At WND, Extremist Is Now A 'Nationalist' Topic: WorldNetDaily
When the list of people banned from visiting Britain was released last week, we noted that trusted Aaron Klein source Mike Guzovsky, aka Yekutiel Ben Yaacov, was on the list. Richard Bartholomew went on to note that WND initially accepted the description of Guzovsky as a "Jewish extremist."
Not any more. The May 5 WND article to which Bartholomew links has been edited, and it now describes Guzovsky as a "Jewish nationalist" -- a description repeated in a May 13 WND article by Art Moore. WND has not indicated why it made the change, let alone inform readers that it was done in the first place.
Apparently, endorsing the killing of people you don't agree with -- the assassination of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and calling Baruch Goldstein a "hero" for massacring 29 Arabs is just "nationism" -- is just benign, patriotic "nationalism" in WND's eyes.
Does WND have the guts to publicly defend Guzovsky and his extremism and tell its readers the full truth about him? We doubt it -- Aaron Klein has already tried to whitewash his buddy's history.
This is just another reason why it's foolish to trust WND.
CNS Misleads on Health Care Reform Criticism Topic: CNSNews.com
As we've just detailed, CNSNews.com has developed a disturbing habit of refusing to tell the whole story. Here's another example.
A May 13 CNS article by Matt Cover purports to cite criticisms by "Big Labor" -- that is, SEIU -- who "accuses the group Conservatives for Patients’ Rights (CPR) of 'swift-boating' President Obama’s health-care agenda in new ads which highlight what CPR says are the downsides of government involvement in health care." But Cover fails to explain the full nature of SEIU's criticisms.
The union accused Scott and CPR of mischaracterizing the views of two doctors, Dr. Brian Day, president of the Canadian Medical Association, and British oncologist Dr. Karol Sikora. SEIU claims that neither man is opposed to universal health care, stating that CPR twisted the doctors’ words in its ad campaign.
“The advertisement further deceives viewers by blatantly misrepresenting the positions of two physicians,” the SEIU states in a letter to stations airing the ads. “While the advertisement paints both as opponents of any role for government in health care reform, in reality, just the opposite is true.”
But according to the SEIU action alert Cover is presumbaly citing, SEIU issued a more detailed criticism that Cover doesn't acknowledge:
The advertisement further deceives viewers by blatantly misrepresenting the positions of two physicians. While the advertisement paints both as opponents of any role for government in health care reform, in reality, just the opposite is true. Both physicians are in fact supporters of universal health care. What they are opposed to is the U.S.'two-tiered' system that already rations health care based on the ability to pay. In fact, Mr. Scott misrepresented Dr. Day's comments, and Dr. Day openly mocked the ineffectiveness of the U.S. health care system. What Dr. Day is opposed to is Canada's outdated funding model, not Canada's healthcare system. Dr. Day actually advocates reform of the funding structure to preserve Canada's healthcare system, not dismantle it.
Cover then allowed Scott to issue a parsed response:
But Scott said the Conservatives for Patients' Rights ad never suggested the doctors did oppose government health-care -- it portrayed the comments only as being those of British and Canadian doctors and patients discussing, in their own words, their experience with government-run health-care systems.
Scott said his ad does not oppose “any role for government,” but does say any proposed reform which would give government control over health care decisions– “the first step,” he said, “towards socialized medicine.”
Cover did the same thing with another SEIU claim:
The labor union also accuses CPR of “misleading” television viewers about a new federal council created as part of congressional Democrats’ $787 billion stimulus spending bill – the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research.
“Mr. Scott makes a specific claim: ‘Not only could a government board deny your choice in doctors, but it can control life and death for some patients.’ This statement is demonstrably false,” the union said.
But the full claim reads:
Mr. Scott makes a specific claim: "not only could a government board deny your choice in doctors, but it can control life and death for some patients." This statement is demonstrably false. In reality, the powers of this so-called "government board" are clearly defined and cannot do what Mr. Scott claims. The statutory authority of the Council specifically excludes the power "to mandate coverage, reimbursement, or other policies for any public or private payer." It is worth noting that even under President Bush, the National Institute of Health already had an annual budget of $355 million to conduct precisely this type of research. Plainly, this has not led to the sort of catastrophic consequences in America that Mr. Scott warns against.
Cover allows Scott to give a similarly parsed response:
Scott, meanwhile, said his ad discusses the potential effects of the establishment of a government health board, saying the Comparative Effectiveness Council is “the first step in government health care” -- not that it would control health decisions.
Specifically, the ad states: “It’s (the Council is) not so innocent, it’s the first step in government control over your health-care choices,” Scott says in the ad. “Not only could a government board deny your choice in doctors, but it can control life and death for some patients.”
Nowhere do Cover or Scott acknowledge SEIU's claim that the health board is specifically barred from mandating coverage or health decisions.
Meanwhile, Cover describes Scott as a "former Columbia/HCA Healthcare Association CEO" but failed to note that Scott was ousted from the company in 1997 over accuastions that Columbia/HCA overbilled state and federal health programs, for whcih t he company eventually paid a $1.7 billion fine. Cover alsofails to explain while SEIU referred to the ads by Scott's group as "swift-boating": it hired the same conservative PR firm that aided Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.
New Article: Half-Stories and Non-Stories Topic: CNSNews.com
If CNSNews.com isn't trying to make an anti-Obama mountain out of a molehill of news, it's hiding the full story of how a terrorist plot was foiled and refusing to disclose its ties to a group agitating against Obama's planned appearance at Notre Dame. Read more >>
Whose interest was President Obama serving when on March 30 he ordered Chrysler to either conclude a merger with Italian automaker Fiat within 30 days or lose federal bailout funds which would lead to its immediate demise?
Why would Obama undercut a U.S. company, involved in a heated negotiation, in favor of a foreign company’s interest?
Clear answers are not available, but there is one very curious shareholder in Fiat that raises some interesting questions. The African nation of Libya owns at least a 2 percent stake in Fiat and thus makes Moammar Gadhafi, who controls the wealth of Libya, a direct beneficiary of the deal favoring Fiat.
Meanwhile... Topic: NewsBusters Media Matters catches NewsBusters' Warner Todd Huston blaming President Obama for funding a $2.6 million National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant to "help train Chinese prostitutes to 'drink responsibly on the job.' " In fact, the grant was awarded in November 2008 -- by the Bush administration.
WND Columnists Take Obama Out of Context Topic: WorldNetDaily
Mychal Massie asserted in his May 12 WorldNetDaily column: "On April 6, 2009, Obama told the Turks that America was not a Christian nation." In a May 13 WND column, Roy Moore similarly stated, "On April 6, while in Turkey, Obama stated at a press conference that 'we [American citizens] do not consider ourselves a Christian nation.' And Obama has acted in accordance with his views!"
Both Massie and Moore are taking Obama out of context (as Moore and other WNDwriters have previously done on similar statements made by Obama). Here's what Obama actually said, in full context:
I think that where -- where there's the most promise of building stronger U.S.-Turkish relations is in the recognition that Turkey and the United States can build a model partnership in which a predominantly Christian nation and a predominantly Muslim nation, a Western nation and a nation that straddles two continents -- that we can create a modern international community that is respectful, that is secure, that is prosperous; that there are not tensions, inevitable tensions, between cultures, which I think is extraordinarily important.
That's something that's very important to me. And I've said before that one of the great strengths of the United States is -- although as I mentioned, we have a very large Christian population, we do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation; we consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values.
I think Turkey was -- modern Turkey was founded with a similar set of principles, and yet what we're seeing is in both countries that promise of a secular country that is respectful of religious freedom, respectful of rule of law, respectful of freedom, upholding these values and being willing to stand up for them in the international stage. If we are joined together in delivering that message, East and West, to -- to the world, then I think that we can have an extraordinary impact. And I'm very much looking forward to that partnership in the days to come.
Joseph Farah also took Obama's words in Turkey out of context in an April 14 WND column, declaring that "Obama told the world that whatever America once was, it is no longer a 'Christian nation'" and ignoring the fact that Obama stated that America is "a predominantly Christian nation."
Why are Massie, Moore and Farah afraid to put Obama's words in their proper context? Perhaps because it would demonstrate that they are resorting to making up stuff to attack Obama.
A May 13 Newsmax article by Dan Weil reported on Janeane Garofalo "being questioned this week by Griff Jenkins of Fox News" about "her comments that those attending anti-tax tea parties last month are racist." But Weil fails to note the deceptive circumstances through which Jenkins obtained the interview.
As the Washington Independent details, Jenkins and a radio host ambushed Garofalo outside of a Starbucks in Boston. At no point does Jenkins give his name or identify himself as working for Fox News.
Weil even cites "another questioner, who identified himself as a blogger" in the ambush of Garofalo. That, in fact, was Jenkins, according to the Independent.
Farah also repeats the right-wing revisionist claim that "'Hate' was not a motivation for" the killers of Matthew Shepard; "'Love' was the motive – love of money, that is, which the Bible says is the root of all evil." Farah's claim ignores the fact that one of his killers used a "gay panic" defense during his trial and relies on trusting the word of convicted killers.
What good is a newsman who tells lies? None that we can think of.
Klein Channels Catholic-Bashing in Israel Topic: WorldNetDaily
A May 12 WorldNetDaily article by Aaron Klein uncritically repeats attacks by right-wing Jews on Pope Benedict XVI during his visit to Israel.
Klein reported a claim by aid Joseph Gerlitzky, chairman of the Rabbinical Congress for Peace, that if the pope claims "the Holy Land must be divided to make room for a Palestinian state," then he should "divide Rome." As we've noted, the Rabbinical Congress for Peace -- a favorite Klein source -- is a right-wing group that has opposed Olmert's plan of disengagement from Gaza and the West Bank. Klein did not note the political slant of the group, as he regularly refuses to do.
Klein also quoted Knesset Speaker Reuven Rivlin's attacks on the pope -- Rivlin claimed that he wanted "to hear an apology and a request for forgiveness from those who caused our tragedy, and among them, the Germans and the church. But to my sadness, I did not hear any such thing."
Klein not only fails to note that Rivlin is a member of the right-leaning Likud party, he fails to include Rivlin's harshest remark -- as Reuters reported, Rivlin referred to the pope as "a German who joined the Hitler Youth and ... Hitler's army." (Only Barack Obama is permitted to be described as a Nazi at WND, it seems.)
It's not until the final two paragraphs of his 25-paragraph article that Klein permits the Vatican to respond to the attacks.
WND has a history of repeating anti-Catholic claims.
Farah's Double Standard on Treason Topic: WorldNetDaily
Bashing Wanda Sykes' criticism of Rush Limbaugh at the White House Correspondents Dinner, Joseph Farah wrote in his May 12 WorldNetDaily column: "Accusing people of treason, terrorism and wishing they would be tortured and die – that's what passed for high comedy at the White House Press Correspondents Dinner Saturday."
It appears that Farah has decreed it bad form to accuse people of treason.
Another NewsBuster Shocked By the Non-Shocking Topic: NewsBusters
Noel Sheppard Syndrome -- the act of professing to be shocked by something that's not very shocking at all -- seems to be spreading among other NewsBusters bloggers.
A May 11 post by Mike Sargent declared it "shocking" that a conservative (Joe Scarborough) would criticize the media for fawning over Barack Obama. While Sargent does concede that Scarborough is "one of MSNBC’s token conservatives, such as he is," he still insists it's shocking that "a member of the media is actually talking about media bias."
Porter Keeps the Lie Machine Going Topic: WorldNetDaily
Janet Folger Porter keeps the hate-crime bill lie machine grinding on in her May 12 WorldNetDaily column:
I am the victim of a hate crime.
I've been targeted. Stalked. Threatened. All because I'm … pro-life.
Back when I was working to pass the nation's first ban on partial birth abortion, my car burst into flames when I started it. The arson investigator said the attack was deliberate. The banner headline of the Cleveland Plain Dealer on Friday, May 13, 1994, read: Right to Life Leader's car Sabotaged, Odds are it is connected to abortion issue, police say." The sticker on the bumper read: "Abortion? Pick on someone your own size."
Why don't I have an elevated level of protection in the so-called "hate crimes" bill soon to be heard in the Senate Judiciary Committee? I'll tell you why. Because I'm not a lesbian, an exhibitionist, or a practitioner of one of the American Psychiatric Association's list of 547 sexual deviancies, which includes pedophilia.
Porter is a liar. As we'vedetailed, the bill does not cover pedophiles. Nevertheless, Porter piles on the deception:
For those who say the "Pedophile Protection Act" isn't accurate. Here's a bit of a review. In committee, Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, offered the amendment to exclude pedophiles from receiving elevated protection in the House version of the bill (H.R. 1913):
The term sexual orientation as used in this act or any amendments to this act does not include pedophilia.
It's straightforward. And it was rejected.
And -- Porter will refuse to tell you -- it was unnecessary. As we've also noted, pedophilia is not considered a sexual orientation, a disability or a gender identity but, rather, a criminal act. Further, the Americans with Disabilities Act specifically excludes pedophilia as a disability, thereby precluding protection for pedophiles from the hate crimes bill.
Porter can't be bothered to tell the truth, instead pretending that a statement on the House floor by an impeached judge is the equivalent of a detailed legal analysis. Yet WND legitimizes her false claims by repeating them in a May 11 "news" article.
Janet Porter is a liar, no matter how much she pretends otherwise. She is dishonoring God by her lies. Does she really hate gays that much that she will dishonor God?
Sheppard Ignores Reason Van Susteren Was Called Palin's 'Handler' Topic: NewsBusters
Noel Sheppard, in a May 11 NewsBusters post, shared Fox News host Greta Van Susteren's annoyance that she was accused ... ... of being Todd Palin's 'host AND handler' at a pre-White House Correspondents' dinner brunch," adding that "This was at least the second time in two months Politico has implied an improper alliance between Van Susteren and the Palins." But Sheppard fails, in both this post and a March 29 post to which he linked to support his claim of a previous violation by Politco -- to mention the reason why the Politico would think that in the first place.
As Think Progress points out, Van Susteren's husband, John Coale, has served as an adviser to Sarah Palin and runs her Washington-based PAC -- a relationship that van Sustern has been loath to discuss on air.
Sheppard curiously didn't mention Van Susteren's husband or his relationship to the Palins in that March 29 piece, even though it was a focus of the Politico article he was criticizing , and even though he goes on to complain that "given some of the high-profile liberal journalists with politically connected husbands, why is she being so singled out? Is it because she works for Fox News?"
It's hard to make a coherent argument when you refuse to acknowledge the central point.
Newsmax's writers, we can safely say, are on board with that particular right-wing talking point. So why is Newsmax CEO Christopher Ruddy looking to cash in on Obama's supposed socialism?
An email sent out to Newsmax's mailing list on May 10 carries the subject line, "Can You Actually Profit from Socialism?" It begins with a letter from Ruddy that concludes, "Read the report below if you are interested in actually profiting from Washington’s socialist spending policies."
The "report" is a rehash of a email from a few days earlier touting the $1 million Rudy (well, Newsmax) has pledged to build (at a hoped-for annual rate of growth of 50 to 70 percent a year) according to the precepts of a financial guru that he will make public (for those willing to pony up a "charter membership fee" of $1,295).
Isn't just a tad disingenuous for Newsmax to bash Obama's supposed socialism with one hand while trying to profit from it with the other?
Media Matters notes that during a May 8 appearance on Sean Hannity's Fox News show, the MRC's Brent Bozell said of Guantánamo detainees: "There's no one there who should be released." In fact, the Bush administration reclassified a group of detainees belonging to the Uighur ethnic group as "no longer enemy combatants."
Bozell's appearance was on a panel that included at least one non-conservative, but we'll assume that it followed the template by failing to identify Bozell as a conservative. (It's impossible to tell from the heavily edited segment posted on NewsBusters, but we'll let history be our guide).