Remember how NewsBusters' Tom Blumer was trying to get people to take seriously conservative activists' boycott against Ford for its alleged "aggressive support of homosexual advocacy groups and publications" and insisting that the boycott was hurting the automaker's sales (though he had no actual evidence to back that up)? You'd think that NewsBusters would take all boycotts seriously, right?
Well, think again. Here's NewsBusters executive editor Matthew Sheffield, in a July 28 post on a plan to boycott Fox News advertisers: "Ah to be a liberal, to proclaim my tolerance and open-mindedness with a few tacky bumperstickers and then turn around and try to silence any type of political divergence."
Gosh, somebody doesn't like boycotts -- and he might want to alert his NewsBusters underling.
Clinton Derangement Syndrome Watch Topic: WorldNetDaily
Judicial Watch is continuing its Javert-like pursuit of the Clintons. A July 26 CNSNews.com column by Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton explains that the bane of the Clinton administration is going on another fishing expedition:
On July 16, we filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against the U.S. National Archives and Records Administration to obtain access to documents from the Clinton Presidential Library related to Hillary Clinton's tenure as First Lady.
Specifically, Judicial Watch seeks, "First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton's calendar, to include but not limited to her daily office diary, schedule, day planner, telephone log book, and chronological file." Judicial Watch is seeking Mrs. Clinton's records from January 1, 1993 to January 20, 2001, the time period during which she served as First Lady.
As proof of the "public interest" in these records, Judicial Watch's press release announcing the Clinton Library lawsuit was published verbatim on the popular news website The Drudge Report, which registers more than 15 million readers per day, and received coverage from the Associated Press, which is syndicated to 1,700 newspapers around the world.
In other words, Judicial Watch wants the chance to make mountains out of 15-year-old molehills. The Clinton-hate by the usual suspects continues.
And it continues over at WorldNetDaily, where a July 27 "letter of the week" by Tim Hirota states:
The reason neither Hillary, nor any other liberal, will claim to be such is because, when viewed in a world-historical perspective, today's "modern liberal" was yesterday's Josef Stalin, Mao Zedong and Pol Pot, and today's Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro. This group of liberals-by-other-names (Communist, Socialist) were (and are) the worst butchers in history. They were, and are, the greatest suppressors of individual freedoms. They were, and are, the greatest violators of human rights.
Hillary Clinton's ideology is identical to the ideologies of these monsters.
A look at the archives shows that Hirota has a total of seven "letter of the week" honors to date from WND. We've previously noted that Hirota has approvingly cited unsubatantiated Clinton-bashing allegations by Gary Aldrich, but Hirota has also referenced Hillary Clinton's purported "devotion to Marx" and asserted that "The greatest America-haters are liberal Americans."
FrontPageMag Misleads on Kupelian Case Topic: Horowitz
A July 27 FrontPageMag article by Janet Levy denouncing a proposed federal hate-crime bill cited several cases in support of her argument that such laws "magnify and criminalize thoughtless, petty actions, exaggerating their importance, and prosecute those doing nothing more than exercising their personal opinions." The first:
Before the fall semester of the 2006-2007 school year, an Ohio State University librarian selected four best-selling books as suitable reading for incoming freshman. They included David Kupelian’s “The Marketing of Evil,” which presents conservative viewpoints on homosexuality, abortion, teenage sex and other issues.
For merely suggesting a book with an alternative viewpoint, the librarian was accused of unprofessional conduct and of creating a hostile work environment. He was charged with sexual harassment for recommending a book that presented a traditional Christian view of homosexuality contrary to the view deemed “reflective” of the university on this issue. Although later cleared of any wrongdoing by the university, the librarian suffered the consequences of being publicly denounced as a “hatemonger” and “bigot” and the stress of pursuing legal remedies.
But the librarian, Scott Savage, was not "charged with sexual harassment"; rather, as we detailed, Savage was accused of "harassment based on sexual orientation" -- not the same thing. The "sexual harassment" claim comes from misleading press releases by the Alliance Defense Fund, which defended Savage.
Further, in asserting that Kupelian's book merely presented "conservative viewpoints," Levy ignores claims made by one professor that Kupelian's description of sex researcher Alfred Kinsey as a "full-fledged sexual psychopath who encouraged pedophilia" is a "factually untrue characterization of Dr. Kinsey and his work on every point." As we documented, Kupelian relied on anti-Kinsey activist Judith Reisman for his claims about Kinsey -- claims that are highly misleading, if not outright false.
Meanwhile ... Topic: WorldNetDaily
Ed Brayton at Dispatches from the Culture Wars finds even more misleading claims by Janet Folger, this time in her July 24 WorldNetDaily column about anti-gay Fort Lauderdale mayor Jim Naugle.
We Get Results (And No Thanks) Topic: Washington Examiner
Last week, we noted that Lorie Byrd, in her July 19 Washington Examiner column touting her new attack site Media Mythbusters, falsely claimed that the Associated Press "retracted" its so-called "Sunni burning six" story. We also wrote a letter to the Examiner, which was published Tuesday.
Today, the Examiner published the following correction and appended it to her online column:
A July 19 oped by Lorie Byrd (New Web site will keep track of questionable news stories) incorrectly reported that the Associated Press had retracted a story it ran in late November that six people had been burned to death during sectarian violence at a Sunni mosque in Iraq. Byrd also raised questions about the AP's source, police Capt. Jamil Hussein, saying that he could not be found and that his name was a pseudonym. In January, the Iraqi Interior Ministry, which initially denied Hussein's existence, confirmed that he was an Iraqi police officer and said he faced disciplinary action for speaking to the media.
Byrd herself issued a correction on the Media Mythbusters blog, but tried to fuzz it up a little: "Instead of saying they 'retracted' elements of the story, I should have said they revised elements of the story." Byrd then digresses into the "ongoing dispute" over the identity of Jamil Hussein.
As much as Byrd likes to tout those who contribute to Media Mythbusters' attacks, she makes no acknowledgment to us for pointing out she was wrong, which would be the honorable thing to do. This speaks to the partisan nature of the website -- that it will not praise anything the media does if it conflicts with Media Mythbusters' agenda, and it will admit errors only bregrudgingly and when it can't otherwise avoid doing so.
Still, when a website that claims "When in doubt, tell the truth" as a motto is forced to apologize for, uh, telling the truth, that's not exactly an auspicious sign.
A July 26 CNSNews.com article by Fred Lucas plays up a refusal by U.S. attorney Johnny Sutton to testify before a House committee regarding the prosecution of two U.S. Border Patrol agents in the shooting of an unarmed illegal immigrant on the U.S.-Mexico border (we've noted previous slanted ConWeb coverage of this story). While Lucas notes in the first paragraph that Sutton was "scolded at a Senate hearing this month for his role in the controversial prosecution of two ex-border agents," he doesn't explicitly state that Sutton testified July 17 before the Senate Judiciary Committee, nor does he adequeately explain why the House committee wants his testimony when has already testified before the Senate (though it's hinted that the Republican House members pushing for Sutton's testimony have uncovered new evidence).
Lucas also ignores a statement by Sutton's office, as reported by the Associated Press, that Sutton does not comment on nonpublic matters while cases are pending. The Border Patrol case is currently being appealed.
WND's Unruh, Folger Just Can't Stop Misleading Topic: WorldNetDaily
A July 25 WorldNetDaily article by Bob Unruh repeats the assertion by WND columnist and anti-gay group Faith2Action president Janet Folger that her renditions of "what so called 'hate crime' legislation has already done IN AMERICA" are "the facts." As we've previously demonstrated, Folger and Unruh leave out lots of facts in the cases they cite; thus, what they claim cannot be "the facts."
Unruh is more guilty than Folger because he is treating an activist's opinions as unassailable truth despite easily obtainable evidence that she's making misleading, if not false, claims -- a stance that has no business being in a purported "news" story. Does Unruh have no journalistic pride? Apparently not.
Adamo Unleashes Fury on Cal Thomas Topic: CNSNews.com
Somebody woke up on the wrong side of the rhetorical bed. A July 19 CNSNews.com column by Christopher Adamo unleashed a surprising vitriolic attack on conservative columnist Cal Thomas. Why? We're not exactly sure.
Adamo started off by bashing Jimmy Carter as, among other things, "a deliberately malignant force striving to wreak horrendous harm on the country," a "naive imbecile" and a "degenerate." This somehow leads to Adamo claiming that Thomas is "headed down this same path" and "can now be counted upon, ostensibly in the name of offering a 'Christian' perspective, to advance the cause of the counterculture while insidiously undermining those on the right."
What did Thomas do that offended Adamo so? Again, we're not exactly sure; the only actual quote from the July 4 Thomas column Adamo attacks is the statement that "religion is not the exclusive property of conservative Christians." Adamo doesn't bother to directly quote anything else Thomas says, preferring to paraphrase -- and add his own interpretation -- instead.
The point of Thomas' column was that, upon a visit to his ancestral Indiana town, he realizes that Democrats are people too and he calls for people to be wary of politicians who rely on patriotism. That concept, apparently, was just too much for Adamo's brain to take:
Ostensibly presented as an uplifting piece focusing on American commonality set against an Independence Day backdrop, Thomas's narrative quickly deteriorates into an affront against traditional America, while attempting to elevate the political left. He begins by taking the kind of swipe at "talk radio" worthy of Harry Reid, Diane Feinstein or Nancy Pelosi.
Worse yet, he does so under a completely false pretense (itself a fitting tactic among liberals) by suggesting that the American heartland is some sort of sanctuary, free from the likes of Limbaugh and Hannity, as if the better part of the country is that which is shielded from them.
In truth, Middle America is the domain of talk radio, with its advocacy of American values and heritage, and rejection of those who would undermine such things.
Yet Thomas sinks further still, to eventually make a contextual comparison between the segment of America that embraces talk radio (apparently meaning the conservative grassroots) and Nazi chieftain Herman Goering. Pelosi and Reid should be proud.
In his not-so-subtle manner, Thomas thus disparages conservatism and its ties to the Christian faith which is present on the political scene as a result of true conservatives in the Republican Party. In contrast, the only politician he credits with speaking truth is Illinois Democrat and presidential hopeful Barack Obama.
Adamo does begrudgingly admit that Thomas' statement that "religion is not the exclusive property of conservative Christians" is "technically true," but Thomas' "suggestion that Republicans in general, or conservatives in particular, claim otherwise is itself a vile and patently false accusation." Adamo fails to mention that this is claimed by implication, whenconservativesstate that one can't be both a Christian and a Democrat.
Adamo then decides to reframe the issue to his liking:
What conservatives have continually said is that although many Republicans do not uphold conservative or Christian values, the Democrat Party is, on an official basis, openly and thoroughly hostile to such things.
It is ludicrous to suggest that a party, which embraces every element of the counterculture from sexual perversion to the slaughter of the unborn to a view of "spirituality" that lauds any and every religious concept with the sole exception of the Christian worldview, can somehow be considered a haven for devout Christians.
For Thomas to imply as much, even in as indirect of a manner as he does, is to aid and abet proponents of those ideologies in their efforts to undermine and destroy the Christian heritage of America.
Adamo ignores that Thomas has done exactly that, asserting that Hillary Clinton is "not a person who believes in the central tenets of Christianity." But never mind; Adamo was in full anti-liberal rant mode:
From "hate crimes" (thought control) legislation to "sensitivity training" to Madalyn Murray O'Hare's [sic] conversion of public schools into temples of secularism, America now suffers innumerable social plagues as a result of mandated and legislated immorality from liberals, aided and abetted by a church community that is increasingly indifferent and morally confused.
World War II Democrats would not have tolerated the treasonous denigration of America and lauding of the enemy from liberal partisans such as Harry Reid and Jack Murtha. The media did not spend its time working to minimize American victories while magnifying any errors or gains on the part of its enemies.
Now, both work tirelessly to dispirit American troops while legitimizing and thus inspiring Islamic terrorists. Patriotism has not changed, but the Democrat Party [sic] most assuredly has.
A July 25 NewsBusters post by Warner Todd Huston takes time that could better be used penning his apology to the Los Angeles Times to accuse the New York Daily News of "[f]ollowing the left's playbook of claiming Bush has illicitly linked Saddam's Iraq to 9/11." Huston then launches into a highly defensive explanation of why, when President Bush asserted that al-Qaeda in Iraq is part of the al-Qaeda "terrorist network" that attacked on 9/11, he wasn't linking Iraq to 9/11.
It should be no surprise that Huston leaves a few things out. First, when Huston stated that "there is no speech in which Bush claimed that Saddam was responsible for 9/11 ... This is a lie that the left has promulgated since Bush announced we were going into Iraq," he failed to note that other Bush administration officials and supporters have, in fact, made that claim.
Huston then writes: "What Bush really did was link al Qaeda, the al Qaeda that is in Iraq today, to the same network controlled by Osamma bin Ladden [sic], the very same bin Ladden that did take credit for perpetrating 9/11," adding, "What he did was say that the al Qaeda that planned 9/11 has a branch in Iraq and always has had one in Iraq." Nowhere does Huston note that the claim that al-Qaeda in Iraq is the same thing as, or is controlled by, Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda is highly disputed by Bush's own officials.
We've already described how Dick Morris will not disclose in his columns attacking Hillary Clinton that he is actively working against her campaign (though he will disclose his work for other candidates while praising them).
This refusal extends to NewsMax. In a July 24 article reporting on Morris' latest attack on Hillary, there's no mention of the fact that Morris is an activist against Hillary's presidential campaign by cooperating with and promoting an upcoming anti-Hillary documentary -- even though NewsMax's on Ronald Kessler has reported on it.
Speaking of Belated Apologies ... Topic: NewsBusters
A July 24 NewsBusters post by Ken Shepherd takes Keith Olbermann to task for taking too long to apologtize for a segment that aired on "Countdown" while he was on vacation that criticized Wendy Vitter as committing a "ho-pas" for the dress wore during the news conference in which her husband, Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), admitted to an affair with a prostitute.
So we know about NewsBusters' sensitivities. Will Shepherd, as NewsBusters managing editor, ask that Warner Todd Huston similarly apologize to the Los Angeles Times for falsely suggesting that its article tying Fred Thompson to lobbying efforts for an abortion-rights group was not true? After all, it's been nearly a week since the the Times' story was confirmed, and Huston has yet to ackowledge that fact.
Massie's Favorite (Non-Existent) Word Topic: WorldNetDaily
In his July 24 WorldNetDaily column, Mychal Massie returns to his thesauric well once more and reprises the word "Erebusic" -- which we've already noted doesn't exist.
We already know about conservatives' general refusal to use the proper grammatical form of "Democratic," preferring incorrect constructs like "Democrat Party," as we'vedocumented. Matthew Balan ratchets up this strange refusal a bit in a July 23 NewsBusters post, using terms like "Democrat presidential candidates," "Democrat debate" and "Democrat administrations."
Balan's post purported to count the number of "liberal" or "left-wing" questions vs. "conservative" questions asked at Monday's Democratic presidential debate (see, Matthew? It's not so hard to add those two little, grammatically correct letters!) But his catetorization of "left-wing" vs. "conservative" seems a bit arbitrary, apparently to pump up the number of "left-wing" questions. He listed a question asking "how Obama and Clinton address criticisms that they’re not 'black enough' or 'feminine enough' " as a "left-wing" question. We don't get it.
UPDATE: Brent Baker used Balan's post to claim in a July 24 MRC CyberAlert that "candidates were hit with questions from the left over the right by nearly a 3-to-1 margin." That's misleading, since Baker's tally covers only 23 questions tagged "left-wing" or "conservative" out of 39 questions asked. Baker has a bad habit of making misleading ratio claims about such tallies.
We've previously noted a July 7 NewsBusters post in which Warner Todd Huston called a claim in a Los Angeles Times article that Fred Thompson worked as a lobbyist for a family-planning group in the early 1990s "hearsay" and "an unproven (and maybe unprovable) claim" (though the article cited "the minutes of a 1991 board meeting of the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Assn." as evidence and names five people as corroborating the claim). Huston further derided the article as having "no real proof by anyone here" and "just a she-said/he-said claim." He concluded that the story was "nothing but claims made with no evidence to back them up so far," adding: "All in all, this is a very badly reported, partisan story that slams Fred Thompson instead of a fully investigated story, fairly presented, so that readers can make a more informed decision on whether to believe the claims made therein."
Since then, more evidence to back up the aricle's claim about Thompson has surfaced: The New York Times reported on July 19 that billing records support the claim that Thompson did some lobbying work for an abortion-rights group.
Huston has yet to acknowledge the New York Times article (though he did take the time to assert on July 9 that parts of the LA Times article were "disappearing" from the website, though it turned out that the story had been replaced by the version that ran in the print due to an uncorroborated minor claim). Even though Huston's attack on the LA Times has proven to be discredited, there's no recognition of that fact by Huston or anyone else on NewsBusters.
Shouldn't Huston note this fact and acknowledge his error of his earlier rhetoric? We think he should.
In the middle of a July 23 WorldNetDaily rant against "homosexual propaganda" in the movies as exemplified by the new film "I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry," Ted Baehr and Tom Snyder (no, not that one; this one's the editor of Baehr's Movieguide website) be felt the need to attack Barack Obama:
This week, the leading "progressive" candidate in the Democratic Party, Barack Obama, reiterated his support for teaching sex education to children in kindergarten. Since Obama, like the filmmakers behind "Chuck and Larry," also supports same-sex marriage, we assume this means that he wants to teach homosexuality to children as young as five.
In fact -- if Baehr and Snyder had bothered to look up what Obama actually said, rather than "assume" what he meant -- Obama emphasized that sex ed for kindergarteners would be "age appropriate" and be focused on inappropriate touching by strangers as a way to protect children from sexual predators (as we've previously pointed out).
Apparently, Baehr was too busy denouncing homosexuality as an "evil sin" to do any actual research for his column.