MRC Touts Bill Donohue's Censorship Push, Omits His Link to Bozell Topic: Media Research Center
In a Jan. 9 CNSNews.com article, Susan Jones promotes Catholic League chief Bill Donohue's call for censorship of religious criticism, in which he blames the victim by suggesting that the staffers of Charlie Hebdo massacred by Islamist extremist had it coming because they were "pornographers disguised as satirists" suffering from "narcissism." Donohue also asserted there is no "moral right" to make fun of religion and the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists have no right to "do whatever they want."
Jones fails to report, however, that her boss, Media Research Center chief Brent Bozell, is on the board of advisers for the Catholic League. The MRC frequently fails to disclose Bozell's links to right-wing Catholic activists it promotes.
All of this raises an interesting question: Does Bozell endorse Donohue's call for censorship? After all, the MRC loves to call out any instance of religious criticism in the media no matter how deserved, as demonstrated by Dave Pierre's desperate attempts to dismiss concerns over the Catholic Church's history of sexual abuse.
We'd ask Bozell ourselves, but he's blocked us from following him on Twitter, apparently too thin-skinned to handle criticism.
UPDATE: Conservatives Hugh Hewitt and Noah Rothman have denounced Donohue's call for censorship and victim-blaming. By contrast, Jones offered no counterpoint to Donohue's view.
WND's Farah Tries To Spin Anti-Boehner Failure Into A Success Topic: WorldNetDaily
Joseph Farah devoted his Jan. 6 WorldNetDaily column to glossing over the failure of himself and other right-wing activists to oust John Boehner as House majority leader:
In the end, John Boehner even needed help from Democrats to beat off a challenge by House Republicans to his speakership.
Had it not been for some 27 members, mostly Democrats, not showing up for a floor vote, he might have been denied re-election.
That’s fitting, since Boehner has been a facilitator of Democrat policies since he first got the job in 2011.
Farah went on to declare that his anti-Boehner campaign will continue, because ... well, just because:
I like to think I had something to do with starting this historic and nearly successful rebellion. When no one else was even talking about a “dump Boehner movement,” I started one, with the help of grass-roots support from across the nation.
Don’t Be Yellow: Dump Boehner Now!” managed to generate 560,000 letters to House Republicans in about three weeks – during the holidays! Well, I am happy to announce today that the campaign continues. We can’t give up.
I’m afraid it’s going to take millions of letters to awaken the House Republicans who put committee assignments and prime office space above the best interests of their country. But we can do it. We came very close Tuesday – closer than I could have imagined three weeks ago.
What would an avalanche of mail delivered to the offices of House Republicans in the coming weeks mean?
Would they begin to have second thoughts?
Would they begin to realize their decision to support Boehner was not really in their best interests after all?
Would they think it might be time to get on the right side of history?
Farah doesn't mention the presumably real reason his campaign continues: it's a money maker for WND. As we've documented, those 560,000 letters -- generated by just 2,267 people, hardly a significant groundswell in a country of more than 300 million -- generated a healthy $67,000 in gross revenue for WND, and it certainly didn't cost WND anywhere near that much to send those letters in bulk to House members.
Perhaps driven by this profit motive, Farah keeps shilling for his campaign:
We need to return to representative government – and we don’t have that with John Boehner in leadership. He needs to go. He detests you and what you believe in. He’s comfortable with the direction of the country right now. He’s profiting from it.
So please take a few minutes right now to join the “Dump Boehner Now!” campaign. It is the most cost-effective way to amplify your voice on Capitol Hill.
And one more thing: Spread the word! Let everyone you know who shares your desperate concerns for the future of this country to take action – before it is too late.
And Farah is profiting from hating Boehner. Don't expect him to admit that, though.
NewsBusters' Double Standard on Context Topic: NewsBusters
NewsBusters has long fretted over conservatives purportedly being taken out of context while having no problem taking statements by liberals out of context.
That double standard shines through again in a Jan. 6 NewsBusters post by Jack Coleman:
Context is all, especially in media, unless you're a liberal intent on smearing the most prominent voice in radio who also happens to be conservative. At that point, context becomes an inconvenience quickly to be jettisoned.
Two days before Christmas, Rush Limbaugh was talking about the leaked Sony emails when he said something that proceeded to make news during the traditionally slow news drought of the holidays.
After referring to a specific email from Sony co-chair Amy Pascal suggesting that black British actor Idris Elba portray James Bond after actor Daniel Craig's contract playing the super-spy ends, Limbaugh dismissed the suggestion by pointing out that Bond was "white and Scottish, period." (audio)
Given the faux outrage to follow, you'd think Limbaugh lit up a huge cross at the entrance to Sony studios.
On his radio show yesterday, Limbaugh played audio clips of media reaction of his remarks and pointed out what critics neglected to mention that he also said[.]
Actually, it's Coleman who's selectively editing here. The reason why Limbaugh was criticized as racist for his remarks was because Limbaugh himself said it was.
In the original clip, Limbaugh admitted that "it's probably racist to even point this out" about Elba and James Bond. That's context worth mentioning; why didn't Coleman think it was?
Instead, Coleman tried to find a way to bolster one of Limbaugh's weaker arguments:
Undoubtedly not it's safe to say. But isn't Limbaugh muddying the waters by suggesting that outrage would ensue if white actors were cast to portray historical figures who were black, such as Obama and Mandela, whereas Bond is a fictional character, so what difference does it make?
Apparently it meant a great deal in 1990, Limbaugh pointed out, when the Actors' Equity union initially refused to allow white actor Jonathan Pryce to portray a fictional Eurasian pimp in "Miss Saigon" on Broadway, as Pryce already had in London. (audio). The union quickly backed down and reversed its decision.
Does anyone actually believe that Americans have become less politically correct since then?
But ethnicity is arguably a more significant factor in the "Miss Saigon" role than it is in James Bond. And as playwright David Henry Hwang points out, there is a legitimate issue of diversity since 80 percent of the roles on Broadway stages are taken by white actors. Further, the protest had an effect: the producer of "Miss Saigon" on Broadway ensured that all actors who took that role after Pryce left it were of Asian descent.
Coleman didn't mention any of that, of course -- but then, his sense of context is highly selective.
WND Columnist Whitesplains Black Protests Topic: WorldNetDaily
If the cops are as racist as the idiots in the streets keep claiming, why is it we never see Asians or black immigrants from the Caribbean rioting and complaining about police brutality? With all the people of color residing in America, why is it always and only native-born blacks who take to the streets complaining of mistreatment? Could it possibly have anything to do with the violent crime rate and the lack of parental discipline found in their community that leads to so many unpleasant interactions between the police and young black thugs?
Furthermore, if things are as oppressive as they claim, why do we never see a mass migration to Canada or Mexico? The only blacks we ever see leaving the U.S. are those like convicted cop killer Joanne Chesimard, who leave seeking asylum in Cuba.
Every other group that has ever faced hardship and persecution has crossed oceans, if necessary, to seek a better and safer life. Mainly they’ve come to America, long a magnet for the world’s outcasts. Only blacks see this country as a loathsome place – a place like czarist Russia, Nazi Germany, Iran, Cuba and China – a snake pit to run from, and yet they never run. I find that very odd when you realize they could easily find refuge just across the border.
Could it be that even they know that their claims are bulls–t, and that they simply enjoy getting to live off the labor of others, while still having the gall to gripe about it?
Newsmax has always been dedicated to fixing the reputation of former New York City police chief Bernard Kerik in the wake of corruption allegations for which he served prison time. They're still at it, letting him appear on Newsmax TV to opine about Al Sharpton:
It shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone that controversial civil rights activist Al Sharpton "shakes down" companies for money in exchange for not attacking them as racists, according to former New York Police Commissioner Bernie Kerik.
"I don't think anyone that's followed Sharpton for any period of time would be surprised by the article," Kerik said during an appearance Monday on "America’s Forum" on Newsmax TV, during which he discussed a Sunday New York Post story that reported Sharpton takes corporate payoffs to keep quiet.
"It's what he does and I've said this before, he's an opportunist in many of these circumstances."
Unmentioned during the interview: Kerik served more than three years in prison for essentially doing what Sharpton is accused of doing: exploiting a tragedy to make money.
It's ironic that Newsmax lets a convicted felon to make such accusations, then hides his criminal record.
WND Won't Guarantee Anti-Boehner Letters Will Arrive Before Vote Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily keeps tooting its own horn about its paid anti-Boehner propaganda effort in a Jan. 5 article:
The campaign that allows voters to tell their representatives in the U.S. House they should find another speaker for the coming session of Congress, and “Dump Boehner,” already has generated 560,000 letters – or a stack that will be nearly 19 stories tall on delivery.
The vote for a new House speaker is expected as early as Tuesday, and while not all of the messages will arrive by that time, the feeling across America will be more than clear, according to the organizer of the campaign.
“Republican House members should know that, as of today, 560,000 letters have been generated in the ‘Don’t Be Yellow: Dump Boehner Now!’ campaign,” said Joseph Farah.
“Unfortunately, they won’t all arrive before Tuesday’s vote. However, if Boehner wins the speakership, the campaign will continue, since the House can hold a no-confidence vote on the speaker at any time while in session. So Boehner won’t be out of the woods if he survives Tuesday’s challenge.”
As we've detailed, the numbers WND is forwarding obscure the important -- and less impressive -- numbers actually involved. All that has happened is that WND has convinced 2,267 of its readers (560,000 divided by the 247 GOP House members who will get spammed with WND's letters) to part with $29.95 of their hard-earned money. That's not only an insignificant fraction of Americans, it's a tiny fraction of the readership WND claims.
More importantly, WND has grossed more than $67,000 from this venture, only a small fraction of which will be spent delivering those letters to the House members. The letters account for less than five reams of paper; given that the letters will be delivered in bulk, not separately, it's a much less impressive impact. All that has actually happened is a bump in WND's revenue.
On top of that, WND can't guarantee they all will arrive before the speaker vote? You'd think WND readers would be getting better service for the $29.95 they're spending.
CNS Columnist Omits Details on Catholic IVF Lawsuit Topic: CNSNews.com
The Heritage Foundation's Andrew Kloster takes the Catholic Church's side in a Dec. 30 CNSNews.com column detailing a lawsuit by a Catholic school teacher fired after undergoing in vitro fertilization treatments. But Kloster omits inconvenient facts to make his case. He writes:
Last Friday, a federal jury awarded a former teacher in the Diocese of Fort Wayne-South Bend almost $2 million for what she claims was sex discrimination, the bulk of which was not for medical bills or lost wages, but for $1.75 million in “emotional and physical damages” she allegedly suffered.
And while the case looks narrow—was this female teacher fired when immoral male teachers were allowed to retain their jobs?—it involves a much bigger question: when can federal courts scrutinize the religious decisions of churches?
In 2008, Emily Herx, a junior high school language arts teacher at St. Vincent de Paul School in Fort Wayne, began IVF treatment. She notified her school principal about additional IVF treatment in 2010, and in April 2011 the church pastor met with Herx to inform her that IVF was morally wrong.
IVF is a multi-step procedure that usually involves stimulating a woman’s ovaries to cause multiple ovulation, collecting the eggs and fertilizing them with donor sperm in a petri dish (in vitro meaning “in glass”), developing embryos, selecting a few and implanting them back in the woman. Leftover embryos are usually frozen or destroyed. According to Catholic moral teaching, this process is objectionable in many different ways.
Kloster omits Herx's side of the story, in which she claims she endeavored to keep her IVF treatments from running afoul of church teaching, and that she had at least implicit approval from church officials before beginning the treatments. According to Slate:
According to her suit, Herx was told by Bishop Kevin Rhodes that IVF was “an intrinsic evil, which means no circumstances can justify it,” because it frequently involves the destruction of embryos. This is typically true—but not in Herx’s case. Herx has stated that she and her husband used every embryo they created and that she informed church officials of this from the beginning. Here the church’s tendency toward a black-or-white position runs afoul of complex reality. From what Herx has said, the clerical response to her fertility treatments seems to have been blanket condemnation. Herx’s claim states that the priest she consulted “relied on uninformed assumptions about fertility treatment in general” and that he “did not understand the medical treatments actually administered.” The clergy involved in Herx’s firing seemed to have been responding more to the very idea of infertility treatment than they were to the medical processes involved.
They also seem to have been responding to a concern for their own reputations. According to Herx’s complaint, her employers had no objection to her fertility treatments before they began to be more widely known. The priest who called Herx a “grave, immoral sinner” evidently also suggested, according to Herx, that she should have kept quiet so as to avoid bringing scandal on the school and the church, saying that some things are “better left between the individual and God.” And that was before she filed the lawsuit or went to the press.
The lawsuit also notes that Herx's teaching contract was renewed after she informed school officials about the IVF ttreatments, which raises questions about the fidelity of school officials to Caytholic teaching.
Kloster then echoes the church's stand that it didn't object to Herx's IVF treatments no objection to her fertility treatments "before they began to be more widely known," asking, "Why did Emily Herx seek to make her IVF treatments public? Each of these cases involves someone putting themselves in a bad situation, and then using the law as a club—each of these cases could have been avoided by exercising common sense." Kloster huffed, "Why should someone seek employment at a place where they know they cannot live up to their contract or where they oppose their employer’s moral vision?"
Kloster also echoed the Catholic diocese's claim that the court "erred in applying Title VII to the Diocese at all. It might be that the First Amendment protects the Diocese in its hiring and firing decisions for Catholic school teachers." Kloster doesn't mention that the church attempted to get the lawsuit dismissed because it claimed it was exempt under Title VII. A U.S. appeals court rejected that argument, stating that "The Diocese cites no authority for the proposition that the exemptions provide an immunity from the burdens of trial rather than an ordinary defense to liability. To our knowledge, there is none."
Kloster sneered at the idea that Herx's “emotional and physical damages” were worth $1.75 million, calling it "an absurd result." But apparently her case was compelling enough that a jury agreed with it, so Kloster seems to be a little off base.
WND's Klein Speculates About Obama's Use Of A Random Word Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily's Aaron Klein loves playing the game of plucking a random word or phrase from something President Obama or his wife said and playing armchair psychologist to extrapolate it into a secret reference to a radical agenda. For instance, he insiststhat Obama is referencing Saul Alinsky by referencing the common construct of "the world as it is" and "the world as it should be."
Klein plays this game again in a Dec. 30 WND article:
President Obama seems to be taking his cues from the academic left in claiming there is a “nativist trend” among some in the Republican Party who oppose any kind of amnesty for illegal aliens.
In an interview with NPR, Obama stated, “If your view is that immigrants are either fundamentally bad to the country or that we actually have the option of deporting 11 million immigrants, regardless of the disruptions, regardless of the cost, and that that is who we are as Americans, I reject that.”
Obama discussed the potential to work with the Republicans on the issue while warning about “nativists” who seek to block “immigration reform.”
[...]
Nativism typically is defined as the political position of vehemently opposing immigration of all kinds and demanding a favored status for the established inhabitants of a country.
The U.S. academic left, particularly professors at California state universities, have been leading the charge in applying the “nativist” term to opponents of illegal immigration, essentially branding them as racist and bigoted.
At no point does Klein claim that "nativist" is in any way inaccurate -- after all, there are numerous anti-immigration activists who are "vehemently opposing immigration of all kinds and demanding a favored status for the established inhabitants of a country." And Klein supports such leanings through his expressed sympathies for the teachings of right-wing terrorist Meir Kahane, whose Kach/Kahane Chai movement supports the arguably "nativist" view of expelling all Arabs from Israel.
Klein's presenting of politically biased speculation as "news" is yet another reason nobody believes WND.
It's time for more uncritical stenography courtesy of CNSNews.com's Barbara Hollingsworth, as demonstrated in a Dec. 30 CNS article:
Another housing bubble is “very likely if we don’t change our policies,” warns Peter Wallison, a former member of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission (FCIC), which investigated the "avoidable" 2008 financial meltdown.
“It’s going to happen again because we’ll have the same kind of housing market again,” explained Wallison, who is currently co-director of financial policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI).
Just six years after the overheated housing market bubble burst, triggering the Great Recession, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which are still under government conservatorship, have been told to accept 3 percent down mortgages and to turn over a percentage of every loan they process to a government trust fund for affordable housing.
Hollingsworth is so lazy that she's literally transcribing her interview, as this sentence structure demonstrates:
Didn't you write that Fannie and Freddie’s lowering of underwriting standards to help people buy houses they couldn’t afford was “the root cause” of the financial crisis? CNSNews.com asked Wallison.
[...]
How can Fannie and Freddie, which were established to stabilize the nation’s housing market, justify doing the same things that triggered a market collapse just six years ago? CNSNews.com asked him.
Since Hollingsworth is a stenographer instead of a reporter, she can't be bothered to seek out any view that contradicts that of Wallison. For instance, the fact that Wallison's assertion that Fannie and Freddie was the "root cause" of the financial crisis has been utterly discredited by actual experts. McClatchy reported:
Between 2004 and 2006, when subprime lending was exploding, Fannie and Freddie went from holding a high of 48 percent of the subprime loans that were sold into the secondary market to holding about 24 percent, according to data from Inside Mortgage Finance, a specialty publication. One reason is that Fannie and Freddie were subject to tougher standards than many of the unregulated players in the private sector who weakened lending standards, most of whom have gone bankrupt or are now in deep trouble.
During those same explosive three years, private investment banks — not Fannie and Freddie — dominated the mortgage loans that were packaged and sold into the secondary mortgage market. In 2005 and 2006, the private sector securitized almost two thirds of all U.S. mortgages, supplanting Fannie and Freddie, according to a number of specialty publications that track this data.
In 1999, the year many critics charge that the Clinton administration pressured Fannie and Freddie, the private sector sold into the secondary market just 18 percent of all mortgages.
Hollingsworth didn't mention the conclusion of the FCIC report that Wallison took part in found that delinquency rates for mortgages guaranteed by Fannie and Freddie "were substantially lower than loans securitized by other financial firms."
Further, Walliston and Hollingsworth's idea that Fannie and Freddie permitting 3 percent mortgages will somehow cause a new financial crisis (or played any significant role in the old one) are incredibly overblown. If Hollingsworth would have actually read the Bloomberg article she linked in her own article, she would have noticed this:
Laurie Goodman, director of the Housing Finance Policy Center at the Urban Institute in Washington, said Watt’s move is an important first step in expanding credit. A study of Fannie Mae data by Goodman and other researchers found that credit scores had more bearing than the size of the down payment on whether borrowers defaulted.
The study concluded that allowing loans with down payments between 3 percent and 5 percent is likely to have a “negligible” effect on mortgage risk. These loans made up only about 1 percent of Fannie Mae originations when they were previously allowed.
[...]
Most lenders will welcome the loans as well, said Dave Stevens, CEO of the Mortgage Bankers Association in Washington.
“These loans will be underwritten more conservatively and will likely come with higher mortgage insurance costs,” Stevens said. “History has shown that these loans, when properly underwritten, perform well.”
But that's what you get when you let a stenographer do reporting: politically biased stenography.
WND Is Still Censoring Birther Debunkings Topic: WorldNetDaily
As usual, WorldNetDaily's year-end list of "underreported stories" reflects WND's own far-right obsessions instead of reality. Thus, you won't find anywhere on that list a certain story WND destroyed its credibility covering: birthers.
Specifically, how the birthers have been repeatedly discredited. As we've pointed out, the news that birther conspiracy theories have been debunked has been studiously ignored by WND, even though it promoted many of those discredited claims.
In the past year, former Cold Case Posse member Brian Reilly has dished on the dysfunction of the panel run by Mike Zullo and WND's own Jerome Corsi, and how Zullo has dismissed Hawaii's verification of Obama's birth to further the birther conspiracy.
You'd think that WND would be eager to report on this, but apparently, if it doesn't come from Corsi (whom Reilly revealed has had a falling-out with Zullo), it didn't happen. Reilly's report was met with utter silence from WND -- not even a defense of the posse by Corsi.
It seems that if WND has decided to underreport a story, it won't appear on WND's list of underreported stories. Funny, that.
MRC Takes Another Cheap Shot At Sandra Fluke Topic: Media Research Center
You might recall that the Media Research Center was one of the most vociferous defenders of Rush Limbaugh following his three-day misogynistic tirade against Sandra Fluke, with MRC chief Brent Bozell refusing to offer any meaningful criticism and launching an "I Stand With Rush" website and his MRC underlings enthusiastically endorsing Rush's misogyny.
Fluke's loss in her race to be elected to a California state senate seat gave the MRC an opportunity to another cheap shot at Fluke. In their Dec. 27 column, Bozell and Tim Graham sneer: "Even that paragon of permissiveness Sandra Fluke couldn’t exploit her Limbaugh-victim aura to win a state Senate seat in libertine California."
How does advocating for birth control make one a "paragon of permissiveness"? Bozell and Graham don't explain, perhaps because the exact opposite is true: Fluke is demonstrating her responsibility.
Apparently Bozell and Graham think every woman who takes birth control is a slut or a prostitute, just like Limbaugh said.
Even that paragon of permissiveness Sandra Fluke couldn’t exploit her Limbaugh-victim aura to win a state Senate seat in libertine California. - See more at: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2014/12/26/bozell-graham-column-cultural-winners-and-losers-2014#sthash.f0FvhpK5.dpuf
Even that paragon of permissiveness Sandra Fluke couldn’t exploit her Limbaugh-victim aura to win a state Senate seat in libertine California. - See more at: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2014/12/26/bozell-graham-column-cultural-winners-and-losers-2014#sthash.f0FvhpK5.dpuf
Even that paragon of permissiveness Sandra Fluke couldn’t exploit her Limbaugh-victim aura to win a state Senate seat in libertine California. - See more at: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2014/12/26/bozell-graham-column-cultural-winners-and-losers-2014#sthash.f0FvhpK5.dpuf
WND's Farah Prays For Others (But Not Himself) To Repent Topic: WorldNetDaily
Joseph Farah discusses New Year's resolutions in his Dec. 31 WorldNetDaily column:
Politics takes place largely in the natural world, and that’s where we live. But we need to recognize there’s a world beyond the natural.
That’s why I resolve in 2015 to devote more time and passion to personal prayer. The older I get, the more convinced I become that prayer is the most effective and important thing we can do with our time – for both the natural world and the spiritual realm.
God wants to have that relationship with his children. And we need to have it with Him.
Here’s what I will be praying for in 2015:
That believers in the United States repent for what they have allowed our country to become. America has been one of the strongest, freest and most prosperous nations in the world for a long time. It has also been one of the strongholds of Christianity. But all that is changing. And it’s the fault of Christians. Believers need to be on our knees more in 2015 repenting not just for the sins of the nation, but our personal sins. Our model should be 2 Chronicles 7:14: “If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.”
Farah himself apparently feels no need to repent, even though he's in desperate need of doing so. Not only is he an inveterate liar, his website peddles hate and fear and misinformation on a daily basis.
Farah likes to set himself up as an avatar of all that is right and Christian, yet he won't subject himself to the standards he demands from others. His hypocritical "National Day of Prayer and Fasting" showed this, as he laughably insisted his motivation wasn't political even as his bill of particulars for the day read like an anti-Obama rant.
Farah demands others repent for their "personal sins," but it seems he doesn't believe he needs to do the same for his personal sins. He's apparently not enough of a Christian to know that God frowns upon such arrogance.
CNS Blogger Joins MRC's Heathering of WaPo Columnist Topic: CNSNews.com
A couple weeks ago, the Media Research Center's Tim Graham unleashed a fit of Heathering on conservative Washington Post blogger Jennifer Rubin for the offense of being less than hard-core conservative by criticizing Ted Cruz. Now Jen Kuznicki, a blogger at the MRC's "news" division, CNSNews.com joins the Heathering fun:
It's amazing to look at the amount of column space that is used up by a blogger for the Washington Post's so-called "Right Turn" blog that tries to demoralize and belittle conservative politicians. Lately, Jennifer Rubin, a self-described conservative who is very new to conservatism, has been attacking Cruz, but she's been just as vitriolic toward many conservative members of the House and Senate who simply disagree with her inexperienced and disjointed view of conservatism.
And so, as I read her columns, she comes off as an unhinged attack dog, who, rather than listening to conservatives who have, might I be blunt, many more Americans agreeing with them than with her, would rather try to use her space at the Washington Post to seek an outcome to election cycles rather than having a sane conversation on what is right for the country.
For the majority of Americans, the Washington Post blogger does not exist. Most people, I think we can all agree, don't really get into the kind of politics that is necessary for those who make a living commenting on it. So, either it is Jennifer Rubin's own view that the majority of people would not agree with, the people she vehemently opposes in her columns, or she's in that nasty DC bubble the rest of the nation ignores.
Kuznicki offers no evidence to back up her claim that Ted Cruz's brand of conservative is more popular than Rubin's. It seems she's just making up things to justify her Heathering.
NEW ARTICLE: Joseph Farah's Year of Obama Derangement Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily's editor won't acknowlege Barack Obama is president, so it's no surprise he spent 2014 saying hateful things about Obama. Read more >>
A Dec. 29 Newsmax article by Sean Piccoli dutifully transcribes an interview Klayman did on Newsmax TV. In the two entire segments he devotes to interviewing Klayman, guest host Ric Blackwell serves up softball questions and fails to ask any follow-up questions about Klayman's outrageous statements, such as calling President Obama an "emperor," or his laughable claim he's "neutral" on the issue of immigration. Blackwell ends the interview by fawningly calling Klayman a "leading voice on the right."
The promos attached to the video claim that Newsmax TV is devoted to "real news, better talk." Since when does turning over your network to a hateful nutjob like Klayman for 10 minutes and failing to challenge his extremist views equate "real news, better talk"?
In a Jan. 9 CNSNews.com article, Susan Jones promotes Catholic League chief Bill Donohue's call for censorship of religious criticism, in which he blames the victim by suggesting that the staffers of Charlie Hebdo massacred by Islamist extremist had it coming because they were "pornographers disguised as satirists" suffering from "narcissism." Donohue also asserted there is no "moral right" to make fun of religion and the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists have no right to "do whatever they want."
Joseph Farah devoted his Jan. 6 WorldNetDaily 
NewsBusters has 
If the cops are as racist as the idiots in the streets keep claiming, why is it we never see Asians or black immigrants from the Caribbean rioting and complaining about police brutality? With all the people of color residing in America, why is it always and only native-born blacks who take to the streets complaining of mistreatment? Could it possibly have anything to do with the violent crime rate and the lack of parental discipline found in their community that leads to so many unpleasant interactions between the police and young black thugs?
Newsmax has 
The Heritage Foundation's Andrew Kloster takes the Catholic Church's side in a Dec. 30 CNSNews.com 
WorldNetDaily's Aaron Klein loves playing the game of plucking a random word or phrase from something President Obama or his wife said and playing armchair psychologist to extrapolate it into a secret reference to a radical agenda. For instance, he 
It's time for more 
As usual
You might recall that the Media Research Center was one of the most vociferous defenders of Rush Limbaugh following his three-day misogynistic tirade against Sandra Fluke, with MRC chief Brent Bozell 
Joseph Farah discusses New Year's resolutions in his Dec. 31 WorldNetDaily 
A couple weeks ago, the Media Research Center's Tim Graham 
Larry Klayman is a 
