CNS Falsely Links Border Crisis to DREAM Act Topic: CNSNews.com
A June 26 CNSNews.com article by Brittany M. Hughes, detailing her visit to an overcrowded detention facility in Texas for the influx of Central American refugees currently crossing the border, carries the misleading headline "The ‘DREAM Act’ I Saw."
But the surge in refugees has nothing whatsoever to do with the DREAM Act, which was never implemented. A separate CNS article appears to concede this, approvingly quoting a bishop pointing out that the influx is primarily caused by "the rise of violence against children, fomented by organized criminal networks, including drug cartels. They act with impunity, threatening families and coercing children and youth to join their membership or face violence or even death."
Further, even if the DREAM Act -- which would provide a path to citizenship for certain children of illegal immigrants -- had been implemented, it wouldn't apply to the current influx of refugees. The act would apply only to those who were in the U.S. before June 2007.
NEW ARTICLE: WorldNetDaily's Literary Hype Man Topic: WorldNetDaily
WND columnist Jim Fletcher has never read a WND-published book he didn't absolutely love. But he won't tell his readers those books are from the same folks that publish his column. Read more >>
AIM's Kincaid Just Can't Stop Lying About Panetta Topic: Accuracy in Media
Cliff Kincaid devotes a June 26 Accuracy in Media column to decrying the fact that former secretary of defense Leon Panetta is receiving an award named after Ronald Reagan.
In addition to his anti-defense record, Panetta had a relationship with Communist Party figure Hugh DeLacy, who had ties to Soviet and Chinese intelligence operatives. It was never clear if Senate investigators or the FBI, or both, investigated Panetta’s background.
DeLacy was one of only two congressmen exposed as a member of the Moscow-funded Communist Party.
Kincaid's attack is completely false. As we previouslynoted, Media Matters has documented how the correspondence between Panetta and DeLay occurred when Panetta was a congressman, and the "relationship" was nothing more than that of a congressman and a constituent.
That shoots a major hole in Kincaid's attempt to smear Panetta as a secret commie -- but Kincaid doesn't want to admit the truth.
Garth Kant writes in a June 22 WorldNetDaily article:
The congressman gave the distinct impression he didn’t believe President Obama wasn’t telling him, or the American people, the truth.
Rep. Steve Stockman, R-Texas, told WND Obama probably did pay a ransom to terrorists for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, contrary to what the president has said.
The congressman based that claim on an exchange of letters with the administration, including a reply from the White House that was so carefully worded, Stockman said, it appeared to confirm his suspicions.
And, the congressman told WND, he wouldn’t be surprised if the administration paid millions of dollars to a terrorist group to free Bergdahl.
In fact, the Obama administration has consistently denied that it paid a ransom for Bergdahl, something Kantfails to acknowledge.
Of course, Kant is merely carrying water for his BFF Stockman, for whom Kant serves as his de facto communications director despite being a so-called reporter. By contrast, Kant has refused to report on Stockman's latest extralegal antics, in which the Office of Congressional Ethics announced that it had urged the House Ethics Committee to look into the circumstances surrounding Stockman's acceptance of campaign contributions from two of his congressional staffers. PR people don't do news, you see.
While Farah apologizes for his "dumb mistake," he plays the blame game anyway, because it's apparently the fault of liberals that he has to carry a gun in the first place:
I am licensed to carry a loaded firearm in multiple states and carry a concealed weapon virtually all of the time. I get death threats against me. Let me tell you about that.
Aug. 15, 2012, a gunman attempting to enter Family Research Council’s Washington, D.C., headquarters shot a security guard, 46-year-old Leonardo Johnson, in the left arm. While injured, Johnson assisted others who wrestled the gunman to the ground until police arrived and placed the gunman under arrest.
During his FBI interview, the gunman, Floyd Corkins was asked how he chose his target. His response was “Southern Poverty Law, lists … uh … anti-gay groups. I found them online.” Corkins appeared in court the following day and was charged with assault with intent to kill while armed and interstate transportation of a firearm and ammunition. An affidavit filed in the case stated that Corkins had told the guard “words to the effect of ‘I don’t like your politics.’”
When Corkins was arrested, investigators found 15 Chick-fil-A sandwiches in his backpack. He told the FBI he planned to kill as many people as he could at FRC and then smash the sandwiches in their faces. The head of Chick-fil-A had announced opposition to same-sex marriage.
A week later, Corkins was indicted on three charges: two charges in the District of Columbia, possession of a handgun during a violent crime and assault with intent to kill, and interstate transportation of a firearm and ammunition, a federal charge. In January 2013, Corkins pleaded guilty to crossing state lines with guns and ammunition, intent to kill while armed and committing an act of terrorism with the intent to kill. Corkins was sentenced to 25 years in prison on Sept. 19, 2013.
No mention, of course, of the unhinged right-wingers who shoot at law enforcement, an attitude Farah's WND encourages by fearmongering about the "militarization of police."
Farah also begrudgingly gives a little credit to the TSA agents who stopped him: "The TSA agents were very nice. They expressed concern about my making the flight. They called the Virginia police as is protocol. They took photos of the firearm and me. They gave me a summons. Then they sent me on my way."
That's a change from WND's standard hatred of the TSA. In announcing "e-mail hotline address for the reporting of first-hand abuse complaints at the hands of airport security personnel," Farah declared, “I personally canceled family travel plans this week as a result of widespread reports of groping, voyeurism and humiliation techniques. The American people will not be treated like cattle."
This being Farah, he can't stop himself from peddling at least one lie:
You might note who broke the story that Joseph Farah was detained at Dulles Airport Sunday for carrying a handgun – the Southern Poverty Law Center.
You might also note the Southern Poverty Law Center has repeatedly labeled my news organization a hate group – with even worse descriptions of me personally.
Actually, as the SPLC itself points out, the Washington Post first reported the airport incident (with a picture of Farah's piece); the SPLC simply connected the dots to confirm Farah's identity as the culprit. And the SPLC does not call WND a "hate group" -- its 2012 profile of WND contains no such description, though it notes that WND promotes hate groups.
(UPDATE: WND has also accused the TSA of "gate rape" by using now discontinued "nude-image scanners.")
Farah claimed he wrote this column because "I thought you deserved to know the rest of the story, as my inspiration Paul Harvey would say." But Farah identifies no factual error in the reporting of the SPLC or anyone else about the incident (even though the Post did, in fact, get Farah's age wrong). Farah's justification for carrying a gun is irrelevant to the incident, and it's hypocritical given his silence about right-wing extremists who target the police and his own expressed hatred of the TSA.
MRC Upset Anti-Gay Protesters Identified As Anti-Gay Topic: Media Research Center
The headline on Katie Yoder's June 20 NewsBusters post reads "Surprise! Liberal Media Bash ‘March for Marriage’." Apparently, Yoder considers accurately identifying the marchers as opposing gay marriage to be "bashing":
Of course, the liberal media had a field day covering the march, painting it as anti-gay. The Washington Post’s headline read “Thousands Rally at U.S. Capitol Against Gay Marriage” (not, you know, “Thousands rally to support traditional marriage.”) RawStory also noted the “Opponents of same-sex marriage” along with San Francisco Chronicle’s SFGate describing “thousands against gay marriage.”
But Yoder doesn't explain why supporting "traditional marriage" does not equal opposing gay marriage.
The MRC has a bit of a complex about the media accurately labeling things.
WND's Farah Caught With Loaded Gun At Airport Topic: WorldNetDaily
As if running a "news" website that has forfeited all credibility wasn't enough, WorldNetDaily editor Joseph Farah is in legal trouble.
The Southern Poverty Law Center reports that Farah was caught by TSA agents with a loaded .38-caliber revolver in his carry-on bag as he passed through security at Dulles International Airport. Farah faces a class 1 misdemeanor charge for carrying a gun in an airport terminal. The SPLC confirmed reporting by the Washington Post, which has a picture of Farah's revolver.
As of this writing, WND is silent about Farah's arrest, but it has published video of Fox News anchor Gregg Jarrett being arrested. Will WND grace us with the video of Farah's arrest?
WND Thinks Homosexuality Is Just A 'Trendy Notion' Topic: WorldNetDaily
Bob Unruh writes in a June 21 WorldNetDaily article:
Peter and Hazelmary Bull run a bed and breakfast in the United Kingdom and were sued by two homosexuals when the Christian couple refused to rent them a bedroom in their business, which also is their home.
The fight brought on by the homosexuals went all the way to the nation’s highest court, resulting in an order that the Christian couple pay the “gay” duo a couple thousand dollars in damages.
All based on the idea of “nondiscrimination” laws where homosexuals are protected, but Christians are not. That Christians’ beliefs and practices must cede to the trendy notion of homosexuality.
That's right -- Unruh and WND think homosexuality is nothing but a "trendy notion."
WND's Klayman Lies About Obama and the Redskins Topic: WorldNetDaily
Larry Klayman rants in his June 20 WorldNetDaily column:
In this age of so-called political correctness comes yet a new outrage. This week the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, succumbing to pressure from the likes of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, invalidated the Washington Redskins’ trademark on the grounds that it is offensive to Native Americans. The absurdity of all of this is self-evident.
Where does the madness stop? For years Indian activists have been trying to get the Cleveland Indians to cease using a bucktoothed red-faced logo, “Chief Wahoo,” on their hats and uniforms. Should we white people complain when trademarks and logos depict someone who is a pale face? Should black people complain similarly because the Cleveland NFL football franchise has been for decades named the Browns? And, should Peter Sellers’ “Pink Panther” movies be banned because in them Inspector Clouseau refers to his Asian sidekick Cato as “my little yellow friend.” The hard fact is that American Indians do have a rosy complexion, and in fact it is quite appealing aesthetically.
And now our “Mullah in Chief” has once again decided to chime in. Last Saturday, Obama, instead of handling the impending crisis in Iraq, decided to handle what is clearly a more important matter by opening his big mouth and stating, “If I were the owner of the team and I knew that there was a name of my team – even if it had a storied history – that was offending a sizable group of people, I’d think about changing it.” Obama surely knows best about offending a sizable group of people. Maybe he should change his middle name, Hussein, since it dredges up memories of Saddam Hussein, among other thoughts.
But Obama -- whom Klayman libels yet again with the "Mullah in Chief" smear -- did not say those words "last Saturday," which would have been June 14. There was no compelling reason to, since the decision on the Redskins trademark wasn't issued until June 18. Obama actually said those words last October, when he was asked about it in an interview and Iraq had not yet returned to the headlines.
We'd express amazement that Klayman could have botched such a simple fact, but we know what a crappy lawyer he is.
(P.S. We made a screenshot of Klayman's error, and we will post it if Klayman and WND alter the column without acknowledging the error.)
Bozell & Graham: Redskins Losing Trademark Is Obama's Fault, Somehow Topic: Media Research Center
Brent Bozell and Tim Graham use their June 20 column to rant about the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office withdrawing trademark protection for the Washington Redskins, naturally blaming "the left, which has removed every moral objection to traditional understandings of profanity, continues its own crusade to ban words that violate their sensitivities on race, gender and sexual preference."
Yet it's President Obama's fault somehow, too. Bozell andGraham write that "A quick review of the PTO's record shows this was an overtly political decision — surely aimed at or requested by the White House." But they offer no evidence that the Obama White House was ever involved in the process. Still they conclude:
But say the word "Redskins," and the left collectively faints. In the case of the "R-word," a majority of the community has never been offended. Even a majority of the Indians have never been offended. But the left's crusade, using Obama's PTO, continues.
By reflexively blaming Obama, Bozell and Graham ignore the fact that the dispute over the Redskins trademark has been going on for years. As Sports Illustrated points out, the PTO first cancelled the trademark in 1999, but the decision was overturned by a federal court on appeal in 2003. Both of these events occurred before Obama was elected U.S. senator, let alone president.
Perhaps if Bozell and Graham didn't engage in such absurdly reflexive Obama-bashing, the Media Research Center might be taken more seriously.
WND's Corsi Is Still Keeing the Birther Faith Topic: WorldNetDaily
Birther dead-ender Jerome Corsi writes in a June 21 WorldNetDaily article:
Arpaio also told Rusty Humphries of the Washington Times recently one of those “sensitive” projects was his continued investigation into Barack Obama’s allegedly forged birth certificate.
“If I was the governor, which I turned down a couple of weeks ago because I would have to resign, I’m not going to leave this office to somebody coming in when I have sensitive investigations going, including the president’s birth certificate,” Arpaio said. “I haven’t finished that yet.
“I don’t care where [Obama] was born. That has nothing to do with it,” he continued. “I’m concerned about a forged, fraudulent government document. From Day 1 I’ve been investigating that, now we have to find out who’s behind that. I’m getting close.”
You also won't hear from Corsi how the whole right-wing birther conspiracy he helped foment has been utterly discredited in many other ways, or that Arpaio's cold case posse may be dissolved because it has been operating without valid state corporate filings, or that a man who shot a California Highway Patrol officer and a Bureau of Land Management ranger is a birther.
The liberal St. Louis Post-Dispatch has bowed to the "Fire George Will" folks and discontinued his syndicated column after he wrote about liberal universities now being pressed to stem an alleged tide of campus sexual assault. They're switching to big-government conservative Michael Gerson, the former chief speechwriter to President George W. Bush.
Gotta love all the unsupported assertions in that paragraph. How does Graham know the Post-Dispatch is liberal? Does the fact that it published Will and will publish Gerson suggest otherwise?
Graham's assertion that Will's column targeted "liberal universities" (how does Graham know those universities are liberal?) over "an alleged tide of campus sexual assault" glosses over the offending claim Will made: that being a sexual assault victim is somehow a "coveted status."
Finally, Graham whines that Gerson is a "big-government conservative" with, yes, no supporting evidence nor an explanation of how Gerson's purported view is any different from Will's.
Conservative media criticism, ladies and gentlemen.
WND's Chastain Gets Global Warming Wrong Topic: WorldNetDaily
Jane Chastain writes in her June 18 WorldNetDaily column:
A graduation is supposed to be about the graduates. Instead Obama made it about him, or his latest political cause du jour. Not only that, he tried to scare these young people right out of their caps and gowns by telling them, “The 18 warmest years on record have all happened since you graduates were born.” Either the president didn’t have his facts straight, or he lied.
According to the most recent RSS satellite data, a brief 16-year warming period ended in 1997, about the time most of these graduates were 5 years old.
Obama does have his facts straight, and Chastain does not. The World Meterological Organzation points out that 13 of the 14 warmest years occurred in the 21st century, and as far back as 2010, 18 of the warmest years on record occurred since 1992, when the college graduates Obama addressed were likely born.
Chastain is even more wrong to claim that "a brief 16-year warming period ended in 1997." In fact, the overall trend of warmer temperatures has been going on since the 1950s, and the fact that 13 of the 14 warmest years have occurred in the 21st century seems to contradict her claim that global warming "ended in 1997."
I have written two books chronicling President Obama’s nightmarish path of destruction, but since the second one was published, events have been happening at an even more explosive pace. Who would have ever imagined that Ronald Reagan’s famous statement that “freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction” would turn out to be a gross understatement?
In the past several weeks alone, alarming events have transpired that are enormously disturbing by themselves. Taken together, they are borderline horrifying, yet Obama proceeds, undeterred.
Obama and his allies have failed miserably at everything except destroying the U.S. economy and expanding the welfare state. His comments about gun control are an effort to draw attention away from the failures, corruption, lies and subterfuge that have been the hallmarks of his presidency and focus attention on a shouting match between billionaire Mike Bloomberg and the “gun lobby.”
Now we come to Barack Hussein Obama, declared Person of the Year by Time in 2008 and 2012. (Time changed the title from Man of the Year to Person of the Year in 1999.) Obama has been the most destructive president in American history. He is known as the most biblically hostile president. He has incessantly attacked the foundations of America. He has attempted to tear down the Constitution and recreate it in his own image. He has been labeled America’s first gay president, is a shameless supporter of the murder of children in the womb (even attempting to force private institutions to fund it, Proverbs 6:16-19) and has abused his power in an attempt to strip American citizens of their Second Amendment right to bear arms. Obama without question is following in pursuit of the dictators honored by Time magazine.
When millions of Egyptians rallied in the streets to overthrow Muslim Brotherhood warlord Muhammad Morsi as president, Obama suspended aid he had earmarked for the tyrant he helped bring to power.
When a Muslim Brotherhood army that included a strong al-Qaida element set out to topple Syrian President Bashar Assad, Obama sought congressional approval for airstrikes to support the insurgents – and he did help arm them.
He can’t wait to turn Afghanistan over to the “Tallybon,” as he likes to call them. He even released five of their top commanders from Guantanamo Bay using the excuse of bringing home an American captive. Of course that “prisoner of war” turned out to be a deserter and a Taliban collaborator.
There’s a pattern here. If you can’t see it, check your lenses. Obama supports the Muslim Brotherhood. To expect him to come to Iraq’s aid with air power that can blow away much of the al-Qaida terrorist army amassing on the road to Baghdad would be foolhardy. It’s against all his instincts.
There’s another reason Obama has hesitated to take this obvious action. This will be hard to believe for some, but the facts are becoming more apparent everyday: Obama fosters chaos.
Newsflash to black Americans: Barack Obama has never loved you, and by now it should be clear to you!
Suddenly Obama is creating a series of crises that overwhelm the American system – crises that only he can “solve” by imposing solutions that: 1) help destroy the country he detests, 2) help the Democratic Party maintain its stranglehold over its constituencies and 3) feed his strange need for absolute power.
Obama’s latest crisis is the invasion occurring at our Southern border. We now have a national emergency on our hands. It’s one that will devastate Obama’s original constituency – black Americans – more than any other group.
Finally, speaking of a typical liberal, Barack Obama has been called by some the Antichrist. Maybe, maybe not. But it is certainly fair to call him the Antimoses. Moses, you may recall, spent years leading his people through the desert to the Promised Land. Obama, on the other hand, has spent years leading his people from the Promised Land to the desert.
Iraq, the “Rome” we spent billions of dollars to liberate – not to mention the loss of 4,487 dead and another 32,226 wounded soldiers – was burning. Islamic extremists were busy executing civilians and Iraqi troops as they made their way to Baghdad. Our embassy staff was being evacuated
… while Obama golfed!
With our troops in Afghanistan, the Taliban was busy cutting off the fingers of those who voted in the weekend election as a warning to others
… while Obama golfed!
Meanwhile, the Russians, to whom former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton presented a “reset button,” were busy tightening their grip on Ukraine
… while Obama golfed!
Even closer to home, our southern border is in chaos. We have a humanitarian crisis on our hands unlike anything we have ever experienced
While many, for some unfathomable reason, remain wedded to the idea that this and countless other developments involving the Obama administration are the result of its incompetence, others have reached the point where their ability to suspend their disbelief has been stretched beyond the breaking point, and they no longer believe it is a matter of political ineptitude or poor leadership.
As I have said before in this space, operating outside of the realm of believability has been a deliberate tactic of this regime, and a largely complicit establishment press contributed to its success.
Thus, despite overwhelming evidence, many Americans will still find it difficult to accept that the rise of ISIS was facilitated by the Obama administration.
In my latest blog post, I discuss the poll in which a majority of Americans agreed with the view that the Bergdahl swap warrants Barack Obama’s impeachment and removal from office. Outraged over the Bergdahl swap, many people have awakened to the need to deal with Obama’s de facto coup d’état attempt, which they may finally have found the eyes to see. But as with a person startled from sleep, crying out and casting about in confusion, this momentary scramble to stave off suddenly perceived danger is unlikely to be long-lasting or effective.
MRC Writer Defends Bashing Film She Didn't Watch Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's Katie Yoder wrote twoarticles bashing the film "Obvious Child" for its abortion-related subject matter despite, as we noted, never having seen the film.
Yoder defends her deliberate ignorance in a June 18 MRC article and attacks the critics who called her out for bashing a film she hadn't seen as raising a "bogus" argument:
When “Obvious Child” hit theaters this month, conservatives were aghast the media glorified it – without irony – as an “abortion romantic comedy.” Liberals lashed back, claiming, like the movie’s Director Gillian Robespierre, that "[Conservatives bashing Obvious Child] haven't seen the movie; they're basing it on articles and trailers."
That defense is bogus. We are, after all, talking about the destruction of innocent human life – something nearly impossible to contextualize and utterly repulsive as a romantic comedy plot device.
Yoder's defensiveness is itself bogus. Simple journalistic honesty dictates that you first fully encounter something before you attack it. Apparently, the MRC doesn't teach its writers to do that.
Yoder's column is actually her account of finally bothering to go see the film -- not to behave responsibly, mind you, but to "play along" with her critics. But since Yoder has an agenda, she made sure to keep her mind closed, determined to find nothing whatsoever rewarding about the film:
After watching “Obvious Child” last week, I’m only more determined to continue my “bashing.” The difference is I sat through a lot of crude sex jokes. From comparing an abortion to a “drive-through” or a DMV visit to concocting a plot where every main female character aborted a baby at some point, the film sets out to normalize abortion as a part of everyday life. “Obvious Child” is in the end little more than slick pro-abortion agitprop.
Although adored by the “pro-choice” community and organizations like Planned Parenthood that lobbies we’re “not in her shoes” because abortion is “a deeply personal and often complex decision,” the movie surprisingly deemphasizes choice. With job loss, apartment loss, and a budding relationship, Donna’s “choice” appears limited – and never once does the camera hint at the process of her decision.
Yes, I empathized for Donna, felt her situation. But, at the same time, the movie forgets to voice women who choose life – AND women who choose abortion. The “comedy” makes a joke out of women who go through a difficult decision to abort and ignores regrets of women who do. They exist.
Of course, anything that doesn't slavishly follow the pro-life agenda is "pro-abortion agitprop" to Yoder, who appears to be mostly upset that the film won't demonize a character who has an abortion, as Yoder and her MRC colleagues strive to do in real life.
Since Yoder treated viewing the film as a chore to mollify critics instead of the open-minded fact-finding mission a real writer would have done, it's no surprise that she wasn't moved by it. She never had any intention of allowing that to happen.