WND Writer Defends Putin's Prosecution of Pussy Riot -- And Putin, Too Topic: WorldNetDaily
Following in the footsteps of Ed Koch at Newsmax, Kevin DeAnna uses an Aug. 28 WorldNetDaily column to defend the Russian prosecution of the punk band Pussy Riot for "hooliganism" -- then takes it a step further by defending Russian leader Vladimir Putin as nothing more than "simply a Russian nationalist."
DeAnna lists other henious activities by the group, such as "public orgies, shoving chicken into their vaginas at a supermarket and overturning police cars (with officers inside)." His source for this is a post on the Lew Rockwell website that also goes way conspiratorial by suggesting that the State Department funneled money to the group with the goal of "undermining a foreign leader viewed as out of favor with Washington."
DeAnna's ultimate goal, though, is to denounce conservatives who came to Pussy Riot's defense. He begins his column by stating, "What do conservatives do when the institutions they are fighting to defend join the other side? Unfortunately, the American right has an answer to that question – fight harder than ever to save their enemies." He goes on to complain that "The band’s ideology is typically boring leftism, which American conservatives seem determined to misinterpret. The reason is because it might get in the way of bashing Russia."
DeAnna concludes with a Putin-defending rant:
Russia is targeted precisely because it is conservative. The vast majority of Russians were outraged at P—y Riot’s stunt. As Putin himself noted, there’s a reason they didn’t target a mosque. The real audience was the left-wing American and European media, which never misses an opportunity to promote degeneracy when it is directed at Christian or Western targets.
Putin is not perfect, and Russia is certainly corrupt, though it was far worse before Putin’s takeover. Putin is simply a Russian nationalist, doing his best to strengthen his own country’s interests. Perhaps used to our own leaders deliberately sabotaging us, this may appear threatening to Americans. If anything, Putin has not gone far enough, making concessions to Islamists in a shortsighted attempt to try to hang on to Russia’s Muslim southern territories.
It’s probably not surprising that American conservatism has been reduced to defending free speech only for leftists and concealing its own powerlessness with swaggering bellicosity against media-approved enemies. The problem is that’s not where the enemy is anymore.
There actually is an imperialist, left-wing power that interferes with other countries. It pushes mass Muslim immigration on Western nations. It tries to displace traditional values in Christian countries. It hands over former American allies to the Muslim Brotherhood. It supports progressive activist organizations with millions of taxpayer dollars in collusion with far-left activists like George Soros. That country is the United States.
American conservatives should be angry about the subversion of their own country, not following the left’s orders yet again by bellowing attacks against the Third Rome.
DeAnna, by the way, is a WND staff writer who's the former head of a far-right student group called Youth for Western Civilization, which the Southern Poverty Law Center notes has received the benefit of fundraising from Cliff Kincaid-approved racist Jared Taylor.
The MRC Declares War on Androgyny Topic: Media Research Center
Matt Philbin uses an Aug. 27 Media Research Center Culture & Media Institute item to rant about how Salon writer Mary Elizabeth Williams praised a Japanese Toyota commercial featuring an androgynous male model:
Sound creepy? Not to Williams. This, she wrote, is “the changing way gender is portrayed in advertising.” The model “represents a new understanding that gender isn’t always neatly defined, and that if a man can be alluringly beautiful, that shouldn’t be anything to be laughed at or scared of.”
Unfortunately, we Americans aren’t sophisticated enough to appreciate what Williams asserted was “definitely an idea worth sharing.”
“Why is the ad not running in America?” she asked. “No doubt because it would immediately gay indoctrinate all our menfolk and then there would never be any more babies made and Mitt Romney would never become president.”
That, of course, is exactly the mocking nastiness that greets any conservative critique of the “queering” of mass culture.
Actually, such conservative critiques are, if anything, more mocking and nasty than the response. Philbin helpfully provides an example:
In 2011, the Culture and Media Institute caused a media firestorm by pointing out that clothing manufacturer J.Crew’s marketing materials featuring the company president painting her young son’s toenails hot pink was a nod to the gay agenda.
Philbin, like the CMI piece he's referencing, is making the entirely unsubstantiated assumption that pink on a boy automatically equals "gay agenda" when it may just be that the kid's a 5-year-old who likes bright colors.
Philbin never explains why gay people, perceived or otherwise, are not allowed to be depicted in advertising, but he's on an anti-gay roll:
That agenda is advancing. No TV show is complete these days without a gay character or storyline. Gay activist group GLAAD is in a committed relationship with CNN. GM recently began its own campaign marketing to American gays.
So companies shouldn't try to make money by marketing to gays? Really?
Remember, the MRC has an anti-gay agenda, and apparently all androgynous people are guy, so they must be denounced too.
WND's Corsi Returns to the Cesspool of Obama Gay Rumor-Mongering Topic: WorldNetDaily
Unable to admit that his birther conspiracy has been utterly discredited -- he won't even concede that Mike Zullo's cold case posse, of which he is a de facto member, completely botched the birth certificate coding stuff -- Jerome Corsi must find ways to distract from his failure. As befits the personality of himself and his boss, Joseph Farah, he's chosen to fully embrace his inner sleazybottom-feeder, peddling rumors that Barack Obama is gay.
He's been doing this for a while now, but he's been wading deeperanddeeper into that cesspool in recent months as the birther conspiracies he's peddled for years have imploded.
Corsi's latest attempt at slime-peddling is an Aug. 28 article focused around Obama assistant Reggie Love and how "the Internet" was "abuzz with speculation" that Love temporarily stepped down from his position because of college photos that "purported to show a heavily inebriated Love surrounded by fellow students assisting him in engaging in a homosexual act at a party."
Corsi then goes on to tout how the Drudge Report "toyed with headlines, photos and page placement over the years that give the impression Love was something more than a presidential assistant" to Obama, then finally moved to peddle completely unsubstantiated rumors that Obama and Love have had a sexual relationship.
Corsi presents not a single fact in support of this claim -- only rumors. This is the WND "news" standard now, apparently.
One of Corsi's sources for his sleaze on Love is Wayne Madsen, whom we've previously noted peddling false birther claims and discredited anti-vaccine conspiracies. This is the best "source" Corsi has, by the way.
Corsi has never cared about the truth -- he only wants to destroy Obama. His new obsession with homosexuality only confirms that. (Though, for all we know, it may be more than a professional interest.)
AIM's Kincaid Quotes Racist Jared Taylor -- Again Topic: Accuracy in Media
Accuracy in Media's Cliff Kincaid really, really likes Jared Taylor and his racist group American Renaissance.
In an Aug. 28 AIM column, Kincaid approvingly quotes Taylor's opinion on:
Jared Taylor, who runs the organization American Renaissance, comments, “Rachel Maddow wonders whether Mitt Romney is trying to get ‘the white vote.’ What an idea! Everyone tries to cultivate blacks, Hispanics, and even Asians, but wouldn’t it be ‘racist’ to cultivate the white vote? Actually, because they cast 76.3 percent of the votes in the 2008 election, anything that shifts even one or two percent of whites your way is worth doing.”
Taylor told AIM, “Hispanics were only 7.4 percent of the electorate [in 2008], so getting just one percent more of whites to vote for you is like getting 10 percent more Hispanics. If you were Romney, where would you concentrate your efforts?”
Jared Taylor, author of the book, White Identity, has been banned from most programs because he dares to talk about whites as people with special interests of their own, separate from various minority groups. “Only whites must always act as individuals and never as members of a group that promotes shared interests,” he notes in his book, in commenting on the politically correct mindset that prevails on racial matters in America.
The Southern Poverty Law Center, the far-left group that is said to have inspired the violent homosexual to open fire on the Washington office of the Family Research Council, has smeared Taylor as a “white nationalist.”
Calling Taylor a "white nationalist" isn't a smear -- it's the truth. Here's more of what the SPLC says about Taylor:
In his personal bearing and tone, Jared Taylor projects himself as a courtly presenter of ideas that most would describe as crudely white supremacist — a kind of modern-day version of the refined but racist colonialist of old. He is the founder of the New Century Foundation and edits its American Renaissance magazine, which, despite its pseudo-academic polish, regularly publishes proponents of eugenics and blatant anti-black and anti-Latino racists. Taylor also hosts a conference every other year where racist intellectuals rub shoulders with Klansmen, neo-Nazis and other white supremacists.
Blacks, Taylor writes, are "crime-prone," "dissipated," "pathological" and "deviant."
Taylor, whose 1992 Paved With Good Intentions: The Failure of Race Relations in Contemporary America makes similar points in a book format, went further out on the racist limb in 1993 by speaking at a conference of the Council of Conservative Citizens, a white supremacist group that has described black people as "a retrograde species of humanity." Today, Taylor's New Century Foundation is intimately related to the council through "common membership, governing bodies, trustees and officers," according to the foundation's tax forms.
In the late 1990s, Taylor came out with The Color of Crime, a booklet that tried to use crime statistics to "prove" that blacks are far more criminally prone than whites — and that argued, based on a misunderstanding of what constitutes a hate crime, that black "hate crimes" against whites exponentially outnumbered the reverse. That racist booklet is now a staple in white supremacist circles. Taylor's New Century Foundation also plays host to biannual American Renaissance Conferences, suit-and-tie affairs that attract a broad spectrum of the participants from the racist right, including neo-Nazis, white supremacists, Holocaust deniers and eugenicists. The conferences nearly always have an international presence. Speakers have included such prominent figures in the European radical right as Nick Griffin, leader of the racist British National Party, and Bruno Gollnisch, the then second-in-command of Jean Marie Le Pen's immigrant-bashing French National Front.
More recently, Taylor has sounded off against all black culture, railing in a 2005 article in American Renaissance, "Africa in our Midst: Lessons from Katrina" that "the barbaric behavior" of the city's black population after the hurricane revealed a key truth: "Blacks and whites are different. When blacks are left entirely to their own devices, Western civilization —any kind of civilization — disappears."
Kincaid has long sought to mainstream Taylor. In 2011, Kincaid ludicrously claimed that "there is no evidence that American Renaissance by any objective standard is a racist organization" -- a claim he tried to walk back a few days later. Kincaid also approvingly quoted Taylor in a May article.
How does Kincaid's boss, Don Irvine, feel about Kincaid's regular invocation of a white supremacist on the AIM website? He must approve, otherwise it wouldn't be happening, right?
Richard Bartholomew catches Joel Richardson misleading about the prevalence of child brides in the Islamic world in an Aug. 16 WorldNetDaily article. Bartholomew points out that Richardson is overstating the issue, ignoring factors other than religion that drive the situation as well as the existence of age-of-consent laws in Muslim countries, and misleadingly boils down the issue to Muslims "simply emulating the behaviour of Muhammad in his marriage to Aisha."
Bartholomew adds, "What a shame that Richardson appears to put less energy into providing truthful witness than he does into trying to discern signs of the coming Muslim Anti-Christ."
NEW ARTICLE: A Cog In The MRC's Anti-Gay Outrage Machine Topic: Media Research Center
Matt Hadro's job at the Media Research Center involves getting upset every time a gay person appears on CNN. Read more >>
WND Falsely Suggests Obama Stealing From Your Smartphone Topic: WorldNetDaily
An Aug. 24 WorldNetDaily article by Bob Unruh carries the headline, "Is your smartphone donating to Obama's campaign?"
The implication, of course, is that Obama is stealing money from you through your smartphone -- a shocking allegation if it were in any way true.
Needless to say, it's not. Not even Unruh accuses Obama of theft. Rather, it's about potential scams perpetrated by gaining access to personal information stored in smartphones. Unruh's only mention Obama doesn't come until the 17th paragraph of his article, and it's limited to noting that "Barack Obama’s campaign already uses a campaign app to identify registered Democrats by first name, last initial and age."
Once again, WND has stuck a highly misleading, potentially libelous headline on an article that doesn't support the allegation being made.
MRC Spending $300,000 Preaching To the Choir At RNC Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center is dropping some serious coin to promote its anti-media message at the Republican National Convention. From an Aug. 27 CNSNews.com article by Pete Winn:
From now until Sept. 2, the media watchdog group, which is the parent organization of CNSNews.com, has rented three 14 ft- by-48 ft. billboards along Route 60 -- the primary road running from the Tampa airport to the convention site, the Tampa Bay Times Forum.
In addition to the billboards, a plane will fly a 40 ft.-by-80 ft. aerial banner around the city, weather-permitting, and a mobile billboard truck with the same slogan will drive around the Tampa area displaying the slogan.
High-powered projectors will also shine night-time projections with the message onto buildings surrounding the downtown convention site. And "Don't Believe the Liberal Media" buttons, bumper stickers and signs will all be handed out around the outside of the convention hall, according to MRC Marketing Director Ed Molchany.
The $300,000 Tampa campaign is part of an overall $5 million “Tell the Truth 2012” campaign that MRC President L. Brent Bozell III announced in January, during the New Hampshire primary.
Does the fact that the Media Research Center has to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to get its message out to a highly targeted audience that should theoretically already be receptive to it indicate the weakness of that message? If the MRC thinks so, it certainly won't say so in public.
Winn's boss, Brent Bozell, is quoted as making this curiously worded statement:
“Our goal is not--and I underscore this--our goal is not to do what they do, which is to attempt to elect or defeat a candidate," said Bozell. "We want a level playing field. We want the rules to apply to both sides. If you are going to have hard-hitting investigative reporting on one side, perfect. Then have hard-hitting investigative reporting on the other.”
Bozell has to say that the MRC's efforts are not intended "to attempt to elect or defeat a candidate" -- the MRC would be violating its 501(c)3 nonprofit status if Bozell wasn't tossing out that disclaimer and keeping up the pretense that it's not an arm of the Republican Party and the Romney campaign.
However, Bozell is simply lying when he says that "we want the rules to apply to both sides." The MRC has never applied the same rules to, say, Fox News that it applies to the "liberal media." And the MRC's "Tell the Truth!" campaign is hostile to media outlets that tell the truth about conservatives.
In rapid response to Mitt Romney’s joke to a crowd in his home state of Michigan, that “No one ever asked me for my birth certificate,” Barack Obama’s campaign put out a 15-second TV spot to declare, “America doesn’t need a birther-in-chief.”
I’ve finally found a point of agreement with Obama.
America certainly does not need a “birther-in-chief” – which is one of at least 2,012 reasons to dump Barack Obama from the White House on Election Day.
America already has a “birther-in-chief.” His name is Barack Obama.
Who started the controversy over his identity? He did. For at least 17 years he boasted in his literary biography of being born in Kenya. That claim was quietly withdrawn only in 2007 – less than a year before he declared his candidacy for the presidency. It was never repudiated or explained. His own wife referred to Kenya as his home country. His autobiography claims he is the offspring of two parents, neither of which could bestow upon him the constitutional requirement of “natural born citizenship.” When repeatedly asked for years into his presidency to produce his birth certificate, he released a document every expert who has looked at it agrees is fraudulent – including the one and only law enforcement investigation to examine the evidence.
No one else besides Barack Obama can claim credit for the title “birther-in-chief.” He owns it. He prompted the very term. He sustained it needlessly. And then he blames others for his own absolute unwillingness to provide the most rudimentary documentation of his eligibility for office.
Well, it's easy to claim that "every expert who has looked at [the birth certificate] agrees [it] is fraudulent" when you blacklist the experts who agree that it's authentic. WND even solicited one expert, Ivan Zatkovich, who failed to conclude that the document was "fraudulent," but cherry-picked his findings and refused to publish his full report.
That, of course, is just the latest lie Farah has told his readers. Speaking of lies, providing two different birth certificates apparently does not qualify as "the most rudimentary documentation of his eligibility for office" in Farah's paranoid, hate-filled little world.
Farah unsurprisingly approves of Mitt Romney's birther dig at Obama, lamenting that "I’m only sorry he apologized for it later." Farah laughably goes on to claim that his rapidly self-destrructing birther conspiracy is "a story bigger than Watergate and the Teapot Dome scandal combined." Again, that's easy to believe if you deliberately ignore all evidence to the contrary, which appears to be WND's official editorial policy.
NewsBusters: Only Conservatives Should Review Anti-Obama Films Topic: NewsBusters
Mike Bates spends his Aug. 27 NewsBusters post having a conniption over a less-than-favorable Los Angeles Times review of the factually challenged Dinesh D'Souza film "2016: Obama's America."
Bates largely ignores the substance of the review -- in which review Betsy Sharkey points out how the numerous re-enactments in the film "play like badly scripted sitcoms" and dhow D'Souza's "quiet, scholarly sensibility ... works against him on screen" -- to obsess over how Sharkey unfavorably compared the film to the works of liberal filmmaker Michael Moore.
Bates concludes: "Reviews are by nature subjective. But couldn't the LA Times have found an analyst who's not an unabashed fan girl for Michael Moore to report on a conservative movie?"
So only conservatives -- who, presumably, would be more predisposed to giving favorable reviews to films that promote views they agree with -- should be allowed to review a conservative movie? Isn't that the kind of media bias the MRC argues against?
Oh, we forgot -- conservatives are exempt from bias allegations at the MRC.
Right-Wing Doctor Agrees With Akin on Rape Pregnancy Topic: WorldNetDaily
Jane Orient is the executive director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, a right-wing group that 's known for its extremistviews on medicine. Thus, it's the group you'd expect would come to the defense of Todd Akin's discredited claim that rape rarely causes pregnancy because "the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down."
Is the risk of pregnancy lower with forcible rape, and if so, why? Off the cuff, Todd Akin gave a layman’s restatement of the point made by some pro-life physicians that the female body has some defense mechanisms against pregnancy in cases of rape.
The process of fertilization, implantation and maintenance of pregnancy is an intricate one, highly dependent on hormonal signals. Stress is conceded to make miscarriage more likely by disrupting the hormonal milieu. What could be more stressful than a forcible rape?
The intensity of the media outrage against Akin’s remark shows that this is not a scientific dispute about numbers, or the definition of “really rare.” Medical science is being replaced by political demagoguery about the issue of rape.
Actually, the person injecting politics into the issue is Orient. What do doctors who aren't pushing an agenda have to say?
"What we know is that chronic stress can decrease fertility," said Dr. Sharon Phelan, a fellow at the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and professor in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the University of New Mexico, in a telephone interview with CNN.
Phelan cites emotional, medical or nutritional stress as forms of chronic stress.
"The acute stress does not have the same impact," she added, referring to the act of rape.
A 1996 study published in the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology estimated 32,101 pregnancies in the United States each year result from rape.
Orient then deviated even more from medical reality to launch an even more explicit political attack:
Starting from one extreme, some radical feminists appear to believe that most if not all sex involving a man and a woman is a rape. The man is always the perpetrator, and the woman, a victim. Clearly, there are activities that are not forcible rape and do not involve the same emotional reaction, but are still not legitimate. These would include statutory rape, “date rape” and seduction. To suggest that a woman ‘s dress or behavior might in some cases have contributed is, of course, unacceptable.
At the other extreme, radical Muslims appear to believe that rape rarely if ever occurs, and that all non-marital contact between a man and a woman is illegitimate and the fault of the temptress. From the fury directed at Akin, you’d think he had advocated Shariah law and “honor” killings.
Politicians who claim to be pro-life are often adamant about preserving an exception for rape or incest. This exception is a fig leaf over the reality of what an abortion is. Coming too close to The Question is feared to jeopardize the chance to gain political power.
Akin’s phrasing became a convenient pretext for raising a disproportionate clamor as a diversion from the real problem. Those politicians and commentators who are calling for Akin’s head have signaled where their priorities lie.
Remember, this is the woman who was accusing others of replacing medical science with "political demagoguery." Or was she talking about herself?
We've detailed the logrolling relationship between Newsmax's Ronald Kessler and David Keene, former head of the American Conservative Union (which gave Kessler its "Robert Novak Journalist of the Year Award") and current head of the National Rifle Association.
Well, this dynamic duo is back together again in an Aug. 27 Newsmax article, in which Kessler gives Keene a platform to opine that "Mitt Romney is well positioned to win the presidency and should pull it off by five to seven percentage points."
Kessler even serves up some of his trademark slobbering, declaring that "Keene is one of the country’s sharpest political observers." Weirdly, though, Kessler doesn't mention Keene's current NRA job, identifying him only as "former chairman of the American Conservative Union."
Colin Flaherty's latest race-baiting opus at WorldNetDaily is an Aug. 26 piece on how he determined a fight at a warehouse party was "black mob violence." Apparently, if there's more than one black person involved in a violent incident, that qualifies as "black mob violence" as far as Flaherty's concerned.
Flaherty never explains why he's so driven to prove that all black people are violent thugs.
NewsBusters Misleads About Obama and Abortion Topic: NewsBusters
Matthew Sheffield uses an Aug. 24 NewsBusters post to try and deflect fro the Todd Akin controversy by purporting to tell "the actual position of President Barack Obama" on abortion. But he misleads in doing so, asserting that Obama has come out "in favor of allowing an abortionist to let a born alive infant die outside of his/her mother's womb." Sheffield claims this demonstrates "who the real extremist on the subject of abortion is."
That same day, a NewsBusters post by Chuck Donovan echoed Sheffield in claiming that Obama opposed "a law guaranteeing equal treatment for children born alive after failed abortions."
In fact, Illinois already had a law requiring medical care for a viable fetus that survived an abortion. What Sheffield and Donovan are apparently referring to are efforts in 2001, 2002, and 2003 to expand that law with a "born alive" clause requiring that any fetus that survived an abortion, even ones that could not survive outside the womb, receive medical care. Obama has said he opposed those bills because the law would likely have been struck down in the courts for giving legal status to fetuses, a requirement that a second doctor be present at abortions, and their lack of a "neutrality clause" to make sure the bill would not affect current abortion laws.
Taking Obama's votes out of context -- context that demonstrates Obama is not the "extremist" Sheffield claims he is -- shows the extremes Sheffield and Donovan will go to smear Obama and defend Akin's extreme no-exceptions rule on abortion.
Molotov Mitchell Downplays His Anti-Gay Hate Topic: WorldNetDaily
Molotov Mitchell doesn't want to admit how much he hates gays.
In his Feb. 22 WorldNetDaily video, Mitchell claims that he ended up by the Southern Poverty Law Center's "crazy bad guy list" becuase "I had the audacity to disagree on gay marriage."
Mitchell is lying. Here's what the SPLC said about Mitchell:
Mitchell looks like a hipster, but he reads the Bible like a Christian Reconstructionist, or one who seeks to impose biblical law on secular society. In a 2009 video blog for WorldNetDaily (WND), a far-right online publication (see also Joseph Farah profile above), he endorsed a Ugandan bill that would make homosexuality in many cases a capital offense.
Mitchell’s wife also posts on WND, under the name “DJ Dolce.” In 2010, she endorsed the thoroughly disproven theory that gay men were responsible for the Holocaust.
So, yeah, there's a lot more going on with ol' Molotov than merely disagreeing on gay marriage. He apparently wants to be treated like a victim. (We've previously written about Mitchell's fondness for the anti-gay Uganda law and gay-bashing in general, as well as his similar fondness for playing the some-of-my-best-friends-are-gay card.)
Mitchell also uncritically repeats Family Research Council chief Tony Perkins' discredited assertion that his organization was targeted by a shooter because the SPLC put it on a hate-group list merely for opposing gay marriage, "right up there with real white supremacists."
Speaking of which, that link to "real white supremacists" isn't as far-fetched as Mitchell want you to think. In the 1990s, Perkins was the manager for the campaign of a Senate campaign in Louisiana that rented a mailing list from former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke. Perkins has also spoken before a chapter of the Council of Conservative Citizens, a white supremacist group descended from the anti-integration White Citizens Councils of the 1950s and 1960s.
Mitchell doesn't mention any of that in his video, of course, but he does makessure to point out that Robert Byrd was a former Klansman (never mind that he recanted his membership decades ago, and is also dead).