WND Complains Again That Gibbs Didn't Answer Question That Wasn't Asked Topic: WorldNetDaily
Les Kinsolving must have quite the sense of entitlement. Not only did he and WorldNetDaily take their ball and go home rather than be given a number of seats at last year's White House correspondents dinner they deemed insufficient, he seems to believe he has a right to be called on during White House press briefings.
For at least thefourthtime in recent months, WND has published an article complaining that White House press secretary Robert Gibbs didn't answer a question Kinsolving didn't ask. The article drips with entitlement, making sure to describe Kinsolving as "the second-most senior member of the White House press corps."
And true to form, Kinsolving's unasked question was designed only to insult rather than enlighten: "Do you have any idea just when the president will announce who will be your successor; and will he or she receive more than what the president reportedly described as your 'relatively modest pay' of $172,000 a year?" Kinsolving is merely regurgitating a right-wing talking point scoffing at how President Obama had described Gibbs' salary as "relatively modest" -- which flies in the face of conservatives' earlier assertions that the $250,000 income at which Obama originally intended to eliminate the Bush tax cuts was not "wealthy."
As we've pointed out before, Kinsolving's reliance on talking points over intellect demonstrates that, seniority aside, he has not earned the entitlement he and WND so insistently claim.
CNS Gets Scooped On A Video On Its Own Website Topic: CNSNews.com
The Media Research Center, it appears, has no idea what to do with breaking news it generates.
As we've noted, the MRC let WorldNetDaily scoop it on the news that it is refusing to participate in this year's CPAC because it's not anti-gay enough. (We still haven't seen it reported on any MRC website.) Now, CNSNews.com -- which is supposed to be the MRC's "news" division -- is getting scooped on the contents of a video CNS made.
On Jan. 19, CNS posted a nearly two-hour-long video interview editor-in-chief Terry Jeffrey did with potential 2012 Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum. The same day, Right Wing Watch highlighted a statement Santorum made regarding President Obama and abortion: that "I find it almost remarkable for a black man to say, 'Now we are going to decide who are people and who are not people.'" Right Wing Watch also made a much shorter video clip of the remark, taken from the CNS video.
On Jan. 20, the clip spread across the Web, with a focus on how Santorum injected race into the abortion issue. Strangely, CNS had done nothing with the Santorum beyond posting the mega-huge clip.
It was only after Santorum issued a statement defending his earlier claim that the MRC snapped into action. CNS belatedly put up an overly long, transcript-heavy article by Jeffrey putting his own spin on Santorum's words, and MRC chief Brent Bozell cranked out a press release in which he yet again plays the victim of a liberal conspiracy:
This has nothing to do with a supposed "race card." This isn’t even just about Rick Santorum. The media whirlwind whipped up on these accusations are nothing more than the continuation of an ugly and dishonest attempt to distort, delegitimize and damn conservative principles and conservative leaders.
Anyone who actually watched this interview can see that Santorum paralleled what many pro-life leaders have compared in the past. Just ask Dr. Alveda King, niece of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Day Gardner, Rev. Childress or any number of other black leaders who have also called abortion the civil rights issue of our day.
It’s sad that many of these same outlets also failed to report news yesterday of the Philadelphia abortionist charged with the murder of 1 woman and 7 babies born alive and then killed with scissors. It doesn't get more gruesome than that. But that story doesn’t threaten liberal ideology, so I guess it’s just not news.
Santorum does threaten liberal ideology, so they create a false controversy -- and call it news.
One: Alveda King's doctorate is honorary, therefore she has not earned the "Dr." title Bozell places in front of her name.
Two: Bozell's complaining about a "false controversy" turned into news is particularly rich given that the MRC created its own false controversy last month over a gay-themed art exhibit at a Smithsonian museum.
Three: Instead of ranting about being a victim, shouldn't Bozell be having a conversation with Jeffrey about how he got so far behind the curve on a story he generated?
Finally, Bozell refused to give credit where it's due, name-checking "numerous major news outlets including Politico, National Journal, the Wall Street Journal, and the Daily Beast" that reported the story but ignoring the originator, Right Wing Watch. Just because the MRC couldn't be bothered to report on its own story doesn't mean it should deny credit to the outlet that did.
Jack Cashill's New Obama Conspiracy: Barack Sr. Isnt His Father Topic: WorldNetDaily
Remember the nutty theory going around a while back that President Obama’s book "Dreams From My Father" was actually written by Bill Ayers? That was the work of WorldNetDaily columnist and conspiracy-monger extrordinaire Jack Cashill. Well, Cashill has a new conspiracy theory to peddle: Barack Obama Sr. isn’t really the father of President Obama. No, really.
Cashill lays out his claim in his January 20 WND column, replete with secret sources, muumuus, and the declaration that in a photograph, the father of Obama’s mother looked a little too happy to be “standing right next to the African guy who allegedly knocked up his 17-year-old daughter.”
From Cashill’s column:
Then, too, those who have read "Dreams" are almost invariably surprised by the fond memories Ann's father, Stanley Dunham, has of his putative son-in-law. These memories do not deceive.
A photo taken on the occasion of Obama Sr.'s celebratory departure from Hawaii shows a smiling Stanley Dunham -- looking all the world like a young Barack Obama Jr. -- standing right next to the African guy who allegedly knocked up his 17-year-old daughter and is now abandoning them. As the father of two daughters, this doesn't smell right at all.
One of my correspondents -- let's call him Frank Hardy -- is convinced that the Dunham family left for Hawaii abruptly right after Ann's graduation in June 1960 because Ann was pregnant. He makes a good case.
If a black guy had impregnated Ann, this would explain the family's abrupt departure to Hawaii, the one state in the union where a mixed-race baby could grow up almost unnoticed. It certainly explains the move to Hawaii better than the dreamy rationale Stanley Dunham offers in "Dreams."
This scenario makes sense of any number of other details as well, like Ann's angry resistance to the move, her mother's willingness to quit her job as an escrow officer in nearby Bellevue, Wash., Ann's poor performance in her limited first-semester courses at the University of Hawaii, her failure to enroll for the second semester and, most of all, her otherwise inexplicable return to Seattle in August 1961 -- if not earlier.
True, to make this scenario work, which we have to add one major variable, but it is a credible one. Imagine Ann coming home from class one day in Hawaii in fall 1960 in one of her all-concealing muumuus -- she had written friends that muumuus were worn on campus -- and telling her father about a charming, larger-than-life Kenyan in her class.
The scheming Stanley befriends Barack Sr. and enlists him in his plot. He explains that a boy named Barack, the legitimate son of a Kenyan, could move through American life more seamlessly than a boy named, say, Stanley, the illegitimate son of an American black.
Stanley tells Barack Sr. that he can make it worth his while. Ann understands. As to Barack Sr., he has to contribute nothing to the proceedings but his name -- with his "son" born in February 1961, not August.
A marriage license from Maui -- the county specified in the divorce papers -- assures that no marriage announcement will appear in the Honolulu papers. Ann will leave in time for the 1961 fall semester at the University of Washington -- perhaps months before -- and she will not return until Obama Sr. leaves for Harvard.
In addition to this latest theory, Cashill is sticking with the idea that Ayers wrote "Dreams" (Cashill has credited Obama biographer Christopher Andersen as vindicating his claim, even though Andersen was merely repeating what Cashill had claimed, and Andersen has said that "I definitely do not say [Ayers] wrote Barack Obama's book.") Heck, he's now claiming that the girlfriends Obama referenced in the book were an invention of Ayers.
Needless to say, Cashill has a book coming out detailing all of his crazy Obama conspiracy-mongering.
P.S. One interesting side note: Cashill's theory that Obama is "the illegitimate son of an American black," if true, pretty much destroys the "eligibility" narrative WND has been pushing, since it hinges on Barack Sr. not being an American citizen.
Newsmax Hypocritically Bashes Obama's 'Coddling' of China Topic: Newsmax
In a Jan. 19 Newsmax article, David Patten asserted that President Obama engaged in "over-the-top coddling" of China, citing as evidence that during Chinese President Hu Jintao's visit to the U.S., "Hu was greeting [sic] at the White House by Vice President Biden and treated to the honor of a 21-gun salute on the White House South Lawn."
What Patten doesn't mention: Hu got the exact same treatment when he visited President Bush in the White House in 2006.
The Associated Press reported that during his 2006 visit, "Hu was welcomed with a pomp-filled arrival ceremony on the South Lawn, including a military honor guard and a 21-gun salute." Bush did not prove Hu with a state dinner, instead giving him a working lunch.
Obama, meanwhile, did provide Hu with a state dinner, the one significant difference between Obama and Bush. But it hardly makes Obama significantly more "coddling" of Hu than Bush was.
A search of Newsmax's archive found no reference to any attack on Bush's treatment of Hu as "coddling" or "appeasement." Instead, there is only a AP article reporting on the visit and noting the "South Lawn welcoming ceremony" for Hu.
Why the disparate treatment of similar behavior? Patten doesn't say.
NewsBusters Tries to Liken Blogs to Bullets Topic: NewsBusters
Responding to a claim by Newsweek's Ben Adler that high-capacity magazines like the ones Jared Loughner used in his Arizona shooting spree could be regulated without violating the Second Amendment, Ken Shepherd offers a curious analogy in a Jan. 19 NewsBusters post:
Adler would probably be the first to scream censorship, and rightly so, if there was an analogous push by anyone in Congress for legislation restricting say the number of blogs a person could write in a given day. After all, why would anyone in their right mind need to blog more than two or three times a day or tweet more than 10?
Apparently realizing the ridiculousness of his argument, Shepherd added:
Of course, blogs don't kill, bullets do, a liberal would argue in reply, their arguments that harsh political rhetoric led to the Tucson shooting notwithstanding.
But the fact remains that its perfectly legitimate for conservatives to expect governments to have to meet a stringent test for gun control legislation to pass constitutional muster.
Unmentioned in Shepherd's silly analogy: High-capacity blogging doesn't endanger the lives of other people (and if it does, there are laws on the books that are court-approved remedies that yes, restrict First Amendment rights), but as we learned in Tuscon, high-capacity magazines do. If opponents of such regulation can't offer anything beyond constitutional absolutism in support, maybe it's not that strong of a claim.
Newsmax' Hirsen Misleads About Soros, Ignores Right-Wing Entertainment Mogul Topic: Newsmax
In his Jan. 19 "Left Coast Report," Newsmax's James Hirsen makes a big deal out of how a Jewish group critical of Glenn Beck "gets its money from [George] Soros’ Open Society Institute." Hirsen added that "Soros is increasingly becoming a player in the media, particularly within the film industry," citing as evidence that "In 2006 Soros shelled out $900 million for 59 films that constitute the DreamWorks SKG library, obtaining a valuable set of film rights while gaining a power position as an entertainment media mogul."
What Hirsen forgot to mention: About a year ago, Soros sold its majority interest in the DreamWorks library to Viacom, from which it purchased the stake in 2006. So that wipes out that talking point.
In touting how Soros "can pull a lot of strings" through his stakes in entertainment ventures, Hirsen failed to mention the political moneybags with the biggest entertainment industry stake: Right-wing billionaire Philip Anschutz. His company, Walden Media, is the producer of films such as the "Chronicles of Narnia" series, his Anschutz Entertainment Group owns numerous sports teams and arenas, and his Regal Entertainment Group is the largest theater chain in the country. Nothing Soros has done in the entertainment sphere approaches Anschutz.
Corsi Puts Words In Hawaii Gov's Mouth Topic: WorldNetDaily
Jerome Corsi's increasingly fact-free obsession with Barack Obama's birth certificate continued on its plodding path with a Jan. 18 WorldNetDaily article in which he claimed that Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie "uggested in an interview published today that a long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate for Barack Obama may not exist within the vital records maintained by the Hawaii Department of Health."
Except Abercrombie did no such thing. As Media Matters noted, Abercrombie actually said that he was told there is a recording of Obama's birth in the state archives.
Corsi went on to attack Snopes.org and FactCheck.org -- which have respectivelydebunked claims that the birth certificate released by Obama's campaign in 2008 is fake -- as "two purportedly independent websites that have displayed a strong partisan bias for Obama." Corsi offers no evidence to support his assertion of "partisan bias."
Of course, WND is a unambiguously non-independent website that has displayed a strong partisan bias against Obama, so by Corsi's own definition, it -- and he -- can't be trusted either.
Shortly after the midterm election in November, the host of a news-analysis show asked me if I thought that President Obama would move to the center – or at least appear to do so – given the outcome of the election, or if I thought he didn't have it in him.
I responded emphatically that I believed the latter was the case, likening the president to some sort of B-movie genetically engineered creature who was bred expressly for the purpose of rendering the coup de grâce to a wounded America.
President Barack Hussein Obama and his band of socialist comrades in the media got a "gift" last Saturday. Dancing with glee on the "graves" of those shot in Tucson, like a congresswoman, federal judge and beautiful young girl, the mullah in chief, along with his venomous ultra-leftist allies at MSNBC and the New York Times in particular, wasted no time in exploiting the tragedy.
Why the need to continue to link Obama's political opponents with the massacre in Tucson? Because silencing opposition is a prerequisite to preparing public opinion for an intensified Obama dictatorship.
Obama is nothing if not bold. He is disciplined, focused and always on agenda. Regardless of election setbacks, court rulings, laws passed by Congress (or not passed), Obama charges ahead to transform the country from a free market, constitutional republic to a one-party, government-directed economy.
To accomplish this transformation and make a majority of Americans accept it, the opposition must be silenced. Opposition political figures must be ridiculed and demonized. Opposition media figures must be demonized and, better yet, taken off the air in the name of "fairness."
This president's admirers tell of his admiration for Abraham Lincoln. By his actions, Obama's role model is closer to Hugo Chavez.
WND, Sperry Mislead to Attack CPAC Board Member Topic: WorldNetDaily
A Jan. 18 WorldNetDaily article by Brian Fitzpatrick tries to escalate one of its attacks on CPAC by pushing accusations that CPAC is "tied to terror" through board member Suhail Khan. Khan has responded to the accusation by issuing an email to "his fellow ACU directors." Fitzpatrick writes:
Khan denied that his family mosque in Santa Clara, Calif., hosted al-Qaida leader Ayman al-Zawahiri during a 1990s fundraising tour, a charge raised by Sperry in a New York Post column last week.
"In the NY Post op-ed," wrote Khan, "Frank's [Frank Gaffney] colleague Paul Sperry falsely claims the Islamic center my family attends in Santa Clara hosted/raised money for al-Qaida. … The fact is, no individual connected to al-Qaida was ever hosted by the center in Santa Clara much less was there any connection to my late father."
However, Sperry told WND, "Khan's denial that his father's Santa Clara, Calif., mosque (An-Noor, owned by the Muslim Community Association) never hosted Zawahiri is verifiably false. There are several articles (San Francisco Chronicle, etc.) that reported these visits by Zawahiri, then with Egyptian Islamic Jihad, and they have never been retracted."
(Did Sperry really speak in italics? How does Fitzpatrick know?)
Missing from Fitzpatrick's article is any further quoting of Khan's email or any link to the compete message. There's a reason for that: It doesn't make Sperry look good.
First, Sperry and Fitzpatrick mislead about what Khan is denying. They claim that he's denying that Zawahiri was hosted by the mosque; in fact, nowhere in Khan's email -- posted by blogger Deborah Corey -- does he use Zawahiri's name but, instead, specifically says "no individual connected to al-Qaida was ever hosted by the center in Santa Clara." As Sperry admits, at the time of the alleged visit, Zawahiri was not with al-Qaeda, he was with Egyptian Islamic Jihad, which later merged with al-Qaeda. Yes, it's parsing, but WND should have acknowledged it instead of trying to put words in Khan's mouth.
Second, Sperry and Fitzpatrick offer no evidence that Khan or his father knew that Zawahiri was raising money for Islamic extremism. Indeed, Fitzpatrick writes that Zawahiri was raising money "under the pretense of raising money to support victims of the Afghan-Soviet war."
Third, Khan's quote has been edited by Fitzpatrick to eliminate embarrassing information about Sperry. The ellipsis in Fitzpatrick's quoting of Khan removed this statement:
This false assertion was proved untrue in 2006 when Sperry leveled the same false assertion on the pages of Investor’s Business Daily (IBD), and IBD, after an investigation, published two embarrassing retractions withdrawing these accusations as categorically untrue.
Whoops! That seems like relevant information, but Fitzpatrick and Sperry don't want you to know anything about it.
Catfight! NewsReal's Fox Offended By Us Topic: Horowitz
NewsReal's Megan Fox is shocked -- shocked! -- that I would refer to her as a "hateful catty bitch" over her claim that the media is making insufficient fun of Michelle Obama's looks. Fox insists that I "displayed typical leftist etiquette when talking about a conservative woman."
My answer to that is that I do not show respect to anyone who has not earned it, conservative or otherwise. Making catty remarks about someone's looks, whether or not she is the first lady, is the epitome of bitchiness. It can be argued that I merely told the truth about Fox; it's not my fault that she finds offense.
Fox then proved the accuracy of my analysis by reacting in the manner we have come to expect from her -- more catty, bitchy remarks, this time about me and the kind of person she imagines I am. Because I am a gentleman, I will not sink to her level by responding in kind but will, instead, expand my analysis of her: it seems she's not only a bitch, but an immature one as well.
Fox again insists that the media really does need to make fun of Michelle Obama's looks:
I expect the first lady of the United States to conduct herself with propriety and elegance, which includes taking a basic protocol class that covers not touching the Queen of England inappropriately or wearing a shlumpy cardigan to Buckingham Palace. And I expect the media not to compare anyone to Jackie O who wears such hideous things as that rag above, and if they do, I reserve the right to call them on it. If that makes me a hateful, catty bitch, carve it in stone and nail it to my office door. (I may have cards printed.)
One could say that Fox is displaying typical right-wing etiquette when talking about a liberal woman.
Fox then huffed that I misinterpreted her:
Clearly, I am commenting on Michelle’s wardrobe, not her looks. She has the ability to dress well. Here’s a perfect example. Notice no pulling, bulging or awful leather and metal studded belts. (There’s no need to have a perfect body if you dress it well.) This is stunning.
Of course, a wardrobe is part of one's look. It's silly to pretend, as Fox does, that the two are completely separate things. But who died and made her Anna Wintour? Fox's Photoshopping work notwithstanding, I have no opinion to offer about Michelle Obama's looks -- besides, it's Fox's opinion on the subject, not mine, that are of issue.
Then she's back to making more immature, catty remarks about me -- thus obliterating any high-road sympathy she may have had in pretending to be victimized by this big ol' meanie -- ultimately concluding:
The real hater is Krepel who has attacked a woman he doesn’t know by using misogynistic and vitriolic profanity to dehumanize and victimize his target. Ass.
In fact, I made my judgment about Fox -- accurately, I would proffer -- based on what she wrote. Her response only confirms the accuracy of my assessment. Yes, "bitch" is an undeniably vitriolic word, but is it really worse than what Fox wrote about Obama (and me)? It's a harsh word that should be used sparingly and only when appropriate. I believe I did so. I chose that particular word for one reason and one reason only: becuase it accurately described the tone of what Fox was writing.
Also, let's not pretend that Fox was offering cogent political analysis in her hit piece. Her goal was the same one she acribes to me: to dehumanize and victimize her target, in this case the Obamas. Projecting much?
To sum up, Megan: If you're not actually the person your writings show you to be, perhaps you should stop writing like that.
Prove you're a better person than the vitriol you spew at NewsReal, Megan. I would love to see it, even if it would prove me wrong.
Kessler Keeps Quiet About CPAC Controversies Topic: Newsmax
Newsmax's Ronald Kessler is very tight with David Keene, head of the American Conservative Union, which operates the annual CPAC conference for conservatives. He has repeatedly interviewed Keene for his column and fawningly promoted CPAC, and Keene has returned the favor by awarding Kessler the inaugural "Robert Novak Journalist of the Year Award" at last year's CPAC.
So why is Kessler not covering the current controversies surrounding CPAC?
Newsmax rival WorldNetDaily has been repeatedly attacking CPAC over the past few months -- as we noted, in apparent retaliation for CPAC refusing to allow WND editor Joseph Farah to put on a birther panel at last year's convention. (Farah essentially admitted as much in his Jan. 15 column, relating how his animus was motivated by CPAC officials "boasted publicly about turning down my private request in an interview with the Los Angeles Times – using insulting and degrading language in an apparent effort to ingratiate themselves with the media elite.") WND has been touting how some right-wing groups are refusing to take part in this year's CPAC due to the participation of the "homosexual activist organization" GOProud and playing guilt by association by attacking CPAC board member Suhail Khan as an "Islamist" who is "infiltrating" CPAC.
WND, interestingly, has also suggested that Keene's ex-wife, who WND says was the bookkeeper for the ACU, embezzled "hundreds of thousands of dollars in donor money" from the group.
If ever there was a time for Kessler to run to the rescue and do some fluffy interviews of Keene -- as he loves to do -- this would be it. But Kessler hasn't written a word about the controversies. Instead, he's been focusing on such weighty matters as Donald Trump's presidential prospects and the "secrets" of a long-retired Washington restauranteur.
Why won't Kessler get involved on behalf of his friend Keene? This seems like the perfect opportunity to flex those "Robert Novak Journalist of the Year Award" muscles and get at the truth.
Is Kessler simply too close to CPAC and Keene that he won't bite the hand that gives him awards?
Farah Just Can't Stop Lying About WND's Birther Coverage Topic: WorldNetDaily
Joseph Farah seems to think that if you repeat a lie enough times, it becomes true.
So it is with Farah's Jan. 17 WorldNetDaily column, in which he complains yet again about the Los Angeles Times doing something other than uncritically praising his work. This time, Farah is annoyed that the Times reported that WND is "a prime force in the movement that claims President Obama was born abroad." Farah huffed: "I have never once said Obama was born abroad. No one at WND has made such an allegation."
That, of course, is a bald-faced lie. As we've detailed, Farah has repeatedly invoked the false claim that Obama's grandmother said he was born in Kenya, and WND's heavy promotion of the "Kenyan birth certificate" it couldn't be bothered to authenticate before publishing it is most certainly an allegation that "Obama was born abroad."
Farah also rehashed his whining about a previous Times article about him, calling it "a sleazy, unethically prepared hit piece." In fact, as we noted at the time, the article was accurate.
If the editor of a publication is so amoral as to lie to your face about things that can easily be fact-checked, why should you trust anything else he publishes?
UPDATE: And don't forget that a WND banner headline called Obama "undocumented," synonymous with illegal/born abroad.
In Latest Anti-Gay Freak-Out, MRC Attacks Book Blurb Topic: Media Research Center
How much does the Media Research Center's Tim Graham hate gays? He's attacking a writer for contributing a blurb to a book by a gay author.
Yes, Graham dedicated an entire Jan. 16 NewsBusters post to attacking a Washington Post staffer for contributing a blurb to a new book by the "editor of the DC gay news magazine Metro Weekly." He finds no bias, though he complains that the staffer isn't identified as a Post staffer but, rather, as the author of two books. Instead, he's upset that the staffer's blurb included "a hurrah for gay 'equality' of respect."
Apparently, respecting gays is against MRC policy, and Graham is nothing if not a slavish follower of MRC policy -- so much so that he must attack book blurbs to enforce it.
WND's Lamb Defends AmRen -- But Not By Name Topic: WorldNetDaily
Henry Lamb uses his Jan. 15 WorldNetDaily column to channel Accuracy in Media's Cliff Kincaid in defending a certain organization:
What's far more dangerous and damaging than anything Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck or any other conservative has said is the irresponsible actions of the Department of Homeland Security when they issued a memo to law-enforcement officials that said there may be a "possible" connection between the Tucson shooter and an organization they labeled as "anti-government, anti-immigration, anti-ZOG (Zionist Occupational Government), anti-Semitic."
When asked by Accuracy in Media, the group's leader, Jared Taylor, said:
"That is complete nonsense. I have absolutely no idea what DHS is talking about. We have never used the term 'ZOG.' We have never thought in those terms. If this is the level of research we are getting from DHS, then Heaven help us."
DHS has backed away from its memo, saying that it has no direct connection or linkage between the Tucson shooter and the group mentioned, but the damage is done. The group's reputation has been damaged beyond recompense. The DHS should be liable for those damages, but will not be held accountable.
Note that Lamb never mentions the name of the group he's talking about. That, of course would be American Renaissance, the group for which Kincaid insisted there was "no evidence" that it "by any objective standard is a racist organization." Of course, that's not true, and Kincaid walked it back a few days later.
Lamb went so far as to name AmRen's leader, but not the name of the group itself. Is Lamb afraid to be associated with the group he's defending? Doesn't that make it hard to do a proper defense?
Lamb also gets his facts wrong about the memo. He claim it was issued by DHS, which is what Fox News initially reported; it later stated -- and does so in the Fox News story to which Lamb links -- that it was "a law enforcement memo based on information provided by DHS." Politico later reported that the memo was issued by the Arizona Counter Terrorism Information Center, was meant as a hastily prepared internal status report on what center employees were working on, and it was never meant for public dissemination.
Yet Lamb insists on blaming DHS for the memo, even though DHS had no role in its preparation.