Our left-wing media's somber, mourning coverage of Venezuelan despot Hugo Chavez once again demonstrates the double standard journalists reserve for dictators.
Seven years ago, the left's greatest South American hate object, Augusto Pinochet, passed away. Never mind how he used free-market reforms to modernize Chile. Never mind that after 15 years of rule, he allowed a national plebiscite to vote against him, and he stepped down peacefully. The left-wing outrage pulsed on the front pages.
So "free-market reforms" are supposed to make upfor the fact that Pinochet's regime murdered and tortured its own people? Really, Brent?
Bozell does note that others reported on Pinochet's "repressive 17-year rule" and huffed that "Both the [Washington] Post and the [New York] Times used post-Pinochet government estimates that more than 3,000 people were executed or disappeared during the Pinochet dictatorship." But at no point in his column does Bozell express any disapproval of Pinochet's atrocious human rights record.
Bozell's claim that "after 15 years of rule, [Pinochet] allowed a national plebiscite to vote against him, and he stepped down peacefully" also ignores history -- namely, that Pinochet took power in a military coup, overthrowing the democratically elected Salvador Allende, and that the plebecite was the only time during his regime that he put himself up for a public vote. (And since it was a plebecite, there were no other candidates, only an up-or-down vote on whether Pinochet should stay in power.)
Further, Bozell's assertion that Pinochet "stepped down peacefully" is not quite true -- he actually attempted to overthrow the plebecite results.
We're not defending Chavez -- just pointing out the disgusting absurdity of Bozell claiming a highly murderous right-wing dictator is no worse than a non-murderous left-wing dictator. And what person in his right mind thinks instituting "free-market reforms" offsets in any way the deaths of thousands and the torture of hundreds of thousands? Bozell, apparently.
Woody Allen wished that Obama didn’t have to answer to Congress or the Supreme Court, and Harry Belafonte wants Obama to toss his Republican critics in jail. Even that’s not enough for Bill Maher, Will Ferrell and Chris Matthews, who wanted George Bush dead and would like to see the rest of us in the terminal ward.
But that’s nothing new. George Bernard Shaw, an avowed socialist, had nice things to say about Hitler and Mussolini. Charlie Chaplin, Lillian Hellman, Paul Robeson and half the self-labeled intellectuals in Hollywood and New York, thought that Josef Stalin was the cat’s pajamas.
Although, nobody seems certain whether it was Marx, Lenin or Stalin who first dubbed those radical zealots who blindly promoted communism as “useful idiots,” the fact is he was only half right.
Zombies eat brains. If they weren’t already dead, they’d most certainly starve to death on the squalid diet of grey matter served-up by Obama, Reid, Pelosi and every other cracked skull who voted to open the curtain on this unconstitutional Obamacare freak show.
I know why this man is president, but I do not know why he remains president.
Barack Obama was elected the first time and then was re-elected.
Unless I don’t understand the law, the Constitution and common sense, I do not know why he remains in that position with the power he has over more than 300 million people in this country and what he does to them.
Obama and Napolitano aren’t the only insane ones in Washington. So too, are McCain and all the others in Congress who are anxious for the possibility of votes and power.
Every one of them, from top to bottom, should be tossed out of office – but not before facing impeachment and perhaps jail time with no parole.
The funniest thing to come out of the gun debate was the photo of Barack Obama allegedly skeet shooting at Camp David. Even I, who haven’t fired a rifle since my days in the ROTC, know that you don’t hold a rifle that high up on your shoulder, and you certainly don’t aim it straight-on when skeet shooting, as if your target were Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity. Skeets, as we all know, are airborne. Firing at the angle shown in the photo, the only thing Obama would have hit was the poor schmuck working the skeet release. You would think that Team Obama would do a better job of it even if they were merely Photoshopping the picture in order to show that Obama’s trumped-up war on guns was nothing personal.
All this made me wonder what would happen if someone like Dr. Benjamin Carson were to run against Obama in 2016. (Don’t think Der Fuhrbama won’t try to run for a third term.) Always in search of a good fantasy, I closed my eyes and pictured their first presidential debate – head to head, with no moderator – and this is the way it unfolded:
Carson: “Before we begin, so there will be no doubt in anyone’s mind, I would like to lay on the table a certified copy of my birth certificate. I have also instructed the Vital Records office in Detroit to make the original of my birth certificate available to any legitimate member of the media or Congress who wishes to examine it. Mr. Obama, are you willing to do the same with your birth certificate?”
Obama’s response: “Can we take a smoke break?”
Carson: “I have instructed the proper authorities at both Yale and the University of Michigan to make all of my records available to any legitimate member of the media or Congress who wishes to examine them. Mr. Obama, are you willing to do the same with your college records at Occidental, Columbia and Harvard?”
Obama’s response: “Can we take a crack break?”
Carson: “I have instructed … etc. … Mr. Obama, are you willing to do the same?”
Obama’s response: “Can we take a break for a change of clothes? I think I just wet my pants.”
Carson: “Mr. Obama, once we get these foundational issues out of the way, I have a list of several hundred more questions I’d like to ask you about your background, your work experience, your close associates, organizations you have belonged to and your philosophy of government. It goes without saying that I welcome your asking me as many questions as you’d like about my life, my fundamental beliefs and my track record.”
Then, wouldn’t you know it? Just as His Royal Highness was about to respond, the phone rang and I lost my train of thought.
The story of Hugo Chavez is one that parallels Barack Hussein Obama’s disastrous but popular rule over the American people. Obama, too, ran as a candidate of the people. Obama, too, announced his intention to “fundamentally transform” the United States – a nation of which his racist wife was never proud before her husband’s rise to power. Once elected, Obama proceeded to implement policies that have done nothing but harm this nation’s economy.
Comedian Chris Rock, not to be outdone by a mere politician, said, “Barack and Michelle Obama are kinda like the Mom and Dad of the country. And when your Dad says something, you listen, and when you don’t it will usually bite you on the a– later on.”
If Barack and Michelle are Rock’s notion of the ideal parents, things must be even worse in the black community than a 71 percent rate of illegitimacy had led me to believe.
No, MRC, GE Is Not Ed Schultz's 'Parent Company' Topic: Media Research Center
A March 8 MRCtv post from the right-wing blog Radio Equalizer features a caller to Ed Schultz's radio show pointing out that Schultz's "parent company" is "knee-deep in profiteering off drone manufacturing," suggesting that this is behind Schultz's support of President Obama's drone program.
The "parent company" Schultz's caller is referring to is General Electric. But GE has no connection whatsoever to Schultz's radio show -- his syndicator is Dial Global, which is owned by two private equity firms. (Dial Global does operate the NBC Radio Network, which NBC sold in 1987.)
Even if the caller was referring to Schultz's status as a host for MSNBC, that's not quite correct either. Comcast purchased a majority stake in NBC from GE in 2011, and is currently in the process of buying the rest of the company from GE.
WND's Unruh Still Fearmongering Over VA Supposedly Taking Away Veterans' Weapons Topic: WorldNetDaily
The last time WorldNetDaily's Bob Unruh wrote about the Department of Veterans Affairs sending letters to certain veterans about how they could lose their right to own a gun if the VA finds them incompetent to handle their affairs, he fearmongered that the Obama administration was "threaten[ing] the Second Amendment rights of American military veterans" until dialing it back to an "apparent threat to Second Amendment rights" without telling readers he had changed the content of the article. Unruh also failed to tell readers that the VA was following long-established procedure in sending out such letters.
Unruh is writing about it again, and he's still fearmongering. From Unruh's March 11 WND article:
The Obama administration insists it’s routine for officials to send out letters informing veterans that an unidentified “report” indicates they may be declared incompetent and consequently stripped of their Second Amendment rights.
It’s the same administration that in 2009 warned that “returning veterans possess combat skills and experience that are attractive to rightwing extremists.”
The 2009 report, from the Department of Homeland Security, was called “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment.” It also said Obama’s governmental managers were “concerned that rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to boost their violent capabilities.”
So when hundreds, perhaps thousands, of veterans began receiving letters like the one dispatched from the Portland, Ore., office of the Department of Veterans Affairs, alarm bells went off.
First, Unruh provides no evidence that the VA's letters have anything whatsoever to do with the 2009 DHS report -- which, by the way, was correct in its assessment of attempted radicalization of returning war veterans, a conclusion also arrived at by the FBI under the Bush administration.
Second, despite citing only one letter received by an anonymous veteran in his article, Unruh speculates that "hundreds, perhaps thousands" were sent out. Such wiild guessing indicates he has no clue at all how many letters were sent out, has no proof that the VA's procedures on such issues has changed under the Obama administration, and he's just trying to fearmonger.
Unruh also writes that "the VA declined to provide information about any adjudication process." In fact, the VA describes the adjudication process on its website.
Despite the fact that he has no proof that the VA is doing anything out of the ordinary, Unruh continues to fearmonger, allowing the anonymous veteran's attorney -- who is with the right-wing United States Justice Foundation -- ramble at length about the purported slippery slope such letters represent:
“We have to ask who will be next. If you are receiving a Social Security check will you get one of these letters? Will the government declare that you are incompetent because of your age and therefore banned from firearm ownership. It certainly fits in with the philosophy and plans of the Obama administration.”
In keeping with the fearmongering, Unruh brings up another thing completely unrelated to the issue at hand: a study issued by the U.S. Military Academy’s Combating Terrorism Center examining the "violent far right." Unruh lets "constitutional law professor" ludicrously claim that the study's author is representative of "many left-wing members of the professoriate" and is "a propagandist for the existing regime." Because, you know, nothing says "left-wing professor" like teaching at the nation's premier military academy.
Unruh also claims that the study "cites 'anti-abortionists' as an active threat for terrorist activity, followed by anti-abortion activist Judie Brown retorting, "The use of two words expose the bias and hatred for what we stand for as a movement. Those words are ‘attacks’ and ‘violence’."
Unruh and Brown themselves ignore a couple of key words in the study: "far right." The study is not about all conservatives, but -- as the title of the report makes clear -- the "violent far right." The report also states that anti-abortion extremists have mostly switched tactics from attacks on people to attacks on property (though Unruh and Brown are clearly ignoring two other key words: Scott Roeder).
Supposed constitutional scholar Titus also ignored the fact that the study is about the "violent far right," for Unruh paraphrases him as saying that the report is "an attempt to link conservative thought with violence."
Unruh is simply putting his right-wing agenda before the facts. That may be why he's working at WND instead of his former employer, the Associated Press.
NEW ARTICLE: Accuracy In Media Honors Inaccuracy In Media Topic: Accuracy in Media
AIM's Reed Irvine Awards have an unfortunate tendency to be given to right-wing activists known more for their mendacity than for telling the truth. Read more >>
Glenn Beck's webcast freakout last week, in which he declared he has lost faith in America, got something of a negative reaction over at WorldNetDaily, which is almost as freakout-prone as Beck is.
A March 6 WND article by Joe Kovacs grimly recounted the highlights of Beck's rant. Then, a couple of WND columnists weighed in, criticizing Beck's declaration of surrender.
Alan Keyes declared that Beck had surrendered long ago by not being a birther and not hating gays as much as he does:
I admit, however, that I could never take his media reputation at face value, even before he joined the elitist faction’s media jackals on the hunt against people like me who insist that questions about Obama’s constitutional eligibility for the U.S. presidency have to be taken seriously. When he did, I publicly consigned Beck to the racks of “the commentators and politicians of our era” who “remind me of the barbarians who first made and then squatted upon the ruins of ancient Rome. In like fashion they contrive to ruin the American institutions of freedom.”
I am therefore inclined to see Beck’s posturing about surrender as “wolf sheds sheepdog’s clothing.” It goes hand in hand with his denial of the damage the push for homosexual marriage aims to do to the foundations of constitutional self-government in the United States. The doctrine of unalienable rights is the basis for America’s constitutional republic. But the assertion of unalienable rights in the American Declaration of Independence makes no sense unless we acknowledge God’s authority as our Creator. Beck “says that he believes that we must return to God.” Yet (as I pointed out some time ago in “A Meditation on Glenn Beck’s Divine Mission”), “he casually blows off the issues that involve imposing on our nation laws and practices that deny the natural law derived from God’s authority. …”
Larry Klayman, meanwhile, grumbled that Beck was no Patrick Henry. And, of course, went off on a fit of premium-grade Obama derangement:
The First Despot, King George III, raped the rich colonies with high taxes, ignored their grievances, subverted their legal system and as a final stroke seized and destroyed the colonists’ caches of guns and other means of self-defense when it became apparent that the citizens could stand no more tyranny from the Crown. Even worse, 236 years after the Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776, triggering the first American Revolution, the modern-day disciple of the king, demagogue President Barack Hussein Obama, has onerously raised taxes, engaged in class warfare, pitting the poor and middle class against the so-called rich, black against white, Latino against Anglo, gay against straight, and Muslim against Jew and Christian, in order to win re-election.
To insure that Obama’s mission to enslave the nation in his brand of Marxist ideology succeeds in the face of imminent rebellion by the informed masses, his government has armed itself to the teeth, unleashed black helicopters in our major cities to intimate the people and set up committees to determine who in its estimation is a “subversive” and may have to be eliminated with drone and other strikes on American citizens on U.S. soil.
Of course, Beck would have to go a long way to hate Obama as much as Klayman does.
Lowell Ponte writes in his March 11 Newsmax column:
The official unemployment rate fell to 7.7 percent last Friday, the lowest rate since December 2008.
Numbers buried in the government's fine print, however, suggest that the economy might still be sinking, not recovering.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics says we added 236,000 jobs in February, yet the number of unemployed who stopped looking for a job and statistically disappeared increased by 296,000 — 60,000 more than found work.
This is what created the illusion of a falling jobless rate while real joblessness increased and grew more desperate.
Altogether, 89,304,000 adult Americans as of February were classed as "not in the labor force."
Ponte is comparing apples and oranges -- the BLS counts the number of jobs added and the number of people not in the labor force in different ways, so one number has no corellation whatsoever with the other.
Further, the BLS defines "not in the labor force" very broadly -- essentially, everyone over 16 and not in an institution -- and includes many other people than those who "stopped looking for a job," including students and retired people who were never looking for work.
Ponte also calls the U-6 rate -- typically a higher number than the U-3 unemployment rate because it counts the underemployed and those discouraged from seeking a job -- "the official jobs number," even though the U-3 rate is equally as "official."
WND's Elmore Misleads In Fearmongering Over Ammo, Armored Vehicle Buys Topic: WorldNetDaily
In the midst of a fit of hyperbolic Obama derangement in which he declared that "the story of Hugo Chavez is one that parallels Barack Hussein Obama’s disastrous but popular rule over the American people," Phil Elmore delivered the following whopper in his March 6 WorldNetDaily column:
Remember, too, that Obama’s Department of Homeland Security – which has classified anyone who might vote against Obama as a potential domestic terrorist – has just purchased 2,700 armored vehicles and is stockpiling more than a billion rounds of hollow-point ammunition. Make no mistake: These vehicles and this ammo have no military application. They exist solely for domestic pacification.
In fact, the 2,700 armored vehicles are being purchased by the Marine Corps, not DHS. And while DHS is buying more than a million rounds of ammunition, much of that purchase is spread out over five years and will be used for training purposes for agents under its purview, including ICE. More than 90 federal agencies and 70,000 agents and officers used the department's training center last year.
In a March 11 NewsBusters post, Ken Shepherd claims that CNN "laments" that a judge overturned a New York City law banning soft drinks in containers larger than 16 ounces.
How does Shepherd know the feelings being imparted by a CNN "breaking news" email? He doesn't, of course -- he's merely running the email through his own filter of right-wing bias. But he claimed that "rather than couch the stay on the new regulation as a victory of individual liberty, the editors described the ruling as 'a setback for Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who has backed several laws aimed at improving the health of New Yorkers.'"
Of course, it's an unambiguous fact that the law being overturned is a setback for Bloomberg, and stating so does not impart bias. Declaring the overturning "a victory of individual liberty," as Shepherd demands CNN do, on the other hand, is very much a biased statement.
In short: Shepherd wants us to believe that 1) he can read the mind of a writer of breaking-news emails, and 2) that Stephen Colbert's maxim that the reality has a liberal bias is correct yet again.
WND Baselessly Blames Obama for 'Lurch Toward Transgenderism' Topic: WorldNetDaily
Under the headline "Lurch toward transgenderism pushed by Obama," Michael F. Haverluck writes in a March 7 WorldNetDaily article:
The expression “boys will be boys” is no longer true at dozens of America’s universities who are offering sex change operations with paid tuition fees. Instead, “boys will be girls” more accurately portrays the thinking behind the new health coverage policies at many of America’s elite colleges, which, according to the host of the nationally syndicated radio show “Line of Fire,” reflect the agenda pushed by the Obama administration.
Michael L. Brown, host of Line of Fire, said in a WND interview that universities routinely teach that gender is a matter of mind, not physical assignment at birth, so it’s changeable.
And President Obama has been helping spread that idea.
“Without a doubt, the president and his administration have been real game changers, not so much in changing public opinion from scratch, but rather in hastening the progress of LGBT activism,” said Brown.
“What has surprised me is to see how some religious leaders are now caving in because of the president’s public stands. Before Mr. Obama was elected, I warned my radio listeners that he would be the most radically pro-gay president in our nation’s history, and in that respect, he has not disappointed us.”
But at no point do Haverluck or Brown offer any specific example of Obama pushing a "lurch toward transgenderism." Instead, Haverluck rants that Yale University is considering covering gender-reassignment surgery and that other universities do the same thing, and that schools are "seeking to normalize homosexual and transsexual behavior."
MRC Wants You To Trust The Discredited John Lott Topic: Media Research Center
Liz Thatcher used a March 6 Media Research Center Business & Media Institute item to complain that USA Today highlighted a study claiming that gun violence costs $12 billion a year. Thatcher attacked the group funding the study as having "left-wing inclinations" as well as being "financially connected to left-wing donor George Soros."
At no point did Thatcher offer any evidence challenging the study's results.
Thatcher went on to complain that did not mention "how many lives have been saved because of guns," concluding:
Or, USA Today and other media outlets could heed the advice of economist and gun advocate John Lott. In an op-ed published on Mar. 5 for National Review, he charged that a little less media coverage of mass shooters could be helpful for public safety, something PIRE loves to talk about. “We should be trying to deprive these killers of what they crave: attention and easy targets,” he wrote.
Lott is a thoroughly discredited gun researcher. And Thatcher wants us to take the advice of him over that of a group whose research she can't even disprove? That's rich.
Les Kinsolving Retires From Asking Stupid Questions At White House Topic: WorldNetDaily
We wondered why we haven't heard any whining for a while about how shabbily any given White House press secretary was treating WorldNetDaily's Les Kinsolving.
Turns out there's a reason for that: Kinsolving has retired from the White House press corps.
Kinsolving revealed his retirement in his March 5 WND column (though it doesn't appear he will be retiring from his other gigs as a WND columnist and Baltimore radio host). But he's whining on his way out that press secretary Jay Carney hadn't called on him since July 26 "despite my being second in seniority to Connie Lawn." He went on to huff that "I have never experienced such oral censorship."
As we've pointed out, Kinsolving has not earned the respect he demands. He's right-winghack and raging homophobe who whines every time his biased shenanigans get any pushback. His employer, meanwhile, is so amoral that it publishes lies and smears about Obama and his administration and violatesjournalisticethics on a depressingly regular basis. Why should the Obama administration take questions from a heavily biased "reporter" who works for an organization that is seeking no less than the personal and political destruction of Barack Obama?
Then, as if to prove the point, Kinsolving spends the rest of his column repeating right-wing talking points about Obama's allegedly prolifigate spending.
Kinsolving's insistence on invoking his seniority shows us he cares more about status than reporting the truth. His employment by WND demonstrates he doesn't care about the truth at all. He will not be missed, except as someone whose bias made him an object of ridicule, and his departure will make room for a real journalist in the White House briefing room.
AIM's Kincaid Desperately Tries To Paint All Gays as Marxists Topic: Accuracy in Media
Accuracy in Media's Cliff Kincaid is a fairly notorious gay-basher -- so much so that he promoted the proposed law in Uganda that would permit the death penalty for mere homosexuality -- so pretty much all you need to know about where he's going in his March 6 AIM column is contained in the first two paragraphs:
The term “gay conservative” is being used by some news outlets in connection with the upcoming Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) and whether certain homosexual groups should be invited to appear. There is no such thing as a “gay conservative,” unless the term “conservative” has lost all meaning. But there is a homosexual movement that has its roots in Marxism and is characterized by anti-Americanism and hatred of Christian values.
Two of this movement’s members, Bradley Manning and Floyd Corkins, have recently been in the news. Manning betrayed his country in the WikiLeaks scandal, while Corkins has pleaded guilty to trying to kill conservative officials of the Christian Family Research Council in Washington, D.C.
You can figure it out from there. Spoiler: Kincaid keeps bashing gays.
Pat Boone is a longtime birther and Obama-hater, so it's no surprise he would keep up the Obama-hate. But he's also decided to ignore the reality of the wholesale abandonment of birtherism -- even by the main outlet that publishes him, WorldNetDaily -- if his March 8 WND column is any indication, in which he adapts "The Emperor's New Clothes" to shoehorn Obama into it:
At his first public appearance, to the shock and anger of the emperor, a young lad named Bob said loudly, where millions heard him, “The emperor is naked! He’s lying to us! Why is he doing this?”
And rather than being shocked into silence, increasing numbers of previous supporters began yelling questions at the startled, suddenly embarrassed ruler.
“Why are you keeping all your early school, passport and travel records sealed permanently, so that we can never know how you came to this position? And whether you are actually, legally entitled to rule over us this way?”
“Your Highness, since no hospital in this country claims you were born there, why do you not produce an actual birth certificate or some verifiable proof of your citizenship, as the Constitution demands? What’s with your Social Security and Selective Service numbers, that first belonged to other people?”
And immediately another voice cried out, “Yeah, you told us on national TV you were putting a copy of your birth certificate on the White House website, making fun of anybody who doubted you. But when we went there to look, we found a photoshopped creation, a fraud, not a copy of anything! Just something you had somebody make up! You think we’re too dumb to notice, or afraid to do anything about it! Why are you doing this to us, to our country?”
Ah, so much fail. First, Obama "early school, passport and travel records" are "sealed permanently" to the same standard as every other U.S. Citizen.
Second, Kapi'olani Medical Center in Honolulu has acknowledged that Obama was born there, as demonstrated by its publication of a letter from Obama stating he was born there.
Third, Obama did release a birth certificate. In fact, he released two.
Fourth, the idea that Obama's birth certificate is a Photoshopped fraud has been discredited by John Woodman, among others.
Boone, it appears, still isn't about to let the facts interfere with his Obama-hate.
CNS Misleads on Non-Working Americans Topic: CNSNews.com
The headline of a March 8 CNSNews.com article by Elizabeth Harrington blares, "Record 89,304,000 Americans 'Not in Labor Force' -- 296,000 Fewer Employed Since January."
But that's highly misleading. As even Harrington points out, this number includes "people who have retired on schedule, taken early retirement, or simply given up looking for work." But even that doesn't tell the full story about the number, which is the total number of working-age people who aren't in the work force, which is not the same thing as being unemployed.
As the Bureau of Labor Statistics defines it, "not in the labor force" means "persons aged 16 years and older in the civilian noninstitutional population who are neither employed nor unemployed in accordance with the definitions contained in this glossary. Information is collected on their desire for and availability for work, job search activity in the prior year, and reasons for not currently searching."