Since this is stenography and not reporting, there's no attempt to fact-check anything Levin says -- apparently, if he says it, it's axoimatically true.
There's also no mention of the fact that CNS' parent, the Media Research Center, has a business deal with Levin in which they cross-promote each other. It's also not disclosed whether all these fawning Levin posts are part of that promotion deal.
WND Misleads About Proposed Armor-Piercing Ammo Ban Topic: WorldNetDaily
As could be expected from WorldNetDaily, its reporting on a proposed federal ban of one type of armor-piercing ammuntion is filled with misinformation.
A Feb. 16 WND article by Leo Hohmann contradicts itself by lamenting the proposed ban of the "so-called 'armor-piercing'" rounds, then admits a couple paragraphs later that "it was a given that rounds from any high-powered hunting rifle could penetrate the soft armor worn by officers," including the "green tip" M855 round proposed to be banned because of the existence of newly created handguns that can fire such rounds.
Hohmann also quotes the National Rifle Association attacking the proposed ban because "the M855 ball should have never been classified as “armor piercing” to begin with." But he doesn't mention that the NRA itself has banned the use of the M855 round at some of its own shooting ranges.
In a March 3 article, Cheryl Chumley writes that the M855 round is "popular among AR-15 enthusiasts and sporting types – especially among big game hunters, who like the powerful 'armor-piercing' capability of the shot." She didn't mention that big-game animals do not typically wear armor.
In a March 4 WND article, Hohmann characterized the M855 round as "the ammunition for the popular AR-15 rifle." In fact, 168 other types of ammo that can be used in the rifles would remain legal.
Hohmann also try to downplay the bullet's lethality by repeating claims that no police officer "has been taken down by a criminal using an AR-15 handgun." But Hohmann does not offer a sporting justification for the AR-15 handgun.
Look for WND to keep the controversy -- and the misinformation -- alive.
CNS Obsesses Over Single Line Referencing Gays In Obama's Selma Speech Topic: CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com's story on President Obama's speech in Selma, Alabama, for the 50th anniversary of the famous civil rights march there isn't even a story, really -- it's just a lazy, unbylined copy-and-paste of a few paragraphs of the speech from the White House website, plucked out of context from the much longer speech.
Why did CNS do this? Because Obama said something CNS didn't like: he failed to denigrate gays. Or, as the completely context-free headline screams, "Obama: 'We’re The Gay Americans Whose Blood Ran in the Streets of San Francisco’."
So offended was CNS that it put this out-of-context speech excerpt and its even more out-of-context headline as the lead story of its website today, accompanied with a picture of an arrogant-looking Obama (because that's the impression of him CNS wants its readers to have).
CNS is has been ramping up its anti-gay agenda in recent months, and this article shows how it's happening.
WND's Farah Remains A Birther Dead-Ender Topic: WorldNetDaily
In a March 6 WorldNetDaily column in which he claims tofind great meaning that "President Barack Obama" can be anagrammed into “an Arab-backed imposter” (which seems to contradict his longtime assertion that he doesn't recognize Obama as his president), Joseph Farah writes this:
Just for the record, WND has been making the case that Obama is and always has been an “imposter.” He’s simply not constitutionally eligible for the presidency. But he not only fooled America once, he fooled us twice. You know what they say about that. Shame on us.
Farah doesn't explain what reasoning he uses to come to the conclusion that Obama is "simply not constitutionally eligible for the presidency." He may be using his own website, which has steadfastly refused to report how WND's birther conspiracies have been repeatedly discredited.
At the risk of boring ourselves to death since we already did this about four years ago, let's look at the evidence that destroys Farah's claim, shall we?
As WND itself has conceded, the constitutional requirement that the president be a "natural born citizen" has never been explicitly defined by any federal court. Birthers have repeatedly invoked Emmerich de Vattel "The Law of Nations" as a defense of the idea that the Founders intended for "natural born" to mean born of two parents who are citizens, but that interpretation relies on translations that came after the Constitution was ratified.
Birthers (like WND's Aaron Klein) have also cited the 1874 Supreme Court case Minor v. Happersett as defining "natural born citizen." But that decision involved a woman who was suing for the right to vote, not presidential eligibility; the woman's status as a "natural born citizen" was not the issue; and the court ruling discusses only two types of citizens, "natural born" and "naturalized." The more direct precedent is the 1898 Wong Kim Ark case, in which the Supreme Court ruled that a child born in America was a U.S. citizen.
Others claim that a 2008 Senate resolution declaring John McCain to be a "natural born" citizen, in Klein's words, "seems to define the term as one who is born to two U.S. citizens." The Senate may have done so regarding McCain's citizenship, but it also did not establish two citizen parents as the only possible way to be defined as a "natural born" citizen.
The birther conspiracy that Obama's long-form birth certificate is a forgery has also been discredited. The purported "modifications" birthers claim exist in the PDF scan of the birth certificate released by the White House have been easily reproduced through scanning the document into a Xerox scanner.
Further, as former Cold Case Posse member Brian Reilly revealed, the state of Hawaii's verification of Obama's birth certificate showing him to be born in Hawaii should have effective ended the witch hunt, had posse chief Mike Zullo not disregarded it.
So, yeah, Farah is lying about Obama once again. Why are we notsurprised?
(P.S. We've contacted Farah to obtain the evidence he's using to back up his claim that Obama's not eligible to be president. We'll update this post if he responds.)
After a month in which it was forced to report good news on the unemployment front because it apparently couldn't find sufficiently negative numbers to cherry-pick like it usually does, CNSNews.com is back to its old routine with February's numbers in a pair of articles by Ali Meyer:
Even with the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in full swing here in the Washington, D.C., area, the imminent arrival of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to speak before Congress, amid continued snubs and insults from our “Muslim in chief” and his minions, like National Security Adviser Susan Rice and her equally anti-Judeo Christian cohort Secretary of State John Kerry, Republican presidential candidates and the conservative media generally continue to play a politically correct game of dodging the real issue concerning the rise in terrorism worldwide.
For crying out loud, explain his words and behavior with any other characterization!
He grew up under the mentorship of Frank Marshall Davis, a committed, card-carrying member of the Communist Party.
He was well-connected with other radical leftists throughout his life.
A credible postman is in a WND video explaining how he met Obama outside the Chicago home of the parents of Bill Ayers, the Weather Underground domestic terrorist, while he was attending Columbia University as a “foreign student.” He described the Ayers family as his patrons and that he was going to become president of the United States.
There is no question about whether President Obama – along with Secretary of State John Kerry and the editorial pages of many newspapers – has a particular dislike of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
But there is another question: Why?
And the answer is due to an important rule of life that too few people are aware of:
Those who do not confront evil resent those who do.
The Obama White House is in full war mode against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, leader of our best ally in the Middle East, for accepting House Speaker John Boehner’s invitation to speak before Congress, while it mollycoddles that region’s most dangerous nation, Iran.
No one crosses Obama without facing his wrath. No one dares. He is the president.
If Mr. Obama has an itchy banning finger, he should ban racist and tax cheat Al Not-So-Sharpton from access to the White House. He should ban the practice or promotion of Shariah law in America by claiming it is an act of sedition.
Two glaring factors finally bring the depth of corruption and treachery of these establishment Republicans into sharp focus;:one is the alacrity with which they skirted the issue of Barack Hussein Obama’s ineligibility to hold the office of president and the widespread criminal fraud attendant to his candidacy. Worse, they having completely ignored the blatant and mounting criminal actions of his administration. These speak to their roles as accessories after the fact, if not direct accomplices.
It is apparent that the GOP leadership – the only legal and practicable impediment to this administration – intend to let Obama shepherd America straight to hell without lifting a finger to stop him, no matter what he does.
In my view, the “no matter what he does” part has a profound and increasingly frightening ring to it.
Obviously, those who believe that even the lies that Obama has told about Benghazi, the IRS targeting of conservatives and Obamacare, were well-intentioned will defend his patriotism, just as those who take him at his word accept his claims to being a Christian.
On the other hand, those of us who have not had our brains washed, rinsed and blow-dried, do not accept that which is blatantly false. How can someone who has spoken incessantly about America’s sins, apologizing for our history and insulting our allies – going so far as to exile the bust of Winston Churchill from the Oval Office – be regarded as a patriot?
Unfortunately, millions of blacks trooped out to vote for one of their own, even though, considering that his mother was white and his biological father was an Arab, he was about as black as I am. But, luckily for him, he looked black, which explained why millions of white voters who would normally never have even considered voting for such an unqualified lout, felt compelled to prove they weren’t racists by voting for the guy who could at least pass for black.
And in doing so, they exposed their own racism by ignoring Martin Luther King’s injunction to judge a man by his character and not by the color of his skin.
Ruddy's O'Reilly Defense Pays Off With Fox News Endorsement Topic: Newsmax
Remember Christopher Ruddy's enthusiastic defense of Bill O'Reilly in the face of his exaggerations and falsehoods? Well, it paid off in the publicity department.
Jim Meyers happily writes in a March 4 Newsmax article:
Fox News host Bill O'Reilly offered up praise for Newsmax on his show Tuesday night, calling our website's fact-based reporting "refreshing."
"Last night we had a segment on how nasty the upcoming presidential campaign is likely to be because of the defamatory websites," O'Reilly told viewers.
"Well, there are some exceptions to the sewer. Check out Newsmax.com. It had some very interesting political analysis. Chris Ruddy and the guys actually try to gather facts, which is refreshing.
"That's the tip of the day."
Meyers does admit that "O'Reilly was no doubt subtly responding" to Ruddy's defense of him. But if O'Reilly didn't mention he was endorsing Newsmax because it defended him, doesn't that actually further the idea that O'Reilly is dishonest?
O'Reilly's endorsement would also seem to contradict Fox News' stance against Newsmax, which operates that TV news channel that directly competes with Fox. Last week, Fox attacked Ruddy for being friends with Bill Clinton and donating to his foundation.
But O'Reilly effectively negated that attack with his endorsement, which is all that matters to Newsmax.
WND's Farah Is Just Not Down With All That Science Stuff Topic: WorldNetDaily
Joseph Farah devoted his Feb. 26 WorldNetDaily column to a screed against science -- specifically attacking National Geographic for highlighting "the war against science":
Sadly, I don’t have the time or space to refute and rebut every aspect of this full-throated endorsement of modern “science” as the new priesthood, whose conclusions are questioned at the threat of excommunication, not to mention humiliation in rational circles.
In short, if you doubt any conclusions of the modern scientific establishment, you’re not only a rube, but you are dangerous.
Apparently, in the 20th or 21st centuries, “science” finally worked out all the bugs of the past and is now certain about all the big and little questions of life. There are no more mysteries. There is no more ambiguity. There are no more unknowns. There are no more doubts about matters like man-made catastrophic climate change, that evolution explains everything we need to know about the origins and diversity of life on the planet, vaccinations, genetically modified food and just about everything else.
Science is the final arbiter. Even though science has made innumerable blunders in the past, today science has it 100 percent right and there is no room for skepticism, this National Geographic opus concludes. If you question anything about science’s conclusions (as if all scientists are united on any of these matters), you might as well join the Flat Earth Society.
There are no nuances. There are no big questions left to answer. The new priesthood has spoken.
It never occurs to National Geographic that what they call “science” is actually a government-science complex with immense power, money and influence that is merely frustrated with its inability to coercively persuade everyone of their infinite wisdom even with control of the schools, the colleges, the universities, the major media, the museums, the zoos, the observatories, the medical schools, etc.
Among the things Farah's upset with is National Geographic's stand on the side global warming existing and vaccines helping people. But he engages in some old-school paranoia as well:
As for me and my house, we reject fluoride. It’s getting harder and harder when the government adds this poison, which accumulates in your body, to your water supply. But we manage.
If Farah so soundly rejects science, is it any wonder why he's so unable to recognize the truth that his website publishes lie after lie?
MRC Rushes To Defend Ben Carson Over His Anti-Gay Comments Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's philosophy: If a journalist dares to question a conservative about his views, you are clearly a liberal or, even worse, an "activist."
The headline on Matthew Balan's March 4 NewsBusters post sums up that philosophy nicely: "LGBT Activist in CNN Anchor's Clothing Cuomo Hounds Carson on Marriage." Balan is appalled that CNN host Chris Cuomo would dare to question conservative darling Ben Carson about his views on homosexuality:
On Wednesday's New Day, CNN's Chris Cuomo likened traditional marriage legislation to legalizing slavery as he interviewed Dr. Ben Carson. When the conservative personality suggested, on the issue of same-sex "marriage," that "civil issues of that nature should be determined at the state level," Cuomo retorted, "What if people of a state vote for a law...that winds up infringing on the rights of a minority – like happened very often with slavery; like, many would argue, is happening now with people who are gay?"
The anchor acted as a left-wing activist on the subject, as he has done in the past, as he and Dr. Carson sparred for the remainder of the interview segment:
Balan buried Carson's bizarre claim that being gay is a choice because "a lot of people who go into prison – go into prison straight – and when they come out, they're gay."
Apparently, Balan believes any claim made by a conservative is never to be challenged by the media.
When Carson's claim proved to be too toxic for even him to defend, he walked it back in a Facebook post.
But that's not the lead of Kristine Marsh's March 5 NewsBusters post. Instead, Marsh helps Carson play the victim by hyping his assertion -- made to Sean Hannity, whom Carson knows will never challenge his anti-gay views -- that CNN "prodded" him to answer a question about the nature of homosexuality, then "spun his comments."
Marsh simply pasted a screenshot of Carson's Facebook walkback of his comments, declining to comment on the complete nature of his capitulation. Carson also declared he supports civil unions for gays and anti-discrimination laws that cover gays -- both positions that right-wingers like the MRC abhor.
LGBT writers have questioned the sincerity of Carson's apology given his victim-playing on Hannity's radio show. But Marsh didn't mention that, either.
NEW ARTICLE: Knowing Farah By His Fruits Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily editor Joseph Farah loves to claim that President Obama's isn't a real Christian. But do Farah and his website adhere to Christian principles? Read more >>
The conservative media continues to line up behind Bill O'Reilly. Newsmax's Christopher Ruddy adds his whitewash in a March 2 column, declaring the controversy about O'Reilly's fabrications and exaggerations to be "much ado about nothing." Ruddy did try to go into specifics, unlike the Media Research Center.
While Ruddy says that NBC's Brian Williams was punished to severely for his exaggerations, he's fully on board with the right-wing meme that criticism of O'Reilly is a liberal conspiracy:
So why the targeting now of O’Reilly on very flimsy accusations?
For one thing, media outlets and liberal groups are upset about conservatives' criticism of NBC anchor Brian Williams.
Perhaps the O’Reilly brouhaha is a case of professional jealousy at work.
David Corn, who wrote the Mother Jones story, is a former Fox News contributor who didn't have his contract renewed, according to Joe Concha, columnist for Mediaite and host of "The Daily Wrap" on Newsmax TV.
O'Reilly has also been at the very pinnacle of cable news for so long — more than 15 years — it must infuriate his detractors.
He has also become a fantastically successful best-selling author. His latest, "Killing Patton," is currently No. 6 on The New York Times list of best-selling nonfiction books.
Then there is the fact that O'Reilly has always been somewhat of a maverick who doesn't play the establishment media game. But the attacks on his credibility have gone far enough. Some attacks are so ridiculous they are close to joke status.
After presenting video evidence to back up his reporting on one of the so-called fabricated stories, O'Reilly told viewers of his cable show: "I want to stop this now. I hope we can stop it. I really do."
Yes, stop all of this horseradish.
But isn't the idea that O'Reilly is the victim of a liberal conspiracy just as much a load of horseradish?
WND Pretends It Never Portrayed Obama As The Antichrist Topic: WorldNetDaily
A March 1 WorldNetDaily article by Leo Hohmann forwards speculation that the new prime minister of Greece, Alexios Tsipras, is the Antichrist. This is dutifully followed by "prophecy experts" shooting down the idea, as well as such speculation about anyone.
Hohmann kicks things off with WND fave Joel Richardson:
Joel Richardson, author of the best-seller “The Islamic Antichrist” as well as “Mideast Beast” and “When a Jew Rules the World,” is as interested as anyone in the rise of the world figure the Bible calls the antichrist. He’s written two books that deal explicitly with that topic. But, he says, it can become a distraction.
He points to all the misses of the past few decades in which well-known global figures were seen as the embodiment of Satan on earth – Ayatollah Khomeini, President Clinton, Javier Solana and nearly every pope.
President Obama is in his final years in office, but rest assured, Richardson said, this article will be followed by dozens of comments declaring that it would be remiss for any good antichrist speculator to ignore the fact that Obama is indeed the lawless one, the Son of perdition.
You know who helped fuel speculation that Obama is the Antichrist? Joel Richardson.
In 2009, Richardson wrote a WND column headlined "What Obama and the Antichrist have in common." Despite writing that he wanted to "make it very clear that in no way do I believe that President Obama is the Antichrist," Richardson made sure to draw parallels between the two: "Today, throughout the Islamic world, the masses are yearning for and longing for a populist messiah figure known as the Mahdi who, according to their very own prophecies, will employ precisely the same methods as Obama."
Hohmann goes on to quote another WND fave, Carl Gallups:
Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler, various popes, various U.S. presidents, and other powerful world leaders have made the list. And, it is no secret that many Christians claim to see “antichrist spirit” characteristics in any number of current world leaders. Again, their batting average has been abysmal and if these prophecy gurus were baseball players they would not even make it in the minor leagues.
“There can be little doubt that the ‘spirit of antichrist’ continues to grow stronger with the passing years and the continual degradation of the world’s attitude toward the Word of God and Jesus Christ,” Gallups said. “The advice I give to Christians who inquire upon this subject is: carefully discern the times, rightly divide the Word of truth, stay cognizant of the growing spirit of deception and deceit so that we might speak biblical truth and relevance to the decaying culture around us, and keep the main thing – the main thing. Winning souls, equipping the saints, and effectively advancing the Kingdom of Jesus Christ in hearts and lives.”
And who is one of those minor-league prophecy gurus whose batting average has been abysmal in identifying a certain U.S. president with Antichrist tendencies? Carl Gallups.
Under the pseudonym PPSimmons, Gallups made a YouTube video in 2009 -- promoted at WND, of course -- claiming that “the Greek word for ‘lightning’ is ‘astrape’, and the Hebrew equivalent is ‘Baraq,’” and that "If spoken by a Jewish rabbi today, influenced by the poetry of Isaiah, he would say these words in Hebrew ... 'I saw Satan as Baraq Ubamah.'"
As blogger Richard Bartholomew pointed out at the time, Gallups misinterprets the biblical text he's quoting from and mistranslates the Greek into Hebrew.
Curiously, Hohmann never mentioned Richardson's or Gallups' previous adventures in linking Obama to the Antichrist -- or any of the other WND writers who have made similar claims. Just a couple weeks ago, WND's Joe Kovacs presented the claim that "the night Obama was first elected president in November 2008, the three-digit winning lottery number in Illinois, the state in which Obama resided at the time he was running, was 666" as evidence Obama is the Antichrist.
C'mon, WND, don't walk back your Obama derangement now -- own it! That's the only reason people read WND these days, after all!
MRC Upset That CPAC (Where MRC's Bozell Spoke) Is Accurately Painted As 'Hardcore' Extremist Topic: Media Research Center
Jeffrey Meyer is shocked -- shocked! -- that anyone would identify the Conservative Political Actuion Conference for what it is. From his March 1 NewsBusters post:
On Friday’s PBS NewsHour, New York Times columnists David Brooks and Mark Shields used their weekly appearance to trash the attendees of the annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) as representing the extreme far right of the Republican Party.
So-called conservative columnist David Brooks opined that “[t]here’s conservatives, and then there’s conservatives, and then conservatives, and then way over on the other side of the room is CPAC...So this is like the hardest of the hardcore.”
The anti-CPAC discussion began with Mark Shields smearing the conference as promoting “the kind of language of no consensus, no compromise, compromise is capitulation, compromise is surrender.”
Meyer didn't identify how any of that is incorrect. He also didn't disclose that his boss Media Research Center chief Brent Bozell -- who has feuded with CPAC for years -- spoke at this year's gathering, a sign that the group has moved sufficiently rightward for Bozell's tastes.
Bozell and the MRC have boycotted CPAC in previous years for letting gay and atheist groups take part; Bozell also pulled the MRC out CPAC mid-gathering over a snit about getting a sufficiently prominent speaking spot.
And can Meyer plausibly argue that "no consensus, no compromise, compromise is capitulation, compromise is surrender" is not the core message of the majority of CPAC speakers, including Bozell himself?
The MRC talked trash about CPAC when it allowed a group Bozell opposed to take part. This year, the MRC is hiding the extremism of CPAC's speakers.
Cheryl Chumley Descends To WND Topic: WorldNetDaily
Cheryl Chumley has kicked around right-wing media for years, most recently at the Washington Times. Apparently the Moonie Times is too credible for Chumley to be associated with.
Last week, WorldNetDaily announced via tweet that Chumley has joined "the WND Editorial Team." Whether that means she'll be writing news or opinion is irrelevant because WND doesn't really distinguish between the two. WND had already published Chumley's book "Police State USA" last year, so she had a relationship with WND.
Chumley's record of deceptive and misleading reporting will make her fit right in at WND. For example:
In 2009, Chumley wrote a shoddy Capital Research Center report on ProPublica that accused it of having a liberal bias; at no point did she identify any inaccuracies in ProPublica's reporting, only that it defied the right-wing media agenda.
In 2010, Chumley wrote a Washington Examiner article on the right-leaning Franklin Center, which funds numerous blogs and "watchdog" websites. In contrast with her attack on ProPublica, Chumley played the Franklin Center's political leanings (and the resulting bias) and completely ignored the fact that the FranklinCenter has refused to disclose from where its funding comes -- transparency that's critical to the credibility of news operations.
Last year at Newsmax, Chumley promoted a petition signed by "31,072 U.S. scientists" discounting the idea of global warming as a fact. As we've noted, few of those signees have degrees in fields related to climate science and, the signatories are only a tiny, fringe fraction of the more than 10 million college science graduates created in the past 40 years.
And because any new WND employee must be a confirmed carrier of Obama Derangement Syndrome, we have Chumley ranting on a fringe website that "the best chance to turn back the Islamic onslaught – the most hopeful option is to hold out for 2016 and the next presidential election."
So, yeah, with this record of shoddy reporting, WND is definitely Chumley's kind of place. It's also a sign of the utter lack of credibility WND possesses that it has a ready place for her.
MRC Attacks The Messenger, Won't Admit O'Reilly Is A Liar Topic: Media Research Center
In promoting the Brian Williams controversy, the Media Research Center wanted to make sure you knew that Williams was a liar. With Bill O'Reilly, not only does the MRC refuse to concede he has lied, it's attacking anyone who dares to point out that inconvenient fact.
Jeffrey Lord made the MRC's O'Reilly agenda clear in a Feb. 28 NewsBusters post declaring that O'Reilly lies are irrelevant:
There is a lesson from all of this O'Reilly story, a reminder of exactly how the American Left works. Make no mistake. This story of what Bill O'Reilly did or did not say or do decades ago during the Falklands War is not what this latest dust-up is really all about.
The first objective here was to try and ruin Bill O'Reilly's career. To get him off of Fox News and shut him up. Not coincidentally sending a torpedo into Fox News itself - and more. Much more.
The disturbing fact is that Bill O'Reilly is but the latest figure in what is called "conservative media" to have this experience. And worse? This obsessive drive to destroy - not disagree with, but destroy - conservatives or even those like Bill O'Reilly who do not self-identify as a conservative, (O'Reilly sees himself as a traditionalist or "T-Warrior" as in "traditionalist warrior" and is well out there, as here saying that "I vote all over the map") has spread well beyond conservative media.
Lord makes no mention of Williams -- probably because he cannot plausibly claim that the right-wingers who glommed onto that controversy were not motivated by an "obsessive drive to destroy" Williams. Indeed, as we noted, the MRC was fundraising off it.
The MRC's hypocritical strategy was made even more clear in a March 2 MRC item by Mike Ciandella huffing that "liberal groups attacking Fox News host Bill O’Reilly about his past reporting got more than $15 million from left-wing billionaire George Soros." It's so insidious, according to Ciandella, that "Even some outlets pushing this story that are not funded by Soros have Soros connections."
At no point does Ciandella dispute the accuracy of what this outlets are saying about O'Reilly -- he's just trying to kill the messenger.
And that's the MRC's agenda. Conservatives never lie and anyone who point out that they do obviously has a nefarious puprose. It's easier than admitting the truth.