon the terrible forces Lincoln unleashed as glorious events, the native appetite having habituated to carnage over time.
[...]
The more plausible explanation is that, in 1861, Lincoln kidnapped and killed the Constitution. The Jacobins who lionize Lincoln's actions (by referring to his billowing prose) have been covering up his crimes and ignoring the consequences of his coup ever since.
Clay Waters Doesn't Know What Amnesty Means Topic: Media Research Center
Clay Waters asserts in a Feb. 9 MRC TimesWatch item that the New York Times is on an "Amnesty-for-Illegals Hobby Horse," claiming that the DREAM Act "would have granted amnesty to hundreds of thousands of student illegals."
Wrong. As we've detailed, "amnesty" is defined as "a general pardon for offenses, esp. political offenses, against a government, often granted before any trial or conviction." The implication is that there are no preconditions before the amnesty is given. Since the DREAM Act would require that "student illegals" enroll in college or serve in the military as a prerequisite for applying for legal permanent residency and, eventually, citizenship -- as well as meet certain residency requirements in order to qualify for benefits under the act -- it is by definition not amnesty.
Pretending that every proposal to put illegal immigrants on a path to citizenship is "amnesty," as the MRC is wont to do, is simply factually inaccurate.
