Newsmax publisher Christopher Ruddy has become a good buddy of former President Clinton, so it became a bit of an issue when Newsmax radio host Steve Malzberg went on a tirade about Chelsea Clinton's pregnancy on his April 17 show:
Pardon the skeptic in me ... but what great timing! I mean, purely accidental, purely an act of nature, purely just left up to God. And God answered Hillary Clinton's prayers and she going to have the prop of being a new grandma while she runs for president. It just warms the heart. It brings a tear to my eye. It really does. Wow!
It was enough of an issue that Newsmax distanced itself from the words of its employee in a statement to Mediaite: "Steve Malzberg’s comments were intended to be humorous not hurtful. They were clearly inappropriate and do not reflect the views of Newsmax."
Strangely, there's no mention of the Malzberg controversy on the Newsmax website, even though it did publish a clip of the Media Research Center's Tim Graham complaining that "Chelsea Clinton's pregnancy proves Democrats get royal treatment while Republicans are snubbed."
WND's Matt Barber Fails Satire Topic: WorldNetDaily
Professional gay-basher Matt Barber devoted his April 18 WorldNetDaily column to ranting about a Slate column by William Saletan facetiously claiming that, in the wake of Brendan Eich leaving Mozilla after the firestorm raised by his donation to an anti-gay marriage campaign, we should go after all donors to the campaign. Just one problem -- Barber took it seriously:
No, this is not parody. It is not a bad joke. It is not Mr. Saletan satirically assuming the role of Joseph Goebbels, Adolf Hitler’s Nazi propaganda minister, in an effort to underscore how utterly out of control his own “progressive” movement has become and, in the spirit of argumentum ad absurdum, gently coax his fellow bohemians from madness.
Neither was Slate joking. They were not joining in on Saletan’s fun, pretending, for a day, to be “Nationalsozialistischen Briefe,” Goebbels’ parallel publication, in a clever endeavor to use the power of metaphor as a scrub brush to wash away the stench of totalitarianism from an American left bathed in it.
No, these ruthless cultural Marxists are as serious as Josef Stalin's heart attack.
As Right Wing Watch detailed, after Barber finally got the message that Saletan's column was satire, he rewrote the column while blaming Saletan for for his own inability to recognize satire. Barber's WND column now begins with an author's note stating that Saletan "contacted me claiming that his piece was intended as satire. I have given him the benefit of the doubt." In the column, he now huffs, "Satire is traditionally somewhat clever, witty and fairly easy to recognize as such. Mr. Saletan’s piece was none of these things."
The version of Barber's column at CNSNews.com fails to mention that he originally failed to understand Saletan's satire.
Three U.S. oil companies paid a total of $289.7 billion in corporate income taxes between 2007 and 2012, the biggest portion of corporate taxes in absolute terms, according to analysis by Standard & Poor’s Capital IQ.
The data show, as reported in the New York Times on May 25, 2013, that when it came to corporate income taxes -- federal, state, local, and foreign – between 2007 to 2012 the three major oil companies paid the following: ExxonMobil, $146 billion; Chevron, $85.5 billion; and ConocoPhillips, $58.2 billion.
That totals $289.7 billion.
In addition, a 2013 report (p. 7) by the oil and natural gas trade group American Petroleum Institute (API), using S&P Research Insight and S&P 1500 by GICS Industry Code data, shows that the oil and gas industry had the highest effective tax rate during that time period (averaged over 2007-2012) of any U.S. business: 44.6%.
That compares, according to S&P Capital IQ, to Apple -- the largest market capital company at $400 billion – which had an effective tax rate of 14% over the same timeframe. Oil and gas firms are paying more than three times the tax rate of Apple.
Because Starr can't be bothered to go beyond PR flacks for the API, readers don't know that this amount is in dispute because of how the tax figures are computed. Reuters reports:
The difference between the effective tax rate cited by Exxon and lower rates cited by groups such as Citizens for Tax Justice, a left-leaning tax activist group, has several causes.
One is that the company counts foreign taxes paid, while Citizens for Tax Justice does not. Another is that Exxon counts deferred taxes, as well, but the consumer group does not. Still another is which profits are counted by the company and critics.
There are other technical variations shaping the calculations of effective tax rates, but these subtleties are often lost in the sound bites of the ongoing tax policy debate.
[...]
Citizens for Tax Justice considers U.S. profits and U.S. taxes paid only. By that measure, Exxon Mobil paid 13 percent of its U.S. income in taxes after deductions and benefits in 2011, according to a Reuters calculation of securities filings.
Chevron paid about 19 percent by that method, near CTJ's average for all industries.
It is a far cry from the 35 percent top corporate tax rate.
But, again, since the only person Starr apparently actually talked to for this article was a "spokesperson for API," she's not reporting the full truth.
Surprise, Surprise, Another Lie from WND's Farah Topic: WorldNetDaily
Joseph Farah writes in an April 18 WorldNetDaily column:
No doubt those behind the 1993 Clinton administration plan to disarm personnel on U.S. military bases thought nobody in their right mind would attack one. Since that decision, hundreds of soldiers and civilian workers on domestic U.S. military bases have been killed or wounded. Prior to that decision, there were no recorded mass shootings.
In fact, the Department of Defense directive establishing the rules limiting firearms on military bases was issued in 1992, when George H.W. Bush was president and Dick Cheney was Secretary of Defense.
But hey, serial liar Farah did admit that he publishes misinformation, so it's all good!
Daniel Pipes Pretends He Didn't Help Inspire Norwegian Massacre Topic: Accuracy in Media
Daniel Pipes uses an April 16 Accuracy in Media column to make a big deal out of left-wing writer Max Blumenthal getting praise in a post by alleged Kansas City Jewish center shooter Frazier Glenn Miller on a racist website as evidence that Blumenthal inspired Miller:
Daniel Greenfield suggests that Miller referred here to “a Blumenthal interview on Putin’s propaganda channel RT, which he has since defended, in which he claimed that Netanyahu was targeting Ron Paul and Obama.”
Greenfield further finds that “there are 382 results for [Max Blumenthal] on the Neo-Nazi VNN forum that the Kansas City killer patronized.” Participatnts at Stormfront, the premier American Neo-Nazi site, often mention Blumenthal approvingly.
Mondoweiss took a closer look at those references to Blumenthal and shreds that count:
Yet a closer look reveals that Google suspects the majority of the results to be duplicates, and that—after weeding out those duplicates—Google finds only “about 71” references to “Max Blumenthal.”
Even within those 71 references, I found several more duplicates, narrowing the count to 46.
…over 300 references praising Blumenthal’s criticism of the State of Israel and American-Jewish support of Israeli policy.
Wrong. Among the VNN Forum’s approximately 46 references to “Max Blumenthal,” many of them would not be considered “praise”—nor do they reference “criticism of the State of Israel” or “American-Jewish support of Israeli policy.”
For instance, the VNN Forum has a weird way of showing “praise” when its participants refer to Blumenthal as:
“Jew Max Blumenthal”
“Kike Max Blumenthal”
“Jewish propagandists including … Max Blumenthal”
“an avowed queer like Max Blumenthal”
“Max Blumenthal … a flamboyant, exhibitionistic anti-racist”
“that douche bag sodomite Max Blumenthal”
One page on the forum even links to an article that sarcastically refers to Blumenthal as “Country Music Expert Max Blumenthal.”
A different VNN page refers to “obvious biases and outright misinterpretations contained in Max Blumenthal’s article,” while another one accuses Blumenthal of “vicious character assassinations.”
The real purpose of Pipes' column, however, is to pretend this standard can't be applied to him and other anti-Muslim activists like Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller for their repeated citations in the manifesto by Norwegian massacre perpetrator Anders Breivik:
Never mind the fundamental inaccuracies of these statements – that (1) Geller, Spencer, or I ever engaged in “eliminationist” rhetoric and (2) ignoring that Breivik cited leftists about as much as rightists and Muslims as often as counter-jihadis – what’s important is that Blumenthal exploited Breivik’s murderous rampage to score cheap points against fellow American analysts.
[...]
Breivik, it is now clear, intentionally sought to discredit counter-jihadis like me; but Miller gives every appearance of being a true believer inspired in part by Blumenthal’s ravings.
That's not true either. As Daniel Luban summed up: "So, to be clear, Breivik agrees with Pipes’s allies about the threat Muslims pose to the West, and merely disagrees with them about the desirability of mass deportation, revolution, and 'armed resistance' to deal with it."
Pipes cites as evidence that Breivik "intentionally sought to discredit counter-jihadis" his own speculation as well as that of other anti-Muslim activists about Breivik's alleged move toward a Nazi-esque outlook. But that does not mean his anti-Muslim outlook wasn't inspired by the likes of Pipes, and Pipes provides no evidence of a plausible motive for Breivik to intentionally discredit him.
P.S. We've previously highlighted how Breivik's concerns about Islam and multiculturalism are closely aligned with the editorial agenda of WorldNetDaily.
WND's Unruh Misleads, Hides Facts on Montana Ammo Plant Raid Topic: WorldNetDaily
When you read a Bob Unruh article, experience shows that you have to ask yourself the question: "What relevant information is Unruh leaving out?" That happens yet again in an April 16 WorldNetDaily article:
Critics of the way federal agencies in Montana handled a recent raid on a company that recycles brass for ammunition are calling for an investigation.
Government officials have declined to respond to allegations that armed officers with weapons drawn locked up USA Brass employees, confiscated their cell phones and otherwise violated their rights.
The incident in Bozeman, Mont., drew little attention from media.
To protect against lead contamination, USA Brass had installed filters and added training. The company had passed a subsequent inspection before officers from the Environmental Protection Agency and FBI arrived, apparently with guns drawn.
Unruh's description of how the company has purportedly acted to "protect against lead contamination" conveniently leaves out the fact that USA Brass has a documented history of such violations. A Montana TV station reports:
Last fall the Gallatin City-County Health Department reported 22 people, all current or former USA Brass employees showed elevated levels of lead in their blood. In September of 2013 the US Department of Labor cited USA Brass with 10 serious violations and proposed more than $45,000 in penalties and fines.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, OSHA, workers found the company overexposed workers to lead and failed to provide basic safeguards to reduce lead exposure, including breathing protection and protective clothing.
Unruh also didn't mention that an EPA official stated that the USA Brass raid involved "alleged violations of environmental law."And Unruh misleads by not identifying when the raid occurred, implying that it was somehow tied to the federal standoff with the Bundy family in Nevada. In fact, the raid took place on March 27, two weeks before the Bundy standoff.
WND adds on to the misleading nature of Unruh's article by including this photo of a SWAT team:
In fact, this photo is apparently a stock photo and is not from the USA Brass raid. The Bozeman Daily Chronicle published the following photos showing that the situation was much less menacing than Unruh portrayed:
If WND editor Joseph Farah ever wonders why nobody believes what his "news" orgabization publishes, this article serves as a prime example.
MRC's Bozell, Who Uses Catholicism As A Cudgel, Questions Pelosi's Sincerity of Faith Topic: Media Research Center
Craig Bannister gives us his boss' latest rant in an April 18 CNSNews.com blog post:
Conservative leader and Catholic L. Brent Bozell III today blasted Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) for mimicking the pope's Holy Week foot-washing tradition while touting her immigration reform legislation:
"I am a Catholic and I am offended at Minority Leader Pelosi's continued abuses of the Catholic Church's teachings and traditions. As a Catholic who has watched Ms. Pelosi champion one anti-Catholic cause after another, I believe this to be sacrilegious.
"Christ taught the washing of the feet as an act of utter humility, while she turned a sacred religious tradition into a grandstanding political publicity stunt. Ms. Pelosi's politicizing of Holy Week is sickening and shameful."
That's an odd statement coming from someone who has made a career out of politicizing his religion. As we've documented, Bozell has made one of the MRC's missions to go after any critic of Catholicism, no matter how much that criticism is deserved. He even has a NewsBusters blogger whose sole job is to whitewash Catholic scandals.
Isn't Bozell's using his religion as a political cudgel just as sacreligious as what he's criticizing Pelosi for doing? When has Bozell ever practiced his religion with "utter humility" instead of using it for political gain?
Perhaps Bozell should answer those questions before he publicly questions the sincerity of others' religious faith.
WND Admits Farah Acts As An Enemy, Not A Journalist Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily's Joseph Farah has long presented himself as a journalist when it was more than clear to everyone else that he was acting as a right-wing partisan. But WND appears to be conceding that Farah was acting in enemy mode when he targeted the Clinton administration in the 1990s. It's right there in the headline of this April 18 article:
It's also right there in the lead of the unbylined article:
If you want to learn what Hillary Clinton meant by “the vast right-wing conspiracy,” part of the extensive collection of dossiers the Clinton White House kept on its media enemies was released Friday by the Clinton Library.
The most important of the documents, “The Communication Stream of Conspiracy Commerce,” originally some 331 pages, was reduced to only 28 pages in the sanitized and heavily redacted version posted by the presidential library.
One of the components of this "stream of conspiracy commerce" was the Western Journalism Center, which Farah founded and from which WND sprang.
The article does quote Farah later on trying to keep up the journalistic pretense: "This was a report distributed to select U.S. reporters in an effort to discredit a new breed of investigative journalism into what was, until now, already emerging as the most scandal-plagued administration in the history of the United States."
Farah will never admit that his "new breed of investigative journalism" is nothing more than the basest, sleaziest rumor-mongering that has no basis in fact and which nobody believes. In other words, the kind of stuff you write when you're acting as an enemy, not a journalist.
CNS' Starr Finds A Way To Attack Obamas For Their Tax Return Topic: CNSNews.com
It seems to be an official CNSNews.com policy -- nothing positive must ever be reported about President Obama and his administration, and any story must lead with the most negative spin possible.
Penny Starr, being a loyal CNS employee, implements the policy perfectly in an April 14 article on Obama's tax returns. Here's how she starts it:
President Barack Obama gave $1,500, or 0.3 percent of his income, to St. John’s Episcopal Church in Washington, D.C., according to his 2013 tax return.
The tax return, made public on Friday and filed jointly with first lady Michelle Obama, shows Obama’s income for the year was $503,183. In Schedule A, under “cash contributions,” the $1,500 donation to St. John’s is listed.
It's not until the fourth paragraph that Starr gets around to mentioning that the Obamas donated more than $59,000 to charities last year.
Starr has performed her Obama-bashing duty. Her boss, Terry Jeffrey, must be proud.
WND Still Pushing Discredited Bundy Ranch-China Conspiracy Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily is simply not letting go of its Bundy ranch standoff conspiracy. James Simpson writes in an April 16 WND article:
Supposedly at issue was the desert tortoise, a reptile on the endangered species list that purportedly could not coexist on the land with Bundy’s cattle. But why, many asked, would the turtle suddenly be threatened by animals it had cohabited with for the 100-plus years the Bundy ranch has been in operation?
A BLM document unearthed last week discusses mitigation strategies for the Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone, just southwest of the Bundy ranch. The “mitigation strategy” proposed to use the grazing lands near the Bundy ranch as a kind of sanctuary for the desert tortoise, because the entire region is slated for a large number of solar, wind and geothermal energy generation facilities.
The solar projects will obliterate most of the turtle’s natural habitat.
Bloggers quickly made a connection between the effort to remove Bundy’s cattle and a solar energy project in Southern Nevada financed by the communist Chinese energy firm ENN. It was to be the largest solar farm in the U.S.
Reid had lobbied heavily for the company’s business, even traveling to China. Reid’s son, Rory Reid, formerly a Clark County commissioner, became a lobbyist for ENN, and the Senate majority leader’s former senior adviser, Neil Kornze, now leads the BLM.
But as we've pointed out, other conservative websites have reported that the land for the proposed solar project is nowhere near Bundy's ranch.
It's only after he's written the above that he admits it's bogus: "But the solar energy complex financed by the communist Chinese was not at the heart of the Bundy Ranch fiasco after all. The project died last year."
But wait! The conspiracy lives!
However, the BLM’s library of renewable energy projects revealed it was only one of more than 50 solar, wind and geothermal projects planned for Nevada, California, Arizona and other Western states. Reid was focused on at least one, and maybe more, of the projects, much closer to the Bundy ranch.
[...]
A company called First Solar is listed on a BLM renewable energy project map of southern Nevada, one of 11 sited in Clark County. Additionally, the map shows six wind projects in Clark County and also lists the K Road Moapa project under “transmission projects.” In other words, there is a lot more going on than media have reported.
First Solar investors comprise a who’s who of Democratic insiders, including major Obama campaign bundlers, billionaire investor Paul Tudor Jones, Al Gore, Ted Turner and Goldman Sachs. First Solar’s CEO is Michael Ahearn, former fundraiser for both Obama and Harry Reid.
First Solar has at least three other solar projects in California. So it becomes apparent why the BLM, Reid and many other interested parties have such an intense interest in the desert tortoise.
The lucrative business opportunities explain both why Cliven Bundy has been facing such intense intimidation and why all the other ranchers have been chased out. Bundy represents a financial threat not merely to Reid, but a whole gamut of Democrats tied to Obama, Clinton and Gore.
The conspiracy must live. What would Simpson and WND have to write about otherwise.
MRC's Graham Sneers At Chelsea Clinton's Pregnancy Topic: Media Research Center
Yesterday we asked if the Media Research Center's Tim Graham would learn a lesson from that Sally Kohn column he's been touting -- you know, the one where she realized her conservative opponents were personable and human.
The answer, apparently, is no.
Graham used the opportunity of Chelsea Clinton's announced pregnanacy to sneer in a tweet, "Congratulations! The Clintons have decided it's a baby, not a women's-rights-problem."
It seems that Graham is continuing to refuse to acknowledge the Clintons as human, and he is apparently incapable of being nice to someone without turning it into a snide partisan attack. But we knew that about him already, didn't we?
WND's Farah Just Can't Stop Peddling Birther Lies, Continued Topic: WorldNetDaily
Joseph Farah reminds us what a dedicated birther he is in his April 16 WorldNetDaily column raging at President Obama for daring to tell a birther joke:
I don’t think he has stopped thinking about how he conned the American public into giving him the presidency without genuine, fraud-free documentation. He only produced something a few days after Corsi and WND Books released the No. 1 best-selling book in the nation, “Where’s the Birth Certificate?” – with the intent of halting the sales of a book that proves beyond a reasonable doubt Obama is as phony as his birth certificate.
Watch the video for yourself. Obama’s laughs went on self-consciously long.
“Ha, ha. I think it’s still up on a website somewhere,” he said. “Ha, ha, ha, ha.”
Then he took a long pause.
“You remember that? That was crazy,” he said. “That was some crazy stuff. Ha, ha, ha.
“I hadn’t thought about that in a while,” he said, shaking his head. “Ha, ha, ha. Ha, ha.”
Har har hardy ha har.
Are you laughing about this?
Were you part of the media establishment chorus that laughed off the eligibility question?
This is where that laughter leads.
Are you still laughing?
Now that he has hoodwinked the American people into allowing him to be president for five years without proper identification, the story is that he wants anyone to VOTE without it, too!
[...]
I’m glad he brought up his birth certificate again. Maybe it’s time for Americans to give that phony document the examination it should have received when he released it.
If Obama thinks the birth certificate non-troversy is a joke, it's people like Farah that have made it that way. It's clear that no documentation Obama could produce would satisfy the likes of Farah, Jerome Corsi and the other birthers.
If Farah actually cared about the birth certificate, WND would have reported the evidence debunking the birthers' claims. But it hasn't -- which tells us that Farah doesn't care whether it's real or not, only that he can use the issue as a cudgel against a political enemy.
And Farah can't even do his birther rant without telling a lie. Obama released his long-form birth certificate on April 27, 2011 -- three weeks before Corsi's "Where's the Birth Certificate was released, not "a few days after" the book came out as Farah claimed.
Farah's impotent rage at Obama for making fun of him demonstrates that he's still sore about sqandering what little credibility WND had for a five-year birther crusade that backfired because of his own arrogance and desire for vengeance. Nobody believes him or WND anymore, and he only has himself to blame.
The only chance Farah has to salvage his reputation is to admit the obvious -- that the birther crusade was a sham all along. But that would require him to show some humility and have an attitude of repentence, and we know that ain't gonna happen.
CNS Promotes Claims of Serial Health Care Misleader Topic: CNSNews.com
Susan Jones devotes an April 15 CNSNews.com article to the musings of Betsy McCaughey:
A leading Obamacare critic sees trouble ahead for people who signed up for health insurance on the new government exchanges.
First, even the insurance companies that issue the plans are worried about "public pushback" from rising insurance premiums, Betsey McCaughey, the former lieutenant governor of New York and author of the book "Beating Obamacare," told Fox News's Neil Cavuto on Monday.
"That's only part of the bad news," she said. "You're also going to see a million people or more default. In other words, they have paid their first premium, but when they discover what it really means to have a $3,000 or $5,000 deductible on their plan, they go to their doctor again and again and have to pay full freight, even though they're paying a premium, they're going to stop paying their premium.
Jones makes no attempt to get reaction to McCaughey's dire views. Because she's in stenography mode, Jones is certainly not going to tell her readers that McCaughey has a lengthyhistory of misinforming about Obamacare.
Jones is presenting as authoritative the views of someone who has been repeatedly caught distorting and misinforming. That's pretty much the opposite of journalism.
WND's Kupelian Distorts Study on Autism And Antidepressants Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily managing editor David Kupelian has long fearmongered about antidepressants, most recently straining to link them to autism (WND's attempt to blame autism on vaccines was a dismal failure). Kupelian is at it again in an April 15 WND article:
A major new study released Monday finds that pregnant woman taking antidepressants are significantly at risk for giving birth to children with autism – especially if the baby is a boy.
The study, funded by the National Institutes of Health, is titled “Prenatal SSRI Use and Offspring With Autism Spectrum Disorder or Developmental Delay,” and was conducted by researchers from Johns Hopkins in Baltimore, the University of Massachusetts Medical School in Worcester, and the Department of Public Health Sciences at UC Davis. It was published in “Pediatrics,” the official journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics. Read entire study here (pdf).
Consistent with most previous human and animal studies on the question, researchers concluded in this latest study that so-called SSRI antidepressants (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors) – including virtually all major antidepressant brands, like Prozac, Paxil, Luvox, Zoloft and Celexa – appear to constitute a significant risk factor for autism spectrum disorders, or ASDs, particularly in male children.
But Kupelian is exaggerating the study's findings. U.S. News & World Report puts things in perspective and points out that untreated depression in a pregnant woman is a risk factor as well:
While the study found an association between prenatal use of SSRI antidepressants and autism risk in boys, it did not prove cause-and-effect.
The study authors were quick to point out that there are risks to both the mother and fetus from untreated depression.
"It's a complex decision whether to treat or not treat depression with medications during pregnancy," Lee said. "There are so many factors to consider. We didn't intend for our study to be used as a basis for clinical treatment decisions. Women should talk with their doctors about SSRI treatments."
[...]
Dr. Eyal Shemesh, chief of behavioral and developmental health in the department of pediatrics at the Mount Sinai Kravis Children's Hospital, in New York City said: "It's very hard to do a definitive study of this. The confounders here are huge. They [the study authors] initially found no difference between the groups -- it was only when they looked specifically at gender-adjusted differences that they saw an association. We still don't know whether SSRIs are associated with more autism. We need to look further."
Shemesh added: "The one thing we really know with certainty is that depression is not good for pregnancy. Women who are depressed have bad outcomes and their kids don't do well. We need to treat depression, and there are psychotherapy options and medication options. You need to make a reasoned decision with your doctor. I would be very concerned about any woman just stopping her medication."
Kuupelian concedes the issue of depression, but he quotes some doctor claiming that “non-drug approaches to depression, such as psychotherapy and exercise, are as good or better for the treatment of depression in many women."
While Kupelian fearmongers about the supposed "significant" risk, U.S. News quotes one doctor saying: "If the risk of autism is around 1 percent now, and you raise it to 3 percent, that still means that 97 percent of the time, you won't have an autism spectrum disorder. The chances are still overwhelming that they won't have a child with an autism spectrum disorder."
Will MRC's Graham Learn A Lesson From Sally Kohn? Topic: NewsBusters
Tim Graham writes in an April 16 NewsBusters post:
Liberal pundit Sally Kohn is on Yahoo! this morning with an article titled "What I learned as a liberal talking head on Fox News." She learned conservatives were personable and human.
What? Yes, she says that would amaze "fellow liberals who had not watched much Fox News but had seen the most outlandish clips of Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity that had made it to 'The Daily Show' or YouTube. They perhaps imagined that walking down the hallway outside makeup, Mr. O'Reilly might yell then, too, instead of just saying hello. That's a funny notion, but it couldn't be further from the truth."
The obvious thought here is: Why can't liberals just turn on Fox News for themselves and spend an hour? Why must they only watch it after it's "curated" by Jon Stewart?
Graham won't mention that Kohn has learned lessons that his fellow MRC employees apparently haven't.
Would a conservative who recognized the humanity of liberals call President Obama a "skinny ghetto crackhead," as MRC chief Brent Bozell has? Or get into a shouting matchh with a liberal guest, as Bozell did?
Would a conservative who recognized the humanity of liberals call Sandra Fluke a "horizontal laborer" and a "Lincoln Tunnel hitcher," as the MRC's Matt Philbin has? Or respond to a critic by telling him to "fuck off," as Philbin has?
Would a conservative who recognized the humanity of liberals dismiss a liberal's calmly argued statements as nothing but shrieking and ranting, as NewsBustsers' Jeffrey Meyer did?
Would a conservative who recognized the humanity of liberals smear a criticism he disagreed with as "effete," as Graham himself did?
Instead of merely praising Kohn for recognizing that conservatives are human, Graham should be following her example by reminding his fellow MRCers -- including his boss -- that liberals are human too.
Newsmax publisher Christopher Ruddy has become a good buddy of former President Clinton, so it became a bit of an issue when Newsmax radio host Steve Malzberg went on a tirade about Chelsea Clinton's pregnancy on his April 17 show:
Professional gay-basher 
Penny Starr 
Joseph Farah writes in an April 18 WorldNetDaily 
Daniel Pipes uses an April 16 Accuracy in Media 
Craig Bannister gives us his boss' latest rant in an April 18 CNSNews.com 
WorldNetDaily is simply not letting go of its Bundy ranch standoff conspiracy. James Simpson writes in an April 16 WND 
Susan Jones devotes an April 15 CNSNews.com 
WorldNetDaily managing editor David Kupelian has long fearmongered about antidepressants, most recently 
Tim Graham writes in an April 16 NewsBusters 
