Almost before the bodies of the Umpqua Community College shooting victims were cold, Barack Obama was lecturing the American people: “We collectively are answerable to the families who lost loved ones.”
Obama seethed like a child. (The people have told Obama to pound sand every time he’s tried to exploit a tragedy and install gun control.)
This Marxist doesn’t care about the shooting victims. But he knows that as long as we are armed, he can’t assert total control over us.
I would not say, Mr. President, that you are directly responsible for the Oregon massacre. Only the killer is. What I can answer, though, is the question of who is more “answerable” for the Oregon massacre: the American people or you. Mr. President, you win that one hands down.
-- Jesse Lee Peterson, Oct. 4 WorldNetDaily column
Every time I see or even hear Obama’s voice I have a visceral reaction, and his “commie take-our-guns-away” speech in the immediate aftermath of the Oregon mass shooting was a prime example of what invokes my contempt for him.
Obama’s rush to the microphone to give a national speech was an unconscionable act of self-promotion and an opportunity to further his goal of abrogating the Second Amendment.
A true leader would have sought to comfort the grieving families and the horror stricken community as a whole. But a narcissistic megalomaniac would seize the moment to do exactly what Obama did – turn the tragedy into a treatise about himself.
Obama isn’t a leader – he is a usurper. He is a usurper of privilege and a usurper of what America has to offer to the extent that it benefits him personally. Additionally, he is a destroyer. Obama doesn’t look forward to a better America; he looks forward to an America created in the image of Saul Alinsky.
Obama envisions a government based on nationalism and collectivism. Even worse, Obama is bereft of propriety but filled with ghetto hubris and the pop-culture swagger of commonality.
The dark hand of fate presented Obama with another opportunity to lead. Instead he reduced a moment that could have defined his time in office as having a brief modicum of decorum, to one of base commonality, lies and attempted subjugation.
It is instructive that Obama rages at conservatives and scapegoats the weapons themselves rather than the criminals involved or the state of the human condition that underlies their actions.
It is remarkable that he demands an unconstitutional and meaningless change in the laws purportedly to save innocent lives but vigorously opposes all laws that would protect innocent babies in the womb.
And it is disgraceful that he seeks to inflame our emotions to seduce us into ignoring the facts and suspending our critical faculties long enough to surrender our vital Second Amendment rights.
My track record on these things has gotten pretty good, so I’m willing to go out on a limb here:
The Internet forum milieu would be the perfect opportunity for covert psychological operations (i.e., grooming disaffected individuals to commit violence) on a mass scale. It would be child’s play for a government (ours, for the sake of argument) to set up or infiltrate such venues and enlist online “handlers” to cultivate relationships with the losers present, manipulating them psychologically with an expertise similar to that of, say, President Obama’s celebrated Social and Behavioral Sciences Team (SBST).
My guess is that it would be the handlers themselves who occasionally leak information concerning acts of violence about to be executed by their protégés, in order to energize the remaining contingent of “beta males” when the mayhem does in fact take place.
What of the current president, Barrack Hussein Obama, aka Barry Soetoro?
Barry cries out the plea for necessity whenever a criminal pulls the trigger. He says he wants to keep America safe. Therefore, he wants to get rid of the guns! How does he want to do that? He wants to disarm you. This is also the same man who voted 242 times to make sure babies are murdered in the womb.
He does this while he has 25 armed, gun-toting Secret Service members in view when he goes out in public to protect himself from the people that he is to serve.
As if that were not bad enough, the pre-final draft of the Treaty of Paris, establishing a bureaucratic-centralist, totalitarian global government powerful over all and elected by none, has now been published. It is a Magna Carta of enslavement and subjugation. Mr. Obama, who hates America, will of course sign it, and at a stroke of his communist pen bring to an end two centuries of freedom, democracy and prosperity.
CNS Won't Fact-Check Ben Carson on Guns and Holocaust Topic: CNSNews.com
Melanie Hunter was in full stenography mode in an Oct. 9 CNSNews.com article:
GOP presidential candidate Dr. Ben Carson told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer on Thursday that the “likelihood” of Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler accomplishing his goals in the Holocaust “would have been greatly diminished if the people had been armed.”
“I think the likelihood of Hitler being able to accomplish his goals would have been greatly diminished if the people had been armed,” said Carson.
“So just clarify: If there had been no gun control laws in Europe at that time, would 6 million Jews have been slaughtered?” Blitzer asked.
“I think the likelihood of Hitler being able to accomplish his goals would have been greatly diminished if the people had been armed,” responded Carson.
“Because they had a powerful military machine, as you know, the Nazis,” said Blitzer.
“I understand that,” said Carson.
“They could have simply gone in, and they did go in and wipe out whole communities,” said Blitzer.
“But you realize there was a reason that they took the guns first, right?” Carson replied.
Hunter didn't see fit to investigate the accuracy of Carson's statement -- apparently she believes, as the rest of CNS seems to, that statements by conservatives are axiomatically true. But Carson's statements regarding gun control in Nazi Germany are fundamentally false.
The people were, in fact, armed. Alex Seitz-Wald explained in 2013 that the Nazis actually deregulated gun possession for most Germans and exempted some classes of people, such as Nazi party members. The only Germans who were subject to any sort of severe form of gun control were Jews and other persecuted classes.
What isolated incidents there were of Jews fighting back against the Nazis tended to be ruthlessly crushed, as the Huffington Post notes; the famous Warsaw ghetto uprising of 1943 resulted in the deaths of about 13,000 Jews and just 20 Nazis.
Even the Anti-Defamation League shut down Carson's line of reasoning: "Ben Carson has a right to his views on gun control, but the notion that Hitler’s gun-control policy contributed to the Holocaust is historically inaccurate. The small number of personal firearms available to Germany’s Jews in 1938 could in no way have stopped the totalitarian power of the Nazi German state."
But you won't read about any of this in Hunter's article, even though this information was available to her at the time she wrote her article. Carson has spoken, and apparently that's all that matters to her.
UPDATE: CNS is perfectly capable of fact-checking, as it does in this Oct. 12 article by Patrick Goodenough asserting that "In ‘60 Minutes’ Interview, Obama Muddles Facts on Ukraine."
WND Cognitive Dissonance, Religious Persecution Division Topic: WorldNetDaily
One almost has to admire the stubborn single-mindedness of WorldNetDaily's dedication to its right-wing agenda -- so much so that it ignores little things like internal logic. Take, for instance, the order of stories on the promotion carousel of today's WND front page.
A story warning about persecution of one particular religion ...
... is followed by an article designed to encourage persecution of a different religion:
And WND probably does not even see the cognitive dissonance in the juxtaposition of those two stories.
But Newcombe is serving as an apologist for Operation Rescue's Troy Newman and his recent misadventure in Australia:
Troy and his wife flew out to Australia because he was invited to speak at a pro-life conference. But lies on the Internet bubbled up, and Troy ended up in a holding cell in Melbourne for three days.
The heart of the controversy is simple: Has he or Operation Rescue engaged in or ever advocated for violence? The answer is an unequivocal “No.” But there are false reports swirling around on the Internet to that effect.
No, it's not, Jerry. The accuation was never whether Operation Rescue "engaged in" anti-abortion violence; it's whether Newman tacitly endorsed such violence through his heated rhetoric. And the answer to that, as we detailed when Operation Rescue itself tried to deny the truth, is an unequivocal yes.
But Newcombe continued to deny reality and regurgitated Operation Rescue's PR:
This was unjust because of Newman’s track record of non-violence. Not only does his group eschew any form of violence, but these pro-life activists want to see those who are caught up in the abortion business saved.
Their website states: “Operation Rescue explicitly denounces violence in any form as a means of ending abortion.”
What the Operation Rescue website states is irrelevant compared to what's stated in the book Newman and Cheryl Sullenger wrote -- which Operation Rescue sells on its website -- which endorses the idea that abortion providers must be executed "to expunge bloodguilt from the land and people." You know, because the Bible says so.
Newcombe then takes his ludicrous denial of anti-abortion violence to an even more ludicrous extent, claiming that only six people have ever engaged in it. No, really:
It is not a pro-life act to kill an abortionist. Of those six or so people who have committed violent attacks on abortion clinics or personnel, I know of two professing Christians. One of them repented of his wrongdoing in jail; the other has already received the death penalty.
Every Christian leader denounced that violence. Those few who have committed such violence are a very tiny minority on the fringes. One violent attack is one too many. No one is advocating violence, least of all Newman and Operation Rescue.
Newcombe failed to mention that Tiller's killer -- yes, Tiller was killed, Mr. Newcombe, not just "shot" -- had connections to Operation Rescue; its phone number was found on a note inside Roeder's car when he was arrested, and he had a lunch with Newman in which Newman . Or that Newman's lieutenant, Cheryl Sullenger, used to advocate violence so much she served time in prison for plotting to blow up an abortion clinic.
And whether or not any of these perpetrators "repented" their crime is irrelevant (which Sullenger also claims she has); abortion doctors aren't any less dead, or their clinic properties any less vandalized, or their employees any less threatened, because of it.
And we haven't even got to the regular stalking and harrassment abortion providers and their employees suffer. But Newcombe is probably OK with that, because nobody's getting murdered.
Meet Franklin Raff, WND's New Fringe Webcaster Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily has an announcement: Ir's running a weekday 3-minute webcast by right-wing talker Franklin Raff.
Raff has impeccable fringe credentials: he was a sidekick to domestic terrorist G. Gordon Liddy's radio show and a producer of the short-lived radio show of WND editor Joseph Farah.
There's more on Raff's fringe bona fides: he has suggested that "many" schoolteachers are wannabe child molesters, inflated attendance numbers for a right-wing anti-health care rally, and has birther queen Orly Taitz as a Facebook friend.
And he's bringing the crazy to WND as well, from what appears to be his basement or a closet or some similar tiny space hastily designed with an American flag. One show last week featured this weird rant about gas masks that is, in reality, a commercial for gas masks from the WND store: "For all the time and money you've spent on prepper prep, you can't yell 'Wolverines!' when lying in a pool of your own sputum in a fetal position on the floor."
Another rant claims that "ISIS is actually operating a camp a few miles from El Paso" -- and also includes a plug for the WND-published book "The Islamic Antichrist."
Oh, the thing about ISIS operating a camp near El Paso is not true, so it's nice to see Raff maintaining the WND tradition of not letting the facts get in the way of a good scaring of the sheeple.
MRC Returns to Bashing Catholic Critics Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's flip-flop rhetoric on who is allowed to criticize the Catholic Church and the pope (conservatives) and who isn't (non-conservatives) has flipped again.
In their Oct. 7 column, Brent Bozell and Tim Graham sneered at Nancy Pelosi for allegedly expressing "smarter-than-the-pontiff feminist arrogance" for pointing out that, as a mother, she might know a little more about having children than a celibate priest.
As we've noted, conservative columnist George Will wasn't attacked by Bozell and Co. for expressing "smarter-than-the-pontiff arrogance" by asserting that Pope Francis "stands against modernity, rationality, science and, ultimately, the spontaneous creativity of open societies" and that he embodies sanctity but comes trailing clouds of sanctimony," offers "shrill" social diagonses and "embraces ideas impeccably fashionable, demonstrably false and deeply reactionary." Rather, the MRC made Will's column an "Editor's Pick" at NewsBusters.
The gist of Bozell and Graham's column, though, is a defense of its CNSNews.com "reporter" Sam Dorman for asking a gotcha question of Pelosi. (The writers hide the fact that Dorman isn't an actual reporter but just an intern.) They insist that Dorman's question was "very simple and pertonent" and tout how Pelosi was made "clearly angry" by it.
Which, of course, was the whole point. Dorman said himself on a CNS website trying to profit off the confrontation how proud he was that "after Pelosi erupted with anger, I knew I had pushed the right button." Why should Pelosi apologize over an act deliberately designed to provoke her anger?
Bozell and Graham conclude by declaring that Pelosi isn't sufficiently Catholic, ranting, "She should be excommunicated." Now who's portraying themselves as smarter than the pope?
WND Insists Absolutely True Accusations Against Operation Rescue Leader Are 'False' Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily gets quite devoted to the counterfactual when it suits its right-wing agenda -- like promoting right-wing victimhood.
An Oct. 1 WND article by Bob Unruh highlighted how Operation Rescue leader Troy Newman "has been detained in Australia based on 'false accusations' from a member of the nation’s parliament." The article is another one-source wonder from Unruh, quoting only Operation Rescue employee Cheryl Sullenger defending Newman:
The reason for the detention apparently, Sullenger said, was a letter from Terri Butler, an abortion-promoting member of parliament, who accused Newman of being an “extremist” and of arguing that abortionists should be “executed.”
“Newman has never advocated violence against abortion providers or facilities and has instead adamantly encouraged pro-life activists to work through the legal, legislative, and justice systems to bring abortionists who are breaking the law and harming women to justice,” Sullenger wrote.
OR said the pro-abortion politicians “falsely” accused Newman of “advocating the execution of abortion providers, which [Australian Minister of immigration Peter] Dutton never bothered to fact-check.”
“Troy has been treated like a criminal even though he has never been convicted of a crime and is being detained and deported based solely on his religious and pro-life beliefs that are opposed by certain abortion lackeys in the Australian government,” said Sullenger. “This is unjust and as a representative of Operation Rescue, I demand his immediate release and an apology from Minister Dutton for the trouble he has caused by acquiescing to false accusations of those who oppose Newman’s pro-life stance.”
Curiously, Unruh never actually quotes from the letter by Butler, and Sullenger also fails to mention its contents. Presumably, that's because they both know that the facts don't make Newman look good and, contrary to Sullenger's claim, no fact-checking is necessary.
In addition to our personal guilt in abortion, the United States government has abrogated its responsibility to properly deal with the blood-guilty. This responsibility rightly involves executing convicted murderers, including abortionists, for their crimes in order to expunge bloodguilt from the land and people. Instead, the act of abortion has been elevated to a “God-given right” and the abortionists canonized as saints. Consequently, the entire nation has the blood-red stain of the lives of the innocent upon its head.
In a folow-up article later the same day reporting that news that Newman had been expelled from Australia, Unruh again uncritically repeated Sullenger's claim that Newman was the victim of "false allegations," again talked to nobody but Sullenger, and again refused to quote from the Newman book in which he did indeed call for abortion providers to be executed.
Meanwhile, over at the Operation Rescue, Sullenger and crew are spinning even harder to deflect attention from what Newman (and Sullenger) actually wrote:
Newman has never supported violence against abortion providers and statements from a book co-written by Newman have been taken out of context in order to twist the meaning to one that was never intended in the context of the book. Newman’s remarks were in the context of a theological study of a government’s ability to institute capital punishment, and was never in advocation of violent acts against anyone. What was never mentioned by Newman’s detractors was that the book also explained that in addition to judgement is mercy, and the ability to receive repentance, forgiveness, and restoration through Jesus Christ.
Note that this explanation does not provide the name of the book (which, by the way, is for sale elsewhere on Operation Rescue's website), the name of Newman's co-author (Sullenger) or any direct quote of the actual words from the book. That's the sign of an organization with something to hide.
Operation Rescue's insistence that Newman is being taking out of context doesn't really help him -- he may want abortion providers legally executed, but the fact remains that execution is still at the top of the list for dealing with these people. Indeed, he states that "lawful execution" of abortion providers "is commanded by God in Scripture."
And as Right Wing Watch states in a review of the book, Newman repeatedly uses violent and hostile imagery that is anything but moderate. For instance, Newman uses numerous passages in the book likening abortion doctor George Tiller -- murdered by Scott Roeder, who had connections to Operation Rescue -- to Hitler, argues that women who have abortions are guilty of murder and suggests they should be executed like the abortion doctors, declares that "The argument can logically be made that abortion is a sacrifice to demons," and declares that 9/11 and AIDS were God's warnings about abortion.
Newman, Sullenger and Operation Rescue really can't explain Newman's unambiguous words away. But Bob Unruh and WND are sure doing their best to try.
AIM Desperately Defends Benghazi Committee Topic: Accuracy in Media
When House Majority Leader candidate Kevin McCarthy effectively admitted that the House Benghazi Select Committee was a scheme to drive down Hillary Clinton's poll numbers, right-wingers knew the game was up. Now comes Accuracy in Media's Roger Aronoff to deny the obvious, even insisting that AIM's own "Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi" kangaroo court is political:
Following a series of rather uneventful hearings on Benghazi, other than Hillary’s line, “What difference, at this point, does it make?” plus the stacked-deck hearing by the “independent” Accountability Review Board, we at Accuracy in Media (AIM) decided to do something about it. In July of 2013, we formed the Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi (CCB), with a group of top retired military leaders, former CIA officers, and congressmen, including the former chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Pete Hoekstra, with the purpose of doing our own independent investigation in an attempt to reveal the truth about what happened—before, during and after the terrorist attacks in Benghazi on September 11 and 12, 2012—and hold people accountable. We have made much progress, and are still at it.
We started off with an all-day conference in September 2013, which can be viewed here. Leading off the conference was Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA), who already had a House bill with approximately 185 Republican House members as co-sponsors, calling for a Select Committee on Benghazi. The advantage of a Select Committee is that it brings all facets of the investigation under one roof, rather than being divided up between various committees, each with a limited scope and purview. Plus, a Select Committee isn’t limited by the normal rules, in which each questioner has only five minutes, which can easily be eaten up by a single answer. Wolf was the real driving force in Congress behind the formation of a Select Committee. You can watch or read his comments here. It had nothing to do with driving down Hillary Clinton’s poll numbers.
Aronoff doesn't sound very convincing. He offers nothing to back up his assertion beyond insisting it wasn't political. And if AIM's little kangaroo court wasn't political, why is it filled with Obama-haters and birthers?
Indeed, we've been pointing out the kangaroo-court nature of the CCB since AIM announced it in 2013. Neither Aronoff nor AIM has disputed the fact that it's stacked with birthers and Obama-haters who cannot possibly be interested in an impartial view of the Benghazi evidence that does not implicate Obama or Clinton.
Now we know the CCB is no different from the House Select Committee in its partisan intent. Aronoff should stop pretending that politics isn't his primary motivation.
MRC Proves CNS 'Reporter' Really Is A Protester Topic: CNSNews.com
The Media Research Center may be insisting that CNSNews.com "reporter" Sam Dorman is a real reporter, but its actions show that he really did serve as a "protester" in asking a loaded gotcha question to Nancy Pelosi, as the Washington Post originally called him.
When a real news organization's reporter gets slighted by a public figure, it usually doesn't try to build a PR campaign off it. The MRC, by contrast, is doing just that. An Oct. 6 CNS article by managing editor Michael Chapman touts how his boss, Brent Bozell, "wrote to Pelosi, noting that good reporters 'ask tough questions,' that her answer was 'disrespectful'; and that she should apologize to the reporter, CNSNews.com’s Sam Dorman."
Of course, Dorman's question wasn't "tough"; it was a gotcha question designed to mock her stance on abortion. Dorman hadbeengoingaround to various Democratic members of Congress asking the very same question before hitting up Pelosi. Hurling the same gotcha question to multiple people is the act of a protester, not a journalist.
If Dorman's question wasn't an act of protest, the MRC wouldn't be trying to raise money off it. And that's exactly what it's doing.
An Oct. 6 email to followers contained a link to a page at CNS where it requests that readers send it money: "It costs $12,000 to fund an Intern at the MRC, and it is an example like Sam’s as to why your continued support for our MRC Internship Program is so vital!"
Wait, the internship program? Yep. It turns out that Dorman isn't even a real reporter -- he's an intern. The MRC has not admitted that until now, not even in the two stories on the situation written by his boss Chapman.
The MRC tries to elide that in its fanciful description of the Dorman-Pelosi encounter (bold in original):
Sam Dorman was excited to be the intern chosen to represent CNSNews.com at the weekly press briefing on October 1st. Armed with a laptop, recorder, and his journalist credentials, he entered the briefing with intention to ask truthful questions directly related to public policy. When called upon, Sam addressed leader Nancy Pelosi, simply asking:
“In reference to funding for Planned Parenthood: Is an unborn baby with a human heart and a human liver a human being?”
But Pelosi responded with, “I do not intend to respond to your questions”.
Pelosi even went so far as to belittle the credentials of our CNSNews.com intern.
Somehow, we doubt that the Capital's press office would give out credentials to an intern so easily; you might remember that a decade ago, WorldNetDaily essentially complained that the Senate Press Gallery's standards for press passes weren't low enough for WND to get one (which they eventually did). It may be that the credentials belong to CNS, and Dorman simply had access to them that day.
The MRC is just throwing the "credentials" stuff around to pump up the idea that CNS is a real news organization.
But the ultimate evidence of Dorman's intent comes from Dorman himself, in a statement underneath his picture: "At first I was nervous to ask the question, but after Pelosi erupted with anger, I knew I had pushed the right button."
Journalists try to gather information. Protesters try to push buttons. Dorman's admission that he was trying to push a button on Pelosi and provoke the response he got is all the evidence we need that he was in protest mode, not in journalist mode.
So, that settles it. Dorman is a protester, CNS is an ideological news organization, and the MRC is trying to exploit Dorman's ideological clash with Pelosi to raise money. It's almost as if the whole thing was planned this way.
NEW ARTICLE: The Coulter Cowards at the MRC Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center is buddies with Ann Coulter, so you know they won't criticize her, even at her most anti-Semitic or anti-Catholic. Heck, the MRC will let anyone bash Catholics -- but only if they're conservative. Read more >>
CNS Managing Editor Not Concerned His Reporter Acts Like A Protester Topic: CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com managing editor Michael W. Chapman kept up the Media Research Center's misguided defense of his alleged reporter Sam Dornan in the flap over his asking a loaded gotcha question of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, redirecting his ire toward the Washington Post instead of his own reporter. Chapman whines in an Oct. 2 CNS article:
In Kelsey Snell’s story posted at 12:14PM at The Washington Post’s PowerPost, the headline incorrectly read, “Nancy Pelosi shut down an abortion protestor’s question in a press conference.”
There was no “abortion protestor” at the press conference; the question was asked by a CNSNews.com reporter, who is credentialed with the U.S. Capitol.
In the lead of the story, Snell also incorrectly reported that Pelosi “was not interested in entertaining questions Thursday from an anti-abortion protestor who shouted a question to the California Democrat during her weekly press conference.”
There was no “anti-abortion protestor” and the question was not “shouted.” (See the video.) In addition, the lead is further misleading because it has changed from the headline’s “abortion protestor’s” to “anti-abortion protestor.”
In the second paragraph of her story, Snell wrote that, “the protestor sat in the first row of the presser and spoke up over several reporters vying to ask a question of the Democratic leaders.”
Again, the reporter, Sam Dorman, was not a “protestor.”
Snell then wrote, “It was unclear who the questioner was and for which news organization they worked.” Here the facts changed again somewhat, with Snell claiming the “questioner” – not the “anti-abortion protestor” – worked for a “news organization,” the identity of which was “unclear.”
Snell did not speak with CNSNews.com ‘s Sam Dorman at the press conference. She did not ask for his name or his news affiliation; and she did not email him or, even later, make a telephone call to CNSNews.com to clarify her report.
One hour after Snell’s inaccurate story was posted, CNS’s Dorman did tweet Snell, saying, “I am not an anti abortion ‘protestor.’ I am a credentialed member of the press. Please correct your story.”
Chapman seems not to understand the fact that he has to state three times in five paragraphs that his reporter is not an "anti-abortion protestor" is evidence of how unclear that was to Snell and other journalists present at the press briefing. Chapman also provides no evidence that Dorman identified himself and his employer before asking the question, thus further raising legitimate questions about whether he was a protester.
Chapman also failed to mention that, as we've pointed out, Dorman's tweet at Snell came from an account that did not identify his real name nor his occupation, so Snell could not possibly have known who he was. As of this writing, Dorman's Twitter account still does not list his real name or his occupation.
Chapman continues whining:
Snell did not name the “news organizations with an ideological perspective” to which she was referring. When CNSNews.com asked her by Twitter Direct Message if The Washington Post was one of the “news organizations with an ideological perspective,” Snell did not respond.
She also did not answer numerous questions that CNSNews.com sent to her by Direct Message, including who told her that the questioner was “an anti-abortion protestor”? Also, if it was “unclear who the questioner was,” then why did Snell report that it was a “protestor”? Where did she get this information? And is she credentialed as a reporter at the U.S. Capitol? Snell did not reply.
Is Chapman actually denying that CNS has an ideological perspective? Dorman's question alone -- whether "an unborn baby with a human heart and a human liver a human being" -- should answer any questions about intent and ideology.
Curiously, Chapman recites Snell's journalistic background (Medill, Politico, NPR) but not that of his own reporter, while still complaining Dorman was labeled as an "anti-abortion protestor." Does Dorman have an anti-abortion background Chapman doesn't want to mention, or some other activities in his past that betray Chapman's attempt to portray him as a straight-news reporter?
We'd ask Chapman about this, but he has blocked us from following him on Twitter, and questions we've previously sent to CNS through its "Contact Us" page have routinely gone unanswered. So Chapman should perhaps not whine about Snell not answering his questions unless he can start handling his own queries.
And instead of complaining about how the Post reporter misidentified Dorman, Chapman should be asking why his reporters are indistinguishable from protesters.
MRC's Defense of Fiorina Enters the 'Fake But Accurate' Phase Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center did not approve when the memos promoted by CBS as discussing George W. Bush's military service were described as "fake but accurate" and invoked the term repeatedly ever since.
Oddly, the MRC has been reduced to making a "fake but accurate" defense of Carly Fiorina's description of secretly recorded, dishonestly edited right-wing videos of Planned Parenthood.
Even though it's abundantly clear that the Center for Medical Reform doctored its Planned Parenthood footage by inserting video from elsewhere to spice it up, the MRC justwon't admit it.
This is taken to new lengths in a Sept. 30 NewsBusters post by Erin Aitcheson, who responds to claims that Fiorina is lying about the Planned Parenthood videos by huffing: "Except she’s not lying. The video she described exists. If differs from the CMP-shot hidden camera footage, but it exists and Fiorina saw it. She has stood unwavering behind her statements."
Actually, if Fiorina is describing the video that "differs" as being shot by CMP inside a Planned Parenthood clinic -- and it appears she is -- she's lying. And CMP is being dishonest by presenting that footage as such. The fact Fiorina may have seen something she is currently lying about and "has stood unwavering behind her statements" doesn't make it any less of a lie, as Aitcheson seems to be suggesting. Indeed, the amount of "unwavering" Fiorina has expended in defending her lie is utterly irrelevant to its veracity.
Aitcheson is simply privileging Fiorina's lie. She (and the MRC) wouldn't do such a thing if it was a Democratic presidential candidate making a similar statement about an undercover liberal sting operation that included outside footage.
Except she’s not lying. The video she described exists. If differs from the CMP-shot hidden camera footage, but it exists and Fiorina saw it. She has stood unwavering behind her statements. - See more at: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/culture/erin-aitcheson/2015/09/30/washington-post-calls-fiorina-anti-abortion-champion-wont#sthash.ftPhZ6Uw.dpuf
Except she’s not lying. The video she described exists. If differs from the CMP-shot hidden camera footage, but it exists and Fiorina saw it. She has stood unwavering behind her statements. - See more at: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/culture/erin-aitcheson/2015/09/30/washington-post-calls-fiorina-anti-abortion-champion-wont#sthash.ftPhZ6Uw.dpuf
WND Columnist Defends Right-Wing Artist Who Fantasizes About Obama's Assassination Topic: WorldNetDaily
Marisa Martin -- the pseudonymous WorldNetDaily columnist who hides behind a fake name so she doesn't have to take responsibility for her fringe views -- shows why she's a fake-name believer in her Sept. 25 column, in which she praises right-wing "street artist" SABO, who for some reason has linked up with Ted Cruz to the point where he has his own page in the Cruz campaign store:
SABO comes up swinging in response to juvenile media attacks on conservatives. Thus “Ted Cruz, Vampire Slayer” was born. SABO details his inspiration. “In response to the True Blood (HPO) episode that decided to call Republican women ‘Republicunts’ during what they portrayed to be a Ted Cruz rally, I decided to create this STREET poster,” he notes.
SABO was recently smeared by two “writers” from the Texas Tribune. Aman Batheja and Patrick Svitek found the artist guilty of controversial [conservative] statements, which are not tolerated in fluff media.
It isn’t hard to find something offensive by SABO, as he disdains diplomacy. Yet the Texas Tribune accused him of “rooting for the assassination of President Barack Obama, cheering on the beheading of journalists by ISIS and using racial epithets.” When taken into context and considering sarcasm (which apparently are no longer taught in journalism classes), SABO said nothing of the sort.
That didn’t stop FBI agents from knocking on his door about this musing: “Imagine if every Secret Service agent just up and left their jobs tomorrow, that would be brave. Taking a bullet for a turd is just stupid.”
Crude, vulgar and tasteless, but not a threat by any means. Being appalled by the idea of “taking a bullet” for the president is part of their job description. If it were a “threat,” every anti-war protester and pacifist opposed to “taking bullets” for the nation would be under investigation as well.
Interestingly, Martin fails to present the supposedly sarcastic context in which she demands they be properly viewed. As the Hollywood Reporter noted, Sabo had prepared for his encounter with the Secret Service by plastering his apartment walls with posters bearing the name "Oswald." He (like Martin, he hides behind a fake name) tweeted regarding Obama's visit at a fundraiser (apparently he's capable of only tweeting in all-caps): "IT REALLY WOULD BE A CRYING SHAME IF SOMEONE CALLED TO REPORT A MAN WITH A RIFLE IN THE AREA ON THIS NIGHT."He has also tweeted: "DEAR GOD! I PRAY YOU MAKE ZOMBIES REAL AND THE FIRST ONE I HOPE REANIMATES IS OSWALD. :) - THANK YOU GOD."
Yes, Marisa, please explain the context that would make Sabo's tweets something other than the creepy threats they are. And we doubt Martin would give the same artistic license to a left-wing artist who tweeted the same things about a Republican president.
Instead, Martin hides comfortably behind her fake name, spouting questionable views and defending assassination obsessives.
Hilariously, Sabo is quoted as saying in that Texas Tribune article (after the Cruz campaign declined to comment about Sabo's assassination threats) that he stands by every threat and that "I'd appreciate it if you didn't try hanging my statements around his neck." Don't expect, again, to see someone like Martin or Sabo granting the same privilege to a similarly provocative left-wing artist similarly tied to a Democratic presidential candidate.
Indeed, after lavishing praise on Sabo, Martin spends much of the rest of her column dismissing left-wing street art, huffing, "It’s a politicized media assault on the sanity of Americans who can’t escape (short of living in sod huts until the indignation has passed)."
P.S. Fantasizing Obama's assassination is not even a new thing at WND; Molotov Mitchell was extremely enthused that in a recent movie, Obama's head ""pop[s] like a pinata to the triumphant sounds of 'Ode to Joy,'" expressing his own sick joy that he got to watch " a real-life dictator's head blow up."
Rosa Parks Derangement Syndrome Topic: WorldNetDaily
I for one have been well aware of Rosa Parks’ dubious association with Planned Parenthood, which is exactly why I have made it a point not to sing her praises over the years like so many others have.
If liberals cared one iota about the quality of life of blacks who thoughtlessly praise Rosa Parks, they would point to the fact that Rosa Parks as an active NAACP board member fought for fairness at a time when fairness was defined by the “for whites only signs” of white Democrats. They would tell the truth that Parks and many other blacks had been deceived into willfully advocating for and participating in the extermination of black people.
But for that to happen liberals would have to be honest and truthful – something that as a collective is alien to them on every quantifiable level.
The liberal organizations that applauded the trap Cruz and Rubio fell into are by their actions the modern-day equivalents of Adolf Hitler. The difference is that Hitler’s active extermination of Jews led to his demise and Germany’s defeat.