CNS Falsely Calls Lewin Group 'Independent' Topic: CNSNews.com
In an Aug. 19 CNSNews.com article, Christpher Neefus referenced a study "conducted by an independent group--the Lewin Group--which showed that more and more people would end up in the new public insurance exchange over time."
In fact, as we've noted, the Lewin Group is not "independent" -- it is owned by a private insurer, UnitedHealth Group, which has a stake in opposing the creation of a public option for health insurance.
Brennan Falsely Claims 'Demonstrable Existence of Death Panels' Topic: Newsmax
In his Aug. 18 Newsmax column insisting that "Barack Obama has been revealed for what he is: a con man who managed to fool some of the people all of the time but has failed to fool most of the people all, or even some, of the time," Phil Brennan referenced "the demonstrable existence of death panels buried with the 1,000-plus pages of the House bill."
CNS Still Trying to Create Baseless ACORN Controversy Topic: CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com is not giving up on trying to create a controversy where there isn't one.
As we've previously noted, CNS' Edwin Mora attempted on July 23 to put Sen. Christopher Dodd on the spot by asking him whether money in the health care reform package would go to ACORN without offering evidence that ACORN engages in health care-related activities.
Mora gave that nonexistent controversy another try in an Aug. 18 article by again baselessly pondering whether ACORN would receive money in the health care reform package set aside for "national network of community-based organizations" to "promote healthy living and reduce disparities."
Again, Mora fails to offer any evidence whatsoever that ACORN is involved in health care, though he quoted an employee of a right-wing think tank similarly engaging in empty thinking by speculating that health reform money "could be misused by organizations that do not promote healthy living."
Also missing from both of these articles is any evidence that Mora asked ACORN itself whether it is even interested in making use of such money. Wouldn't that have been the first thing a reporter should have done, rather than engage in speculation?
New Article: WorldNetDaily Wants You To Think Obama Is the Antichrist Topic: WorldNetDaily
What do you do after you've repeatedly likened President Obama to Nazis? If you're WND, you turn "The Daily Show" into reality and go the Antichrist route. Read more >>
Joseph Farah offers up one of the more creative interpretations of the Bible in his Aug. 18 WorldNetDaily column:
It wasn't Jesus who was the socialist, it was the man who betrayed him – Judas Iscariot. And I will prove it to you.
Read John 12:1-8:
"Then Jesus six days before the passover came to Bethany, where Lazarus was, which had been dead, whom he raised from the dead. There they made him a supper; and Martha served: but Lazarus was one of them that sat at the table with him. Then took Mary a pound of ointment of spikenard, very costly, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair: and the house was filled with the odour of the ointment.
"Then saith one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, which should betray him, Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor? This he said, not that he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and had the bag, and bare what was put therein.
"Then said Jesus, Let her alone: against the day of my burying hath she kept this. For the poor always ye have with you; but me ye have not always."
Note that Jesus was not a proponent of "the Great Society" or the "War on Poverty." He preached to individuals to heal the sick, feed the hungry and help the poor. But he never suggested in any way, shape or form that this was the proper role of government. This was the role of the church – the duty of the individual believer.
Jesus said: "For the poor always ye have with you; but me ye have not always."
And note Judas' phony, non-righteous indignation about the wastefulness of pouring the expensive ointment on Jesus' feet: "Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor?"
Does this sound familiar? Doesn't it sound remarkably like Ed Schultz's whining?
But Judas didn't care about the poor, John tells us. He was a thief. He was the guy who held the moneybag. He wanted to see his own power increased by the sale of someone else's private property – just like the modern-day socialists who don't care about the poor and sick, but use them to increase their own standing.
No, Ed Schultz, Jesus was not a socialist. He was not a proponent of socialized medicine. He was certainly not in favor of people trusting in government. He was a proponent of people putting their faith in God and acting responsibly.
WJC Lies About MoveOn and Bush-Hitler Video Topic: Western Journalism Center
The Western Journalism Center has posted a video titled "Rachel Maddow Lies about MoveON.org," which purports to debunk Rachel Maddow's claim during the Aug. 16 edition of "Meet the Press" that MoveOn never ran an ad comparing President Bush to Adolf Hitler.
But the WJC is the liar. While the video includes a clip of something that appears to be a MoveOn ad comparing Bush to Hitler, at no point does the WJC mention that it was submitted as part of a contest MoveOn ran in 2004 and never ran as a paid ad by MoveOn. Indeed, MoveOn specifically stated of that submission and a second similar one, "They will not appear on TV. We do not support the sentiment expressed in the two Hitler submissions." MoveOn later removed the ad from its website.
How is it that Floyd Brown and the WJC think it can get away with telling such a blatant lie?
WND's Birth Certificate Conspiracy Gets Even More Desperate Topic: WorldNetDaily
The efforts of WorldNetDaily to seize on any inconsistency, real or imagined, to smear President Obama and cast down on his citizenship are getting increasingly desperate.
An Aug. 17 article tries to make a big deal out of Obama's "official MySpace page" containing an older age than his official age, "which would mean he would have been born during the archipelago's time as a territory of the U.S., the islands' status from about 1900 until statehood in 1959." The article does not explain that a MySpace is not an official form of identification.
Meanwhile, an Aug. 17 article by Drew Zahn tries to make the case that Obama's parents (or someone else) made "a simple payoff" to Hawaii state officials to falsify Obama's birth date in 1961 because ... well, because birth certificates were falsified in New Jersey in 2004. Zahn did not provide evidence of falsification occurring in Hawaii in 1961 -- let alone any evidence of falsification involving Obama's birth certificate.It's a very crude attempt at guilt-by-association, even though the case Zahn cites is 40 years and half a hemisphere away from Obama's birth.
Geller Still Hiding Facts in 'Honor Killing' Runaway Case Topic: Newsmax
Pamela Geller has devoted another Newsmax column to the story of Fathima Rifqa Bary, an Ohio teenager who ran away from home to a Florida pastor claiming that her parents planned to kill her for converting from Islam to Christianity. And again, Geller is hiding facts about the case.
Geller defends the pastor to whom Bary fled, Blake Lorenz, from accusations of being a cult leader by misdirection, not denying the accusing but asserting instead that Islam, "the group that silently approves of the murder of a daughter who shames her family by not wearing the proper head dress ... or by choosing another religion (like Rifqa Bary)," is the real cult and nto "the group that offers sanctuary to a poor threatened girl."
Geller, as she did before, fails to mention that, as we've detailed, Lorenz claims to receive "special personal messages from God about the imminent end of the world." Isn't the claim of receiving personal messages directly from God de facto evidence of a cult leader?
Geller also fails to note that Ohio police have said that Bary's parents have known about Bary's conversion for months and "appear to be caring."
Instead, Geller offers anonymous messages from "someone saying she was a friend of Rifqa."
Geller has done little but exploit this case for her own anti-Islam crusade. She's certainly not interested in the facts.
Who Says Wash. Times News Pages Aren't Anti-Obama? Topic: NewsBusters
An Aug. 15 NewsBusters post by Jeff Poor chortles that The New York Times ran a correction to an article that claimed the Washington Times is "decidedly opposed" to President Obama, stating that the reference was "to its opinion pages, not to its news pages." Poor didn't mention that the correction came after Washington Times editor John Solomon whined about the reference by insisting that "Our news pages have no agenda except to accurately and fairly cover the news."
Further, Poor shows no interest in looking into whether Solomon's claim is even true. As the pile of Media Matters items on Washington Times news articles about Obama appears to suggest, the answer may very well be no.
Finally, there's no logical reason for Poor to be offended by the idea of the entire Washington Times organization being depicted as conservative, given that Poor's employer, the Media Research Center, has an entire division dedicated to portraying the New York Times, news operation and all, as liberal and pro-Obama.
Newsmax's Walsh Smears Health Care Reform As Eugenics Topic: WorldNetDaily
Smear artist James Walsh is at it again in his Aug. 17 Newsmax column. This time he turns the smear machine on high by likening health care reform to eugenics.
No, really, he did. Never mind that there is nothing remoting approaching eugenics in any of the planned health care reform bills -- Walsh has decided there is.
Walsh asserts that "A new version of eugenics is being written into healthcare legislation by the Obama administration and the Democrat-controlled Congress." What it is Walsh never really makes clear; he writes that "the neo-eugenics of Obamacare could mean rationed healthcare for the unborn, infants, young children, those over 65, and the disabled, especially the 'mentally retarded.'"
Note the word "could" -- Walsh is offering nothing but scare tactics and speculation. Walsh offers no evidence that "rationed healthcare" would occur under health care reform, let alone that anything in the proposed bills equals "eugenics."
Walsh concludes by asserting that "The Obama administration would be ill-advised to consider eugenics." But it's not.
Walsh has gone from right-wing-scripted lies about health reform to wildly and irrationally vicious smears. Why does Walsh -- who purports to be an attorney -- want to tell falsehoods that, if he told them in a court of law, would earn him a quick trip to prison for perjury?
Farah Spreads Falsehoods, Smears Obama As Nazi Topic: WorldNetDaily
Joseph Farah begins his Aug. 17 WorldNetDaily column by claiming, "Outfits like the George Soros-subsidized Media Matters will have a field day with it – excerpting passages out of context, deliberately distorting the words I am carefully choosing and, in typical knee-jerk fashion, mocking its premise."
OK, we'll take the bait. First, in the span of his first six paragraphs, Farah tells two falsehoods. First, Soros does not fund Media Matters.
Second, Farah asserted that "national socialism ... was then and remains today, despite the denials of historical revisionists, a 'left-wing' idea. All socialism is, by definition, a left-wing notion." Which, given the Nazis' hatred of leftists and communists, cannot be true.
Farah then asserted that "Obama seeks to use his power to impose policies that have, like it or not, a striking resemblance to those Hitler promoted in the 1930s," followed by a laundry list of unsubstantiated claims such as "Infanticide" and "Unfair treatment of Jews, in Obama's case, with regard to Middle East conflict." Farah then complained that is "acceptable for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to say American citizens attending congressional town halls are swastika-carrying thugs," even though some of those protesters were indeed carrying swastikas and engaging in thuggishbehavior.
Farah concludes by denying that he's unfairly likening Obama to Nazis: "Am I calling Obama a little Hitler, a Nazi or a fascist? I am saying American liberty faces very serious challenges from the country's own leadership – not from citizens who dissent against those policies. That's what happened in Weimar, Germany, too."
What Farah doesn't mention, of course, is the striking resemblence of WND's anti-Obama rhetoric to that of the Nazis against the Jews.
Fredric J. Baumgartner wrote in his book "Longing for the End: A History of Millennialism in Western Civilization":
The great enemy the Germans had to destroy to achieve their golden age was not Antichrist but the Jews. Yet Nazi rhetoric against the Jews was remarkably similar to that about Antichrist. The Nazis looked for the marks to identify a Jew as thoroughly and eagerly as any premillennialist did for Antichrist.
As it so happens, WND has recentlyendeavored to liken Obama to the Antichrist. So who's the Nazi now, Mr. Farah?
From an Aug. 17 NewsBusters post by Matthew Balan complaining that people on CNN described the AR-15 one man was toting outside of President's Obama speech before the VFW (one of several guns carried outside the speech) as an "automatic weapon" and an "assault rifle":
The civilian AR-15 is a semi-automatic rifle, not an “automatic weapon” as Murphy put it. It also cannot be accurately described as an “assault rifle,” as Sanchez labeled it, because an assault rifle, by definition, is a selective-fire weapon, with either fully-automatic or semi-automatic capability. Leave it to three liberals to get it wrong on guns.
So the AR-15 a "semi-automatic rifle," but it's not an "assault rifle" because those have "semi-automatic capability"? We're confused.
WND Slobbers All Over Rep. Bachmann Topic: WorldNetDaily
In the great tradition of its slobbering profile of Orly Taitz, WorldNetDaily's Drew Zahn has penned a similarly fawning article on right-wing Rep. Michele Bachmann, sycophantically describing her as "one of the leading defenders of liberty and conservative principles on Capitol Hill."
Zahn is certainly not going to bring up any unpleasantness. For instance, he quotes Bachmann as saying:
"After the election of 2006, when I was sworn in in 2007," Bachmann replied, "I was expecting a fairly liberal group of people in Congress. But that's not what I found. I have been pleasantly surprised by a number of my colleagues, who believe in the founding principles we share.["]
Zahn makes no mention of Bachmann's demand (later backed off) that "the news media should do a penetrating expose and take a look — I wish they would — take a great look at the views of people in Congress and find out [if] they [are] pro-America or anti-America."
The big news out of Zahn's fluff piece is her suggestion that she might run for president in 2012 if God calls her to do it. We'll let Wonkette handle that one.
MRC's Poor Shows Double Standard on Presidential Children Topic: Media Research Center
Jeff Poor writes in an Aug. 13 MRC Culture & Media Institute article:
Remember when the children of public figures were off-limits in the day-to-day hand-to-hand combat of political warfare?
It's a rule that didn't just applied to the underage children of politicians, but the adult children. Witness the 2008 suspension of MSNBC’s David Shuster for suggesting then-presidential contender Hillary Clinton’s 28-year-old daughter Chelsea Clinton was being “pimped out” by the campaign.
But maybe that rule only applied to Democrats.
Well, no. As we've detailed, Poor's employer was not particularly offended by Shuster's remark; further, the MRC has not only never made any attempt to criticize Rush Limbaugh for his 1990s likening of a then-teenage Chelsea to theWhite House dog, it has sought to portray it as an innocent mistake without providing any substantive evidence to support it. The MRC has also tried to draw false equivalence between the offenses of the daughers of a sitting president with the offenses of the son of a former vice president.
All of which makes any MRC attempt to manufacture offense that children of a conservative politician disproportionately make the news highly hypocritical.
Yet Poor goes on to do that anyway in defense of right-wing Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann, writing that "a hateful anti-Bachmann blog" and MSNBC's Keith Olbermann used her son's enrollment in the Teach for America program, a division of AmeriCorps, to criticize Bachmann.
But Poor, as the MRC did before, draws another false equivalence. Bachmann's son was not being criticized for his actions as Chelsea Clinton was -- heck, even Poor couldn't be moved to criticize the son's actions beyond sneering that Teach for America is a "government program." Nor does he disagree with the main point of what the blogger and Olbermann highlighted -- that his participation in such a program presumably runs counter to his mother's right-wing beliefs.
Perhaps Poor should think about holding his fellow conservatives accountable for their attacks on presidential children before he criticizes others.