More proof that most modern “comics” are anything but comical come in the form of their newest Islamic promotional efforts. Marvel Comics presents Kamala Khan, a 16 year-old superhero from a New Jersey, Pakistani family. Not a Pakistani Christian family, because few of them have either survived or been allowed to immigrate here.
“Kamala Khan is just an ordinary girl from Jersey City,” Marvel announces, “until she is suddenly empowered with extraordinary gifts.” To be authentic, the poor girl wouldn’t have her genitals intact and couldn’t leave her house at night without a few male sidekicks ordering her about. But what’s a little reality compared to covering for misogyny and terrorism in Islam?
Kamala is the brainchild of Islamic-American convert Gwendolyn Willow Wilson and other Islamic staff. A successful journalist and writer of graphic novels for teens, she lived in Egypt for years. She even interviewed the grand mufti of Egypt, Ali Gomaa. None of this is proof Wilson is a terror supporter; yet the entire Marvel enterprise reeks of entertainment to camouflage genocide, using trivialization, distancing and distraction … with great illustrations, of course.
Supposedly Kamala was born to counter “Islamophobia” in the middle of the Islamic terror war against us. Superman and the old fellows actually supported American GIs, even showing up on the battlefields. Somehow Marvel forgot to create Germanic übermenschen in capes and lederhosen to prevent outbreaks of Naziphobia. What were they thinking?
Gifted but tragically liberal artists team up to fight against women and minorities of the Middle East in many contemporary initiatives and publications, like this one. A classical Stalinist disinformation campaign, anything relevant is minimalized or labeled opposite to reality, where they do everything but tap dance around neon signs blazing “nothing is happening here … you’re imagining everything … especially if you’re in a displacement camp or cage.”
Annihilated Christians in Syria apparently aren’t worth the ink to print comic books now. Female victims in Islam are also invisible. Serious issues are identificational “struggles” of teenage Muslim immigrants. Marvel Comics has just volunteered to be another outpost in an Islamic war campaign at this point. Deflecting controversy and discussion is the entire raison d’être of Ms. “ad hoc” Marvel.
Old Archie struggled with competition and other teen angst, but he wasn’t representing a group of killers while he did it. It would be encouraging if Marvel’s Islamic “superhero” struggled against honor killings, threats, misogyny, beatings, child marriage and genital mutilation.
Large wings of Western artists feel Muslims deserve extra kudos, although they’ve nearly annihilated Christians from several nations. If this continues (and few around here seem eager to stop them), it may happen in our burgs. You can bet your last copy of the Constitution that Kamala Khan won’t be showing up in her little red tights and shamefully exhibited face to save American women and assure our rights. Western hussies.
Marvel’s artists are as skilled as ever, but how they can sleep at night – if they have an inkling what is happening in the Mid-East – is a mystery.
WND's Loudon Is Clueless About Non-Christians Topic: WorldNetDaily
Gina Loudon starts her May 25 WorldNetDaily column by trying to bury the Duggar sexual molestation scandal:
After the recent revelations about “19 Kids and Counting” star Josh Duggar and his past transgressions as a child, non-Christians across America are pointing their fingers and saying, “See! I told you the Duggars aren’t perfect!”
Of course they aren’t! No Christian is perfect. That is precisely why people become Christians!
If the Duggars were perfect, or believed they were perfect, they would not need a savior, and, therefore, would not be Christians.
The left has set up a straw man.
First, nowhere in her column does Loudon identify what Josh Duggar's "past transgressions as a child" were -- namely, molesting numerous underage girls, several of them his own sisters. Doing so would presumably blunt the impact of Loudon defending the family as not "perfect."
Second, the point is not that the Duggars claimed to be "perfect"; they portrayed their lifestyle as an antidote to the type of behavior that were, in fact, happening within their own family. So it's more about hypocrisy than failing to act perfectly.
You think that even Loudon would agree that sexual molestation is a behavior that ranges far beyond "imperfect" -- but then, Loudon spent a disturbing amount of time and column space rationallizing (and trying to capitalize on) her own teenage daughter's relationship with a 57-year-old man. (The above image of Loudon and her daughter accompanied that column.)
And speaking of straw men, Loudon tries to set up her own:
There is a convenience in being non-Christian. They get to point out the stumbles of every Christian without having to live according to a moral code. As long as you don’t call yourself a Christian, you can engage in any immoral behavior seemingly without consequence.
Loudon falsely assumes that if you are not a Christian, you cannot possibly act in a moral fashion. Jews, Muslims and Buddhists are just a few of the many non-Christian religions that have a moral code, and even many people who do not follow an organized religion behave in ways that follow a moral code. The system of law can also be said to be a moral code.
The fact that Loudon can speak only euphemistically about Josh Duggar's disturbing behavior, coupled with her attempt to defend the family and throw their critics under the bus -- she even attacks Christians who are criticizing them, declaring that they "are handing ammo to the secular left" -- tells us that she has some, shall we say, issues. But we already knew that.
CNS Misleads About Michelle Obama Commencement Speech Topic: CNSNews.com
A May 26 CNSNews.com article was dedicated to selectively quoting from Michelle Obama's commencement speech at Oberlin College to ratchet up the outrage factor among CNS's readers. And judging from the hate and racism in the article's comment thread, she has succeeded with that.
Jones claimed that Obama "equated conservative opposition with 'noise,' 'clamor' and 'polarization,' and she urged students to "rise above it.'" But in the actual excerpts of the speech Jones included, Obama did not specifically do what Jones claimed. Here's the excerpt with the apparently offending words highlighted:
"You might find yourself a little dismayed by the clamor outside these walls -- the name-calling, the negative ads, the the folks yelling at each other on TV. After being surrounded by people who are so dedicated to serving others and making the world a better place, you might feel a little discouraged by the polarization and gridlock that too often characterize our politics and civic life.
"And in the face of all of that clamor, you might have an overwhelming instinct to just run the other way as fast as you can. You might be tempted to just recreate what you had here at Oberlin -– to find a community of like-minded folks and work with them on causes you care about, and just tune out all of the noise. And that’s completely understandable. In fact, I sometimes have that instinct myself -- run! (Laughter.)
"But today, graduates, I want to urge you to do just the opposite. Today, I want to suggest that if you truly wish to carry on the Oberlin legacy of service and social justice, then you need to run to, and not away from, the noise. Today, I want to urge you to actively seek out the most contentious, polarized, gridlocked places you can find. Because so often, throughout our history, those have been the places where progress really happens –- the places where minds are changed, lives transformed, where our great American story unfolds."
So, no, Obama did not equate conservatives to "noise," "clamor" and "polarization" as Jones claimed -- indeed, Obama does not even use the word "conservative" anywhere near those terms.
But Jones wasn't done misleading. After quoting Obama urging the students to "persuade" and "compromise" in order to "move the country foward," she sneered: "Interestingly Mrs. Obama's husband is not a compromiser, starting his second term with a 'go-it-alone,' I-have-a pen-and-a-phone attitude."
Funny, the PolitiFact website has a full seven pages of examples of Obama compromising to achieve his policy goals. And Jones omits the fact that Republicans have refused to compromise with Obama.
MRC's Graham Would Rather Put Words In A Columnist's Mouth Than Talk About The Duggars Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center doesn't want to talk about the sexual abuse allegations against Josh Duggar -- witness MRC "news" division CNSNews.com burying its only mention of it as a blog.
And the MRC's Tim Graham is so desperate to not talk about that his post on the subject is actually about pretty much everything but.
In his May 26 NewsBusters post, Graham extremely narrowly focuses on a coule of supposedly offending lines in a Washington Post column on the subject by Alexandra Petri. But after a first-paragraph mention that Josh Duggar "was guilty of sexually abusing other children at age 15" -- not nothing that his victims included his own sisters -- the offense is never brought up again, and the Duggars themselves are mentioned only twice more in passing.
The vast majority of Graham's "open letter" to the Post is dedicated to raging at Petri for noting that the Duggar scandal "is a reminder of how badly the cult of purity lets victims down.” It involves putting a lot of words in Petri's mouth -- apparently, what Petri actually wrote wasn't worth getting upset over. She is "obviously bad at hiding her glee" over thte Duggar scandal, Graham declares without evidence, adding -- also without evidence -- that she "doesn’t believe in sin."
Graham also declares that he can read "between the lines" of what Petri wrote to determine what she actually meant to say: "Religious people have an unhealthy attitude toward sex, and are against educating children about sex. That's wrong." How convenient for Graham to put those straw-man words in Petri's mouth to attack her for them and knock them down as "wrong."
Graham does concede that Petri "is right to suggest that it is wrong to assert that someone who’s lost their virginity is immediately and permanently like a cup of spit or a dirty used bicycle – especially for pure, faithful children who’ve become the victim of sexual abuse." But he leaves out the critical context that this is the message the Duggars themselves publicly spread -- and, again, the fact that among Josh Duggar's victims were his own sisters.
This, by the way, is the only mention of Duggar's victims -- odd for an official of an organization that can't mention Ted Kennedy without bringing up Chappaquiddick or Bill Clinton without bringing up his sexual scandals. If Graham is trying to tamp down discussion of the Duggar scandal, he's also tamping down the fact that there were underage victims of a sexual assault.
Graham then attacks "feminists and libertines" -- and he clearly believes Petri is among them through all of the words he put in her mouth -- who purportedly "have an unhealthy attitude toward sexual commitment, and are against educating children about preserving yourself for a committed relationship. Libertines insist virginity is impossible, unless you’re an indoctrinated robot...like they think of the Duggars."
By the time he attacks things Petri wrote a year ago that have nothing whatsoever to do with the Duggars but everything to do with smearing someone he doesn't agree with, it's clear how desperately Graham is to change the subject -- so much so that he's dragged his own family into it by professing that his wife "has never been a campsite or a used bicycle." Um, yay?
(Again, that metaphor was espoused by the Duggars, not Petri. Graham might want to keep that in mind.)
And then Graham goes to some really weird territory: "Post columnists could call me a loser or a nerd or something worse, but I know I have never exploited another human being like a blow-up doll or sought a quick thrill without an 'emotional stranglehold.'"
Remember: None of this has anything to do with what's happening with the Duggars -- and that's the way Graham wants it.
Graham rather deliberately misses the entire point of Petri's column, which he's careful not to mention:
When all sexuality is a sin, when even holding hands is off limits, there isn’t a clear line between permissible, healthy forms of exploration and acts that are impermissible to anyone, not just the particularly devout. This gospel of shame and purity has the potential to be incredibly harmful because it does away with important lines. (Studies not only suggest that abstinence-only approaches to sex education do nothing to decrease the incidence of sexual behaviors, but also that they can make them riskier and that they deprive kids of the vocabulary they need to discuss when bad things happen.)
Graham even bizarrely complains that Petri quoted someone who he claimed believed "Duggar committed a crime, and definitely not a sin." That raises a question: Does Graham believe Duggar committed a crime? If so, shouldn't he be upset that the incident was not handled as a crime, instead being treated as a "sin" the family decided could be remedied through their own devices and not through, say, professional counseling for both the perpetrator and his victims?
All of Graham's histrionics are in service of distracting theMRC's right-wing audience from the Duggar scandal and the fact that Petri dared to write about it -- nothing else. The fact that his post is only the second original reference to appear on any MRC website (after the CNS blog post) is ample proof of that. But Rush Limbaugh's latest utterance, by golly, is considered "news" at CNS.
It's hard to criticize the media when you know they're right. Graham knows that the media is generally doing a good job on the Duggar story, and he also knows that the MRC can't defend the Duggars too vociferously lest it appear to condone Josh Duggar's behavior. Hence, this effort at misdirection to drown out the Duggar scandal by putting words in the mouth of a columnist he dislikes so he can bash her for -- well, anything, really, to change the subject.
The MRC ought to be above such dishonest tactics. Apparently, it's not.
WND's Jesse Lee Peterson: 'The Minimum Wage Has Never Helped Blacks' Topic: WorldNetDaily
It's not often that we come across a statement that is so flat-out wrong it defies reality, but when we do, it's usually at WorldNetDaily (i.e., Joseph Farah's patently false assertion that WND "strives for 'fair and balanced' news coverage" and that his reporters "are always encouraged and required to seek out multiple sources and contrary viewpoints").
Which brings us to Jesse Lee Peterson's May 24 WND column. He spends it railing against the minimum wage, and its climax is this statement: "The minimum wage has never helped blacks, and it won’t help them now."
Hoo boy. Where to begin? For starters, researchers have found quite the opposite:
The Economic Policy Institute found that the share of black workers that would benefit from one minimum wage hike proposal is larger than the black population as a whole.
The Center for American Progress reports that raising the current minimum wage would raise income among black Americans as a whole by $5.2 billion.
The AFL-CIO claims that 4,123,000 African American workers would benefit if the federal minimum wage were increased to $10.10 per hour.
Peterson also ignores the fact that the main reason the minimum wage may not have helped blacks in its early years is because it originally exempted numerous professions dominated by blacks. Then again, conservatives use this fact to instead demonize the minimum wage rather than acknowledge that non-discrimination laws, along with the overturning of many of those exemptions, were needed to counter that effect.
So Peterson's claim is not just laughably false but ignorant as well.Would we expect any less for him and WND?
Obama Derangement Syndrome Watch, Christopher Monckton 'of The Devil' Edition Topic: WorldNetDaily
Now, it has become apparent that the global totalitarian hard left, led by Mr. Obama, no longer make any pretense of speaking the truth about any of its favorite political topics.
Two of these topics are currently in the news: so-called “gay” so-called “marriage,” for which the once-Christian people of Ireland have recently and shamefully voted, and so-called “catastrophic” so-called “manmade” so-called “global” so-called “warming,” about which Mr. Obama last week preached a whining, heavily touted and in every material respect deceitful commencement sermon to Coast Guard cadets.
Even the names of these two topics are lies. There is nothing in the least bit merry about homosexuality, and marriage is by definition the union of a man and a woman, not of two of one or two of the other.
Which brings us to Mr. Obama’s speech to the Coast Guard Academy about the weather. Even by his remarkably low standards, it was a dreadful speech. For a start, since this is a political hot potato, it was not an appropriate subject for the commander in chief to give to any branch of the nation’s defense forces. By iron convention, real presidents don’t make partisan political speeches. Just one more item of evidence, you may well think, that Mr. Obama is not a real president, just like BO’s BS WH HI ID (about which no one has done anything yet).
Seldom have I seen so many half-truths, untruths and outright lies crammed into a single speech. For a line-by-line, lie-by-lie analysis, follow this link to my detailed analysis at Wattsupwiththat.com, the world’s most visited climate website, run by a real weatherman.
With that background, let us address the question of whether Mr. Obama and the “gay”-promoting, catastrophist hard left are, to use St. John’s phrase, “of the devil.”
The charitable conclusion is that they are of the devil, that they are under the controlling influence of the father of lies, that they are his unwitting or unwilling mouthpieces.
For if that be not the case, Mr. Obama and others like him who utter the wicked falsehoods on the basis of which they promote such fatal abominations as “gay” “marriage” and “catastrophic” “manmade” “global” “warming” are deliberately, willfully telling lies – lies that kill.
On the evidence, they are certainly not telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. So far are they from the truth, so many are the deaths their interminable and often gross lies cause, that it is surely kinder to grant them the Hitler defense – that they are not in control of themselves either because they are collectively mad or because they are individually of the devil.
-- Christopher Monckton, May 24 WorldNetDaily column
WND Tries To Revive Fake Clinton Scandals Topic: WorldNetDaily
With Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign under way, WorldNetDaily is reliving its '90s glory, right down to Joseph Farah dreaming once again of a Hillary perp walk -- after all, one of the reason it was founded in 1997 is to serve as a repository for anti-Clinton sentiment.
Thus, we have an unbylined May 18 WND article dedicating to "a fresh look at the top 20 scandals involving Hillary" -- never mind that the article's headline says 22 scandals and the article itself lists 23 (apparently, nobody at WND has ever passed a math class in one of their homeschools). WND clearly had to pad out the article, because more than a few of these "scandals" turned out to be anything but, and were found to be so years ago -- not that WND will ever report that, of course. Let's review, shall we?First up...
3) Looting the White House
When the Clintons left 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in 2001, they reportedly vandalized and looted the White House.
Additionally, the General Accounting Office, an investigative arm of Congress, reported that ”damage, theft, vandalism and pranks did occur in the White House complex” during the presidential transition from Bill Clinton to George W. Bush – including the theft of a presidential seal.
In fact, as we've reported, the GAO found that the Clintons did not leave the White House in any worse condition than the first Bush administration left the White House for Clinton, and a review by the General Services Administration determined that "the condition of the real property was consistent with what we would expect to encounter when tenants vacate office space after an extended occupancy."
4) Filegate: FBI files on GOP enemies
The Clinton duo was involved in a scandal known as “Filegate” in which they illegally obtaining FBI files on perceived adversaries, most of whom served in previous Republican administrations.
“In an effort to discredit the women who charged President Clinton with sexual misconduct, personal files and papers were illegally obtained and released. The courts found, under the Privacy Act, that the privacy of Linda Tripp and Kathleen Willey had been violated,” a Judicial Watch report said, citing just a few of more than 900 relevant files. Judicial Watch said Hillary had been linked “directly to the center” of the controversy.
In fact, independent counsel Robert Ray's final report on the issue states that "there was no substantial and credible evidence that any senior White House official, or First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton, was involved in seeking confidential Federal Bureau of Investigation background reports of former White House staff from the prior administrations of President Bush and President Reagan."
5) Hillary’s ‘Muslim Brotherhood princess’
Huma Abedin, who served as Hillary’s longtime deputy chief of staff and has worked with her for nearly 20 years, has known ties to the Muslim Brotherhood – a group bent on “destroying Western civilization from within” – and other Islamic supremacists. As WND has extensively reported, the Muslim Brotherhood and Islamic supremacist connections not only extend to Abedin’s mother and father, who are both deeply tied to al-Qaida fronts, but to Abedin herself.
This is a classic guilt-by-association attack, so scurrilous that none other than Republican John McCain was moved to defend Abedin, calling it "nothing less than an unwarranted and unfounded attack on an honorable woman, a dedicated American and a loyal public servant." WND doesn't mention, as McCain did, thatAbedin's father died two decades ago and, thus, is not plotting anything right now.
Abedin found another right-wing defender in Republican operative Ed Rollins, who pointed out that WND's attacks on Abedin are "unsubstantiated" as well as "extreme and dishonest."
6) Vince Foster’s 1993 death
Vince Foster was deputy White House counsel and Hillary’s friend and law partner who had connections to the Travelgate and Whitewater scandals. In 1993, Foster was found dead in a park with a fatal gunshot wound to his mouth. As WND reported, his suicide was the subject of much speculation and three official investigations.
Investigations by the U.S. Park Police, the Department of Justice, the FBI, Congress, Independent Counsel Robert B. Fiske and Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr concluded Foster’s death was a suicide. However, as WND reported in 2003, one of Starr’s key investigators challenged the official line, insisting the probe’s result was predetermined, only a few plotters were required to engineer the result, the crime scene was altered and that major newspaper editors killed stories by reporters pursuing the truth. The Washington Post reported that federal investigators were not allowed to enter Foster’s office after his death, but “White House aides enter[ed] Foster’s office shortly after his death, giving rise to speculation that files were removed from his office.”
Yep, WND is still trying to blame Hillary for Foster's death and invent a cover-up that has no actual evidence to support.
9) Travelgate: Always room for friends
In the Travelgate scandal, the staff of the White House travel office was fired to make way for Clinton cronies, including Bill’s 25-year-old cousin, who was reportedly promised the position of office director.
Hillary allegedly fired seven employees and gave the positions to her Arkansas friends. According to the Washington Post, there was an effort to award a White House airline contract to a Clinton friend.
Also, Hillary reportedly had the FBI investigate the former head of the travel office, Billy Dale, who was fired without notice and removed from White House grounds. Dale was charged with embezzlement but found not guilty of the crime in 1995. He was later audited by the IRS.
WND doesn't mention that, as the report by independent counsel Robert Ray concluded, the Travel Office employees "served at the pleasure of President Bill Clinton, and they were subject to discharge without cause." Ray's report also found evidence of financial mismanagement in the Travel Office and that "sufficient evidence existed to provide the requisite predicate for the opening of a criminal investigation."
10) Whitewater: Jail for friends, but not Clintons
The Whitewater investigation by independent counsel Kenneth Starr began in 1994 with accusations of impropriety against the Clintons and others concerning improper campaign contributions, political and financial favors, and tax benefits. Its initial subject was a failed Arkansas real-estate venture involving the Clintons in the 1980s that was linked to the collapse of Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan, a Little Rock savings bank run by the Clintons’ Whitewater business partners. Clinton friends James and Susan McDougal went to jail for fraud (James died while serving his sentence), as did former Arkansas Gov. Jim Tucker and municipal judges David Hale and Eugene Fitzhugh.
The probe eventually expanded to include the death of deputy White House counsel Vincent Foster, the dismissal of White House travel office employees, receipt by the White House of a number of FBI files and the issue of whether President Clinton lied or obstructed justice to hide an affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky.
WND doesn't mention that the reason the Clinton's were never prosecuted was because Robert Ray found that whatever evidence he found was " insufficient to prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that either of them committed any criminal offense." The fact that Starr's Whitewater investigation spread so far afield to an affair is the reason why there aren't independent counsels anymore.
15) Clinton body count: ‘You find dead people’
“The Clinton body count,” first published in WND and later circulated by Linda Tripp to Monica Lewinsky, is a collection of names of people associated with Clinton administration scandals who have died mysterious and often violent deaths. Reporter David Bresnahan broke the story of the list during the summer of 1997 while researching his book, “Cover Up: The Art and Science of Political Deception.”
21) Peter Franklin Paul: Another Hillary friend goes to prison
As WND reported, Hillary was named in a lawsuit brought by Peter Franklin Paul for allegedly directing to her 2000 Senate campaign an illegal, in-kind contribution from Paul that included a fundraiser at the exclusive Spago restaurant in Beverly Hills, a tea hosted at the Beverly Hills home of socialite Cynthia Gershman and a lavish, A-list, million-dollar-plus Hollywood gala honoring Bill Clinton. At the trial of Clinton’s finance director for the 2000 senatorial campaign, David Rosen, the government told the jury Paul personally gave more than $1.2 million to produce the events.
Paul, a former business partner of Spider-Man creator Stan Lee who sued Bill for fraud and accused Hillary of hiding nearly $2 million in Senate campaign donations, alleged they sabotaged the media company he formed with Lee to get out of a $17 million agreement made with Bill Clinton to serve as an international promoter for the company after he left the White House. Paul was indicted in June 2001 for manipulating the price of the stock in his company, Stan Lee Media, as it was collapsing. A judge determined Paul didn’t profit from the attempt to save his company, but he accepted a plea bargain and served three years in prison. WND reported in 2012 that Paul charged Attorney General Eric Holder and his Justice Department obstructed justice by reneging on a sentencing agreement.
“Hillary is carrying out her promise to finally destroy my family to punish me for exposing the corruption that elected her to the Senate,” Paul told WND at the time.
As we've noted, Paul was claiming a Clinton conspiracy against him -- thus getting rabid Clinton-haters like WND on his side -- in an effort to deflect the fraud charges against him. If Paul is the upstanding guy WND portrays him as, why did he flee to Brazil to evade prosecution, then fight extradiction back to the U.S. for two years?
And, as we've also noted, the fact that -- as WND admits -- Paul wasn't indicted until 2001 means that the Bush administration, not Hillary Clinton or any other member of the Clinton administration, was leading the prosecution against him. That sort of blows up his whole victim schtick.
And that's just the beginning. Imagine if we had the time to examine in detail all 22 (or 20, or 23) so-called "scandals" on WND's list.
But that, of course, is what WND is counting on -- to repeat the lies until people are tired of correcting them. Joseph Farah and Co. think that this is some strange form of "journalism," but it's actually yet another reason why nobody believes WND.
CNS Finally Reports On Duggar Scandal -- In A Blog, Not As 'News' Topic: CNSNews.com
It's taken surprisingly long for an organization that professes to be a "news" operation, but CNSNews.com has finally gotten around to reporting on the Josh Duggar sexual molestation scandal. But, oddly, it still doesn't consider this "news."
Melanie Hunter's May 22 item on Duggar is not presented as "news" but, rather, as a blog post -- the same status also afforded to Michael Chapman's stenography of Franklin Graham and posts dedicated to the stylings of "Evan Sayet, the nation’s leading conservative, political comedian."
Hunter also presents the Duggar scandal in as perfunctory a manner as possible -- apparently finally moved to write about it only after the Duggars' "19 Kids and Counting" show was canceled because of the revelations -- keeping to reporting only statements and refusing to dig into the issue. For instance, Hunter notes that Josh Duggar's victims "live[d] in the Duggar home," but fails to note the obvious conclusing that Duggar was molesting his sisters.
Hunter also uncritically repeats a claim that Duggar was "sent to a Christian treatment program," but ignores reporting that the "treatment program" was actually some guy in the home remodeling business who was actually "more of a mentor ... kind of" rather than someone with actual counseling credentials, which you'd think would be important in dealing with a teenager who molested his sisters.
Hunter uses her dry, perfunctory writing to hide the fact that the Duggar family waited a year to report Josh's behavior to authorities. She also doesn't mention that CNS has favorably promoted Duggar in the past.
Hunter's treatment of the Duggar story is not the only sign CNS would rather ignore it. CNS' Twitter account has not promoted the story, nor have the Twitter accounts of editor in chief Terry Jeffrey and managing editor Michael Chapman. And the Duggar story is still being censored on other MRC websites, such as NewsBusters, MRC TV, and the main MRC website.
On May 1, CNSNews.com published a fluffy interview with Josh Duggar, oldest son of the Duggar family of "19 Kids and Counting" fame, in which he declared that “marriage is central to the family and every single child deserves a mother and father” and complained that "there is an agenda to silence people of faith, those who hold a dissenting opinion."
Actually, CNS is the one who's engaged in the act of censorship, making sure no bad news about the Duggars appears on its "news" pages.
Earlier this week, news broke that Josh Duggar, as a teenager, was named as an "alleged offender" in an underage sexual abuse probe. Technicalities and other issues in the police investigation led to Duggar failing to be prosecuted in the case.
People magazine reports that the case involved Duggar molesting five underage girls as a teenager. The duggar family states that he underwent counseling and that he regrets his actions, he has since resigned from his job as executive director of the Family Research Council's political action division.
Yet none of this is newsworthy at CNS -- it has not reported a single word about Josh Duggar's scandal, even though it has been two days since the story first broke, and even though it would not hesitate to do so if the perpetrator was not a cultural conservative.
So, what is newsworthy at CNS today? Likening President Obama to Osama bin Laden. No, really.
It seems CNS would much rather do fluffy interviews to advance right-wing ideology than engage in actual journalism without fear or favor.
UPDATE: Wonkette notes that according to the police report, four of the five victims of Josh Duggar's molestation were his own sisters.And Right Wing Watch reports that Duggar has a history of claiming that gays -- not people like himself -- are a threat to child safety.
If CNS reports this at all, it will be couched in some heavy-duty spinning to highlight the power of Christian redemption or something. Again, a whitewashing that CNS would never provide to anyone who isn't a cultural conservative.
When Klayman Is Losing, He Smears Judges Topic: WorldNetDaily
Whenever Larry Klayman doesn't get his way in the courtroom -- which is frequently given how terrible a lawyer he is -- he throws temper tantrums at the judges who rule against him, typically hurling personal insults at them. He does this yet again in his May 15 WorldNetDaily column.
Klayman starts off in his usual style by continuing his two-decade-old grudge against judge William Keller, whom he slanders as "both a drunk and an anti-Semite, among other vices and prejudices," whining that he "had fined me $25,000 for standing up for my clients and moving to disqualify him from the case."
As you'd expect, Klayman is hiding the truth about what happened. As the appellate court ruling upholding the sanctions against Klayman detail, Keller was more than justified in issuing them. noting that Klayman was "failing to provide advanced written notice of the prior art appellants intended to use during trial, as required by 35 U.S.C. § 282; failing to have [his client] appear in court on the appointed day after the trial court had granted an extension of time to allow for [his client's] travel from Taiwan and preparation by counsel; and lodging a late request for a jury trial on the patent issues in the case after admittedly waiving a jury trial for such issues at a pretrial status conference," not to mention "Mr. Klayman's practice of continuing to speak after the trial judge requested silence." As a result, Keller barred Klayman from representing anyone in his courtroom ever again. The ruling also notes that Klayman "rejected an opportunity to have a magistrate judge rather than Judge Keller try the case" because he felt Keller had "a good sense of humor. That's important."
Regarding Klayman's unsubstantiated anti-Semitism smear against Keller, the ruling notes that Klayman did not carry "the heavy burden necessary to substantiate" his claim during his appeal, and that Klayman built his bias case against Keller "largely on sources entirely unrelated to the proceedings" due to his refusal to pay for a transcript of the court proceedings in question. The appeals court called Klayman's refusal to spring for acopy of the trial transcript, even to help his own case, "poor practice," which tells us that Klayman has been a terrible lawyer for a very long time.
Anyway, back to the matter at hand. Klayman's newest anti-judge tirade is against G. Murray Snow, who's presiding over a case involving Sheriff Joe Arpaio, whom Klayman is representing. Klayman calls Snow "unethical, unhinged and rabid," even though he can much more easily apply those words to himself. Klayman rants:
You see, Judge Snow is the federal judge who has been conducting a civil and potentially criminal contempt proceeding against “America’s sheriff,” Joe Arpaio, of Maricopa County, Arizona. Arpaio had been accused by none other than the ultra-leftist, communist-inspired group the ACLU of violating Snow’s order in a civil suit enjoining Arpaio and his office from ethnically profiling (illegal) immigrants at places like day-worker sites. Importantly, during the course of the contempt proceeding, it was reported that Judge Snow’s wife had said to her friends at a public restaurant that her husband was going to use the case to destroy Sheriff Arpaio to prevent him from being re-elected.
These statements are now confirmed. Despite his conflict of interest and obvious prejudice against Sheriff Arpaio, just in the last week or so, during the course of the trial, Judge Snow called the sheriff to the witness stand and, asking leading questions, interrogated him and later his chief deputy, Jerry Sheridan, about investigating the judge over his wife’s prejudicial comments. Judge Snow was thus strategically using a judicial proceeding upon which he was presiding, for his own personal reasons, to cover up the admissions made by his wife, unethically creating a clear conflict of interest. As bad, during the course of the questioning, Snow used the opportunity to go off on an irrelevant witch-hunt regarding what the sheriff and his deputies were allegedly doing with informant Dennis Montgomery, also my client. Montgomery is a whistleblower who has the goods on illegal surveillance by the NSA and CIA.
The Phoenix New Times, an ultra-left pro-illegal-immigrant rag – which hates Sheriff Arpaio because he is conservative and opposes illegal immigration – had published defamatory postings claiming that Montgomery was assisting Arpaio in investigating Judge Snow. While this was false, Judge Snow used this Internet rag to then justify his ordering up the production of all documents from the sheriff’s office concerning Montgomery. Of course, Montgomery has nothing to do with the reason for the contempt trial, which is over the ACLU’s charges of the sheriff violating a court order prohibiting profiling. The judge then ordered the ACLU’s lawyers and other counsel to contact the CIA about the sheriff and Montgomery, falsely attempting to implicate them in wrongdoing with the federal government.
Klayman lacks the guts to link to the Phoenix New Times articles in question. It's unclear where Klayman gets his claim that it reported Montgomery investigated Snow; a June 2014 article exposed Montomery's links to Arpaio but states only that Montgomery "convinced Arapio of this paranoid fantasy" that Snow was out to get him.
And far from being "a whistleblower who has the goods on illegal surveillance by the NSA and CIA," Montgomery is a notorious scammer. That New Times article reported how Montgomery "snookered the CIA, the White House, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Air Force into believing he had software that could decode secret messages to terrorists, supposedly embedded in broadcasts of the Al Jazeera Media Network." It was a lie, but it was not discovered until after Montgomery's firm had acquired multi-million-dollar contracts with the government.
And as Dr. Conspiracy notes, Montgomery has also been feeding information to Arpaio's "cold case posse" on Obama's "eligibility," resulting in allegedly "earth shattering" information that the posse has yet to release.
While Klayman rails against Snow's questioning of Arpaio, the one thing he can't do is claim it was illegal, because it wasn't. And as the New Times detailed, it did expose that Arpaio had an attorney secretly investigate Snow's wife, and also exposed the extent to which Montgomery is involved with Arpaio's office. These are things Klayman, as Arpaio's attorney, would presumably would not want to have made public.
If the New Times got any information wrong, it's because Klayman's client refused to tell the truth, not because it's an "Internet rag."
Klayman then declared his intention to follow in Arpaiio's footsteps and harrass the judge for showing him up:
I am not finished using the legal system to remove this scourge of a federal judge. In the end, he undoubtedly will not only be forced to get off the case, but will be a top candidate for impeachment. In this regard, an ethics complaint, which Montgomery was forced to file, is also pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit and is being sent to the House Judiciary Committee, which oversees impeachment of federal judges.
Judges and the courts can be our most important public servants. If they do their job ethically, they can protect us from the tyranny of the other two branches of government. But when they act in an unethical and illegal fashion, as Judge Snow has in trying to destroy a fine law enforcement official like Sheriff Arpaio and a courageous whistleblower like Dennis Montgomery, they are the biggest current threat (along with President Barack Hussein Obama, himself, who not coincidentally was behind the initial federal investigation of the sheriff along with his comrades at the ACLU) to a healthy and functioning constitutional republic!
Klayman apparently still hasn't learned the lesson that the system also has recourse against attorneys who abuse the system and file frivolous lawsuits.
Indeed, WND, publisher of Klayman's column and user of Klayman's so-called legal services in the past, is apparently so tired of Klayman's incompetence that it went with Judicial Watch -- the organization Klayman founded and left, and then sued -- to sue the government for documents in the Miriam Carey case.
That's gotta hurt, but Klayman brought it on himself with his incompetence and his serial judge-smearing.
You'd think that with all the squawking the Media Research Center has done about George Stephanopoulos' conflict of interest that it would be more forthcoming (or simply forthcoming, period) about its own conflicts of interest -- like its cross-promotional business relationship with right-wing radio host Mark Levin -- particularly at its "news" division, CNSNews.com.
Well, you'd be wrong. A May 14 CNS blog post by Levin fanboy Michael Morris reads like a press release, touting how Levin "continues to gain syndication steam" and lists the new stations broadcasting his radio show. Morris fawningly notes that Sean Hannity has dubbed Levin "The Great One."
Needless to say, Morris makes no mention of Levin's business deal with the MRC.
And in an apparent bid to keep his fanboy status up-to-date, Morris wrote a May 15 post transcribing Levin's comments on Stephanopoulos' conflict of interest -- which, ironically, again fails to mention his employer's conflict of interest with Levin but does note that Levin mentioned the "Media Research Center’s wonderful NewsBusters."
Apparently, the MRC wants to make its attacks on Stephanopoulos as hypocritical as possible.
MRC Rides Stephanopoulos Controversy To Boost Anti-Hillary Book Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center has been getting a lot of mileage out of the revelation that ABC's George Stephanopoulos donated $75,000 to the Clinton Foundation; one fundraising email declared Stephanopoulos "corrupt" while begging for money. As Paul Waldman at the Washington Post pointed out, Stephanopoulos' conflict of interest plays into conservatives' anti-media agenda, and that "From now through next November, conservatives will claim that every story that reflects poorly on Hillary Clinton is just accurate reporting, while every story that reflects well on her (or poorly on Republicans) demonstrates the media’s pernicious liberal pro-Clinton bias."
To do all that, of course, the MRC has to studiously ignore all the times that Fox News personalities advocated for causes they had personal or financial connections to, as well as all the conservatives who have donated to the Clinton Foundation, like Newsmax's Christopher Ruddy.
The MRC's anti-Stephanopoulos propaganda campaign extends to its "news"division, where a a May 15 article by Susan Jones quotes Peter Schweizer, author of an anti-Hillary attack book, wanting a do-over on his interview with Stephanopoulos. Jones claimed that during the interview, "Stephanopoulos repeatedly questioned the accuracy of 'Clinton Cash,' insisted that there was no evidence of criminality on the part of the Clintons, and suggested that Schweizer was conducting a partisan attack."
But as we noted, Schweizer admitted during his interview with Stephanopoulos that he had no evidence to back up the allegations in his book.
Jones doesn't mention that the accuracy of Schweizer's book has been justifiably question because it does, in fact, contain numerous errors -- more than 20, according to one count. The fact that several of those inaccurate claims have been corrected or deleted in an e-book version would seem to be an admission of guilt on that count.
Further, Schweizer is on record as apparently lying about his purported bipartisanship. After Schweizer claimed that he was working on something about the finances of Jeb Bush, his publisher denied that any book by Schweizer about Bush similar to "Clinton Cash" was in the offing. Further, the think tank Schweizer runs, the Government Accountability Institute, has funding ties with the Koch brothers and right-wing billionaire Robert Mercer, who you might remember as the sugar daddy financing the increasingly quixotic campaigns by Oregon right-winger Art Robinson for Peter DeFazio's congressional seat (the other main booster of which has been WorldNetDaily managing editor David Kupelian).
So, yeah, Schweizer is an inaccurate reporter driven by partisanship. But the MRC doesn't want you to know that.
WND Columnist Takes Coolidge Out of Context Topic: WorldNetDaily
Bill Federer has a thing he does called the "American Minute," which his website tells us is "broadcast daily across America and by the Internet." WorldNetDaily republishes his "American Minute" things, which is why we have gotten involved.
Federer's May 15 "American Minute," as republished at WND, begins this way:
President Calvin Coolidge warned in a speech given May 15, 1926, at the College of William and Mary, in Williamsburg, Virginia: “But there is another … recent development … the greatly disproportionate influence of organized minorities. Artificial propaganda, paid agitators, selfish interests, all impinge upon members of legislative bodies to force them to represent special elements rather than the great body of their constituency. When they are successful, minority rule is established. … The result is an extravagance on the part of the Government which is ruinous to the people and a multiplicity of regulations and restrictions for the conduct of all kinds of necessary business, which becomes little less than oppressive. …”
All those ellipses should set off warning bells that something is being left out. Indeed, if you look at Coolidge's original speech, you'll find what that is:
But there is another element of recent development. Direct primaries and direct elections bring to bear upon the political fortunes of public officials the greatly disproportionate influence of organized minorities. Artificial propaganda, paid agitators, selfish interests, all impinge upon members of legislative bodies to force them to represent special elements rather than the great body of their constituency. When they are successful minority rules is established, and the result is an extravagance on the part of the Government which is ruinous to the people and a multiplicity of regulations and restrictions for the conduct of all kinds of necessary business, which becomes little less than oppressive. Not only is this one country, but we must keep all its different parts in harmony by refusing to adopt legislation which is not for the general welfare.
So Coolidge is actually specifically referring to "direct primaries and direct elections" as resulting in "paid agitators," not making some sort of sweeping statement. But what does that mean?
In other words, Coolidge is complaining about the effects of what he saw as too much democracy -- as if letting party officials or state legislatures control the process was ever free of propaganda, paid agitators, and selfish interests. And WND itself is nothing if not a font of artificial propaganda, paid agitators, and selfish interests.
You can see why Federer edited all that stuff out about taking away the voice of voters and insisting that a small cadre of party officials knows better than the general public.
CNS Just Can't Stop Bashing John Holdren Topic: CNSNews.com
For years, CNSNews.com has been bizarrely obsessed with Obama administration science adviser John Holdren, plucking 40-year-old quotes out of context in order to attack him as an extremist. CNS editor in chief Terry Jeffrey -- apparently feeling it's been way too long since he's bashed Holdren -- resumes his jihad once more in his May 13 column, desperatelhy stretching to claim that Albert Einstein has proven Holdren's 40-year-old questions about sustainability wrong. Because you cannot see all the stars in the sky as Einstein claimed, Jeffrey theorizes that this somehow also means the Earth is infinitely sustainable:
Would it have been better, as Obama's future science adviser argued, to halt such net additional human beings from coming into existence in the first place?
Did God truly fail to provide sufficient material resources for the human beings He created and to whom He gave sovereignty over the material world?
The answer to the second question is found in the stars above: We cannot count them all yet, let alone survey them, so we have no idea how vast are the material resources our Creator has put within our potential reach.
The answer to the former question is found by looking back across the extraordinary and sometimes unanticipated improvements in the material well-being of the human race that have occurred just since Obama's science adviser called for inducing "the United States government to assume its responsibility to halt the growth of the American population."
Jeffrey seems to have missed the famines throughout history (Somalia, for example) that were at least in part the result of insufficient material resources for a given area.
Jeffrey has been so obessed with Holdren's purported views from 40 years ago -- from books he co-authored that may or may not reflect his actual views -- that he nor anyone else at CNS has ever bothered to ask Holdren in a thoughtful manner about whether he still holds those views. Instead, CNS cared only about ambushing Holdren with gotcha questions -- something that generates lots of clicks to the CNS website but does nothing for journalism or civilized debate.
But then, getting clicks and attacking anyone who doesn't adhere to the Media Research Center's right-wing views -- not engaging in journalism or civilized debate -- is how CNS rolls.