Newsmax's Walsh Goes On Name-Calling Tirade Over Immigration Reform Topic: Newsmax
Immigrant-bashing is what James Walsh does. Now that comprehensive immigration reform is back on the front burner, Walsh is expanding his bashing to President Obama.
In his March 1 Newsmax column, Walsh attacks Obama as "a true disciple of Saul Alinsky" and "is using Alinsky tactics in addressing the immigration issue." Walsh's ranting ramps up:
One possibility is that CIR is part of his grand strategy for social change, enlisting the help of the feminist social agenda, gullible Hispanics, and artless young people. Another possibility is that he does not really want CIR, and his minimal efforts are just enough to appease Hispanics and rupture the Republican Party. Either way, it is pure humbug.
Immigration reform has evolved into an effort to change America, thanks to Obama’s radical-left money people, among them George Soros. Thus far, Obama has been successful in bringing about “change” without accountability, thanks to an adoring press and an indifferent electorate.
The American people and Republican legislators who have offered no resistance are behaving like intellectual zombies. Republican/Conservative/Libertarian efforts to hold Obama and his minions in check have failed due to crafty stonewalling, obfuscation, and sleight-of-hand maneuvers by the president.
Walsh also claims that Obama's presidential campaign was designed to "appeal to fainéant entitlement “takers,” feminist nihilists, and naïve youths."
Walsh seems not to understand that name-calling is not the way to entice people to your side.
MRC's Waters Joins In Ignoring That Woodward's 'Threat' Was Discredited Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's deception about the nature of the dispute between Bob Woodward and a White House official continues in a March 1 MRC TimesWatch article by Clay Waters.
Waters highlighted Woodward's claim that he considered his "disagreement" with White House adviser Gene Sperling to be a "veiled threat," lamenting that the Times "followed most of the mainstream media in taking the side of the government." But Waters ignored the fact that Woodward backtracked on the threat in the wake of the release of the emails proving there was no threat -- even though he copies-and-pastes from a Times article that points that out.
Is Waters really that stupid, or is he so slavishly dedicated to right-wing talking points that the truth doesn't matter?
Erik Rush Endorses Ilana Mercer's Lament That Apartheid Has Ended Topic: WorldNetDaily
The increasinglyunhinged Erik Rush uses his Feb. 28 WorldNetDaily column to endorse fellow WND columnist Ilana Mercer's lament that apartheid has ended in South Africa.
This transformation of South Africa came about almost entirely due to international pressure rather than national referenda – but why was it done? Not so much because apartheid was an odious policy, but because it offended the sensibilities of Western liberal elites that whites held dominion in countries such as South Africa and the former Rhodesia, which were “meant for blacks” (I suppose because they happened to lie on the African continent).
This rationale would, of course, provide ample justification for Scandinavian or European nations wishing to pitch anyone darker than myself into the sea, but I digress.
[...]
They determined that white rule in South Africa, the scourge of Africa and the malignant vestige of white colonialism, must come to an end – and it did. Unfortunately, many of these hold a similar view of the United States; it is clear that this is the case regarding President Barack Obama and his partners in America’s orchestrated decline.
Rush also uncritically parrots Mercer's claim that "condemnation of the new racist South Africa is not advocacy for the racist old." But given that Mercer has never explicitly condemned apartheid in her WND writings and has lionized the leader of the white supremacist, militant Afrikaner Resistance Movement -- whose logo echoes that of Nazi Germany -- there's really no other interpretation of what Mercer does.
So why is Rush signing on to it? Maybe it's a side effect of his full-blown Obama Derangement Syndrome.
WND Grants Anonymity to Attack Illegal Immigrants Topic: WorldNetDaily
A Feb. 28 WorldNetDaily article by Bob Unruh begins with fearmongering:
Amidst all the lobbying that will go on in Washington over the next few months over amnesty for illegal aliens, one issue probably won’t get much attention.
But Sandra Kay knows all about it. Her son, a soldier who served overseas without getting injured, is paying the costs of it – with a year of rehabilitation and probably a lifetime of pain and trouble because an illegal alien driver caused a crash that left him seriously hurt.
The driver had no license and was in a borrowed car with a lapsed insurance policy, Kay told WND. He made an illegal turn, sending Kay’s son tumbling from his motorcycle onto the highway.
Then the offender disappeared before his scheduled court appearance and the case later was resolved with a judge’s decision that probation was appropriate.
Kay’s son, Timothy, still is paying. He goes to therapy regularly for a leg “pieced together with screws and plates and rods” which still is missing a piece of bone one of the surgeons said could not be found.
But Unruh's article began with this editor's note: "WND has changed the names of the mother and son in this story at their request."
That means there's no way to independently verify the story Unruh tells, since Unruh leaves out many details of the incident with the apparent purpose of making it untraceable.
Since it can't be verified -- and since WND has a lengthyrecord of hiding behind unverifiable anonymous sources to deliver its right-wing agenda -- that means the story can't be trusted.
WND's intent to mislead is even more apparent in the choice of photo to go along with Unruh's story, an unidentified photo of a pickup truck wrapped around a utility pole.
But as WND tells it, the anonymous woman's anonymous son was injured when an unidentified vehicle made an illegal turn in front of the son's motorcycle, which most likely would not have caused the kind of damage depicted in the photo.
The choice of an apparently random crash photo to illustrate the article further highlights WND's desire to mislead its readers, as does Unruh's utter lack of interest in offering a response to the anti-immigrant claims being made.
Allof this means Unruh is yet again refusing to act like a real journalist. If he's telling only one side of the story, all he's doing is taking dictation. Then again, Joseph Farah clarlydoesn't want any more from him than that, which makes Unruh a stooge stenographer.
UPDATE: An alert ConWebWatch reader figured out where WND nabbed that photo from: the Hit and Run Unit of the Nashville, Tenn., Police Department.
WND probably didn't obtain permission from the department for use of the photo, which clearly has no relation whatsoever to the unverifiable anonymous accident story Unruh is telling.
CNS Blogger Way Too Excited That Marco Rubio Knows Who Tupac Is Topic: CNSNews.com
Stephen Gutowski spends a March 1 CNSNews.com blog post gushing over Marco Rubio's interview with TMZ, in which he revealed that Tupac Shakur was the best hip-hop artist ever:
While the interview touches on a wide variety of hip hop topics like Lil' Wayne's maturity lever, Tupac's cultural impact, the Kardashians (which Rubio side-stepped), and the senator's opinion that Biggie was just "alight," the real story here is that the interview happened at all. And, that Rubio knew what he was talking about. He knows pop culture and that's important.
It's good, I think, to see an informed conservative figure going out and engaging with cultural outlets like TMZ. Even if the next story after the Rubio interview was about Lindsay Lohan, he reached people he might not have otherwise reached. And, while he didn't communicate anything particularly ground-breaking, he was able to show people that he, and by extension other conservatives, aren't out-of-touch bores.
Of course, some conservatives think that Rubio's immigration reform plan is a sign that he's not conservative enough, and his being conversant in hip-hop will do nothing to dissuade that view.
Esquire magazine and its publisher, Hearst, lied to federal courts in their defense of a blog post falsely reporting that WND’s book on President Obama’s constitutional eligibility for office was being scrapped, charges attorney Larry Klayman.
But it seems that Klayman and WND are the ones who are lying. The crux of the issue, as explained in the article:
Klayman has filed a motion with the D.C. Circuit federal appeals court to throw out Esquire’s pleadings and end the case in WND’s favor. He notes that Esquire, in its briefs to the lower court in D.C. and now to the appeals court, claims the blog post had “tags” that would indicate to readers that its article was satirical and not a serious news story.
But Klayman contends the original article, which prompted a flood of response to WND by concerned readers and other media who took it seriously, had no such tags.
He has submitted to the court screen shots of the article taken the day it was published accompanied by an affidavit from Farah testifying there were no tags.
Since the article was published, Esquire has inserted below it a list of hyperlinked “tags,” or related article categories. The list in small, faint type consists of key words and phrases, including “Where’s the Birth Certificate,” “Jerome Corsi,” “Birthers” and “Humor.”
“They lied about what was originally published,” Klayman told WND. “They lied to the lower court, and now they’ve lied to the appellate court.”
But the screen shots Klayman has submitted have been edited to remove the section that would contain the tags.
Here's one of the two screen shots Klayman submitted:
Note that the bottom of it is cropped to conform to the end of the blog post's text. But the blog's subject tags appear after the end of the post -- and after where WND has cut off its screen shots.
A copy of the blog post in the Internet Archive dated May 19, 2011, a day after the post first appeared -- which reproduces the formatting and layout of the blog used at the time -- shows the location of the tags and other social media promotional buttons after the end of the post:
This also discredits another claim Klayman and WND make, that the tags are "in small, faint type." The tags now appear in "faint" type, but at the time of the original post, they were in red type.
Further, neither Klayman's filing (which reveals Klayman's incompetence through its note that "A previous version of this motion was inadvertently filed without the exhibits to Mr. Farah's affidavit attached") nor WND's article address the key reason that the lawsuit had been dismissed: Farah, in the judge's words, "immediately recognized the satiric nature of the Blog Post," as demonstrated by his public statements following the initial posting, until it "became inconvenient" for him to do so.
So, look for this motion to be tossed out of court even quicker than the original lawsuit. We may even get to see Klayman be sanctioned for deliberately introducing fraudulent evidence in a court of law.
NewsBusters Perpetuates The Fiction That Woodward Was Threatened Topic: NewsBusters
The Media Research Center's efforts to perpetuate the false notion that a White House official threatened Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward continued with a March 1 NewsBusters post by Matt Vespa.
Blissfullying ignoring actual facts, Vespa writes:
Bob Woodward is a legend in modern journalism, especially for fellow liberal reporters. But that all is for naught now that Woodward has committed the cardinal sin of criticizing the White House for an operative's use of what apparently is a fairly common tactic: a harsh bullying of the press in order to demand even more favorable coverage than the Obama-friendly press already lavishes on Team Obama. It centers on Woodward reporting that sequestration was the White House's idea. This morning Matt Lauer, on the Today Show, questioned Woodward's judgement, saying "I'm a little surprised you've gone public with this." Even, the New York Times offered no refuge for Woodward.
First, the conflict centers on Woodward's claim that Obama "moved the goalposts" by demanding revenue increases -- in fact, the White House plan to avert sequestration has always included revenue increases as well as spending cuts -- not whether the sequester was Obama's idea.
Second, nowhere in his post does Vespa mention that Woodward's suggestion that that White House adviser Gene Sperling threatened him has been discredited by the actual content of the email exchange in question. He does, however, uncritically quote Woodward claiming that he never said there was a threat.
Rather than discuss the actual facts of the issue, Vespa chooses to rant that former White House adviser David Axelrod was allowed to discuss his own previous experiences as a journalist:
Bob Woodward wasn't some outlier in the conversation. Woodward is the story, and to trivialize it by somehow inviting Axelrod to detail his own experiences in press intimidation when he was twenty-five, and working for the Chicago Tribune, is mannerless. It's as if Brzezinski is saying that what Axelrod, the White House mouthpiece on the show, experienced is what real journalists go through.
If Vespa is so serious about making Woodward the "story" here, why won't he look at indisputable facts that prove Woodward wrong?
WND Writer Whitewashes Jeffress' Hate Topic: WorldNetDaily
In a Feb. 26 WorldNetDaily column, Larry Ross comes to the defense of pastor Robert Jeffress, claiming his statements about "issues of homosexuality and AIDS" -- the uproar over which apparently caused Tim Tebow from speaking at his First Baptist Church in Dallas -- were "misrepresented":
As the drumbeats reached a deafening crescendo, Tim Tebow abruptly announced his change of plans, announcing via a series of tweets, “Due to new information that has been brought to my attention, I have decided to cancel my upcoming appearance.”
Immediately the tide turned again, with #TebowCaves trending on Twitter and many in the Christian community asking the quarterback to prayerfully reconsider. A coalition of Texas and national pastors representing many denominational and ethnic backgrounds issued a statement standing with First Baptist Dallas and Dr. Robert Jeffress. The group called on Tebow to fully understand what is at stake if he succumbs to pressure by those who try to marginalize and demean individuals who stand for biblical truth.
Of course it is ultimately Tim Tebow’s decision where and when he speaks. But considering his minister at First Baptist Jacksonville is the former senior pastor of First Baptist Dallas and the two churches both emphasize biblical preaching and share traditional historic doctrines of the Christian faith, it appears that his cancellation was for pragmatic and professional, not principled, reasons. Noting he needed to avoid controversy at this time, Tebow indicated he would like to speak at the church at a future date.
Like many evangelical churches, First Baptist Dallas is built on the truth of Scripture, even though at times that approach can be perceived as controversial or counter to the prevailing winds of culture. Contrary to myriad editorials of late, the Christian gospel is a message of hope, not hate; salvation, not judgment; emphasizing God’s love, grace and new beginnings available to all.
The reason for the recent media firestorm is not because the Bible has changed, but because society has changed.
Note that Ross never actually quotes what Jeffress has said. Right Wing Watch provides a summary:
He has described gays and lesbians as “perverse,” “miserable” and “abnormal” people who engage in an “unnatural” and “filthy practice” that will lead to the “implosion of our country.” Jeffress argues that the gay community employs Chinese “brainwashing techniques” in order to have homosexuality “crammed down our throats.”
Jeffress has also said that represents “the genius of Satan,” suggested that Catholics too will go to Hell, and he has called Mormonism a “cult” that is “from the pit of Hell.”
Perhaps Ross would like to explain where Jeffress' statements are "a message of hope, not hate; salvation, not judgment." Because we're not seeing it.
Dick Morris Backs Woodward, Which Means Woodward Must Be Wrong Topic: Newsmax
The latest sign that Bob Woodward didn't tell the truth about his interactions with White House adviser Gene Sperling over the sequester: Dick Morris is vouching for him.
A March 1 Newsmax article by Bill Hoffmann states that Morris, appearing on Dick MOrris' Newsmax-operated web/radio show, says we should trust anything Woodward says:
“If there’s one guy in Washington who people can and should trust, and only one guy, he’s Bob Woodward,’’ Morris, told Steve Malzberg on Newsmax TV’s “The Steve Malzberg Show.’’
“This man has written 10 to 15 books … all going out on a limb and identifying confidential stuff that went on in the White House in every administration.
“He’s always been proven right, he’s never been contradicted successfully, and he’s always sticking his neck out and he’s always correct.’’
[...]
Morris, a former advisor to President Bill Clinton, said since Woodward’s complaint, the press has ganged up on him.
But, Morris told Malzberg, “When the chief economic adviser says you will regret having taken that position – that is not an expression of ideological discontent. It’s a threat.’’
Given Morris' atrocious record of being wrong about pretty much everything, this can only mean that Woodward can't be trusted on this issue. Indeed, the emails of the actual conversation between Woodward conclusively demonstrate that there was no threat, and even other conservatives have backed away from Woodward.
Meanwhile ... Topic: WorldNetDaily Wonkette saves us some work by explaining exactly what's wrong with Joseph Farah's Feb. 26 WorldNetDaily column positing that Americans were better off in 1776 than they do today. That, of course, involves not counting blacks or women as Americans.
CNS' Jeffrey Laments That Perpetrators of Domestic Violence Might Lose Rights, Is Silent On Their Victims Topic: CNSNews.com
This is the only thing CNSNews.com editor Terry Jeffrey finds newsworthy about the Violence Against Women Act, as described in a Feb. 27 CNS article:
The House Republican leadership has scheduled a floor vote on Thursday on a Senate version of the Violence Against Women Act that, if enacted, would strip constitutional rights from Americans prosecuted by Indian tribes for alleged acts of domestic violence.
Jeffrey makes no mention of the rights of the spouses that were violated by those that would allegedly lose their "constitutional rights" for committing domestic violence on tribal land.
Funny how Jeffrey is putting the rights of the criminal before that of the victim.
Obama Derangement: WND's Ringer Claims 'Gulags, Gas Chambers and Firing Squads' Are Likely After Obama Takes Your Guns Topic: WorldNetDaily
The fake smile is cute and all that, but his bitterness is clearly visible in his actions. And, in all fairness, it’s understandable. His father, who abandoned him shortly after he was born, was an alcoholic, philandering failure with delusions of grandeur. Not a situation anyone would wish on a small child.
But such was Obama’s early life, and, unfortunately, his unhappiness drove him to seek out other angry people – from Frank Marshall Davis to Jeremiah Wright, from Bernardine Dohrn to Michelle Robinson. Today, of course, he is literally surrounded by an army of like-minded Marxists.
[...]
What is annoying about all this is that millions of us knew the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth about Obama before he ever took office. We knew he would never make the original of his birth certificate available to any independent authority. We knew he would use the Cloward-Piven strategy to collapse the economy and make virtually everyone dependent on the state. And we knew he would try to ban all guns in order to make citizens defenseless.
At the risk of drying out Chris Matthews’ pee-soaked trousers, I am compelled to speak the unspeakable: Barack Obama is not “the smartest guy in the room.” In fact, as those who knew him at the University of Chicago have made clear, he is not even a particularly intelligent individual. He is, however, exceedingly clever and cunning.
Which is why guns are now at the top of his agenda. He senses that the tea party is threatening to make a comeback, this time with many more rednecks in the mix. Rednecks are a government’s worst nightmare because they 1) own lots of guns, and 2) often live in hard to reach places – e.g., the Ozarks, the Appalachians and the Smokys. And they don’t much care for people who wear government badges.
Whenever government tries to exert absolute control over the citizenry, the use of force is a must. You cannot stop people from doing things they want to do, or make them do things they don’t want to do, without applying brute force. And that’s a dangerous tactic when there are several hundred million guns stashed away in private hands.
It would take an inestimable number of Waco-style attacks to root out every redneck in the U.S. That’s why Hitler, Stalin and every other brutal dictator has been smart enough to grab people’s guns early on. After that, gulags, gas chambers and firing squads are easily put into place.
Do I seriously believe that gulag prison camps are possible in the U.S.? Yes.
Do I seriously believe that gas chambers and mass executions are possible in the U.S.? Yes.
In fact, any kind of atrocities are possible, but only if government first accomplishes its No. 1 objective: confiscating your guns. Remember, when people fear the government, they get tyranny. But when the government fears the people, they get freedom. And government will continue to fear the people so long as the people have guns. In that vein, may God bless rednecks everywhere.
MRC Won't Admit White House 'Threat' To Woodward Is Bogus Topic: Media Research Center
The claim that the Obama White House threatened Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward as been discredited, but that hasn't stopped the Media Research Center from promoting the lie.
An MRC item by Scott Whitlock lamented that 'The Today show on Thursday allowed a scant 16 seconds, out of a possible four hours, to the claim by veteran journalist Bob Woodward that the Obama White House is trying to intimidate him and attack his coverage of the sequester cuts. The NBC program also avoided using the word 'threat.'"
Of course, there was no "threat" -- as the emails between Woodward and White House adviser Gene Sperling demonstrated, Sperling merely advised that Woodward would "regret staking out" his claim that the White House was "moving the goalposts" in demanding that any sequester deal include increased revenue. They're not, by the way; the White House proposal to avert sequestration has always included revenue enhancement.
Mark Finkelstein, meanwhile, was annoyed that MSNBC's Joe Scarborough revealed that the Bush White House had threatened him, and guests Mark Halperin and Andrea Mitchell revealed similar stories of being threatened by Republican White Houses. Finkelstein also lamented that co-host Willie Geist "downplayed the seriousness of the White House threat to Woodward."
Finkelstein complained in a separate NewsBusters post that "Morning Joe" co-host Mika Brzezinski used "her most sarcastic scared-little-child voice" to mock Woodward's complaining about the alleged threat, huffing, "Be warned journalists who might consider taking on President Obama. Mika might mock your manhood!" Apparently, Finkelstein missed his NewsBusters colleague Tom Blumer mocking the manhood of Washington Post's Ezra Klein, calling him a "guppy" merely for expressing an opinion he didn't like.
Even though the idea of a White House "threat" to Woodward had long since been discredited, Whitlock followed up his earlier post by insisting without evidence that an "implied threat" had been made. Whitlock also defends Politico's softball interview with Woodward and Politico's reporting on it, expressing annoyance that a Washington Post blogger dismissed it as "fan fiction."
Whitloc k concluded: 'The Washington Post mocking Politico for lauding the greatness of the Washington Post's Woodward? Truly, these are confusing times for the liberal media." As it is for the MRC, which is defending Politico -- which Whitlock previously bashed for having "spun" for Obama -- for its kid-glove treatment of Woodward, whom MRC chief Brent Bozell has previously bashed as a "sacred cow."
WND's John Rocker Is Still Playing The Victim Over Being Accurately Quoted Topic: WorldNetDaily
It's entirely possible that one reason John Rocker is a WorldNetDaily columnist is to promote the idea that he's not really as racist as his reputation suggests. If so, he's failing miserably.
Rocker's Feb. 25 WND column goes straight into Alex Jones-style paranoia by citing Alex Jones' paranoia:
The United States government is apparently readying itself for a massive war against Middle America. As reported on Alex Jones’ Infowars.com, targets with images of gun-wielding children, grandparents and pregnant mothers have been purchased by law enforcement agencies.
According to Infowars, the company Law Enforcement Targets Inc. has over $ 5.5 million dollars worth of contracts with the federal government.
Over $2 million of those contracts are with the Department of Homeland Security. The article also points out that the DHS has purchased billions of rounds of ammunition.
The DHS supposedly has on hand about five bullets for each man, woman and child living in the United States.
Dark times my friends, very dark times.
If Waco and Ruby Ridge tell us anything, it’s that the federal government has a history of killing non-traditional combatants like young mothers and innocent kids.
The choice seems to be clear. Adjust, or we’re prepared to eliminate you.
The government seems to have a clear understanding that to achieve the diverse America they have plotted out, most Americans need to be forcibly brainwashed.
And Rocker is still pissed that he was quoted accurately musing about how horrible it is living in New York and "having to take the [Number] 7 train to the ballpark, looking like you’re [riding through] Beirut next to some kid with purple hair next to some queer with AIDS right next to some dude who just got out of jail for the fourth time right next to some 20-year-old mom with four kids." He plays the victim for all it's worth:
After a number of statements that dared to question the merits of multicultural America were published in what amounted to a Sports Illustrated hit piece, the liberal media went into overdrive.
It seemed as if the entire polyglot city of New York (formerly of America) was ready to hang me in the center of Times Square.
Questions about how Major League Baseball could cope with such a vile and dangerous fellow among their ranks were raised.
Grand Inquisitor Bud Selig, Overlord of the Diamond, decided I needed to attend mandatory sensitivity training sessions to atone for my sins.
Fortunately, that too passed, and despite the emotional trauma it wreaked upon my family and me, and the unwarranted reputation I will forever bear, it was merely one of the first shots in what looks to be a very long war. A war the liberal media has no intention of losing with their main weapon of choice coming in the form of vitriol and castigating commentary aimed at any individual who dares stray from their self-derived brand of “correct thought.” I was one of the first victims of such a warfare tactic, but certainly have not and will not be the last. Just as the British hanged traitors in the town square as a stern warning, so too does our liberal media seek to put on a pedestal of disgrace those who dare choose to express thoughts that taste different from their brand of Kool-Aid.
Nobody likes a whiner, John -- with the possible exception of WND, which likes to hire them as columnists.
NewsBusters Still Upset That People On CNN Don't Hate Gays Topic: NewsBusters
Matt Hadro is the Media Research Center's chief umbrage-taker that people on CNN don't hate gays enough. So you know that Hadro's Feb. 27 NewsBusters post on a CNN guest saying that "we need a Jackie Robinson" pro athlete to admit he's gay was not written because he approves of the idea.
Hadro complained that one CNN guest, BuzzFeed sports editor Jack Moore, "was ripping NFL scouts who reportedly questioned a prospect about his sexuality," and that "Two others on the CNN panel shared Moore's frustration. How's that for intellectual diversity, CNN?"
Does anyone besides Hadro really want the "intellectual diversity" that says it's OK for the NFL to discriminate against someone because their sexual orientation? That may be the kind of thing that Hadro can get behind given the MRC's anti-gay agenda, but he offers no argument in favor of such discrimination.
