WND Promotes Self-Proclaimed 'Forensic Profiler' Who Hates Obama Topic: WorldNetDaily
It's amazing how much you can blame on someone when you're claiming they're admitting to things unconsciously.
The increasingly discredited WorldNetDaily has been promoting for some time a self-proclaimed forensic profiler named Andrew Hodges, who wrote a book (sold in the WND online store, natch) that through a "unique psycholinguistic technique he calls 'ThoughtPrint Decoding," Hodges can read between the lines and decode the unconscious messages President Obama gives through speeches.
Bob Unruh devotes a Nov. 24 WND article to promoting Hodges' latest claim, that Obama "is confessing to stealing the 2012 president election." How? Well, first, we have to sit through some right-wing boilerplate about purported voter fraud:
In Hodges’ assessment: “Following Obama’s presidential reelection impressive findings have emerged pointing to a fraudulent election. A brief summary reveals precincts in Ohio and Pennsylvania reported greater than 100 percent of registered voters turned out to vote. In 100 precincts in Ohio Obama got 99 percent of the votes. Pennsylvania illegally removed GOP poll inspectors from voting locations. Computer irregularities in Pennsylvania (and elsewhere) reverted to a default Obama vote no matter who the voter selected.”
He continued, “Florida prevented absentee ballots from being observed by neutral observers. Military ballots were systematically denied active-duty servicemen and women around the world.”
So he said all he had to do was sit back and wait for the confession.
And since claiming to be able to delve into Obama's subconscious by reading between the lines of Obama's words is Hodges' stock in trade, you can be sure that he will twist anything Obama says into his preconceived conclusion. And indeed he does:
“On election night after initial voting reports declared him the winner, Obama once more unconsciously pointed to a confession. Before his anxious and relieved supporters, Obama spoke of his pride in his daughters but commented, ‘But I will say this for now, one dog’s probably enough’ – on the surface referring back to promising his daughters a puppy after his 2008 victory,” Hodges said.
“But stay with his spontaneous right-brain image. Understand he could have chosen any matter on which to comment and any description but his brilliant unconscious mind which always speaks in a symbolic right-brain language – and carefully chooses its images – selected ‘one dog is enough.’
“Read his confession that America has just elected a dog of a president – and once was enough,” Hodges said.
“He suggests that he’s dogging it as president, faking it as an illegal president in a second way now with a stolen election. That he’s a real ‘dog’ for such deception. The image of a dog further suggests: a pet favored by the media and blind supporters who would not dare to explore his illegality by birth or unfair election; that he will dog or haunt America for another four years because a dog also bites especially a wounded one. (And Obama is deeply wounded beyond belief.) Once again Obama unconsciously points to his deceptive anger and indeed he has bitten/assaulted America in multiple ways, both covert and overt, and plans on more of the same.”
Further, during a Nov. 9 press conference, “Obama snapped at two senators who had criticized U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice for her erroneous declarations regarding the Benghazi attack. He challenged the senators to ‘come after me,’ not Rice,” Hodges said.
“This matches his hidden instructions in the U.N. speech that American citizens be prepared to protest unfair elections. In both his 2008 Fathers’ Day speech as a candidate and in his inaugural address he unconsciously instructed citizens to confront him as an illegal foreign-born candidate/ president,” Hodges said.
“Obama’s ideas continually reflect a preoccupation with unconscious guilt and a need to be caught and stopped. His behavior and decision-making around the Benghazi tragedy with obvious cover-up suggest more guilt – a need to be questioned, a secret confession of being a weak leader and a president who puts a U.S. ambassador’s life at risk,” said Hodges.
Hodges appears to be unware of the concept of psychological projection, because that's exactly what he's doing here. Hodges is a birther and avid WND reader (he once praised WND editor Joseph Farah for having "observed Obama falling apart beyond belief" during the first debate) who's cloaked his own hatred of Obama with a bit of pseudo-scientific silliness.
Hodges' WND-beloved book is called "The Obama Confession: Secret Fear, Secret Fury." Hodges' own anti-Obama fury isn't secret at all.
MRC Researcher: Allowing Women To Vote Is 'Left-Wing' Topic: Media Research Center
Media Research Center senior news analyst Scott Whitlock devotes a Nov. 22 NewsBusters post to criticizing a History Channel program on Republican President William McKinley for painting him as "a corporate stooge who took bribes and had his speeches rewritten by business titan John D. Rockefeller." Whitlock's defense of McKinley is less than persuasive: "There's no doubt that Rockefeller, Morgan and Carnegie donated heavily to the McKinley campaign and feared the impact electing the left-wing Bryan would have on business. But the documentary's fanciful dramatic sequences imply it's bribery."
Well, Rockefeller did donate $250,000 to McKinley's 1896 campaign -- which, according to this currency calculator, is equivalent to $6.65 million in today's dollars. That's a lot of money in a time when there was no mass media to buy commercials on.
Whitlock goes on to attack McKinley's opponent, William Jennings Bryan, as having a "left-wing mindset." He cites a Washington Post article noting that Bryan advocated "women’s suffrage, creation of the Federal Reserve and implementation of a progressive income tax."
Huh? We weren't aware that allowing women to vote was a "left-wing" concept. Does Whitlock oppose these things?
WND Columnist Ridiculously Blames Obama for Arrests of 'Artists' Topic: WorldNetDaily
Under the headline "Obama's America: where artists are terrorists," Marisa Martin rants in a Nov. 22 WorldNetDaily column about how artist Geoffrey McGann was "interrogated and publicly humiliated" for wearing a "strange watch" while attempting to board a plane at an airport.
Martin rather innocuously describes McGann's watch as merely having "extra springs, fuses and mechanical pieces, none of them workable or connected, as I understand." Here's a picture of said watch:
Yeah, that shouldn't freak out any TSA person at all.
Martin then launches into you standard right-wing anti-TSA rant:
The National Security Agency seems obsessed with fabricating an enemy that in no way resembles any terrorist, living or dead. They consistently deny that Islamic terrorists are Islamic, which requires some mental dexterity, a lot of paperwork and a contingent of advisers from the Muslim Brotherhood.
Of course, if Islamic terrorists know they're being profiled at airports, they would certainly do their best to not look like an Islamic terrorist, would they not? Martin seems to not have considered that. And she most certainly will do no such thing, because she's moving on to blaming Obama for repressing artists:
This may be a comical fluke by an overly zealous baggage handler and cop, but considering the plight of the pathetic little Egyptian “filmmaker” Mark Basseley Youssef, it is beginning to look like a new day for the rights of expression in America.
Youssef, the state sanctioned scapegoat tossed to our enemies, is living in a U.S.-sponsored hell. An obscure immigrant with an amateurish YouTube promo that was also unknown before the White House targeted him for attack, he was arrested in the middle of night accompanied by with hoards of reporters for … parole violations? We are to led believe that concurrent with the Benghazi mess, this man’s suddenly discovered parole violations are pressing, national news. Local prosecutors were sent to his home and federal brass brought in to deal with the grave dangers of insulting the Prophet.
Is Youssef our poster child, a reverse Red Scare campaign for artists and writers who dare to step out of line?
Obama had just delivered his menacing declaration to the U.N. that “the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.” Certainly the White House, the State Department and the U.N. offices of Susan Rice have slapped a zero tolerance sign in the face of anyone who would “offend” Muslims. They have by no means, however, made the same effort to protect the sensibilities or even the lives of Christians and Jews across the globe.
Since when does the White House denounce and micromanage artistic expression in the U.S.?
The answer is easy: Since about 2008.
Martin can't seem to decide whether Youssef, aka Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, the maker of the anti-Muslim film that provoked deadly demonstrations in the Middle East, is an artist or just "pathetic." But then, she goes on to excuse his long criminal history to defend his "artistic expression":
The excuse for the abysmal treatment of Youssef was that he was a “criminal,” a fact loudly trumpeted by the castrated press who has helped with his digital lynching. True enough, he was a small time crook with a string of forgeries, false identities and drugs usage – not unlike some who have served this administration. Eight purported violations were suddenly discovered in September, just after Youssef was accused of being involved in making the “film.”
Among many who questioned this circus was Los Angeles defense attorney Mark Werksman and law professors Lawrence Rosenthal and Jonathan Turley. Former federal prosecutor Bill Otis noted that probation violators routinely “get a pass on violations far more serious,” while Youssef had every right to make a “perfectly legal video.” Will we keep those rights?
Martin also overlooks the fact that Youssef/Nakoula was never charged with anything relating to his film --he violated his probation on a felony bank fraud case by using using several aliases. Martin offers no evidence that Youssef was treated any differently than anyone else found to have violated probation on a felony. (We also thought that conservatives believed in law and order.)
Youssef drew attention to himself, and his criminal history, by making a deliberately inflammatory film. There's no evidence Youssef was engaging in anything but anti-Muslim propaganda by making this film. Nevertheless, Martin portrayed him as a martyr:
Youssef is imprisoned for a year (high YouTube crimes), still alive but not for lack of fatwas. Western artists must man up and support each other soon before this is commonplace. Artists and writers are especially good at this, exposing ludicrous rules and rash authorities. Who is the Goya or Beckmann for America, or have they all become subordinates and servants for the system?
CNS' Lying Headline: 'Gov't Tells Americans What to Discuss at Holiday Dinner' Topic: CNSNews.com
A Nov. 22 CNSNews.com article by Susan Jones carries the headline "Gov't Tells Americans What to Discuss at Holiday Dinner; Declares Thanksgiving 'Family Health History Day'."
That headline suggests coersion or a mandate -- that the government has decreed that these subjects must be discussed. That's a lie, of course -- no such government mandate exists, nor does Jones' article claim there is one.
It seems that CNS has chosen to pander to right-wing readers (and, presumably, hope for a Drudge link) by sticking a false, alarmist headline on Jones' article. How cynical can you get?
President Obama's re-election really seems to have sent WorldNetDaily editor around the bend.
Right Wing Watch reports on a recent radio interview by Farah, in which he fearmongers about purported voter fraud contributing to Obama's re-election (at least twoexamples pushed by WND are contradicted by the facts), which led to Farah fearmongering about the idea that Obama would try to remain in power beyond a second term, saying, " if you don’t believe in the Constitution and you’ve got a President who is not even eligible under the Constitution to serve, anything is possible, isn’t it?"
Farah also attacks New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie for praising Obama's response to Hurricane Sandy: "Unfortunately, instead of turning to God he turned to Obama for help, that’s the problem that we have in America."
NewsBusters Finds Bias In Fake News Topic: NewsBusters
The Media Research Center is so obsessed with uncovering "liberal media bias," it's trying to find it in fictional news.
A Nov. 20 NewsBsuters post by Ryan Robertson complains about a story at the satirical news site The Onion, which features how "8-year-old Palestinian boy Walid Suleiman expressed both joy and astonishment Monday that he has yet to be killed in an Israeli military attack." Robertson's complaint? "At no point in the short piece does it reference the terrorist organization Hamas, the death and destruction they cause, or Hamas terrorists' penchant for firing rockets from locations that are full of innocent civilians."
Here's one of the key pieces of evidence that President obama stole the election, according to WorldNetDaily:
On WND's "big list of voter fraud reports," it's stated that "in one Ohio county – widely considered ground zero for the election – Obama received 106,258 votes from 98,213 eligible voters – an impossible 108 percent of the vote."
A Nov. 12 article by Bob Unruh uncritically repeats a claim in a petition on the White House website that "In one county alone in Ohio, which was a battleground state, President Obama received 106,258 votes … but there were only 98,213 eligible voters. It’s not humanly possible to get 108 percent of the vote."
Andrea Shea King suggests that an right-wing blog item headlined "Good News: Obama Won County in Ohio with 108% Voter Registration" documents evidence of voter fraud.
WND editor Joseph Farah asserted that "In another Ohio county, Obama won with 108 percent of the voters registered."
Just one little problem: It's not true.
The Columbus Dispatch reports that the county has been identified in some places as Wood County, Ohio -- where, in fact, 61,967 Wood County voters cast a ballot on Nov. 6 out of 104,461 registered voters.
WND has never offered evidence that the Ohio over-voting claim has any basis in fact, nor has it bothered to issue a correction for this clearly false claim.
Newsmax's Walsh: Most Mexican Immigrants Are From 'Lower Economic and Uneducated Class' Topic: Newsmax
James Walsh just doesn't get Hispanics.
Fresh off advocating a return to migrant-worker programs once called "legalized slavery" as a way for Republicans to attract Hispanic votes, immigrant-basher Walsh is back at it in a Nov. 21 Newsmax column in which he continues to not understand why Hispanics didn't support the Republican for president:
Hispanics voters, particularly the Mexican majority, proved to be a paradox in the 2012 election. The image of Hispanics as family and faith oriented, hard-working, entrepreneurial, conservative economically, supporters of education, and opponents of legalizing drugs was debunked at the polls.
Pre-election surveys showed Hispanic voters more concerned about jobs, the weak economy, education for their children, and healthcare than they were about immigration; yet they voted for four more years of President Barack Obama.
Republicans need principled politicians such as former Gov. Jeb Bush (left) and Sen. Marco Rubio to sell U.S. values to Hispanic voters.
By doing so, they found themselves supporting attacks on religion and promoting gay marriage, abortion, legalized marijuana, fiscal irresponsibility, and “revenge” voting.
Of course, a vote for President Obama's re-election does not equal "revenge voting" -- outside of Walsh's head, that is.
Walsh then purports to offer this explanation of Hispanics in America, in which he notes that the majority of them are "the lower economic and uneducated class" from Mexico:
To understand the Mexican voter, Republicans need to look at Mexico’s history. Mexico was “discovered” by the Spaniards in 1519 and conquered by 1521. After three centuries of Spanish dominance, the Mexican people were led in an 1812-13 revolt by a Catholic priest who was later executed by the Spanish authorities.
For the next 120 years, Mexico suffered political revolutions, assassinations, internecine fighting, and turmoil. In 1857, a radical liberal Constitution was pushed through by President Benito Juarez, a Mestizo (of the uneducated class).
In the late 1800s and early 1900s, nihilistic leaders like Juarez, Villa, and Zapata led the Mestizos in attacks on business, military, and “rich” communities as part of class warfare that included attacks on religion, especially the Catholic Church.
Historically, Mexico has had three economic and social classes, Mestizos — Indians or indigenous people, and the lower economic and uneducated class; Criollos — those of mixed Indian and Spanish/European blood and the middle class; and Peninsulares — pure Spanish/ European blood (white) and the business and land-owning class. The majority of illegal aliens entering the United States are Mestizos.
As members of the lower economic class, they favor the Democrats who offer welfare programs, strong government intervention in economic affairs, and progressive taxation of the “rich.” These immigrants see Republicans as elitists (like the Peninsulares) who favor the “rich” over the “poor”— a viewpoint influenced by Mexican history.
In contrast, Mexican-Americans who have lived in the United States for decades and centuries favor the Republican political model.
Walsh goes on to write, "One Hispanic said, 'We vote with our hearts,' and another proclaimed, 'We own America. They owe us.'" Who is this "one Hispanic," where did Walsh find this purpoted quote, and how did Walsh decide that he speaks for all Hispanics in America? Walsh doesn't explain.
WND Ignores Explanation For 'Inexplicable' RNC Consent Decree Topic: WorldNetDaily
In trying to push the sour-grapes idea of voter fraud contributing to President obama's re-election, Bob Unruh writes in a Nov. 20 WorldNetDaily article:
Voting machines suspiciously defaulting to Barack Obama? Buses loaded with strangers appearing at polling stations? Even ballots turning out 100 percent for one candidate in precinct reports?
In short, suspicions of vote fraud?
That’s too bad, because a race-based consent decree negotiated by Democrats against the Republican National Committee a generation ago still has tied the RNC’s hands, and GOP officials could be cited for contempt – or worse – if they try to make sure American elections are clean.
The case is the Democratic National Committee vs. the Republican National Committee, originally from 1982.
Democrats alleged Republicans were trying intimidate minority voters in New Jersey and brought the legal action. The RNC, inexplicably, decided to agree to a consent decree before a Democrat-appointed judge rather than fight the claims.
Even though Unruh links to a summary the ruling in question, he apparently didn't bother to read it, for it contains an explanation. According to the JudicialReview.com summary Unruh links to:
During the 1981 New Jersey gubernatorial election, the DNC, the New Jersey Democratic State Committee (“DSC”), Virginia L. Peggins, and Lynette Monroe brought an action against the RNC, the New Jersey Republican State Committee (“RSC”), John A. Kelly, Ronald Kaufman, and Alex Hurtado, alleging that the RNC and RSC targeted minority voters in an effort to intimidate them in violation of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (“VRA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 1971, 1973, and the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. The RNC allegedly created a voter challenge list by mailing sample ballots to individuals in precincts with a high percentage of racial or ethnic minority registered voters and, then, including individuals whose postcards were returned as undeliverable on a list of voters to challenge at the polls. The RNC also allegedly enlisted the help of off-duty sheriffs and police officers to intimidate voters by standing at polling places in minority precincts during voting with “National Ballot Security Task Force” armbands. Some of the officers allegedly wore firearms in a visible manner.
Unruh seems not to understand that voter intimidation does not equal what he calls "ballot security activities." By that same definition, the New Black Panthers were engaged in ballot security activities" in 2008, though Unruh would certainly never call it it that. It can also be argued that the RNC's conceding to a consent decree is a tacit admission of wrongdoing.
Further, the consent decree doesn't actually prevent the RNC from engaging in post-election "voter fraud" challenges -- it simply prevents them from engaging in voter intimidation and suppression. From the JudicialReview.com summary:
To settle the lawsuit, the RNC and RSC entered into the Consent Decree at issue here. The RNC and RSC agreed that they would:
[I]n the future, in all states and territories of the United States:
(a) comply with all applicable state and federal laws protecting the rights of duly qualified citizens to vote for the candidate(s) of their choice;
(b) in the event that they produce or place any signs which are part of ballot security activities, cause said signs to disclose that they are authorized or sponsored by the party committees and any other committees participating with the party committees;
(c) refrain from giving any directions to or permitting their agents or employees to remove or deface any lawfully printed and placed campaign materials or signs;
(d) refrain from giving any directions to or permitting their employees to campaign within restricted polling areas or to interrogate prospective voters as to their qualifications to vote prior to their entry to a polling place;
(e) refrain from undertaking any ballot security activities in polling places or election districts where the racial or ethnic composition of such districts is a factor in the decision to conduct, or the actual conduct of, such activities there and where a purpose or significant effect of such activities is to deter qualified voters from voting; and the conduct of such activities disproportionately in or directed toward districts that have a substantial proportion of racial or ethnic populations shall be considered relevant evidence of the existence of such a factor and purpose;
(f) refrain from having private personnel deputized as law enforcement personnel in connection with ballot security activities.
Also, fact that there were "ballots turning out 100 percent for one candidate in precinct reports" is not "voter fraud." As we've noted, many of those precincts in which everyone voted for Obama are nearly exclusively black and Democrat.
Now That Election's Over, MRC's Bozell Criticizes Romney (And, For Some Reason, Transgenders) Topic: Media Research Center
The election is over, and Mitt Romney lost. Time for Media Research Center chief Brent Bozell to do some Monday morning quarterbacking in his Nov. 21 column:
So what went wrong? Let me add my analysis. Three words: Message. Messenger. Messaging.
The messenger was flawed, unwilling to take risks, unprepared for the Obama political wrecking machine, left dazed and confused Election Night.
If inept messaging could be deemed a felony, this campaign was a crime against humanity. I've never seen worse commercials more badly placed on the wrong media than this. In Virginia, we had to suffer through 10 gazillion TV ads attacking China for stealing American technology. China?
More can and should be written about the messenger and his messaging, but let's concentrate on his message. Or the lack thereof, which was the fatal problem.
The message was there in black and white. If only Mitt Romney had embraced Reagan's vision and philosophy and record and pitted it against Obama's on all counts.
Then apropos of nothing, Bozell changes the subject and decides to take a whack at transgenders:
I write all this on the Transgender Day of Remembrance. The what you say? Yes, you heard me correctly. You see, "Transgender Day of Remembrance is commemorated each year on Nov. 20 to memorialize those we have lost as a result of hate and violence all too often faced by transgender people."
Who am I quoting, you ask? It must be some extremist nut job, you say. Actually, that's true, but let me continue. "I invite you to the Secretary's Conference Room ... for a special discussion with three transgender appointees doing tremendous [sic] throughout the Administration. Deputy Chief of Staff Mary Beth Maxwell will moderate an interactive discussion with Chloe Schwenke, U.S. Agency for International Development, Amanda Simpson, U.S. Department of Defense and our own Dylan Orr, Office of Disability Employment, U.S. Department of Labor." The memo is signed by one Ana M. Ma, chief of staff at Barack Obama's Department of Labor.
It was all such low hanging fruit for Mitt Romney.
We did not realize that hating transgenders qualifies as "low hanging frult," unless Bozell was attempting a horrible pun.
Bozell's mini-rant stems from a Nov. 20 article at his CNSNews.com. Bozell's MRC has regularly freaked out about perceived transgender "propaganda" as part of its anti-gay agenda.
WND's Massie Examines "Bitter Black Mindset,' Ignores His Own Topic: WorldNetDaily
Mychal Massie's Nov. 18 WorldNetDaily column carries the headline "Understanding the bitter black mindset." One might think (or hope) that he was writing about himself -- after all, his unhinged Obama derangement and eagerness to spread lies more than demonstrate that he's one of the most bitter and hateful black men in America.
Alas, that is not to be be. Instead, Massie ponders why "Reasonable minds are often perplexed as to why many blacks are bitter and angry at society in general and conservatives specifically." And he express his bitterness at Obama yet again:
I would bet a box of Altadis Behike cigars that 95 percent of the number of blacks who voted for Obama cannot name one policy that explains their support. That’s because the color of his skin and his code-speak (which receive infused credibility because of his wife) trump character and good governance.
This is something whites – and white so-called conservatives specifically – will never be able to overcome until they approach these people with the truth and not apologies. The strength of the truth must be allowed to stand on its own, absent of vapid, guilt-ridden apologies.
Massie might want to actually try a little self-analysis sometime -- and explain to us all why he is so dripping with bitterness and pathological derangment against President Obama and his wife.
NEW ARTICLE -- Ronald Kessler: A Return to Romney-Fluffing Topic: Newsmax
Following his dalliance with Donald Trump, The Newsmax writer goes back to his first presidential love, Mitt Romney. Read more >>
MRC Falsely Ties Soros to Walmart Strike Topic: Media Research Center
Writing about a planned strike by Walmart employees on Black Friday, a Nov. 21 MRC Business & Media Institute item by Mike Ciandella states that "according to The Daily Caller, the activist group MoveOn.org, which is funded by left-wing billionaire George Soros may help boost their numbers. MoveOn e-mailed subscribers to encourage them to join the protestors on Black Friday."
But the Daily Caller article that Ciandella cites has issued a correction:
An earlier version of this story connected the liberal financier George Soros with MoveOn.org. Soros was a major contributor to one of MoveOn’s political organizations more than six years ago, but does not appear connected to its current Wal-Mart protests.
Will Ciandella issue a correction as well? Don't count on it.
Judson Phillips Doesn't Understand the Constitution (And Neither Does WND) Topic: WorldNetDaily
Judson Philllips' Nov. 19 WorldNetDaily column was dedicated to the idea that President Obama could be kept from returning to office by Republicans boycotting the Electoral College, thus denying the quorum needed to convene:
And the best part – this is totally constitutional.
The 12th Amendment of the Constitution as well as Article II of the Constitution govern the Electoral College.
According to the 12th Amendment, for the Electoral College to be able to select the president, it must have a quorum of two-thirds of the states voting. If enough states refuse to participate, the Electoral College will not have a quorum. If the Electoral College does not have a quorum or otherwise cannot vote or decide, then the responsibility for selecting the president and vice president devolves to the Congress.
But Phillips clearly didn't read his Constitution very well. Here's what the relevant portion of the 12th Amendment says:
The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice.
In other words, it appears that a quorum is demanded only when no candidate has a majority of Electoral College votes and the vote goes to the House of Representatives. That does not apply to Obama, who has a majority of votes.
Phillips, by the way, is head of Tea Party Nation, so you'd think he'd know his Constitution better than that.
Since publication, WND has added an editor's note admitting the error:
Editor’s note, Nov. 20, 2012: Since this column was posted it has been discovered that the premise presented about the Electoral College and the Constitution is in error. According to the 12th Amendment, a two-thirds quorum is required in the House of Representatives, not the Electoral College.
WND didn't explain why no editor at an organization that purports to be Constitution-savvy (witness its longtime birther obsession over the definition of "natural born citizen") made an effort to save both WND and Phillips some embarrassment by catching Phillips' error before it was published.
CNS Bizarrely Blames Tollway Crashes On Transportation Secretary Topic: CNSNews.com
Susan Jones began a Nov. 19 CNSNews.com article this way:
Brand-new express lanes on the Capital Beltway in Northern Virginia -- praised by Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood as a "model for American infrastructure" -- opened with a bang on Saturday: multiple collisions involving multiple vehicles.
Were these accidents really LaHood's fault, as she suggests? Of course not. Even Jones herself eventually reports that according to police, "every accident was caused when a driver suddenly swerved or made a sudden lane change to avoid the toll lanes." That has nothing whatsoever to do with LaHood's support for such toll lanes.
Jones also ignored the fact that the project to create these toll/express lanes was created in 2007, more than a year before the Obama administration even existed.
In other words, LaHood wasn't even present at the creation of these lanes. Yet Jones wants you to think that this is somehow his fault.
That willingness to be dishonest is how much CNS hates Obama.