MRC Makes Excuses for Foul-Mouthed Romney Adviser Topic: Media Research Center
As an all-but-official extension of the Romney campaign, the Media Research Center's job is to run interference on any Romney gaffe and to get out the talking points that it's always the media's fault for reporting it, not Romney's for committing it. We saw that again when a Romney campaign spokesman told reporters trying to ask Romney questions to "kiss my ass."
The official MRC storyline on this? It's wasn't the Romney spokesman being offensive, it was the media.
A July 31 NewsBusters post by Kyle Drennen blamed "bad behavior by reporters," not the adviser, for the incident.
Matt Hadro also flipped the blame, complaining that "CNN excused reporters for shouting questions that could have passed for heckling outside a sacred site in Poland, but ripped a Mitt Romney aide for responding by cursing at them." Hadro went on to lament that CNN's "slanted story made it seem that the press was simply up to business as usual, when the Romney aide's outburst was not unprovoked."
Scott Whitlock followed up by claiming it was "Democratic talking points" that the Romney aide was to blame for any of this.
What happened to the MRC that normally despises vulgarity? After all, these were the same folks who censored the word "ass" at one time. It's OK to be vulgar if you're a Republican, apparently.
All three of these writers are MRC employees. They have their marching orders, and they're getting paid to follow them -- even if it means
WND's Farah Lies About Obama For Second Time This Week Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily's Joseph Farah has demonstrated long ago he cares nothing about the truth, so it's no surprise that for the second time in a week, he's telling easily disproven lies about President Obama.
At the end of his July 31 column, in which he accuses Obama of having "mocked" the Bible -- in fact, Obama simply pointed out the undisputed fact that people interpret it differently and that in an exclusively Christian society it would be difficult to agree on "whose Christianity" to teach -- Farah asserts, "No one has seen Obama attend a church service or attend a Bible study since he got to the White House."
Again, Farah is simply lying through his teeth. Here's Obama going to church in January 2010.
Kessler Keeps Up the Romney-Fluffing Topic: Newsmax
Ronald Kessler is keeping up his sycophanticfluffing of Mitt Romney in a pair of recent Newsmax articles.
In a July 25 column, Kessler took President Obama's "you didn't build that" comments out of context, claimed Obama "attack[ed] the very essence of what makes America great," and added that "Mitt Romney aptly said the president wants Americans to be 'ashamed of success.'"
In his July 30 column, Kessler even more blatantly shilled for Romney:
To those who understand how the economy works, that makes perfect sense. Instead of taking more money from Americans through taxation, Republicans would let people keep more of their own money so they can build companies and buy goods that lead to more jobs.
Mitt Romney has been laying out a vision that would make that growth possible. Romney would stop President Obama’s practice of bashing businesses and Wall Street, cut regulatory burdens that make it difficult for companies to operate, reduce government employment by 10 percent through attrition, approve the Keystone pipeline project, get rid of the crushing burden of Obamacare, and keep tax cuts in place.
Indeed, Romney has said that simply his election would signal to businesses that they can feel confident to expand and take risks.
Kessler will be serving up more of this sycophancy as the election nears.
WND's Klein Grants Anonymity to Murderous Syrian Regime Topic: WorldNetDaily
Aaron Klein keeps up his coziness to the regime of Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad with a new twist -- giving it the privilege of anonymity.
In a July 31 WorldNetDaily article, Klein cited "a senior Syrian official" to claim that "Russian intelligence has information that U.S. troops are in Turkey near the country’s border with Syria."
You know the funny thing about this? Klein can't verify it. He even admits that his anoymous official's claim "could not be immediately verified." Klein provided no evidence of why anyone should trust his source or his reporting in general, let alone why he felt the need to protect a murderous regime by hiding behind anonymity.
After claiming that "it is not the first time the American military has been accused of aiding the insurgency targeting Bashar al-Assad’s regime" -- in which he cites even more anonymous sources -- Klein adds: "Any aid to the rebels is highly controversial."
Apparently, aiding a murderous regime -- which Klein is essentially doing by cozying up to them to the point where he feels comfortable granting them anonymity -- isn't "highly controversial" as far as Klein is concerned.
A July 26 post by Tim Graham was upset that NPR "devoted time to putting Obama’s "you didn’t build that" outburst "in context.'" Yeah, we wouldn't want accurate reporting, would we?
Graham then goes on to play the "context doesn't really matter" card that;s a sub-theme at NewsBusters: "Honestly, NPR thinks this long clip helps Obama? Who is President Obama to attack someone else for thinking they’re so smart? Obama thought he was smart while he was making these damaging remarks."
Brent Bozell used his July 26 appearance on Fox News' "Hannity" to denounce news outlets for committing the offense of putting Obama's words in their proper context. He whined that "ABC, NBC, and CBS ignored it for four days," ignoring the fact that it's not a controversial comment -- and therefore not newsworthy -- when put in context.
Bozell added: "And how did they cover it? Damage control for Barack Obama. Spin, spin, spin." Spin is exactly what Bozell is doing on behalf of the Romney campaign.
And in July 29 post, Noel Sheppard insisted the Dana Loesch "school[ed] her fellow panelists on ABC's "This Week" by defying reality and insisting that Obama's remarks weren't taken out of context.
Uh, guys? Repeating right-wing talking points is not "media research."
WND Delcares It Has A Right to YouTube's Property Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily uses a July 30 article to whine that YouTube won't give it the exact channel name it wants. Of course, being WND, this is framed as a conspiracy:
“Like any other company, we rely on and depend upon the use of our trademark name for recognition and visibility,” said Farah. “Many businesses, especially content companies, register their company name as a user or channel name in YouTube. In this way, the channel name is used to identify the company in connection with their services provided by social media websites and search engines. By blocking control of the WND channel name, Google/YouTube is preventing WND from using it in the ordinary course of business and depriving the company of the ability to create a social media outlet that can help build visibility online. Google/YouTube is creating the impression that WND has no interest in providing services offered in conjunction with WND on this popular social media site.”
Farah says when you couple these two separate acts – the denial of WND’s application into Google/YouTube’s “Content Verification Program” and the company’s refusal to turn over control of the YouTube channel WND – it seems to represent a pattern of intentional unfair business practices by “the 700-pound gorilla on the Internet.”
“Are these decisions based on some ideological bias at Google?” wonders Farah. “Are they based on criticism I have personally directed at Google? Are they based on deliberate efforts to thwart our business efforts? I don’t know for sure. But after working quietly and tirelessly with Google on these issues over a period of four months, without any success, I believe it’s time to go public with what could eventually and needlessly wind up as a matter of litigation.”
It actually goes beyone mere paranoia: WND insists it has a right to the WND channel name, declaring it "WND’s rightful YouTube channel" and claiming the previous user of that name had "registered it illegitimately." Of course, WND never explains who the previous holder of that name was, so it could not possibly know whether it was "illegitimately" registered.
Still, WND's Joseph Farah goes on to whine: “I can’t believe Google would treat the BBC this way. I can’t imagine Google would treat the AP this way. I can’t imagine Google would treat YouTube leader VEVO this way. Why is Google/YouTube so obstinate when it comes to WND?”
So WND is claiming it has the right to someone else's private property. And we thought Joseph Farah hated socialism.
MRC's Graham Thinks Pointing Out Nepotism Is 'Anti-Republican' Topic: NewsBusters
Tim Graham begins a July 28 NewsBusters post this way:
South Carolina’s largest newspaper has a new anti-Republican scoop: “Gov. Nikki Haley’s 14-year-old daughter is working in the State House gift shop, raising questions about nepotism that the governor’s office declines to answer.” The daughter, Rena Haley, is working about 20 hours a week at $8 an hour.
So it's "anti-Republican" to point out the fact that a politician appears to be engaging in nepotism?
It's just another example of how -- contrary to its "Tell the Truth!" mantra -- the MRC just hates it when the truth is told about Republicans.
WND Race-Baiting Watch, Kill 'Em All Edition Topic: WorldNetDaily
Colin Flaherty has the solution for dealing with all the scary black people he's been fearmongering about: Be prepared to kill them. From his latest WorldNetDaily article:
Jeremy Schenkel felt safe – right up to the moment he came face to face with one of the dozens of violent black mobs that terrorized Philadelphia last summer.
Schenkel survived the ensuing assault with no major broken bones. A few minutes later, the mob’s next victim was not so fortunate: They left him beaten, bloody and unconscious.
Roger McBride and Lulu Campbell did not want to depend on luck. They used a gun. It may have saved their lives. It certainly kept them from harm.
They are just two of the more than 100,000 people who last year defended themselves with guns when luck was not enough.
Once again, Flaherty portrays blacks only as mob-prone thugs who are out to rob and/or kill you.
Flaherty also adds this:
No one knows how often guns are used for self defense. The Cato Institute says anywhere from 100,000 to one million times a year. But of course, the work of author John Lott is the best place to go for more of this kind of information.
Bozell's Double Standard on Character Assassination Topic: Media Research Center
Brent Bozell uses his July 25 column to fret about the "character assassination of conservatives," as allegedly exemplified by ABC's Brian Ross erroneously suggesting that Aurora shooter James Holmes was a member of the tea party.
Well, Bozell does know a thing or two about character assassination -- after all, he's the guy who called President Obama a "skinny ghetto crackhead."
WND's Farah Lies About Obama ... To Sell Flag Pins Topic: WorldNetDaily
Let's pick apart the lies in Joseph Farah's July 27 WorldNetDaily column:
During his 2008 campaign for the presidency, Barack Obama took off an American flag pin he had been wearing on his lapel.
The act was a metaphor for his utter contempt for everything American. But too many Americans didn’t get the message and voted him into office anyway.
As we get down to the final months of the 2012 election campaign, I think it’s a good time to revisit that telling episode of political history.
You can watch a quick local news account of it on YouTube.
Notice Obama took off the pin in a bid to “change political fashion” and because he didn’t like the way it was used to represent patriotism in America.
But the American flag is not a fashion statement.
It is a representation of a unique experiment in liberty and self-government in the history of the world. And I suggest to you that’s the real reason Obama was uncomfortable wearing it. Remember, he admitted his goal was to “fundamentally change America.” Unfortunately, that’s one promise he has kept.
You will notice that Obama has not worn that flag pin since that day he made a show of removing it.
First: Obama did not "make a show" of removing it during the 2008 campaign -- a reporter noticed he wasn't wearing one and asked him about it.
Second: Obama never said he was trying to "change political fashion" -- that line came from an anchor in the TV news report Farah links to back up his claim.
Third: Farah is simply lying when he claims that "Obama has not worn that flag pin since that day." How do we know? Look at the picture of Obama in the "Death Blow" cover of WorldNetWeekly currently residing at the right-hand corner of WND's website. What is it that Obama has on his lapel?
Why, it's a flag pin.Unless Farah can prove that this photo was taken before the above-referenced incident, this means Farah's own website has proven him a liar.
Also, check out this image, taken just three days ago at the signing of a bill authorizing $70 million to Israel:
It's a little too small to tell for sure, but we're willing to wager that the thing on Obama's lapel is a flag pin.
So why is Farah engaged in peddling these easily discredited lies? Becuase he wants you to send him some money:
One great way to remind ourselves and others how important it is to ensure Obama doesn’t get another four years in office is to start wearing the same symbol he disdained in 2008 – and ever since.
That’s why I have ordered thousands of American flag lapel pins – just like the one Obama discarded – and am making them available to real Americans across the land to wear proudly leading up to Election Day in November.
Unlike Obama, I think it is an excellent, inexpensive and powerful way to demonstrate one’s patriotism. In the hopes of popularizing this campaign, the WND Superstore is making available at low cost and high volume these pins – made in America, by the way.
It’s a small act of defiance. It’s a small gesture. It’s a way to remind yourself all those with whom you come into contact in the coming months that Obama must go.
We must not get fooled again.
Obama may be embarrassed to wear it. He may think it is contrived. He may think it is inappropriate. He may think it is petty and silly. He may think the American flag is not worth saluting. He may not see it as a unifying symbol for all Americans.
But if you do, here’s your chance to start a little movement – to make a little statement.
Let Obama and the rest of America know you still think the U.S. flag is a very good symbol of patriotism.
I did my best to find quality die-struck jewelry pieces at very competitive prices so we could take advantage of this unique moment in American history and recapture the spirit of patriotism Obama wars with.
Wear it proudly and make a statement for America this election year.
Buy them in quantities to disseminate to your friends and family members.
How shameless. How craven. But that's what Joseph Farah is.
AIM's Cliff Kincaid: Anti-Obama Film Not Anti-Obama Enough Topic: Accuracy in Media
Only in Cliff Kincaid's world is it an offense for Obama-haters to be insufficiently hateful.
In a July 26 Accuracy in Media article, Kincaid complains that Dinesh D'Souza's new Obama-bashing film -- based on his discredited book claiming that President Obama is driven by anti-colonialism -- doesn't focus enough on Obama being a commie:
The new conservative film, “Obama’s America: 2016,” offers a lot of good information but muddies the waters as Americans, during this critical election year, look outside the major media for information about their President.
Instead of educating people about the communist influence over Barack Obama, an unprecedented and shocking development for an American president, filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza claims that “anti-colonialism,” a philosophy exploited by communists, is behind his beliefs and policies.
The critical fact about the cause of anti-colonialism, ignored in the film, is that it was a tactic of the international communist movement, which attempted to create the Soviet Union’s own colonial empire.
This omission is strange, since D’Souza’s film touts his work for President Ronald Reagan, who fought the communists in Hollywood and confronted the Soviet “evil empire,” leading to the collapse of the system and the independence of countries formerly under its control.
Kincaid also complains that "D’Souza doesn’t credit Trevor Loudon, who has his own patriotic reasons for alerting the American people to the foreign influence over Obama, for his research into the “Frank” controversy." But Loudon is a foreigner, living in New Zealand, so the "patriotism" Kincaid claims for him is suspect.
WND's Vox Day: Obama's A 'Bad Black Man' Because He's Half-White And Can't Dance Topic: WorldNetDaily
Obama is also a bad black man. While I am not qualified to pronounce judgment on these matters, here we can rely upon the considered opinion of Chris Rock. The black comedian recently declared that “we ignore the president’s whiteness, but it’s there, it’s there.” And let’s face it, despite Obama’s well-known love for basketball, the man dances with all the urban smoothness of the average white girl attending one of the Seven Sisters.
Noel Sheppard's Double Standard on British Newspapers Topic: NewsBusters
Ina July 25 NewsBusters post, Noel Sheppard frowned upon a British newspaper report that an adviser to Mitt Romney said that President Obama "didn’t fully appreciate" the "Anglo-Saxon heritage" that the U.S. and Britain share. Sheppard adds: "Notice how none of the advisers including the one quoted were named."
Sheppard used to not have problems with anonymous quotes in British newspapers. In a 2007 post, Sheppard touted how a British newspaper attacked a speech by Al Gore, failing to mention that the person making the attack remained anonymous.
Funny how a British newspaper practice suddenly becomes offensive when it's used against a political ally, huh?
If Newsweek can dub President Barack Hussein Obama, as it did on a recent cover, “the first gay president” because of his affinity for gays and their agenda, he deserves even more the mantle of “the first Muslim president” for the same reason.
Obama wants to trace the movement of farm animals but not illegal aliens; he wants to I.D. every farm animal to protect the public health but does not want to I.D. voters to protect the integrity of elections.
With the memory still fresh that the 2000 presidential election was decided by a handful of voters in Florida, the determination of who gets to vote in 2012 could decide who will be the next president.
For quite a while now, I’ve referred to President Barack Obama as a communist – not a progressive (which he has said he is), a liberal or a socialist – but a communist. It only made sense, given that the man was bred, raised and mentored by communists, employed and was employed by communists, eagerly fraternized with communists and diligently studied communism throughout his entire adult life. Even if one ignores his life before political office, there’s certainly enough remaining evidence of Obama’s communistic bent, most notably his “crowning achievement” of Obamacare and his administration’s insinuation into American industry. I believe in telling it like it is, and I see no reason to soft pedal communism for the sake of professional decorum – and certainly not for political correctness.
I would suggest that Barack Obama is our own Cardiff Giant. The people – particularly white Americans – were eager to be deluded by a black man who promised to absolve them of their historical guilt. In vowing to be the first post-racial president, this man, half white/part Arab, gave the impression that a vote for him would automatically erase a shameful history that included two centuries of slavery and roughly one century of Jim Crow laws.
But just like those other two earlier frauds, he was nothing more than a humbug that had been cobbled together in a Chicago cellar by certain interested parties, including the likes of David Axelrod, Rahm Emanuel, Valerie Jarrett, Van Jones, William Ayers, Jeremiah Wright and George Soros.
And just as their ancestors had done, large numbers of gullible Americans lined up to hand over their quarters and half dollars, not to mention their votes, and gaze in wonder at the big phony.
Obama’s remarks at Roanoke, Va., on July 13, 2012, were more than a faux pas.
With these remarks, Obama has come out of the closet as a most odious collectivist, who believes religiously that government predation is a condition for production. Or, put simply, that the parasite created the host.
With his near-religious repetition of the “you didn’t build that” dogma, the president of the United States demonstrated his irrational faith in the statist principle of compulsory cooperation.
What we hear as an excuse is this cynical argument: If Obama loses the election in November, impeachment is unnecessary. And if he wins, impeachment is impossible because Republicans will be accused of “sour grapes.” Both statements are wrongheaded and surprisingly naïve.
To put that question in more concrete terms, ask yourself this: If Obama loses the election on Nov. 6, do you trust him and his lame-duck Congress to govern the nation in a constitutional manner for the 10 weeks between his defeat and the inauguration of his successor on Jan. 20, 2013? If you answered “no!” then you must also agree that it is imperative to remove him as soon as possible.
Yes, we all understand that the present Democrat-controlled Senate will never take up an impeachment resolution even if one were passed by the House. But Justice Roberts would say that is irrelevant. Impeachment is a necessary and proper step when the Constitution has been violated, regardless of the political prospects for success of the indictment.
Is there adequate evidence to warrant a serious, formal impeachment investigation by the House Judiciary Committee? Yes, absolutely, and committee Chairman Lamar Smith ought to start that process immediately.
There is an avalanche of evidence that Obama has committed numerous crimes against the Constitution.
While Obama and the Democratic Socialist Party today may not be doctrinaire Marxists, they are indeed socialists and belong to a political strand of Marxist-Leninism euphemistically referred to as “Western Marxism” and “Cultural Communism.”
Unlike Bolsheviks – who systematically and systemically utilize terrorism and violent tactics to obtain absolute power, progressing from democracy or monarchy to then impose socialism as a stepping stone towards communism – Western Marxists like Obama exploit the trappings natural to democracy to contrive getting elected and then mercilessly exploit the reins of political power. Next, Western Marxists seek to immediately institute a torrent of radical reforms, regulations and legislation, thus propelling society inevitably into a welfare state, socialism and, if feasible, toward communism.
President Obama is a Western Marxist, a Western Leninist, that is, one of those who are known also generally as a Cultural Communists. According to Antonio Gramsci, a Marxist political theorists, once power is seized, the mask comes off and the ruler and his socialist minions revert back to their Bolshevik roots, as needed and, even, as convenient. Fomenting economic, political, religious, social and cultural chaos is key to maintaining his grip on power.