Funny what the lure of a "special invitation" to the White House will make some do.
Newsmax is a haven for Obama-haters (right, Wayne Allyn Root?), but apparently, that White House invitation, even to do a fluffy article , was apparently too tempting. Thus, we have an April 10 article by Paul Scicchitano and Kathleen Walter on Newsmax's health website that got almost as fluffy with the White House chef as Ronald Kessler does with Mitt Romney:
Newsmax accepted a special invitation from the Obama White House to speak with White House Chef Sam Kass, who is playing a key role in first lady Michelle Obama’s national campaign to fight childhood obesity.
During an exclusive interview with Newsmax’s Kathleen Walter, and a personal tour of the White House garden, Kass disclosed details of Michelle’s new program, called Let’s Move.
Yes, bragging that Newsmax got a "special invitation" to the White House is in the very first paragraph.
And for good measure, the article included a picture of Walter posing with Kass to immortalize the moment:
Maybe Bill Clinton should've tried this with Christopher Ruddy back in the '90s.
NEW ARTICLE: Dan Gainor, The MRC's Apparatchik Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's T. Boone Pickens Fellow is nothing if not a loyal spouter of right-wing talking points -- so loyal, in fact, he can keep a straight face while spouting off about how the Muppets are brainwashing your children. Read more >>
Olbermann Inspires Newsmax's Kessler to Trash Jimmy Carter, For Some Reason Topic: Newsmax
Ronald Kessler does love to bash liberals, and alleged bad behavior by Keith Olbermann has somehow inspired Kessler to attack Democratic presidents like Jimmy Carter. From Kessler's April 9 column:
Democrats profess to be for uplifting the downtrodden. But as Current TV’s firing of left-leaning Keith Olbermann demonstrates, when it comes to treating the less fortunate with respect, Democrats may be the worst offenders.
Among the complaints by Al Gore’s Current TV was that the anchor went through eight different car pick-up services, often complaining that the drivers “smelled” or that they “talked to him.”
As outlined in my book “In the President’s Secret Service: Behind the Scenes with Agents in the Line of Fire and the Presidents They Protect,” Democratic presidents who claim like Olbermann to be for the little guy often are the nastiest with staff and Secret Service agents. Jimmy Carter — codenamed Deacon — was a prime example.
After taking shots at Bill Clinton and Lyndon Johnson for allegedly being rude while liberal, however, Kessler is forced to admit the flaw in his partisan theory by admitting that Secret Service agents "say both Barack Obama — codenamed Renegade — and Michelle Obama treat them with respect."
CNS' Jeffrey Spews Yet Another Petty, Hateful Attack at Obamas Topic: CNSNews.com
What is it about the Obamas that has made CNS editor in chief Terry Jeffrey abandon all pretense of fairness and objectivity and head straight into paroxysms of rage? Jeffrey simply must flail at every perceived offense, no matter how bizarre or petty, or invent new ones.
Thus, we have an April 9 article by Jeffrey that begins this way:
Speaking Friday at what the administration called “The White House Forum on Women and the Economy,” President Barack Obama said that after his two daughters were born, he and his wife—both Harvard Law School graduates—could not afford the “luxury” of having her stay home with the children.
In 2005, when Obama began serving in the U.S. Senate (and his daughters turned 4 and 7), he and his wife were earning a combined annual income of $479,062. Barack Obama was paid a salary of $162,100 by the U.S. taxpayers, and Michelle Obama was paid $316,962 to handle community affairs for the University of Chicago Medical Center.
Jeffrey offers no evidence that Obama was talking about any year after 2004, the only years for which he provides the Obamas' income. He cannot possibly know what era Obama was talking about, yet it's enough for Jeffrey to devise this mean-spirited tirade.
There is no "news" here -- this is a petty attack, designed only to draw a link on Drudge and attract the kind of hateful, borderlineracist commenters Jeffrey apparently believes should be CNS' core audience.
This article demonstrates nothing beyond how much Jeffrey has been driven around the bend by his dripping hatred for all things Obama. You can call that lots of things, but responsible journalism isn't one of them.
AIM's Caruba Pretends He Has Nothing To Do With Heartland Institute Topic: Accuracy in Media
Alan Caruba peddles his bizarre brand of global warming denialism in his April 6 Accuracy in Media column -- now with an added level of denialism.
As he has before, Caruba rails against the release of documents from the anti-global warming group the Heartland Institute as have been "fraudulently obtained," while describing stolen emails in the so-called "Climategate" non-scandal as merely a "massive data leak."
Then, after declaring that Heartland "needs your support" because it "has already paid a big price for its efforts and needs donors to replace General Motors’ support," Caruba concludes with an editor's note: "To forestall the likely warmist response to this commentary, Mr. Caruba is not in the employ, nor receiving any funding from The Heartland Institute."
That, quite simply, is a lie. In February, Caruba himself wrote: "Full disclosure: Years ago I received a small stipend from The Heartland Institute to help cover the costs of writing articles regarding the global warming hoax." Caruba seems to be taking refuge in the word "receiving" to mean that he is not currently receiving Heartland money, but the way he worded his statement makes it clear he was trying to imply that he never received Heartland money.
In addition to the money, Caruba is clearly affiliated with the institute in other ways:
Caruba has his own bio on the Heartland website as one of its "experts."
MRC Still Can't Be Bothered to Respect A Deceased Journalist Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center has a history of insufficiently respecting deceased journalists -- remember back in 2005, when the MRC used the death of Peter Jennings to remind people that "The MRC's archive is packed with documentation of liberal bias from Peter Jennings."
The MRC is doing the same thing with the death of Mike Wallace. In April 9 NewsBusters post, MRC VP Brent Baker whines that an ABC report on Wallace "began with a clip of Wallace, from either 1976 or during the 1980 campaign, demanding of Reagan: 'How many blacks are there on your top campaign staff, Governor?'"
Baker then recounted Wallace-bashing items from the MRC's archive, as recounted in a 2006 MRC post. At no point does Baker or anyone else at the MRC offer any other comment about Wallace's death that does not involve bashing his purported political views.
Erik Rush Rampant Paranoia Watch Topic: WorldNetDaily
The day Obama snuffs out Internet truth
You awake one morning this summer to a radio alarm that startles you out of bed with blaring white noise instead of music or your news show. Annoyed, you soon discover that you can’t tune in any stations at all, not even on the other radios in your home. It isn’t until you determine that there’s nothing on the television but snow and “Cannot find server” messages online that you become concerned.
At 6 p.m., the television, which had been on in case something was broadcast (but with the volume turned down to spare you that damnable white noise), springs to life. Within moments you’re all huddled around it. The screen displays a dark background with a U.S. Department of Homeland Security emblem in the center. Presently, an announcer comes on, audio only, stating that for reasons of national security, it had become necessary for the DHS to suspend airline travel and commandeer broadcast frequencies, as well as the Internet, but that there was no longer any danger, and more information would follow. They also mention that for reasons of public safety, the president has ordered a nationwide curfew from 7 p.m. until 6 a.m. the following morning.
As you may have surmised by now, you’re unable to find WND – or Townhall, Realclearpolitics, Hotair, GBTV, DailyCaller, theHill, NationalReviewOnline, PJmedia, Washingtonexaminer, nor any of your favorite political blogs. Without exception, they return “404 – Page Not Found” error messages. Most of the social media sites are up, but your accounts don’t seem to be there any longer. It’s as though you were never a member.
The left-wing websites are another story. They’re up and running and, while they don’t have any useful insights per se, their lead stories reflect a perverse glee at the fact that, whatever else this phenomenon has wrought, it has resulted in an apparent suspension of operations of certain “right-wing hate sites” they’ve long reviled.
Dashing back and forth now between the television and your computer – and with the radio on in the background – you begin to put the pieces together. None of the media upon which you’ve relied can be found. One TV news network you watch is broadcasting, but the commentators are people you do not recognize, and the programming lineup has changed entirely. A religious program you’ve watched from time to time is no longer on the channel lineup.
A decidedly uneasy feeling begins to well up in your gut. No one in the press is discussing any details or repercussions from the previous day, nor anyone’s reaction to same, either foreign or domestic. Were there riots? Was anyone hurt? Were world markets affected? They’re also not talking about the presidential campaign or the upcoming election. Surely the candidates would have something to say about this.
In the distance you hear a loudspeaker, most likely on an official vehicle, because it is moving, becoming louder, although you can’t make out what’s being said just yet. There are voices as well now, of men in the street, barking in sharp, peremptory tones.
Noel Sheppard Unhappy Obama Did Introduction for 'To Kill A Mockingbird' Topic: NewsBusters
How much does the Media Research Center so utterly despise President Obama? He's not even allowed to innocuously comment on a movie without criticism.
Thus, we get the spectacle of Noel Sheppard using an April 8 NewsBusters post to rant about Obama providing an introduction to the USA Network's broadcast of the classic film "To Kill A Mockingbird." Sheppard rather vociferously insists his criticism isn't about race or even the content of what Obama said, but the fact he was allowed to do it in the first place:
Let's be clear: there's absolutely nothing I disagree with concerning the content of the President's introduction.
"To Kill A Mockingbird" is my favorite film. Gregory Peck should win an Oscar every year for his remarkable performance, as should Horton Foote for writing a screenplay adaptation that is actually far better than the book. That's a very rare feat.
Beyond this, despite the concern of many conservatives, there was absolutely nothing provocative in this introduction. Thankfully, there was no mention of how the film somehow relates to the Trayvon Martin shooting.
But did the USA Network have to give the President more free face time in front of the public during an election year?
We saw the President before the Super Bowl. Just last week he appeared during the NCAA college basketball Final Four, and got a lot of airtime prior giving his bracket selection.
With the Olympics coming up this summer, it seems a metaphysical certitude we'll be seeing a lot of Mr. Obama during those Games. Likely the World Series just before the elections as well.
If Obama were a Republican, one envisions liberals shouting from the rooftops about such free face time, especially before a classic film revered by the Left for its treatment of racial prejudice.
With tongue in cheek, I daresay that for the 46 percent of the nation that doesn't approve of the job he's doing, having Obama introduce this film was "sort of like shooting a mockingbird."
Is Sheppard really this small and petty? Apparently so.
AIM Continues Freaking Out Over Non-Conservatives on Fox News Topic: Accuracy in Media
Accuracy in Media, it seems, just can't stand the sight of liberals on Fox News -- in January, Cliff Kincaid ranted about Fox's hiring of "open lesbian" Sally Kohn.
Now, Fox's hiring of Jesse Jackson's daughter, Santita Jackson, has brought a new round of freakouts. In an April 5 blog post, Don Irvine frets that the hiring will "confound conservatives who see no need for the top-rated cable news network to give liberals even more of a voice than they currently have. They already have MSNBC and CNN, along with the rest of the mainstream media." Irvine continues: "Fox runs the risk of alienating its conservative audience to the point that they will look elsewhere for their news, and eventually end Fox’s long run as the top cable news network."
Kincaid expands on the freakout in an April 6 article, claiming that Jackson's hiring is a bid by Fox News to "avoid left-wing attacks on its news operations and commentators," adding, "It is apparent that the left-wing attacks on Fox News, many of them directed through the Soros-funded Media Matters group, have taken their toll." Kincaid went on to attack Jackson's "taste for racial and divisive politics," then follows Irvine in fretting that Fox is losing its right-wing cred: "Is her father next in line for a show on the 'conservative' channel?"
That hostility is telling -- it shows that AIM is not interested in balance, which Fox is trying to achieve by adding liberal commentators, but cares only about shutting down liberal viewpoints.
AIM, by the way, had this same kneejerk reaction in 2006 when Fox hired Kimberly Guilfoyle as a commentator, attacking her as "a noted supporter of the homosexual rights movement" and "an active member in the San Francisco affiliate of the National Women’s Political Caucus, a pro-abortion feminist group." Of course, Guilfoyle has morethanprovenherself as one of the many, many conservatives on Fox that is need of being "fair and balanced" by an actual liberal commentator.
The Week In Gay-Bashing At the MRC Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center has always had an anti-gay agenda. They felt the need to ramp it up last week.
In an April 4 MRC Culture & Media Institute article, Paul Wilson declared that NBC reporting on transgender beauty contest pageant contestant Jenna Talackova was the same thing as "hyp[ing]" it, thus invoking the Depiction-Equals-Approval Fallacy. Wilson went on to complain that "NBC would not allow any voices who might contradict the liberal mantra that gender is changeable, while sexual orientation is not."
The next day, Wilson attacked "a lesbian writing in the HuffPost Gay Voices section" for writing about the idea of a "queer Christ," huffing about Jesus being "converted into a gay icon in order to better promote the homosexual agenda," which "bears little resemblance to the Christ of the Bible." Dan Savage is dragged into this for some reason.
Perhaps that was on orders of his boss, Brent Bozell, who dedicated his April 7 column to bashing Savage's new MTV sex-advice show, which he grumbled was nothing more than "provocative, raunchy sex chatter." Bozell also rants that "MTV wants us to know that Savage’s homosexuality makes him more qualified as a sex therapist."
Meanwhile, back at CMI, Lauren Thompson -- who just can't seem to get around to posting her massive list of purported "anti-Christian" offenses in the TV show "GCB" -- found a new show to complain about. The ABC show "Scandal," she writes, is "a blatant platform for lefty views and policies." The particular offense here was a conservative war-hero character who was found to have kissed another man, and by the episode he "saw the light, and openly and proudly gave up his conservative lifestyle." Thompson whined: "Obviously lefties only celebrate military heroes who cover themselves in liberal ideology, while they decry true acts of valor as military propaganda. The real propaganda here was the flagrant and unashamed heralding of liberal policies, and the left’s complete intolerance of contradicting views."
Thompson's entire column, of course, is an example of right-wing intolerance of contradicting views. Ironic, isn't it?
David Kupelian has put up another one of his periodic treatises on the virtues of WorldNetDaily (and solicitation for donations, even though WND is a for-profit operation). He makes it clear that WND is nothing more than an anti-Obama sleaze machine and, as such, not terribly concerned with the truth:
As you know all too well, the biggest reason 69 million Americans voted to elect Barack Obama as president in 2008 was the elite news media’s scandalous failure to vet him – and their cult-like worship of him as a political messiah.
Well, we’re about seven months away from the 2012 election, and guess who is once again all geared up to usher in a second – and even more disastrous – presidential term for Obama?
Right – our friends in the news media.
And while you might think three-and-a-half years of Obama-style desolation would wake up the media, in some ways the situation now is even worse!
Kupelian touts how "the first official U.S. law enforcement investigation into the matter, led by Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio, established 'probable cause' that the document released with great fanfare by the White House last April is a computer-generated forgery," but failed to mention WND's behind-the-scenes role in instigating the investigation (and, with Jerome Corsi's involvement, direct involvement with it), and it has hidden from its readers how the "investigation" cant be trusted because it competely ignored anyone who disagreed with Corsi's pet birther conspiracies, such as John Woodman. Of course, WND has similarly pretended that Woodman does not exist.
Kupelian also claims that the "investigation" found that "the family of unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers allegedly funded 'foreign student' Barack Obama through Harvard Law School," but the source of this claim, the Ayers' former mailman, is recalling conversations from more than 20 years ago, can't back up anything he says, and can't even prove that the supposedly "foreign student" is Obama.
We believe WND is the kind of news organization America’s founders would have approved. We don't mock patriotic Americans trying to set their country right. We don't rewrite White House press releases and call it news. We don't bow and scrape before President Obama or anyone else. We don't pretend abortion is OK, or that same-sex marriage is good, or that global warming is "proven science," or that more government is the solution to all problems, or that Palestinian leaders wants peace, or that the Constitution is old-fashioned, or that the "Federal Reserve" is good for America. In short, we're not politically correct and we have no sacred cows. Instead, our team of experienced, professional journalists strives to do one thing – to tell the truth that Americans desperately need and deserve to hear.
We've previously deconstructed earlier versions of Kupelian's letter to demonstrate WND's dishonesty and cravenness, as well as its bald-faced lie that it has "no sacred cows." Meanwhile, these are the virtues WND considers to be "truth" these days:
Do people really "desperately need and deserve to hear" such hateful fringe rantings, as Kupelian insists? We suspect not -- though Kupelian seems to think WND's readers are stupid enough to swallow it.
Flashback: When John Derbyshire Advocated Killing Chelsea Clinton Topic: The ConWeb
John Derbyshire's column in which he recommended that parents tell their children to be wary of black people -- which has been universally denounced and resulted in his firing from National Review -- is hardly the first time he's gotten in trouble for his writing.
In 2001, we reported on Derbyshire's National Review column in which he argued that Chelsea Clinton should be killed to remove "the taint" of her father. He later insisted that his column was "partly tongue in cheek."
CNS Nitpicks Obama's Statements About Jesus Topic: CNSNews.com
How much does CNSNews.com utterly loathe President Obama? It devoted not one but two articles to nitpicking religious statements he made.
In an April 4 article, Fred Lucas complains that Obama, at an Easter prayer breakfast, said that Jesus was "a son of God." In fact, Lucas huffs:
The Christian faith teaches that Jesus is theonly Son of God. John 3:16-18: “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through Him. Whoever believes in Him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.”
Then, on April 6, Lucas grumbled that Obama said that Jesus "knew doubt" and had "doubts.” Lucas dug up a "Christian scholar" to assist this attack:
Alan Schreck, a professor of theology at Franciscan University of Steubenville, understands why Obama would say Jesus experienced fear.
“In these accounts in the scripture, Jesus’ humanity is clear in terms of realizing fully the pain that he was about to accept freely for our salvation on the cross,” Schreck told CNSNews.com. “From that sense, to use the word ‘fear’ as a natural human revulsion against suffering physical pain--I think the accounts do show that, the mention of Jesus’s humanity.”
However, Schreck could not see a theological or biblical context in which Jesus experienced “doubt.”
“My question is what would He be doubting? Would He be doubting the Father’s care and merciful love? Is He doubting the value of his mission? I don’t think there is any real context that I could understand to say Jesus doubted,” Schreck said.
“The president doesn’t make it clear what He was doubting,” said Schreck. “He was giving a general statement. I don’t want to pretend I knew what the president intended but I would think the word ‘doubt’ would not be suitable because it doesn’t make it clear what He’s doubting. He didn’t doubt the mission he was sent on. He predicted his passion, according to the scriptures.”
Did Schreck know that he was serving a tool for Lucas' anti-Obama agenda?
Does Lucas have nothing more important to do with his life than nitpick the faith of others?
Full Metal Fluffing: Newsmax Unleashes Kessler to Fawn Over Romney Topic: Newsmax
Newsmax has, it seems, finally unleashed Ronald Kessler to be the Mitt Romney shill we know so well.
In his second pro-Romney column in a week, Kessler complains in his April 5 piece that the media has "suppressed" evidence of Romney's "human side," namely the story -- oft repeated by Kessler -- of Romney enlisting his Bain Capital to find the daugher of one of his partners, who had gone missing in New York. This story, Kessler insists, "that could potentially swing many voters to Romney." Which, presumably, is why Kessler keeps repeating it.
As Kessler is also wonttodo, he beats the dead horse of Jeremiah Wright, complaining that "the media" ignored his original Wright-bashing in 2007.
WND Denigrates Fox Anchor As 'Infobabe' Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily's Joe Kovacs, a Rush Limbaugh acolyte, apparently couldn't help himself in an April 4 article on an interview Fox News' Megyn Kelly conducted with Sheriff Joe Arpaio, resorting to a denigrating Limbaugh-ism to smear Kelly.
The original headline on Kovac's article: "Sheriff Joe flays Fox News 'infobabe'." Yes, "infobabe" is in quotes, even though he quotes nobody saying the word.
Somebody at WND apparently had a change of heart -- perhaps deciding that it's bad form to denigrate people on the same end of the political spectrum as they are. The headline now reads, "Sheriff Joe flays Fox News anchor." But the lineage remains in the article's URL, and it was promoted on its mailing list with the "infobabe" smear intact:
Thanks to the Internet and URL naming convention, Kovacs' smear lives on. He must be proud.