WND's Corsi Is Now A Chelsea Clinton Birther Topic: WorldNetDaily
When the Obama birther conospiracy theories promoted by Jerome Corsi and WorldNetDaily were discredited, they never admitted they were wrong; they just didn't bother reporting the truth. Having given up the birther ghost, Corsi and WND have found someone else to go birther over.
We've noted how WND is ignoring the immoral swinger lifestyle of Roger Stone to promote his new hatchet-job book on the Clintons. Corsi is taking the same selective-morality route in promoting Stone's book. And guess which part of it he's focusing on?
In an Oct. 11 WND summary of the book by Stone and Robert Morrow -- who loves to spread his bizarre sexual fantasies about the Clintons -- Corsi makes sure to highlight never-proven right-wing rumors that Chelsea Clinton's real father is Webb Hubbell:
Among the “family secrets” that Stone and Morrow discuss is the “strong circumstantial evidence” that Chelsea Clinton is not the biological daughter of Bill. The authors publish photographs of Chelsea that appear to show “extensive plastic surgery to rebuild her face in her 20s” to make her appear physically less like Webb Hubbell, the Arkansas attorney who was a colleague of Hillary at the Rose law firm in Little Rock who went to prison for tax fraud in relation to his billing.
Then, in an Oct. 14 WND article, Corsi highlights how sex-obessed author Morrow tried to ambush Chelsea Clinton with a question about Hubbell being her father, adding his own ambush:
WND caught up with Hubbell by telephone Wednesday to ask him about the accusations in the Stone-Morrow book.
“I have not read Roger Stone’s book, and I don’t plan to. Thank you very much,” said Hubbell abruptly.
When asked specifically about the accusation that he was Chelsea Clinton’s biological father, Hubbell responded: “No comment.”
Corsi presents no actual evidence Hubbell is Clinton's father, citing only "a rumor swirling in the dark underworld of Clinton family speculation." You know, like all of his Obama birther reporting was based on rumors and the deliberate shunning of actual facts.
It's telling that Corsi is quite comfortable with the fact-free sleaze peddled by people he would dismiss as sexually depraved were they not rabid Clinton-haters like himself. Makes us wonder if there's something in Corsi's dark underworld that he's trying to hide...
MRC Trolls CNN Anchor On Media Bias Topic: Media Research Center
Not content with trolling members of Congress to provoke them into saying something on camera it can use to further its right-wing agenda, the Media Research Center is now trolling the media figures whose existence it despises.
An Oct. 17 NewsBusters post by "NB Staff" (though listed in the post's URL as written by Tim Graham) touts how "new MRCTV correspondent Brittany M. Hughes asked CNN primetime host Don Lemon if the media tilts left. He made faces like the question was preposterous, and denied any such thing." NewsBusters then issued its apparent coup de grace:
So MRCTV followed up with a collection of CNN clips from our archives that demonstrate that left-wing opinion often bursts forth from CNN anchors and their very political contributors (ahem, Paul Begala):
but that clip package demonstrates how thoroughly deceptive the MRC's definition of "liberal bias" is. As stated, the clips do indeed show people expressing liberal opinions. But mere expression is not bias, as the MRC claims. A liberal like Begala or Sally Kohn (who's also in the clip package) invited onto CNN to express his opinion is expected to express one that's liberal. For the MRC to claim that this is bias is ridiculous.
The clip package also includes "CNN anchors" expressing opinions, but some like Piers Morgan -- who hasn't been on CNN in quite some time -- are not news anchors. So, again, the MRC fails in a logical definition of news bias.
Further, one of the clips of Morgan quotes him as saying, "Limbaugh's disgusting comments are the work of an archaic old dinosaur living in a warped, ugly swamp ... Shame on you, Rush Limbaugh." There's an edit there, one that removes the context of Morgan's remarks (and, again, Morgan hosted an opinion show, not a "news" show). Here's the full comment, with the portion the MRC deleted in italics (though we found it elsewhere at the MRC):
"Limbaugh's disgusting comments are the work of an archaic old dinosaur living in a warped, ugly swamp, who thinks it's okay to degrade decent young women for sport and ratings. Well, it isn't it. Shame on you, Rush Limbaugh."
And MRC boss Brent Bozell was kinda OK with that criticism, conceding it was "fair." Of course, Bozell then proceded to distract from Limbaugh by attacking Morgan for the entirely unrelated offense of having once nice things about Bill Maher. But last time we checked, neither Morgan nor anyone else at CNN set up an "I Stand With Bill Maher" website.
Meanwhile, on Fox News, news anchors joining their conservative guests in regularly serving up right-wing opinion, and the MRC says nary a peep about it. If it was genuinely concerned about news bias, it wouldn't keep quiet.
It seems what the MRC really wants is to censor opinion it doesn't agree with -- that is, it wants liberals off TV. Why else would it be making the ridiculous complaint the mere existence of a liberal commentator expressing a liberal opinion on TV to say is itself an act of "bias"?
Oh, and Lemon's answer to Hughes -- that "if you’re liberal, then there’s conservative bias, and if you’re conservative, you think there’s a liberal bias," and that "people are deliberately trying to skew things one way or the other" based on their own beliefs -- was accurate. The MRC is too busy trying to skew things to its own agenda to admit it.
WND And AAPS-Affiliated Doc Can't Stop Fearmongering About Vaccines Topic: WorldNetDaily
If there's anything that doctors affiliated with the right-wing Association of American Physicians and Surgeons love to do, its fearmonger about vaccines. Turns out WorldNetDaily loves to do that too, and it also loves giving AAPS-affiliated doctors a platform for their fearmongering.
Following the Sept. 16 Republican presidential debate, in which Donald Trump fearmongered about an "epidemic" of autism he suggested was caused by vaccines and Ben Carson asserted that children are receiving "too many" vaccines, WND was thrilled. GOP candidates agree on vaccines!" enthused the headline of a WND article following the debate, declaring that "three of the candidates agreed that American doctors have become too vaccine-happy."
AAPS executive director Jane Orient used her Sept. 27 WND column to defend Trump's fearmongering about vaccines:
The American Academy of Pediatrics, or AAP, was quick to accuse candidates of making “false statements.” But AAP’s consistent advocacy for all “recommended” vaccines notwithstanding, the following statements are true:
Safety testing is limited, especially for long-term effects and for combinations of vaccines.
Donald Trump’s idea of lower doses spread over time is not just that of a layman. Some experienced pediatricians have thought so, too.
Trump said we were having an epidemic of autism. So did James Perrin, M.D., president elect of AAP, in 2012. Neither AAP nor anybody else knows why. It is an extremely serious problem.
Actually, Trump -- and, thus, Orient -- are pushing a load of bunk. The Washington Post reported that the vaccine schedule for children is "carefully vetted," adding, "When they are given in combinations, or "bunched" at the same time, it's only after they are carefully tested in 'concomitant use' studies to make sure the vaccines don't interfere with each other or cause harm."
Further, Orient is lying when she claims that nobody knows why there is an autism "epidemic." It may just be that there is an increase of autism diagnosis instead of an increase of the number of people who have it, given that autism spectrum disorder is a fairly recent development.
But Orient won't listen to things like science; she insists that "A multi-billion dollar industry benefits from vaccine mandates – and has enormous influence over groups like AAP."
Orient then ranted:
Children are affected by many non-vaccine preventable conditions, some fatal, such as enterovirus D68, which swept through the nation in 2014. It caused hundreds of hospitalizations and at least 12 deaths, compared with one death from measles. Trump might want to look into the possible consequences of dispersing inadequately screened immigrant children.
In fact, as we've noted, the Centers for Disease Control have found no evidence of a link between illegal immigrants and enterovirus outbreaks in the U.S.
Actual evidence doesn't sway WND on such things; Jerome Corsi was declaring last October that "The EV-D68 epidemic occurred only after the surge this year of unaccompanied alien children illegally crossing the border from Latin America" and that "but government data show the virus was rare in the U.S. before this year."
In that article, Orient assertd that "Latin American children likely have some immunity and may not be sick, while still contagious," and that "Some serious work needs to be done to get to the bottom of this." That may be true, but don't expect to see any "serious work" from Orient and the APPS -- for from WND, for that matter -- if those filthy illegal immigrants can't be blamed for it in the end.
WorldNetDaily editor Joseph Farah has nevertaken criticism well. His thin skin crops up again in his Oct. 12 column.
Farah whines about how "So-called “progressives” have, in effect, created a new neo-puritanical religion that empowers them, even commands them, to do unto others what they accuse others of doing to them," invoking Jack Cashill's new book "Scarlet Letters" (the name of which Farah misspells at one point, and which he also fails to disclose that he published). Finally, toward the end of his column, Farah vents his spleen at a certain person:
Recently, I was dubbed “anti-American” by a columnist for the Des Moines Register.
“Anti-American”? Really. Why? Because I support the Constitution of the United States? Because I want to protect and defend it as a land of the free? Because I want my kids to grow up with hope and the chance for preserving the liberty and opportunity I knew as a kid?
None of those questions really matter.
Most of these name-callers don’t know a thing about the people they attempt to tar and feather as evildoers, sinners and sociopaths.
It’s simply what they do.
They do it because it makes them feel better. They are practicing their own false creed. If they had the power to damn their imaginary enemies to hell, they wouldn’t hesitate for a minute. If they had the courage to take our lives, I have little doubt many of them would. When they are empowered to positions of authority, they abuse it by punishing those who don’t share their sacred values.
Notice that Farah doesn't quote anything from the columnist other than the word "Anti-American" or give any context for the purported name-calling. That's a sign Farah is trying to hide something -- namely, that what he says happened really didn't.
Farah is attacking columnist Rehka Basu and a column she wrote about anti-Muslim discrimination. And indeed, not only does Basu not explicitly call Farah "anti-American," the term "anti-American" appears nowhere in her column -- only in the headline.
Regarding Farah, Basu responded to criticism from him and other right-wingers regarding Ahmed Mohamed, the kid who got in trouble for bringing a homemade clock to school and of President Obama for defending the kid:
Joseph Farah, writing for conservative website World Net Daily criticized Obama for not reaching out to “the hundreds, perhaps thousands, of school children who have variously been punished for drawing pictures of guns, bringing toy guns to school, kissing other students, wearing T-shirts that defend the Second Amendment.”
But did they build something?
Demagogues are using Muslims to discredit the president, play to evangelical Christian bases or to serve some other agenda. Evidently none has actually known a Muslim well enough to know how false their gross generalizations are. Or worse, they have, yet do it anyway – leaving Americans more divided and fearful.
In other words, Basu is criticizing Farah for what Farah accuses liberals of doing -- hurling insults about a subject on which they know nothing because it makes them feel better, and for abusing his position of authority to punish those who don't hold his scared values.
No wonder Farah said that the details of what Basu was criticizing him for don't matter. He was ignoring them so he could engage in another dishonest rant.
AIM Still Silent On Simmons -- But Scrubs Him From Website Topic: Accuracy in Media
It's been a day since self-proclaimed CIA operative Wayne Simmons was exposed as a fraud, but Accuracy in Media, Simmons' most prominent connection on the right wing -- he serves as a member of its "Citizens' Commission on Benghazi" kangaroo court -- has remained silent on the situation. There's nothing to be found addressing Simmons on its website, its Twitter account or the Twitter of AIM chairman Don Irvine.
AIM has, however, scrubbed Simmons off its website.
Simmons' name has been removed from the list of "Citizens' Commission on Benghazi" members, where it was as recently as two days ago, according to Google cache. Simmons' bio as a CCB member has also been deleted from the website; the page where the bio formerly resided now returns a 404 error.
Yet AIM doesn't want to talk about its actions. Is it afraid that Simmons' fraud will rub off on the committee? Too late for that -- it's already too stuffed with birthers and Obama-haters to be considered credible.
UPDATE: Finally! The AIM website's CCB section has issued a (carefully, tepidly worded) statement -- strangely located in the header of the CCB page, not in its own post, as if it's ready to make this go away quietly as well:
We were stunned and saddened to hear the news about Wayne Simmons. He has been a colleague of ours on the Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi since we were established in 2013. We have removed Wayne’s name from the list of members on the website of the CCB, pending the outcome of the legal proceedings. As with everyone charged with a crime or crimes in this country, he is innocent until proven guilty. We wish him the best.
The statement then goes on to bizarrely promote how "On April 22, 2014 the CCB released an interim report with preliminary findings." That may have been there before the Simmons statement was posted, but its current juxtoposition makes it look like part of the statement -- and an inappropriately placed promotion, despite the fact that the nature of the allegations against Simmons arguably casts a cloud over the entire CCB.
MRC Doesn't Want You To Know Benghazi Committee Whistleblower Was An MRC Intern Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center has been unusually quiet about the accusations from former House Select Committee on Benghazi investigator Bradley Podliska that the committee is a partisan witch hunt out to get Hillary Clinton. All it's done so far is a fewNewsBustersposts complaining that his story was being reported (a contrast to MRC "news" division CNSNews.com, which has devoted no original coverage to it).
There's a reason the MRC is downplaying Podliska's story: he used to be one of them.
Talking Points Memo reports that Podliska's conservative credentials are impeccable, and that they include a stint as an intern at the MRC. Indeed, a search of the MRC website reveals Podliska listed as an intern onseveralitems published in September and October of 1996.
Interestingly, none of those NewsBusters posts disclose the fact that Podliska once worked there. Why? Do they feel their association with him was so long ago they can claim no link to him now? Or do they want to distance themselves from the fact that his allegations are exposing something Clinton-hating MRC boss Brent Bozell doesn't want exposed, and are afraid that the MRC will be linked to it because it will undermine the legitimacy of the Benghazi probe?
Podliska has discovered bias the way the MRC taught him to do -- but unfortunately for him, it's bias the MRC endorses and doesn't want to do anything about.
AIM 'Citizens' Commision on Benghazi' Member Accused of Fraud Topic: Accuracy in Media
The bio page for Wayne Simmons at Accuracy in Media's website for its "Citizens' Commission on Benghazi" kangaroo court puts "former CIA officer" right in the headline and claims that he "spent 27 years working with the CIA to combat terrorism, narco-terrorism and narcotics trafficking, arms smuggling, counterfeiting, cyber-terrorists, and industrial and economic espionage."
Much of that is not true, it appears.
The Washington Post reports that Simmons has been arrested on fraud charges relating to the self-aggrandizing tales he has told about himself over the years. A federal indictment states that in order to obtain a security clearance for a government contractor, Simmons was “falsely stating that he had been recruited to the CIA in 1973, that he had not previously been charged with or convicted of a felony offense, that his prior arrests and criminal convictions were directly related to his supposed intelligence work for the CIA, and that he had held a top secret security clearance from 1973 to 2000.”
Simmons was also charged in an apparently unrelated scam in which he convinced someone to make a $125,000 real estate investment with him, citing "his supposed affiliation with the CIA to bolster his credibility," then used the money for personal expenses.
If Simmons is the fraud prosecutors claim he is, that doesn't exactly bode well for the credibility of AIM's "Citizens' Commission on Benghazi," which is already stuffed with birthers and Obama-haters.
Thus far, AIM has been silent about the charges against Simmons both on its webiste and on its Twitter account, as well as the Twitter account of AIM chairman Don Irvine.
NEW ARTICLE: Pelosi and the Protester Topic: CNSNews.com
The Media Research Center tries to pretend that their employee who hurled a gotcha question on abortion to Nancy Pelosi is an actual journalist instead of an activist and fundraising tool. Read more >>
The ConWeb's Big Prison Pork Freakout Topic: The ConWeb
When the Washington Post reported last week that the federal government had decided to stop serving pork to federal prison inmates, citing unpopularity and cost, it quoted Ibrahim Hooper of the Council on American-Islamic Relations saying that the decision would prompt anti-Islam groups would spin the decision into a case of the federal government acting under pressure from Muslims, adding: “This is just the kind of thing that drives them crazy. ... It will stoke the fires of Islamophobia based on the usual conspiracy theories.”
Cue the ConWeb, which used the Post story to build their own articles, done in their own biased style.
Newsmax gave its story the full top-of-front-page treatment on Oct. 9:
The article, by Greg Richter, made sure to prominently mention CAIR.
CNSNews.com gave it a "CNSNews.com Staff" byline that also prominently featured CAIR, but took Hooper's comment out of context, claiming that he "warned that it might spark 'Islamophobia.'" Well, no, Hooper warned specifically that anti-Islam groups like CNS would do that.Curiously, CNS cited only the unpopularity angle, failing to mention the government's claim that pork was too pricey -- a strange omission given how close an eagle eye CNS normally keeps on government spending.
WorldNetDaily was a little late to the party, with an Oct. 13 article by Douglas Ernst (like fellow WNDer Cheryl Chumley, someone for whom the Washington Times apparently wasn't right-wing enough) going straight for the conspiratiorial angle:
The Obama administration wants Americans to believe federal prisoners are so unlike the rest of the world they even hate bacon.
The federal Bureau of Prisons is removing pork products from its menu. The decision will affect 200,000 inmates.
Ernst also made sure to mention CAIR but, like Newsmax, didn't mention Hooper's statement about the Islamophobia that would come from anti-Muslim groups over the decision -- you know, like WND.
Obama Derangement Syndrome Watch, Pat Boone Edition Topic: WorldNetDaily
Friend, this administration seems literally hell-bent on silencing Christians, taking away private gun ownership, opening our borders to illegals and even promising them schooling, health care, driver’s licenses and especially voting rights, while he and his appointed attorney general announced they didn’t intend to enforce immigration laws!
The current captain of our ship thumbs his nose at the Constitution and to the intended equal authority of Congress. He and his hoped-for successors actively promote homosexual activists, Muslims and actual Communists to created regulatory positions, gathering to themselves uninhibited, absolutely unconstitutional powers.
Can you not feel this ship tilting to its side, dangerously close to capsizing? If Communists and Islamists were to create and put in place a puppet to do their bidding, toward the actual destruction of our very vessel, they could hardly have furthered their purpose better than this president has. Trading known terrorist leaders already in custody for a pathetic deserter, claiming “we never leave our own behind.” Negotiating with our sworn enemy, guaranteeing they will have nuclear capability, and even granting them billions of dollars to fund their goals of destroying Israel and America – this isn’t just a nightmare.
It’s real. It’s happening. Our ship is sinking. Can’t you feel it?
How is CNSNews.com hating on gays lately? Here's a couple of examples.
Melanie Hunter did another of her "how dare the federal government fund gay things!" articles, an Oct. 9 piece complaining that "The National Institutes of Health has awarded $603,412 to the University of Pittsburgh for a five-year study of patterns of healthy aging among gay men." Here's the image CNS chose to illustrate Hunter's article with:
CNS has a thing for only depicting gays as flamboyantly and provocatively dressed and marching in gay-pride parades.
Then, an Oct. 12 column by Eric Metaxas warns against young-adult literature that isn't sufficiently hateful of gays:
If your teens read a lot, and I hope they do, they’re bound to come across books that promote the gay lifestyle. What to do about that next.
The way to win over a culture is to capture the minds and hearts of its young people. The gay-rights movement has certainly learned that lesson, which helps explain a current trend in youth literature. Anyone who reads books for teens these days will tell you that portrayals of gay relationships and characters are rapidly increasing.
In fact, they’re increasing to the point where they’re all out of proportion to reality. If you know the statistics on rates of homosexuality in the real world, you know that it’s somewhere around 3 percent, maybe less. Not so in the world of Young Adult fiction; there, it’s far more pervasive.
Book reviewers on the Youth Reads page at our website BreakPoint.org, are noticing that the subject is coming up in more and more contemporary teen novels. It doesn’t matter if they’re romances or fantasy novels or any other genre—the theme runs through all kinds of books for this age group. Acclaimed author Rainbow Rowell is just one prominent recent example. She wrote a bestselling young adult book about a college girl who writes stories about a gay couple—and then Rowell wrote her own young adult book about the gay couple in her character’s stories!
Metaxas' column is headlined "Disproportionately Gay: Alarming Trend in Youth Lit." Metaxas did not identify what he considered to be a suitably proportionate number of gay characters in young-adult literature, nor did he identify an enforcement mechanism he would use to achieve that desired proportion.
The MRC's Weird Attempt At A Brent Bozell Cult of Personality Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's self-promotional efforts tend to feature the grim visage of founder and president Brent Bozell -- not unlike, say, how they do things in North Korea.
This no doubt feeds Bozell's ego -- it's obvious he has a large enough of one to insist on being the face of the MRC, though his photogenicity is up for debate. This is the guy, after all, who spent 15-plus years stealing the credit from the guy who actually wrote his syndicated column, so he clearly wants as much glory for himself as he can get.
So now the MRC is promoting its little dress-up "Gala" shindig devoted to mocking its political enemies, and here's the image it's using:
Hey, it's a smiling Bozell! In a fancy white dinner jacket! He likes us after all! (You know, just like North Korea.)
And what was Bozell so happy about in that photo? To read the description on the MRC page to which the happy-Bozell image links, it appears he was leading the Two Minutes Hate that the MRC Gala apparently is:
MRC President Brent Bozell asked the audience to show their derision, via jeers and noisemakers, of quotes from Lawrence O’Donnell, [Ayman] Mohyeldin and analysts on CNN led by Sally Kohn, who had won a news category earlier in the program. The audience’s very obvious preference was confirmed by Bozell and the presenters and acceptors brought on stage to judge the audience’s reaction.
And then there's this, in which Bozell makes sure his role is noted:
The MRC opened the post-dinner program with Bozell honoring Phyllis Schlafly with the MRC’s ninth annual “William F. Buckley Jr. Award for Media Excellence.” Schlafly accepted via remarks on video in which she praised the MRC for “playing a big role” in getting out “the proper, needed information.”
Note: Not necessarily accurate or truthful information, but the "proper" information. Again, just like North Korea.
It all comes off as a propaganda operation instead of any sort of "media research," with Bozell attempting to create a cult of personality around himself.
Funny thing is, it was just a few weeks ago that the MRC was accusing Stephen Colbert of leading a "cult of personality." All the better to distract attention from the boss, it seems.
History Doesn't Matter To The MRC's Jeffrey Lord Topic: NewsBusters
We've documented how Ben Carson is completely wrong about the idea that gun control laws enabled the Nazis and the Holocaust -- turns out that unless you were a Jew or another persecuted class in Nazi Germany, gun control didn't really exist -- and how the Media Research Center's "news" division, CNSNews.com, didn't see fit to fact-check Carson, instead presenting his false assertions as if they were true.
The MRC is now going one step further by claiming the truth doesn't actually matter.
In his Oct. 10 NewsBusters post, Jeffrey Lord actually whines about Carson being fact-checked:
Media firestorm to follow - immediately. From the Huffington Post to ABC to Time and more (and more!) the liberal media was out there to dismiss Carson’s comments to Wolf Blitzer’s quite legit question as somehow as wacko as it was inflammatory. Even the Anti-Defamation League jumped in to say that Carson’s remarks were "historically inaccurate and offensive."
One has to wonder, do all these media outlets have anybody working for them who is familiar with history?
Actually, yes, they do -- hence all the fact-checking. At no point in his post does Lord refute any of it. Instead, he declares that "In fact, to the question of whether gun-toting Jews could have impeded Hitler the answer was long, long ago answered. And the answer is a decided yes." And he cites the Warsaw Ghetto uprising, as if that could be retroactive.
In other words? In other words what Dr. Carson is suggesting -- specifically that a massively armed Jewish population could have severely hampered Hitler’s Holocaust -- is supported by the true story of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. In which a relatively small minority of Jews inside the ghetto, with a minimum amount of, according to the Holocaust Museum, “mostly pistols and explosives” managed to “sufficiently disorient” the Nazis and “suspend further deportations” to the death camps, at least delaying the inevitable. Even more importantly, as word spread of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising it “inspired other uprisings in ghettos (e.g., Bialystok and Minsk) and killing centers (Treblinka and Sobibor).”
One can only imagine the damage that could have been inflicted on Hitler’s thugs as they rose to power in the early 1930’s if the Jewish population had been as well armed as the American populace is today.
Lord's focus on guns ignores the fact that gun restrictions for Jews in Nazi Germany were far from the only thing that targeted them. Mother Jones reports:
"But guns didn't play a particularly important part in any event," says Robert Spitzer, who chairs SUNY-Cortland's political science department and has extensively researched gun control politics. Gun ownership in Germany after World War I, even among Nazi Party members, was never widespread enough for a serious civilian resistance to the Nazis to have been anything more than a Tarantino revenge fantasy. If Jews had been better armed, Spitzer says, it would only have hastened their demise. Gun policy "wasn't the defining moment that marked the beginning of the end for Jewish people in Germany. It was because they were persecuted, were deprived of all of their rights, and they were a minority group."
The truly hilarious thing is that Lord titled his post "Ben Carson, Guns, and the Holocaust: Doesn't History Matter?" Not to Lord, obviously.
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."