Political Hack Noel Sheppard Enjoys When Others Are Called Political Hacks Topic: NewsBusters
In an Aug. 4 NewsBusters post, Noel Sheppard got a charge out of right-wing Ramesh Ponnuru having "marvelously told" liberal-leaning Roland Martin to "call these things as you see them, not just be a political hack for your team."
Aaron Klein's Co-Author Pushes An Obama Lie Topic: WorldNetDaily
The new Obama-bashing book by Aaron Klein and Brenda J. Elliott, "Fool Me Twice," comes out today -- it appears to be nothing more than Klein's usual blend of biased speculation, guilt by association and conspiracy theories, just like their last book.
Meanwhile, co-author Elliott is peddling a lie that casts doubt on the veracity of the book. She tweets regarding President Obama, "Disenfranchising US troops is only the start."
Elliott links to a video asserting, "As part of Obama's strategy to steal every vote possible away from Mitt Romney, his minions quietly filed a lawsuit to disenfranchise our military." In fact, the lawsuit has the goal of extending the civilian early-voting deadline in Ohio to that of the military, not reducing the military early-voting window -- the exact opposite of what Elliott is claiming.
The video also claims, "As with all things associated with Obama, it was done in secret." Another falsehood -- the filing of the lawsuit was reported in the media that same day.
In other words, Elliott is lying through her teeth. If she'll lie about something so easily disproven, why should anyone trust what she and Klein write in her book?
It's a new month, which means CNSNews.com's Edwin Mora has a new update on his obsession with blaming President Obama for U.S. troop deaths in Afghanistan:
For the total 1,954 deaths, 1,385 have occurred since President Barack Obama was inaugurated on Jan. 20, 2009. That means at least 7 out of every 10 (about 71 percent) deaths in the Afghanistan war, which started in October 2001, have taken place in the three-plus years that Obama has been in the White House.
Statistically, Obama has presided over the top three deadliest years of the war: 2010 with 497 deaths, followed by 2011 with 399 deaths, and 2009 with 303 fatalities.
As is Mora's practice, completely absent from his article are the words "Bush" and "Iraq," though it would be an entirely fair comparison to compare troop deaths in Afghanistan with troop deaths under Bush in Iraq.
But then, Mora doesn't care about fairness, does he?
WorldNetDaily has so committed itself to race-baiting, it appears, that it will even make gays -- normally a demographic WND despises -- into victims for the purpose of keeping up the attack.
Colin Flaherty's August 5 WND article is all about how "black mob violence" is targeting "gays" (scare quotes are WND's):
Black mob violence against “gay” people is a perfect storm of three secret worlds: Newspapers do not report the predators, victims do not report the crimes and being “gay” is “about the worst thing you can be in black culture,” CNN anchor Don Lemon told the New York Times.
That is why a growing number of people – black and white, “gay” and straight – say this violence is more widespread and less reported than most people think.
So let’s start the reporting, beginning with the benign and working toward the violent.
As before, Flaherty is merely compiling scattered anecdotes in order to create a "black people want to kill you" narrative.
Flaherty added at the end:
Reporters note: As part of the research for this story, I sent an email to 350 reporters who were self-identified as “gay” or as covering “gay” issues. I told them about the story of black-mob-on-”gay” violence and sent them a link as an example. I asked them if they knew of any black-on-”gay” violence.
Not one “gay” reporter said he knew of even one example.
If Flaherty put "gay" in scare quotes when emailing them (we know it's a WND stylistic quirk but not whether it's Flaherty's), it's no surprise that none of the reporters he contacted felt like dealing with him. Same for his apparent delcaration to them that he was focuson on "black mob" issues, which only further demonstrated his bias.
In an Aug. 6 FrontPageMag post, Vadum claims that President Obama is engaging in a "nickel-and-dime approach to disenfranchisement" by challenging an Ohio law that doesn't give civilians the same extended early-voting period granted to members of the military. Vadum insists that this is a "real-life example of a political candidate trying to make it harder for those Americans who don’t support him to vote.
In fact, as even the conservatives at Hot Air admit, the Obama campaign is not seeking to reduce the military early-voting window -- it's trying to increase the civilian early-voting window to that of the military. In other words, no military disenfranchisement is going on at all.
Which means that Vadum has gotten his facts wrong. Again.
WND's Farah Fails At Blaming 'Jihadist' For Sikh Shootings Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily editor Joseph Farah shows off his prognostication skills in an Aug. 5 tweet, in which he declared that "I lay 10-to-1 odds jihadist behind attacks on Sikhs" in Wisconsin:
Did anyone take Farah up on that wager? If so, they would've cashed in big time. Turns out the alleged shooter, Wade Michael Page, was a white male and apparent neo-Nazi.
Farah also whined that "Media already blaming Islamophobia" for the Sikh temple shootings. Farah linked to a news article noting that Sikhs "often have been mistaken for Muslims and targeted in hate crimes," something Farah does not apparently dispute.
MRC's Anti-Bloomberg Cartoon Is Just Anti-Child Topic: Media Research Center
An Aug. 3 Media Research Center editorial cartoon by Glenn Foden is ostensibly a critique of New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's effort to encourage breastfeeding, but it just comes off as the Statue of Liberty being resentful of children:
Given the MRC's longtime anti-abortion activism, having a mother being resentful of her child beause of "nursing nannyism" is probably not the impression they intended to leave.
Diana West Whines That Her Fringe Views Can't Get Published Topic: WorldNetDaily
We've written before about how WorldNetDaily columnist Diana West has complained about being dismissed as a birther -- which is exactly what she is. West is at it again, complaining some more that nobody wants to publish her increasingly fringe views.
WND's Bob Unruh gave her space in an Aug. 1 article to complain that the Washington Examiner -- which did publish her birther wackiness at one time -- won't "publish her commentary on the need to investigate the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood on the U.S. government":
West, on her blog, recounted the Examiner’s handling of her column.
“The Washington Examiner spiked my syndicated column on the Muslim Brotherhood,” she said. “If the newspapers’ online search function is accurate, it is even more perplexing to note that the Examiner hasn’t run a single news story on the media-politics feeding frenzy, led by Sen. John McCain, directed at Rep. Michele Bachmann for raising questions.
“Here is how Examiner editorial page editor David Freddoso explained why the column didn’t appear: ‘We opted not to use it this week. We also passed over other syndicated columnists’ offerings about the insinuations against Huma Abedin. The reason is simply that there is no hint of proof that she has done anything improper,’” she wrote.
But West told WND that “doing something improper” is not the main issue.
Nor, apparently, is a newspaper exercising its First Amendment rights to publish what it wants.
Unruh ludicrously frames this as a "switcheroo!" of a columnist spiking a newspaper instead of a columnist petulantly ranting that her fringe views can't get published. Unruh also fails to mention the owner of the Examiner: right-wing billionaire Philip Anschutz.
West is not done whining, though. The same day over at Accuracy in Media, West published a piece further criticizing the Examiner for not publishing her fringe attacks, as well as that it "automatically spikes any syndicated column I write regarding what might be referred to as President Obama’s identity issues."
Is such petulance the mark of a truly professional columnist? West may think so, but anyone outside the far-right fringe she seems to be catering to these days will likely think differently.
Michael Reagan Thinks 'King Obama' Declared War on Chick-fil-A Topic: Newsmax
Michael Reagan writes in his Aug. 4 Newsmax column:
It’s taken more than 200 years, two world wars, an industrial revolution, and the dawn of the Internet, but the United States once again finds itself at the mercy of an intolerant king.
Instead of a tax on tea, King Barack Obama and his Democrat Knights of the Fast Food Table seem intent on imposing a penalty on chicken — but not all chicken.
They are only targeting poultry prepared by Chick-fil-A.
And it’s not because King Obama has decreed that Chick-fil-A makes a product that is any way unsuitable for the American people. It’s because Chick-fil-A President Dan Cathy had the audacity to make comments supporting the “biblical definition” of marriage as between a man and a woman — comments that directly conflict with the King’s recent pronouncement on gay marriage.
Just one little problem: Obnama has not said a word about Chick-fil-A. But since Reagan cares nothing about facts, he believes he can lie with impunity.
WND's Farah On Obama's 'Alleged Mother' Topic: WorldNetDaily
Joseph Farah complains in his August 3 WorldNetDaily column:
The New York Times has discovered yet another way to cheerlead the “authenticity” of the paper’s favorite presidential candidate – not just in this election, but perhaps in any election.
The “newspaper of record” managed to develop a comprehensive story that speculates Barack Obama, who claims, without substantiation, to be the son of a white mother and a Kenyan visiting student, has roots in slavery – like so many other African-Americans.
The irony of this claim is that the slave genealogy comes not from his alleged father, but his alleged mother.
But the real irony of the story is that the public still really has no proof of who Obama’s biological parents were – since they are both dead and the only documentation put forward has been disputed by anyone and everyone who has examined it, including the only law-enforcement investigation to do so.
"Alleged mother"? Farah, needless to say, offer no evidence whatsover to back up his claim that Stanley Ann Dunham is not Obama's mother.
It may be that Farah is trying to distract from the fact that his birther conspiracies are collapsing. He refuses to tell its readers about the growing body of evidence that contradicts birther conspiracies -- including the fact that "the only law-enforcement investigation" to do a birther investigation has been repeatedly busted peddling discredited claims.
NewsBusters Gloats That Carbonite Making Less Money After Dropping Limbaugh Topic: NewsBusters
You'd think, what with all of the Chick-fil-a stuff lately, that NewsBusters would be respectful of a business taking a prinicpled standard that might hurt its business. But you'd be wrong.
Matthew Sheffield uses an August 3 NewsBusters post to gloat that Carbonite saw its profits fall after dropping its ads from Rush LImbaugh's show after the Sandra Fluke "brouhaha."
Of course, Sheffield doesn't explain what the "brouhaha"was actually about -- three days of Limbaugh engaging in a tirade of hate and misogyny against a woman simply for speaking in public about birth control. Then again, Sheffield's MRC co-workers found nothing offensive in Limbaugh's misogyny, so they certainly can't understand why anyone would drop their ads from Limbaugh's show because of it.
Sheffield chortles: "Limbaugh's ratings are higher than before the recent brouhaha over Sandra Fluke and the effort to remove him from the air is collapsing on itself." Not only does Sheffield provide any actual evidence that Limbaugh's ratings are higher, he didn't mention that it got bad enough that Limbaugh had to hire a crisis management specialist.
Newsmax Falsely Claims Obama Trying to 'Suppress Military Vote' Topic: Newsmax
An August 3 Newsmax article by Todd Beamon on a lawsuit the Obama administration filed in Ohio carrles the headline "Obama Campaign Sues in Bid to Suppress Military Vote." In the article, Beamon uncritically allows critics of lawsuit to suggest that the Obama campaign's motive is to suppress the military vote while also noting that "The military vote has traditionally gone Republican."
In fact, there is no evidence that the lawsuit was done in order to "suppress" the military vote. As Media Matters points out, the goal of the lawsuit is to permit civilian voters in Ohio the same extended early-voting period granted to military voters.
In April of 1933, the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (Nazi Party) in Germany began a nationwide boycott of Jewish businesses; this occurred shortly after Adolf Hitler became chancellor of that nation. The official program of discrimination was the first of many measures with which most Americans of my generation are familiar, and which ended with the Holocaust.
In keeping with the uncannily Orwellian tack American liberals have taken, the war on Christianity that has been in progress for decades (in earnest for the last several years) was denied with such vigor that even some conservative pundits questioned its existence. Lately, however, outrageously discriminatory, blatantly hypocritical campaigns against individuals and businesses professing Christian values have been initiated by those on the left. These have made it obvious to all but the profoundly dull that a war on Christianity is indeed in progress.
Efforts on the part of militant homosexual activists and the hard left to demonize Chick-fil-A, the Atlanta-based fast-food chain, are the most recent of this type.
Rush goes on to call Cher a "fag hag," justifying it with an endnote:
*”Fag hag” is a term gay men have used for decades to describe glamorous women who enjoy associating with gay men. Use of the phrase is not intended to constitute an ad hominem attack.
'The Most Important Press Conference Ever Held at Any Time in U.S. History' Topic: Accuracy in Media
Accuracy in Media published a August 1 article by James Simpson lauding the anti-Obama hate-fest hosted by AIM's Cliff Kincaid. The headline on this is -- we are not making this up -- "The Most Important Press Conference Ever Held at Any Time in U.S. History."
Simpson even tries to defend his ludicrous hyperbole:
On Thursday, July 19th, Cliff Kincaid of America’s Survival held a critical National Press Club event: The Vetting: Obama, Radical Islam and the Soros Connection. At this pivotal time, we face a national election that may well determine the fate of our great country. And as America goes, so goes the world.
Thus, it is not an exaggeration to describe this as the most important press conference in U.S. history, because it explicitly details, with new facts and more evidence than ever presented in one place at one time, from extensive, highly credible sources, the dangerously extremist nature of President Obama and the true goals of his virulently anti-American, radical leftist administration. It further reveals how a huge network of U.S.and foreign communist and hard left organizations connected to this President has colluded with radical Islam for decades to oversee the destruction of their mutual enemy: America. Overshadowing all is the malevolent Soros network, and the billions he and others like him are devoting to facilitate this goal.
This information simply must reach the electorate before November.
Media Matters' Oliver Willis serves up a more realistic view of Kincaid's hate-fest and the fringe far-right figures involved inpeddling their anti-Obama conspiracy theories.
Willis also points out that Kincaid's conference received "generous financial support from foundations associated with Richard M. Scaife." That's right -- while Scaife may have kissed and made up with Bill Clinton, he's still funding right-wing conspriacy theorists as he did in the 1990s.
As it so happens, Scaife has also funded AIM to the tune of millions of dollars over the years.
Simpson isn't done with his conspiracy-mongering stenography, though: he concludes by writing, "Look for Part II, upcoming in a few days."
WND Falsely Frames Fox Anchor's Remarks on the Bible Topic: WorldNetDaily
An August 2 WorldNetDaily article misleadingly claims that "Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly today suggested on her 'America Live' program that the Bible prohibits blacks and whites from getting married." This is followed by supposed Bible expert Joseph Farah insisting that "there is nothing in the Bible to suggest marital unions between whites and blacks is sinful."
But WND is falsely framing Kelly's remarks. In fact, she was pointing out that others have used the Bible to argue against interracial marriage, as WND's quoting of Kelly's remarks makes clear:
In an interview with Robert Jeffress, one of the organizers of the Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day, Kelly said:
“This country has a long history of discrimination against certain groups. Eventually we wind up getting it right. Right? Against women, against blacks, the civil rights movement and so on. And in justifying that discrimination when it was in place, some folks turn to the Bible and turn to their religious beliefs and said we have to have slavery because it’s in the Bible. Women have to be second-class citizens because that’s in the Bible. Blacks and whites can’t get married because that’s in the Bible. That wound up in a case. A judge wrote that in an opinion, which the Supreme Court ultimately struck that down, saying that’s not right, judge, because of the equal rights clause. What’s the difference with gay marriage?”
While Jeffress answered the question, he did not address the premise: The Bible nowhere suggests blacks and whites cannot get married.
Kelly simply didn't say what WND and Farah suggest she said. Farah refuses to concede Kelly's accurate point that people have used the Bible to argue in favor of slavery and banning interracial marriage. Farah also doesn't provide any evidence to support his interpretation of the Bible as the only possible one or for why his interpretation should be trusted.
Further, Farah's Bible interpretation is irrelevant to the issue. Kelly never claimed the Bible views she forwarded as her own, let alone a correct interpretation. The "premise" is not about what the Bible actually says about interracial marriage; it's about whether others have used the Bible to make that argument, which is indisputably true.
Anyone surprised that WND is engaging in such dishonest tactic? We're not, either.
Yesterday, WND posted a story involving Fox News “America Live” anchor Megyn Kelly that incorrectly attributed to her the view that the Bible prohibits mix-race marriage.
On further examination, it’s clear that Ms. Kelly wasn’t representing such views as being her own, but was summarizing the views of others – including a Virginia judge – who in the past have cited the Bible in their attempts to justify slavery, the subjugation of women and the prohibition of interracial marriage.
WND sincerely apologizes to Ms. Kelly and has deleted the article from our archives. We also thank the many readers who took the time to point out the problems with the article.