Newsmax Misleads Again on Obama Inauguration Costs Topic: Newsmax
Newsmax has found a new way to mislead about the cost of Barack Obama's inauguration.
In the very first item detailing Obama's alleged "gaffes and gimmicks" during his first 100 days in office, Newsmax claims: "In his inaugural address, Obama calls on Americans to adopt a spirit of sacrifice, which apparently doesn’t include his own coronation. The $49 million cost of his swearing-in ceremony is triple the cost of Bush’s first inaugural."
In fact, Bush's first inauguration cost $40 million. Last time we checked, $49 million is not triple $40 million.
As we noted, Newsmax used to claim that Obama's inauguration cost "early four times what George Bush’s inauguration cost four years ago" -- or did until people figured out the 2005 inauguration figure didn't include security costs that were in Obama's number.
WND Hides Full Truth About Chaplain Topic: WorldNetDaily
We all know that WorldNetDaily keeps its readers in the dark about facts that interfere with its right-wing agenda -- its obsession with Barack Obama's birth certificate is just one example.
Another example of this is WND's longtime promotion of Gordon Klingenschmitt, a Navy chaplain who defied orders by praying in Jesus' name at non-religious public events -- a cause celebre promoted by evangelical fundamentalist Christians -- and was ultimately court-martialed. WND has whitewashed his situation by misleadingly claiming he was court-martialed because he appeared "a White House function in March 2006 at which he wore his uniform and prayed 'in Jesus' name'"; in fact, it was a protest at the White House, not a "White House function," and he had received clear orders from his superiors not to wear his uniform at media events or political protests. He was court-martial for disobeying an order, not for praying in Jesus' name.
WND has generally refused to give its readers an honest account of the other side of the story. As artciulated by the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, demands to pray "in Jesus' name" interferes with the free exercise of religious freedom in the military. Further, as noted by military history Bob Bateman, the events that activist chaplains like Klingenschmitt want to pray "in Jesus' name" at "have nothing to do with religion, and enlisted men of all religions are required to be there," and that the effect of allowing chaplains to go beyond a nonsectarian prayer coulde be to "take the simple step of just not inviting the chaplain at all."
You won't find these arguments at WND -- at least, not unless Klingenschmitt or his sympathizers are responding to it. Indeed, MRFF president Mikey Weinstein is named in only two WND articles -- both of which are columns by Klingenschmitt attacking him.
Nor has WND offered the account of Klingenschmitt's former superior at Naval Station Norfolk, Norm Holcomb:
“I was the dishonored ex-chaplain’s supervisor for the past 2 years,” Holcomb wrote in his message. “I found him to be totally untruthful, unethical and insubordinate. He was and is contemptuous of all authority. He was not court martialed for praying in Jesus’ name. I sent him out in uniform every week to pray at various ceremonies and functions. He always prayed in uniform and in Jesus’ name. He was never told that he could not pray in Jesus’ name. In fact, the issue of prayer had nothing at all to do with his dismissal from the Navy. He disobeyed the lawful order of a senior officer. I am sure that you understand that Navy Regulations forbid any of us, regardless of rank or position, to appear in uniform in support of any political or partisan event.”
Holcomb goes on to say, “He appeared in direct support of a political event, demonstrating contempt for the order of his Commanding Officer and Naval Regulations that we all swear that we will abide by…. The ex-chaplain is a man without honor and you have accepted his story and in doing so you have had ‘the wool pulled over your eyes.’"
That goes double for anything that makes Klingenschmitt look bad. So don't expect WND to breathe a word about a prayer Klingenschmitt issued the other day that sounds a lot like a death threat (h/t Gawker):
Let us pray. Almighty God, today we pray imprecatory prayers from Psalm 109 against the enemies of religious liberty, including [Americans United for Separation of Church and State executive director] Barry Lynn and Mikey Weinstein, who issued press releases this week attacking me personally. God, do not remain silent, for wicked men surround us and tell lies about us. We bless them, but they curse us. Therefore find them guilty, not me. Let their days be few, and replace them with Godly people. Plunder their fields, and seize their assets. Cut off their descendants, and remember their sins, in Jesus' name. Amen.
Praying for the deaths of one's critics, however much WND likely sympathizes with the sentiment, doesn't make for good PR. So expect WND to hide this from its readers it as it has the full truth about Klingenschmitt.
FrontPageMag Falsely Suggests Obama Behind Attacks on Writers Topic: Horowitz
Just because Andrew Walden is trying to talk some sense into conspiracy-prone Obama-haters by pointing out the folly of their Barack Obama birth certificate obsession doesn't mean he himself is not an conspiracy-prone Obama-hater.
An April 28 article by Walden published by FrontPageMag falsely suggests that Obama is behind the efforts of "Iraqi-British ex-Baathist billionaire" Nadhmi Auchi (who has links to Tony Rezko and thus, according to right-wing guilt-by-association reasoning, to Obama himself, though the only evidence Walden to that effect is that they purportedly met once at a party) to squelch criticism of him by Walden and others by threatening to file libel lawsuits in British courts, where the libel threshold is lower than in the U.S. The article carries the headline "Obama's Chilling Crew" -- which also appears on the version of the article on Walden's own website, Hawaii Free Press -- which creates the false suggestion that Obama is funding or somehow supporting Auchi's efforts.
While Walden doesn't further that impression in the article itself, neither does he dispel it. Thus, the misleading headline continues to mislead, and Walden is presumably quite happy about that.
Aaron Klein's New Book: More Right-Wing Whitewash Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily's Aaron Klein has just released a new book, "The Late Great State of Israel" (published by WND Books, natch), which purports to document "how enemies within and without threaten the Jewish nation's survival." We haven't read the book yet (WND, shockingly, has not deemed us worthy of a review copy), but WND's promotion for the book does a good job of hiding the right-wing slant Klein is known for -- remember, he declared a mass murderer who was also an AWOL Israeli soldier to be a victim, "murdered" by the "mob of Palestinians" that had witnessed the man shoot and kill four Arabs on a bus with no provocation.
The author details how leftist, Labor Zionist leaders often stab the country in the back while trying to minimize Israel's religious-Zionist population. He argues that Israel's evacuation of Gush Katif in 2005 and its drive to create a Palestinian state in Judea, Samaria and sections of Jerusalem are, in large part, aimed at destroying religious-Zionism, but that such actions will have devastating consequences for Israel.
Klein became motivated to begin this project following Israel's 2005 disengagement of Gaza under Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's helm. He could not accept the International media's portrayal of Jewish settlers in Gaza being fundamentalists living on stolen Arab land.
In an interview to Ynetnews, Klein said: “It was Israel that led the charge in legitimizing Yasser Arafat, bringing him out from exile in Tunis and providing him and his Fatah gang with a fiefdom in the West Bank and Gaza Strip from which to wage jihad against the Jews.
"Now, Israel's policy is enhancing the same Fatah movement while also working to legitimize Hamas, by, among other things, negotiating with the Islamist group and failing to defeat Hamas militarily”.
Klein is also very critical of the United States funding and legitimizing Hamas in the International community. “Israel remains committed to negotiating a Palestinian state- in talks strongly urged on by the Obama administration- with a 'peace partner' whose official institutions indoctrinate its citizens with intense anti-Jewish hatred and violence” Klein told Ynetnews.
As we've detailed, Klein has long sought to whitewash Israeli right-wingers in the West Bank and Gaza, from hiding the extremist and violent Kahanist pasts of settlers in Gaza to desperately trying to prove that those perpetrating violence on Palestinians in the West Bank didn't actually live there. His new book, it appears, is just one more step in whitewashing right-wing Israeli extremists.
Of course, Klein has already declared his opposition to Obama by hurling numerous guilt-by-association attacks at him -- including trying to link him to Hamas through an "endorsement" by a Hamas spokesman. At the same time, Klein refused to bash John McCain the way he did Obama for having ties to Rashid Khalidi.
We can presume that the right-wing tone Klein has taken in his WND reporting is duplicated in his book. Just don't expect Klein to admit he's a right-winger, of which there apparently aren't any of in Israel.
MRC Won't Say the Obvious About Media Study Topic: Media Research Center
In separate NewsBusters post, the Media Research Center's Tim Graham and Brent Baker have highlighted a claim from a Center for Media and Public Affairs study that President Obama has received more coverage and "more positive assessments" in evening news broadcasts in his first 50 days in office than President Bush or President Clinton.
While both noted that only 13 percent of references to Obama on Fox News' "Special Report"were positive (compared to approximately 60 percent on the network evening news broadcasts), they have refused to acknowledge what that means -- namely, that Fox News' anti-Obama bias is much more pronounced than the networks' pro-Obama bias.
Graham, in quoting the Washington Post article on the CMPA study, did mention another piece of evidencefrom the study that shows Fox News' extreme bias: Obama's personal qualities drew more favorable coverage than his policies, with 32 percent of the sound bites positive on CBS, 31 percent positive on NBC and 8 percent positive on Fox. But even that didn't move Graham to put two and two together. (Baker didn't mention it at all.)
We shouldn't be surprised -- after all, the MRC has a history of being in denial about the obvious fact that Fox News has a pronounced right-wing bias -- much more so, as the CMPA study illustrates, than the so-called mainstream media leans left.
We tested this thesis further by searching for any references to another piece of evidence: the assertion made by Bill Shine, Fox News' senior vice president for programming, that the channel is making itself to be a "voice of opposition" to Obama's policies.
Guess what? We couldn't find any at the MRC main site or at NewsBusters.
Instead, the MRC is trying to push its lbieral-bias-is-at-the-root-of-everything agenda. It's reduced to complaining in an April 27 press release that the media won't uncritically repeat right-wing talking points -- that Obama's a socialist radical who wants to nationalize the entire economy. The first paragraph manages to cram in the word "radical" three times to describe Obama:
President Barack Obama has put forward policies representing the most radical government intervention in the free market in American history, with more proposals for even greater government interference on the way. But according to the Media Research Center (MRC), DURING Obama’s first 100 days in office the media have steadfastly refused to report this. In fact, rather than challenging the President’s radical policies, network news reporters have often celebrated Obama’s radical agenda.
But as the CMPA study states, the media have, in fact, criticized Obama's policies -- just not using the right-wing rhetoric the MRC wants. Which prety much destroys Brent Bozell's assertion that "The liberal media’s dedicated defense of Obama knows no bounds."
Will Bozell & Co. give the media credit for that? Don't count on it.
CNS Misleads Again on Covering of Symbols Topic: CNSNews.com
We've previously detailed how CNSNews.com has repeatedlyclaimed that the Obama administration asked Georgetown University to cover up specific religious symbols before a speech by President Obama, despite a complete lack of evidence that the administration asked the university to anything beyond covering up the university's "signs and symbols."
CNS is still pushing this non-story, however. An April 28 article by Penny Starr quotes a Republican congressman as being "disturbed" by "President Barack Obama’s request to have the symbolic name for Jesus Christ – IHS – covered from a pediment that was visible behind him when he spoke at Georgetown University’s Gaston Hall on April 14." Starr went on to repeat the claim that "The Obama administration asked school officials to cover the symbol, which was done by placing a piece of plywood painted black over it."
Again, for Starr's benefit: CNS has never presented evidence that the Obama administration made specific demands to cover up specific symbols at Georgetown. Absent that evidence, any assertion or suggestion that the administration did is, simply, a lie.
Wheeler Hides Facts About Tedisco Race Topic: Newsmax
In his April 27 Newsmax column, Scott Wheeler claims with a straight face -- much as he did in fundraising emails -- that even though Democrat Scott Murphy defeated Republican Jim Tedisco in a special election for a House seat in New York, it was a "dramatic rebuke" of President Obama. How so? Because "just five months earlier, the very same district gave Democrat Kirsten Gillibrand a 24-point margin of victory."
Unsurprisingly, Wheeler fails to mention that a month before the election, Tedisco held a double-digit lead in polls over Murphy -- a lead that disappeared in no small part because of the harshly negative ads attacking Murphy that the organization of which Wheeler is executive director, the National Republican Trust PAC, ran. Indeed, one poll found that only 12 percent of voters said the ads they saw for Tedisco made them more likely to support the Republican, to 28 percent who said they became less likely to support him. Questions were also raised about the veracity of claims the PAC made about Murphy.
Wheeler's PAC spent more than $819,000 on ads that drove voters away from its favored candidate -- but don't expect Wheeler to admit that little fact.
Wheeler also asserted that "Tedisco conceded with class compared to the way Democrats handle such matters," but he cited no examples whatsoever of Democrats purprotedly acting less than classy. Wheeler was silent about the amount of class Norm Coleman has demonstrated or whether he will call for Coleman to follow Tedisco's classy lead.
An April 27 NewsBusters post by Ken Shepherd repeats a post by right-wing blogger Patterico criticizing the Los Angeles Times for failing to note that "recently declassified memos confirm that waterboarding [Khalid Shaikh Mohammed] was key to disrupting a plot to fly airplanes into the tallest skyscraper in Los Angeles."
Both Shepherd and Patterico fail to mention that there's significant doubt about that claim. As we've detailed, the Bush administration has claimed that the Los Angeles plot was foiled a year before Mohammed was captured.
It appears that the Times was showing restraint by refusing to report a claim about which reasonable doubt has been raised.
Anyone think Shepherd or Patterico will give the Times credit for that? We thought not.
Examiner's '10 Worst Ideas' Peddle More Misinformation Topic: Washington Examiner
The Washington Examiner's "10 worst ideas of the week" is proving to be a regularsource of right-wing misinformation -- no wonder they won't put it on the website, leaving it only in print editions of the paper. Let's see what they got wrong this week, shall we?
No. 1 in the April 26 edition was a claim that "prominent scientist" Christopher Monckton was "disinvited" from a House committee hearing by Democrats "who don't welcome his doubts about the legitimacy of global warming." As we've noted, Monckton is a not a scientist; he's a journalilst by training. Further, Monckton has peddled dubious claims of his own, making him a less-than-credible witness.
In third place was criticism of Democrats for deciding to use the "reconciliation" process to push health care reform through Congress. The Examiner adds: "But reconciliation is supposed to be for reconciling different dollar amounts, not for major policy changes. In short, it's a major procedural abuse." Nowhere is it noted that when Republicans controlled Congress, they repeatedly used reconciliation to push through numerous initiatives that had nothing to do with "reconciling different dollar amounts," like tax-cut bills.
New Article: Hypocritical Outrage, Anal Sex Division Topic: Media Research Center
Exhibit 49 in the Out There series: WorldNetDaily and the Media Research Center have bashed references to anal sex in the media -- but not when Rush Limbaugh makes those references. Read more >>
AIM Promotes Writer's Deeply Personal Grudge Topic: Accuracy in Media
Should a nonprofit organization really be helping to further people's personal grudges? Accuracy in Media seems to think so.
An April 27 AIM column by Rosamunda Neuharth-Ozgo is nothing more than an attack on Al Neuharth, the former CEO of newspaper chain Gannett, for refusing to acknowledge her as his daughter. Rosamunda claims she was the product of a 1962 affair and that Neuharth did pay child support for her (he claims he did so to avoid publicity).
We aren't taking sides on this case since we do not have all the facts regarding it. We do wonder, however, why AIM decided to publish it since it typically disdains personal attacks -- on conservatives, anyway. Cliff Kincaid once demanded that the media "cease the personal attacks" on the wife of then-Supreme Court nominee John Roberts by highlighting her "pro-life views."
But there seems to be a loophole. Kincaid wrote in a January 2006 column attacking Joe Biden and defending Samuel Alito: "I really want to know why the major media permit these characters to launch personal attacks on Alito when their own personal lives are scarred by scandals."
Thus, the justification for running Neuharth-Ozgo's column: Neuharth is (well, was) a media bigwig, and he has an apparent skeleton in his closet. This means AIM is more than happy to act as a conduit for Neuharth-Ozgo's personal grudge against the man she claims is her father, even though it's clearly being done to guilt Neuharth into acknowledging her as his daughter. This is the very definition of a personal attack -- indeed, what could be more personal than a paternity claim?
Should a nonprofit organization like AIM really be a party to airing dirty laundry with embarrassment of its target as its only goal? AIM has chosen in the affirmative.
CNS Still Hiding Its Ties to Newman Society Topic: CNSNews.com
The undisclosed conflict of interest continues: An April 27 CNSNews.com article by Michael Chapman referenced the Cardinal Newman Society's online petition opposing President Obama's speech at Notre Dame without mentioning that Brent Bozell, who heads CNS' parent organization, the Media Research Center, is also on the society's board of directors.
UPDATE: An April 28 CNS article by Fred Lucas also references the Cardinal Newman Society's petition without mentioning CNS' shared link to the society.
Joseph Farah's Obama Birth Certificate Cover-Up Topic: WorldNetDaily
In his April 27 WorldNetDaily column, Joseph Farah seems actually proud of the fact that WND "has been virtually alone in covering one of the biggest electoral scandals in American history – maybe the biggest. I'm talking about the question of Barack Obama's constitutional eligibility to serve as president." Because nobody else is as obsessed as WND about this, Farah concludes, there must be a cover-up.
What Farah won't admit, of course, is that WND has been covering up the fact that much of the evidence it has provided to support the claim that Obama isn't an American citizen are dubious at best and outright lies at worst. Several of them are on our big list of falsehoods WND has told about Obama. WND has never corrected any of these lies.
Farah notes that "a petition I began demanding proof Obama is a "natural-born citizen" has now attracted more than 360,000 signees." But he has offered no evidence that the petition, in fact, contains that many signatures, let alone that many signatures of registered U.S. voters. He has refused this far to make the list publicly available so his claims can be independently verified.
Farah has also failed to publicly discuss the nature of WND's relationship with fellow birth certificate obsessive Orly Taitz, or to report a credible complaint about her making false and misleading claims in court filings, among other things, filed with the California bar.
Further, Farah asserts that Obama won't release the "long-form birth certificate" that will purportedly answer all questions related to his birth -- yet Farah refuses to honestly ackoowledge WND's previous reporting (before it decided to turn the birth-certificate thing into a cudgel to attack Obama) that the birth certificate released by the Obama campaign is "authentic." If it is authentic, then there's no need to release the long-form certificate, right?
Farah claims that the certificate released by Obama "could have been issued to a resident of Hawaii for a foreign birth." But he offers no evidence to back up this claim, and other evidence thus far ignored by Farah and WND suggest that claim is false.
Farah's attempt to cover up facts that would destroy his war on Obama through the birth certificate is not a huge scandal -- rather, it's a petty, partisan one. And it shows yet again why Farah and WND cannot be trusted to report fairly and accurately about much of anything, and especially about Obama.
Examiner Columnist Repeats False Attack on Obama Topic: Washington Examiner
In an April 27 Washington Examiner column (print-only, not online) attempting to prove that President Obama "could very well be one of the worst U.S. presidents in history when it comes to thinking on his feet," Michael Taube repeats a false story:
According to Sky News, the president read Irish Prime Minister Brian Cowen's speech -- and thanked himself -- on his teleprompter in March 2009. Cowen followed him to the podium, started repeating the same words, stopped and then said, "That's your speech."
First, Taube gets the order wrong -- Cowen's teleprompter goof came before Obama's turn to speak, not after. Second, the White House press pool report clearly indicates that that Obama was making a joke about Cowen's goof by thanking himself. Which demonstrates that Obama may be better at thinking on his feet than Taube thinks.
Noel Sheppard Owes Al Gore An Apology Topic: NewsBusters
Last year, we documented how NewsBusters' Noel Sheppard has spread the lie that Al Gore is into global warming activism for the money. Now, during an April 24 House hearing, Gore has responded to those charges after a question from Republican Rep. Marsha Blackburn:
BLACKBURN: Now, they [venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins, in which Gore is a partner] have invested about a billion dollars in 40 companies that are going to benefit from cap-and-trade legislation. So is the legislation we are discussing here today, is that something that you are going to personally benefit from?
GORE: I believe that the transistion to a green economy is good for our economy and good for all of us, and I have invested in it. But every penny that I have made, I have put right into a nonprofit, the Alliance for Climate Protection, to spread awareness of why we have to take on this challenge.
And Congresswoman, if you're -- if you believe that the reason I have been working on this issue for 30 years is because of greed, you don't know me.
BLACKBURN: Sir, I'm not making accusations, I'm asking questions that have been asked of me -- and individuals -- constituents who were seeking a point of clarity, so I am asking you for that point of -- point of clarity.
GORE: I understand exactly what you're doing, Congresswoman. Everybody here does.
BLACKBURN: And, well -- you know, are you willing to divest yourself of any profit? Does all of it go to a not-for-profit that is an educational not-for-profit --
GORE: Every penny that I have made --
BLACKBURN: Every penny --
GORE: -- has gone to it. Every penny from the movie, from the book, from any investments in renewable energy. I've been willing to put my money where my mouth is. Do you think there's something wrong with being active in business in this country?
BLACKBURN: I am simply asking for clarification --
GORE: I'm proud of it.
BLACKBURN: -- of the relationship.
GORE: I'm proud of it.
Does Sheppard think there's something wrong with being active in business in this country? And when will he issue that formal apology to Gore for falsely smearing him? Sheppard has been silent on Gore's testimony so far.