What is noteworthy about her article is not the presence of complete falsehoods (sadly, another common tactic among gay activists), such as the accusation that conservative Christians like Michelle Duggar and I “equate transgender identity with being a sexual predator” and that we suggest “that gay rights activists want immunity for people who do commit acts of sexual harassment” – to repeat, these are totally false allegations – but rather her defense of the indefensible.
In my article, I referenced “Colleen” Francis, a biological male who is now legally female and who surprised female high school students who went into a sauna at a jointly used college swimming pool, not expecting to see Francis sitting there naked with “her male genitalia” exposed.
In defense of Francis, who is attracted to women, not men, Beredjick argued that the case had been misreported, acknowledging that “the nugget of truth to the story: two teens did claim to see Colleen Francis nude while in the Evergreen College sauna.”
The problem, according to a report cited by Beredjick, is that the sauna was “generally off limits to swim team members,” so, according to Beredjick, this is really the fault of the girls.
Talk about defending the indefensible.
Actually, in his Nov. 26 WND column, Brown did, in fact, equate being transgender to be a sexual predator by stating that "male heterosexual predators could easily take advantage of this law. Why wouldn’t they?" He added:
If they know that the law allows for men who identify as transgender to use the ladies room, why wouldn’t they take advantage of it? Why wouldn’t they dress up as women to be around women and girls in this private setting?
Don’t sexual perverts do perverted things? Don’t sexual predators do whatever they can to prey on the innocent? And are the gay activists guaranteeing us that there are no men who now identify as transgender women who are sexual predators?
Perhaps Brown might want to explain how discussing transgendered people in the same breath as sexual predators is not equating the two.
Beredjick's statement that Brown "suggests that gay rights activists want immunity for people who do commit acts of sexual harassment. that Brown's obsession with attacking anyone who defends transgenders by playing the sexual predator card. So, yeah, that appears to be true as well. Again, Brown might want to trying proving the falsehoods he alleges instead of merely insisting they are false.
Brown was also accurately accused to misrepresenting the Francis case. Here's what he wrote in his Nov. 26 column:
Third, there’s already a case in Olympia, Washington, where a man who is legally a woman but still has male genitalia shocked teenaged girls who found him sitting naked with his legs open in the girls sauna. (The police report stated that “she” was exposing “her male genitalia.”)
The girls, who are in high school, share a pool with a local college where the individual in question, whose name is now “Colleen” and who is about 45 years old, is taking classes. But since the school has a policy of no discrimination based on gender identity, there was absolutely nothing that could be done to stop “Colleen” from doing this again.
As Transadvocate pointed out, which Brown failed to note in his biased account of the case:
The sauna area was off limits to the two teens.
Unless one specifically tries to see inside the sauna, you can’t view the people inside the sauna.
Colleen Francis AND her cisgender female friend were using the sauna together. They were sitting there talking.
At no point did Francis act to expose herself to children
At no point was Francis walking around nude in the area where children were.
Brown doesn't contest Beredjick's charge that he misrepresented the Francis case -- perhaps because he knows she's right. But neither does he attempt to correct the record, which tells us that his misrepresentation was deliberate and designed to boost his anti-gay activism.
Brown's insistence of maliciously misrepresenting transgender issues for maximum outrage, while declaring that he's right simply because he says he is, shows that he doesn't care about the facts.
But given that his publisher, Joseph Farah, openly admits he publishes minsinformation at WND, Brown must certainly know he'll never be held accountable for his deceit (in this life, anyway).
MRC's Bozell & Graham Portray Broaddrick As A Credible Rape Accuser Topic: Media Research Center
In their newest column, Tim Graham and Brent Bozell lament that "the left" likes to believe that "the victim" in a rape accusation is the female accuser, going on to lament the treatment of their favorite alleged rape victim:
This is not the way these "watchdogs" handled Juanita Broaddrick's charge of rape against President Clinton in 1999. Even after NBC's Lisa Myers nailed down particulars establishing that Clinton and Broaddrick were in the same hotel on the same day in 1978, with witnesses who vouchsafed her tortured condition, the networks all but ignored the accuser and her story.
Bozell and Graham don't mention that there was a good reason for the media to discount Broaddrick's story: She changed it.
Prior to flipping in 1998, Broaddrick had repeatedly insisted that Clinton didn't rape her; she even said so under oath. It was not until she gave into the Clinton-haters -- and, more crucially, received a promise of immunity from independent counsel Kenneth Starr that she wouldn't be prosecuted for perjury -- that she changed her story.
Bozell and Graham don't mention that Broaddrick is a documented liar -- she either lied then or she's lying now.We don't recall the two ever telling that to their readers; indeed, a quick search of the MRC website mentions nothing about Broaddrick's contradictory claims or the immunity deal she received from Starr.
As we've also noted, there's enough evidence of the Broaddrick accusations being motivated by partisan politics and personal spite to cast further doubt on them. Indeed, according to Joe Conason's "The Hunting of the President," that's exactly what happened.
But Broaddrick made a sensational accusation against the hated Clinton, and that was good enough for the MRC.
Perhaps Bozell and Graham should have found a better example to use when it comes to the debating the veracity of rape allegations.
WND's Klein Can't Stop Pushing Zombie Lie About Saul Alinsky Topic: WorldNetDaily
Last year, we caught WorldNetDaily's Aaron Klein pushing the demonstrable lie that Saul Alinsky "dedicated" his book "Rules for Radicals" to Lucifer (in fact, the book is dedicated to "Irene," with an "over-the-shoulder acknowlegement" to Lucifer for being "the first rebel"), as well as baselessly speculating that Obama "channeled Saul Alinsky" by referring to "the world as it is" and "the world as it should be."
Apparently facts don't matter to Klein, because he does the exact same thing again in a Dec. 9 WND article:
Michelle Obama went on to quote her husband’s speech to the “community meeting” in which Barack Obama paraphrased Alinsky.
She said: “As he talked to the residents in that community center, he talked about two concepts. He talked about ‘the world as it is’ and ‘the world as it should be.’ And I talked about this throughout the entire campaign. What he said, that all too often, is that we accept the distance between those two ideas.”
In his defining work, “Rules for Radicals,” which he dedicated to “the first rebel,” Lucifer, Alinsky used those words to lay out his main agenda. He asserted radical change must be brought about by working within a system instead of attacking it from the outside.
“It is necessary to begin where the world is if we are going to change it to what we think it should be. That means working in the system,” wrote Alinsky.
Klein's reporting of demonstrable falsehoods and his portrayal of speculation as fact is just another reason why nobody believes WND.
CNS Gives Scandal-Tarred Rabbi A Platform Topic: CNSNews.com
Michael Chapman fawningly writes in a Dec. 8 CNSNews.com article:
Scholar, best selling author, and talk radio host Rabbi Daniel Lapin said the rioting and looting in Ferguson, Mo., over the non-indictment of the police officer who shot Michael Brown were the result of the “dark pathology of liberalism” and, in its “delight in destruction,” echoed the “Kristallnacht in Germany.”
"When the liberal project, when the dark pathology of liberalism -- not so much a doctrine as a sick and twisted pathology -- manages to strip Judeo-Christian belief out of American society, congratulations guys, welcome to Ferguson, you succeeded,” said Rabbi Lapin on the Dec. 3 Glenn Beck Program.
Daniel Lapin is an Orthodox Jewish rabbi who emigrated to the United States and became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 1973. He hosts the Rabbi Daniel Lapin Show on San Francisco’s KSFO radio station, and is the author numerous books, including America’s Real War, Buried Treasure: Hidden Wisdom from the Hebrew Language, and Business Secrets From the Bible.
Missing from Chapman's overlong recitation of Lapin's CV: figure in the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal.
Convicted felon Abramoff has reportedly credited Lapin with introducing him to then-House Republican leader Tom DeLay. Abramoff also made use of Lapin's organization, Toward Tradition (on whose board Abramoff also sat), in moving money around to further his lobbying efforts. Toward Tradition also hired the wife of a DeLay aide who later pleaded guilty to conspiring to corrupt public officials; the aide said that his wife was paid in exchange for his official actions.
Lapin and Abramoff also reportedly discussed creating an award at Toward Tradition that Abramoff could claim he received (Lapin later insisted his end of the discussion was tongue-in-cheek).
Since Chapman doesn't mention Lapin's scandal-tarred record, we also aren't treated to an explanation of why such a man has the moral authority to lecture others.
NEW ARTICLE: Marisa Martin's Art Attack Topic: WorldNetDaily
The pseudonymous WorldNetDaily art columnist gets in her seemingly mandated requirement of Obama derangement, but also makes sure to take time to freak out about how undignified it is for a cartoon character to die protecting a gay man. Read more >>
Newsmax Promotes Ben Carson's Propaganda Topic: Newsmax
Jim Meyers serves up quite the cheerleading tone in a Dec. 8 Newsmax article:
A just-released documentary about the best-selling author and rising GOP star Ben Carson is getting rave reviews from conservative activists — a strong sign that the renowned neurosurgeon is seriously looking at running for the GOP presidential nomination in 2016.
The hour-long film "A Breath of Fresh Air: A New Prescription for America," airs every night this week on Newsmax TV at 9 p.m. and midnight Eastern Time, Monday through Friday.
You can tune into Newsmax TV on DIRECTV 349 and DISH Ch. 223, on NewsmaxTV.com, or via the free Newsmax app on any smartphone.
One thing Meyers doesn't mention: Newsmax is apparently being paid to air the Carson propaganda documentary.
A National Journal article that Meyers cites for its praise of Carson as a potential presidential candidate also notes that the documentary's producer, Armstrong Williams, insists that the documentary will never be placed online because that "would violate his paid-programming contract with the networks that aired it." That, preumably, includes Newsmax TV, which means that Newsmax is promoting something it's being paid to air.
National Journal also notes the propagandistic nature of the documentary:
In tone, A Breath of Fresh Air lies somewhere between a Church of Scientology recruitment video and a cash-for-gold infomercial. In the documentary, you'll learn about the dangers of political correctness and the "liberal orthodoxy," along with the triumphs of Ronald Reagan and Galileo. You'll also hear an almost inscrutable metaphor about American greatness and oxygen masks.
Meyers just wants you to watch Newsmax TV. He doesn't care about the quality or objectivity of its programming.
UPDATE: A Newsmax spokesperson tells ConWebWatch: "Newsmax was not paid to air the film, nor did we pay Dr. Carson anything."
A Dec. 7 WorldNetDaily article by Leo Hohmann takes WND's usual one-side-only approach, quoting only opponents of a United Nations small arms treaty. In this case, Hohmann is serving as a form for the rantings of Alan Gottlieb of the Second Amendment Foundation:
The U.N. Arms Trade Treaty requires nations to keep records tracking every transaction involving firearms.
“The only way to do that is to set up a national database, and that is what the U.N. wants every country to set up and maintain. We know that’s been one of the objectives of this administration from Day 1 anyway, so under the color of the U.N., that’s what they’re going to try to do,” Gottlieb said.
Gottlieb is distorting the treaty. As PolitiFact details, the treaty impacts only arms trade between countries, not within them, stating that the claim made by Gottlieb and accepted by Hohmann as fact "takes a treaty intended to curtail illicit weapons trade between countries and describes it as a step toward confiscating gun owners’ property":
The treaty emphasizes that the U.N. is leaving regulation of the arms trade within a country entirely up to that country. The preamble says the parties to the treaty reaffirm "the sovereign right of any state" to regulate arms in its own territory "pursuant to its own legal or constitutional system." It also says the parties are "mindful of legitimate trade and lawful ownership."
But because Hohmann is simply serving as Gottlieb's stenographer instead of an actual reporter, he lets Gottlieb's false claims stand and makes no effort to fact-check them.
Terry Jeffrey's Unprofessional, Uninformed Editorializing Topic: CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com editor in chief Terry Jeffrey has always been much more about advancing his right-wing agenda than practicing fair and ethical journalism. He is continuing to obliterate the line between journalism and opinion at CNS.
Jeffrey writes in a Dec. 3 CNS article that conservatives oppose a proposed National Women's History Museum because they "believe it will be tilted toward a feminist, pro-abortion vision of American women--and that it will promote such figures as eugenicist Margaret Sanger and cost-free-contraception health-insurance entitlement advocate Sandra Fluke."
Quite a mouthful there. How long did Jeffrey rearrange the words until he came up with formulation "cost-free-contraception health-insurance entitlement advocate" to dismiss Fluke? Do you get the feeling that Jeffrey was restraining himself from following in Rush Limbaugh's footsteps and calling Fluke a slut and a prostitute?
That's rank editorializing, and it doesn't belong in a "news" article.
Given CNS' longtimecensorship of Limbaugh's denigration of Fluke, one may surmise that Jeffrey approves of Limbaugh's words.
Jeffrey goes into full unethical mode in a Dec. 6 article noting President Obama's words about Jesus and the holiday season:
Barack Obama is one of the greatest champions of the legalized killing of unborn babies in the history of the United States. In the Illinois state senate, he went so far as to repeatedly oppose a bill that simply would have defined a newborn child as a “person,” “human being,” “child” and “individual.”
That law would have prevented live-birth abortions--a procedure in which a mother in late term is induced to deliver her child so the child can be left alone, without care, to die.
Even if that were true, Jeffrey's screed has no business being in a "news" article. But Jeffrey's portrayal of Obama's stance on the Illinois bill is disingenuous and misleading.
The bill Jeffrey is referring to is better known as a "born alive infant" law that would have entitled a fetus who survived an abortion to legal protection, even if doctors believe it could not survive. As FactCheck.org notes, Illinois law already provided such protection to infants with a "reasonable likelihood" of likelihood of surviving outside the womb.
Obama has long stated that he opposed the law because versions of it did not include a protective clause stating that it did not affect existing laws on abortion, according to FactCheck.
In other words, the law was designed as a wedge issue by anti-abortion activists. And Jeffrey's citing of it as a way to disingenuously smear Obama proves that intent.
WND vs. WND On China's Economy: Corsi Smacks Down Farah! Topic: WorldNetDaily
Joseph Farah was in a very pouty mood in his Dec. 4 WorldNetDaily column, lamenting that China's economy was on pace to surpass that of the United States:
At first glance, the news that China’s economy has surpassed that of the U.S. will probably result in yawns from the average guy on the street.
What difference does it make?
China’s population is a lot bigger than America’s. Big deal!
How does it affect my life?
But it is precisely at seminal moments like this, when another country’s economy is bigger than the economy of the United States of America for the first time since Ulysses S. Grant was president, that we should take a collective look at reality to figure out why.
Why is China producing $17.6 trillion in goods and services this year while the U.S. is producing $17.4 trillion?
Why does China now account for 16.5 percent of the global economy while the U.S. represents 16.3?
Only 14 years ago, the U.S. produced three times as much as China, so how did this change occur so rapidly?
Is it really important, significant, meaningful?
It is important, significant and meaningful.
Economic power translates directly to political and military power.
Needless to say, Farah was quick to lay blame for this. First up was abortion, because the children who were aborted in the early years after the Roe v. Wade decision would themselves be having children by now. Farah also blamed more usual suspects: the welfare state, big government, the alleged loss of the American work ethic.
But Farah's histrionics were overblown, as they usually are. And pointing that out is none other than his own employee, Jerome Corsi.
Corsi's Dec. 5 WND article doesn't explicitly state that he's correcting his boss, but he puts China's economy in perspective:
Has the Chinese economy really overtaken the U.S. economy as the world’s biggest?
Economists say it all depends on the metric used to measure the two economies.
The basic problem is that comparing the economies of China and the U.S. is truly like comparing apples and oranges.
China’s growth in recent years has been extraordinary, with the International Monetary Fund projecting a rate of 7.5 percent in 2014, nearly triple the 2.8 percent outlook for the United States.
But China, with a population of 1.3 billion people, more than four times the population of the United States, barely ranks in the top 100 nations for income per person. Chinese consumers are estimated to have only about one-tenth as much money to spend as Americans, on a par with the Philippines, Bolivia and Iraq, according to economist Brian Jackson of IHS Global Insight.
As of November, China, the leading foreign holder of U.S. debt, held an all-time record of $1.317 trillion of U.S. Treasuries, exceeding China’s previous high of $1.315 trillion in July 2011. Meanwhile, China’s holdings of foreign-exchange reserves surged to a record $3.82 trillion at the end of 2013, as noted by Fox Business.
The U.S. Treasury decision in November to issue more than $1 trillion in new debt to pay off old debt by retiring Treasury securities that were maturing and to fund new deficit spending by the Obama administration has been characterized as a “Ponzi scheme” by knowledgeable economic observers.
This debt analysis would indicate that the U.S. economy remains the largest in market value in part because of China’s willingness to subsidize U.S. growth by funding a large and increasing amount of debt.
Rarely does Farah get a public smackdown from one of his own employees, but that's exactly what's happening here.
Unfortunately, Corsi's bout of lucidity and common sense was brief; later in his article, he approvingly repeats CNSNews.com editor Terry Jeffrey's uninformed claim that refinancing federal debt is akin to a Ponzi scheme, asserting without proof that Jeffrey is a "knowledgeable economic observer."
Obamas' Happy Relationship Nauseates MRC Writer Topic: Media Research Center
Katie Yoder makes her opinion clear with the headline of her Dec. 5 Media Research Center item: "Nausea Alert: Barack and Michelle Obama's Love Story Coming to Theaters." She writes:
It’s all about true love – not only for the Obamas, but also for the media.
“The White House legend that is Barack and Michelle Obama’s romance is heading to the screen,” reported Deadline’s Jen Yamato on Dec. 5. The drama, “Southside With You,” will detail the Obama couple’s “epic first date” the summer of 1989 – consisting of the Art Institute, a long walk, and Spike Lee’s “Do The Right Thing.”
In July 2015, the filming will begin where their romance blossomed: Chicago. “Get On Up” actress Tika Sumpter will star as Michelle Obama – but the real question is, as Yamato asked, “who will play young Barack?”
Allain’s Homegrown Pictures producer Tracey Bing gushed with excitement for the “smart and timeless film” on “one of the great love stories of our time.” She hyped how screenplay writer Richard Tanne “captures the essence of that romantic connection between Barack and Michelle that is so evident in the way that they look at each other.” Yuck.
Funny, we thought that the MRC approved of happy, stable, child-producing marriages. Apparently that's not the case when the couple in question isn't conservative.
Only someone so filled with petty hatred as Yoder can turn someone's happy marriage into a sick political attack -- to the point where she's apparently phsyically repulsed by the idea that her political enemies are happily married.
WND Perpetuates Ex-Chaplin's Lie, Obsesses Over Judge's Sexual Orientation Topic: WorldNetDaily
In a Dec. 2 WorldNetDaily article, Bob Unruh is unusually eager to let us know that the judge who ruled against right-wing activist Gordon Klingenschmitt is "openly lesbian," even though he offers no evidence that the judge's sexual orientation played any role whatsoever in the ruling.
As is usual for Unruh's shoddy journalism, he doesn't quote from, or link to, the judge's decision, for which he also refused to provide a link -- usually a sign he's trying to hide something. Rather, he quotes Klingenschmitt purporting to paraphrase the judge:
“Although Judge Elaine Kaplan ruled against me, at least she affirmed how I was vindicated by the U.S. Congress, who rescinded [military regulation] 1730.7C after it was enforced against me in the Navy court,” he continued.
“She also admitted in her ruling that the government really did punish me, a Navy chaplain, for quoting the Bible in chapel, which would be protected by the First Amendment, but this judge refused to correct the Navy’s obvious abuse of power.
“She also acknowledged that I had written permission to wear my uniform during ‘public worship’ but that my prayers offered in Jesus’ name at a press conference did not qualify as ‘public worship,’” he said.
“Finally, she acknowledged I was punished for writing to my congressman and the president, but again claimed she didn’t have jurisdiction to enforce whistleblower laws. My lawyer and I plan to immediately appeal this bad ruling, and again later if necessary all the way to the Supreme Court,” Klingenschmitt told WND.
Given that Klingenschmitt is rather invested in the case, he's hardly an objective source. In fact, Unruh is working with Klingenschmitt to perpetuate a lie, that he was removed as a Navy chaplain for praying in Jesus' name.
As Kaplan's ruling notes, Klingenschmitt was removed as a Navy chaplain because he prayed at a political event while in uniform, and he was warned beforehand by his superiors that not to participate in the event while in uniform.
This is the event that Unruh let Klingenschmnitt describe as a "press conference" and Unruh described as a "public worship event." Kaplan noted that Klingenschmitt said that "given the event was being organized by a clergy lobbyist group, I have strong reservations about whether this event will, indeed, be a bona fide religious service or observance, rather than a demonstration or assembly to promote personal or partisan views on political, social, or religious issues."
Kaplan pointed out that “The Order did not limit Dr. Klingenschmitt’s right to engage in any religious practices (including presenting an opening prayer at the event or invoking the name of Jesus in his prayer). It simply prohibited Dr. Klingenschmitt from engaging in this activity while wearing his uniform at what was clearly a political event and not, as Dr. Klingenschmitt seems to suggest, a bona fide religious service.”
Unruh tried to downplay the significance of Kaplan's ruling: "Technically, the judge granted the government’s motion for a judgment on the case’s administrative record and her determination her court lacked jurisdiction over some issues." In fact, Kaplan pretty much demplished Klingenschmitt's claims:
Dr. Klingenschmitt has failed to establish that there was any violation of law, rule, or regulation in connection with the separation process itself. Thus, the Court can find no basis for Dr. Klingenschmitt’s contention that neither the CARE board nor the Assistant Secretary had before them an adequate record on which to judge Klingenschmitt’s suitability to be recertified and retained.
Indeed, at the oral argument in this matter, counsel for Dr. Klingenschmitt abandoned his argument that the administrative record before the Court was incomplete, and acknowledged that he had no basis for challenging the government’s representation that it included at AR 1977-2127 the entire record considered by both the CARE board and the Assistant Secretary.
Finally, Dr. Klingenschmitt’s claim that the decision not to recertify him constituted reprisal for constitutionally protected activity is not supported by the administrative record before the Court. As the court of appeals for the D.C. Circuit observed, “[b]ecause mandatory, the Secretary’s initiation of separation proceedings could not have been motivated by retaliatory animus.” Klingenschmitt v. Winter, 275 F. App’x. at 13. Moreover, the administrative record reveals that the ultimate decision not to recertify Dr. Klingenschmitt was based on performance deficiencies and misconduct that were, as described above, unrelated to the content of his sermons or any other even arguably protected activity.
In that regard, the Court finds unpersuasive Dr. Klingenschmitt’s argument that his First Amendment right to practice his religious beliefs was infringed by Captain Pyle’s Order that he not wear his uniform to the media event held in Lafayette Park in March 2006. Captain Pyle’s Order was based on Navy regulations that prohibit the wearing of a uniform in connection with political activities. ... The Order did not limit Dr. Klingenschmitt’s right to engage in any religious practices (including presenting an opening prayer at the event or invoking the name of Jesus in his prayer). It simply prohibited Dr. Klingenschmitt from engaging in this activity while wearing his uniform at what was clearly a political event and not, as Dr. Klingenschmitt seems to suggest, a bona fide religious service. Therefore, taking this infraction into consideration in deciding whether to recertify Dr. Klingenschmitt as a chaplain did not violate either his First Amendment rights or RFRA.
In short, the record fails to support a showing of any causal connection between any protected activity and Dr. Klingenschmitt’s separation. For that reason, and because his other challenges to the lawfulness of the recertification process are without merit, the Court concludes that the Navy’s decision not to recertify Dr. Klingenschmitt, which resulted in his administrative separation from the Navy, was neither arbitrary, capricious, nor contrary to law.
In other words, as Right Wing Watch points out, Klingenschmitt's entire career as a WND-promoted right-wing activist facing religious persecution is based on a myth. But because Unruh has no interest whatsoever in reporting facts and only cares about promoyting false propaganda, WND readers will learn none of this.
WND's Klein Has A Buddy Inside The Assad Regime Topic: WorldNetDaily
We've detailed how WorldNetDaily's Aaron Klein cozied up to the repressive regime of Syria's Bashar al-Assad, effectively serving as his public-relations agent to deflect allegations of brutality by the regime. Apparently, Klein is still on Assad's payroll.
Klein defends Assad's regime yet again in a Dec. 1 WND article, claiming that "The United States and Saudi Arabia are holding discussions about the possibility of targeting the regime of Syrian President Basher al-Assad,' a scheme supposedly "intercepted by Russia."
To whom does Klein attribute this claim? "A top source in Assad’s regime." Klein thus continues his love of anonymous, untraceable sources that can't be verified. Indeed, all the direct sources of information in Klein's article are anonymous.
Klein also claims that "the Obama administration has outlined a plan to train up to 5,000 Mideast rebels to fight ISIS." But he wants us to forget that he falsely claimed the U.S. had trained members of ISIS.
If Klein is only capable of reporting anonymous claims, what good is he as a reporter? Such murky, shoddy journalism is still good enough for WND, apparently.
MRC Can't Stop Being Mad That Conservatives Are Labeled As Conservative Topic: NewsBusters
The Media Research Center's Clay Waters has a weirdfixation on stories about conservatives that label conservatives as conservatives. He's at it again in a Dec. 4 NewsBusters post:
The New York Times' labeling bias isn't just aimed at U.S. conservatives; the Times' global reach and bias extends overseas, as demonstrated in Wednesday's edition, crammed with dangerous and unpleasant right-wingers in Europe, Asia, and of course Israel, both among politicians and the media (who knew the "right-wing media" were so powerful?).
The headline to a front-page story by Martin Fackler on a controversy over Japanese "comfort women" from World War II read: "Rewriting War, Japanese Right Goes on Attack." "Ultranationalist" was an apparently insufficient label for the bad guys in the story; Fackler eagerly identified them as "conservative" and "right-wing" at every junction.
Waters doesn't explain why accurately labeling conservatives as conservatives is "labeling bias," let alone why it's not truthful to apply the lable. Most people not obessed with finding bias where none actually exists would call that factual reporting.
Look at the so-called “leaders” who are blaming the cops and “racism” for Brown’s death. Most of them are products of bad parenting:
Barack Obama continues to draw moral equivalency between police and rioters. His dad was a raging alcoholic who neglected him. His mother was a radical who pushed young Obama on bad role models who shaped his anti-American and racist worldview.
-- Jesse Lee Peterson, Nov. 30 WorldNetDaily column
America is suffering from a lack of leadership. Obama isn’t a leader; he is Erebus eulogizing over America sans having anything kind or truthful to say about her.
His manic supporters are selective in what they view as an example of leadership, none moreso than the hordes of blacks who suffer from willful “he’s black and therefore can do no wrong” syndrome. When they are unable to debate cogently (which is their one constant) they make excuses for Obama and/or wave off his need to be involved in the situation.
A true leader is a man respected at home, revered abroad and feared by the evildoers. But Obama panders to our evildoers, alienates our allies and shows himself to be a limp-wristed paper doll at home. Obama’s only real domestic strength is to foment racial discord and racial antipathy.
On July 3, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that the unemployment rate for black Americans is more than double that for white Americans: 10.7 percent versus 5.3 percent.
On Aug. 28, the Washington Post reported that the black unemployment rate has consistently been twice as high as the white unemployment rate for 50 years.
So why on earth is America’s first black president doing so much to impede black American employment by what was headlined in the Washington Post as: “President Defers Deportations for 4 Million, Challenges His Opponents”?
Instead, the Obama administration continued to stoke the flames and deepen the divide, opening the door to a possible “civil rights” suit against the officer even though they all know that a charge like that will go nowhere. Instead of gathering together pastors, ministers and other peaceful leaders together to form a strategy to communicate to young people the importance of strong values, morals and respect, Obama met with the likes of Al Sharpton, whose only purpose was to elevate the anger and chaos to further his own agenda.
Obama seems to sit back patiently and watch all of this happen. Maybe he even welcomes some of the chaos in the streets of our cities in order to deflect attention from his executive orders and numerous scandals. With a complicit media who live for ratings, he lit the fire, and now can watch it burn. Could this possibly be what he really wants?
With the tsunami of bizarre, truly insane moves by this president and his clear and present dangerous America haters surrounding him and writing his speeches, more and more caring, thinking, “we the people” Americans are waking up from their apathetic slumber every day, rising up, re-engaging this sacred experiment in self-government, demanding accountability and adherence to the U.S. Constitution – and making clear that we will not put up with much more of this nonsense.
There has been some outfreakage regarding an incident in which President Obama responded to hecklers in Chicago last week at one of his tedious speeches. Apparently, he was in the Windy City to drum up support for his new immigration measures.
I find this more than a bit ironic, since it was only this past July when black Chicago residents organized to protest Chicago mayor and Obama bathhouse buddy Rahm Emanuel’s proposal to house some of the “unaccompanied minors” (who were arriving in droves at our border with Mexico) in Chicago. Black residents were opposed to this, given the record high unemployment among blacks there. With good reason, they have been generally disgusted with the deterioration of the city under Emanuel, and feel that Obama has ignored them.
I sometimes wonder how they would have reacted had they known the Obama administration had in fact orchestrated that flood of Mexican and Central American youth.
The question is no longer whether racial relations in America have deteriorated under the first black president. The only question is why he deliberately inflames the passions of racists – black and white.
Is it just a matter of distraction? Political sleight of hand? Is it to let off steam of the broken promises of six years in power and policies that have hurt the very people they were supposed to help?
Or is this orchestrated mayhem rooted in Obama’s own visceral hatred of America? Is it intended to grow exponentially and bring down the whole system – in the model of Cloward-Piven manufactured crisis?
Obama is no longer the “community organizer in chief.” He has become “arsonist in chief.”
President Obama said he would be “a transformative” president. Now we know what he means – he’s transforming the United States into a Third World country.
The president’s executive amnesty has legalized 5 million low-wage workers. What has gotten less attention is his jobs plan for illegal immigrants – a plan that will reverse 200 years of America’s economic development from agrarian colony to industrial powerhouse.
From the myriad of Obama’s so-called “phony scandals,” to his igniting what has sadly become a war between the races, to his stifling socialist economic policies and his pro-Muslim foreign policy and weakness generally, the nation is in a free fall. Now is the time to act, and we at Freedom Watch, along with brave clients like Sheriff Joe Arpaio, are doing all we can to help save the nation from total collapse.