Somebody Said Something Less Than Nice About Mark Levin, And The MRC Is ON IT Topic: Media Research Center
It's apparently part of the Media Research Center's business arrangement with Mark Levin that it defends him against anyone and everyone who voices any criticism of him, no matter how benign.
That would appear to explain this Jan. 18 NewsBusters post by Mark Finkelstein:
Mark Levin is American media's most knowledgeable, passionate proponent of constitutional conservatism. No wonder Chris Matthews hates him.
On his MSNBC show this evening, Matthews slurred Levin as "one of the most distasteful human beings out there." Matthews' attack came in the context of commenting on the defense that Levin and Rush Limbaugh have mounted against Donald Trump's claim that Ted Cruz is "nasty."
That, presumably, was immediately forwarded to Levin by the folks at the MRC. So we get a follow-up post by Tim Graham -- it apparently required a top MRC official to do this -- detailing Levin's (lengthy) response to Matthews, which includes the witty repostes "I find him to be a puke" and "This guy’s a nobody. He’s stuck on MSLSD his entire career."
So it seems "American media's most knowledgeable, passionate proponent of constitutional conservatism" has a bit of trouble handling criticism. Not that it's an obstacle to the the MRC's contractual love affair with him, of course.
How non-seriously is WorldNetDaily taking the issue of Ted Cruz's eligibility? It published a column mocking Cruz birthers.
Matt Barber took a break from hating gays to do said mocking in his Jan. 15 WND column:
Stinkin’ Canadian. Dang feriner, conspirin’ to come over here and replace our delicious, crispy, all-American bacon with that floppy, communist, Canadian crap. And Budweiser? Like your Budweiser? Forget it. If he’s elected, it’s nothing but that skunky Molson swill for you, my friend. Football? Banned. It’s all sticks, pucks and missing teeth from here on out. A wall on the southern border? ISIS? TB-infected Mesicans and Central Americans? Ha! A mere diversion. Trump needs to build that wall up north to keep commie Canucks like Ted Cruz out of the White House.
He’s gaining on The Donald, you see. And so finally the question of his eligibility to serve as our 45th U.S. president is fair game. Oh, sure, Ted grew up in Houston, Texas. And, oh, sure, his mother, who happened to be over the border in Canada when Ted was born, is a U.S citizen, herself born in Wilmington, Delaware, which, oh, sure, automatically makes Ted a U.S. citizen from birth. But, hey! I, the guys down at the Elks Lodge with their pocket constitutions and whatnot, and Donald Trump, who, with his own political self-interests in mind has suddenly flip-flopped on the subject, all disagree. Ted Cruz is ineligible to serve as President of the United States based upon our extreme-minority take on the phrase, “Natural-born citizen.”
For that matter, and based upon our own arbitrary and narrow definition – I know, it’s not defined in the Constitution, but derpity derp derp anyway – some might suggest that, rather than being grandfathered in, and to be fair to future generations, eight of the first nine U.S. presidents should have been ineligible to serve as well. Since they were all born as British citizens in the British colonies, George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, et al., should have been, one and all, constitutionally ineligible.
Sure, the world’s on fire and America is spiraling down the global toilet bowl of life, but before we start worrying about tertiary issues like “national security,” “the economy” or “illegal immigration,” I, The Donald and the boys down at the Elks Lodge want – nay, we demand! – that Ted Cruz be immediately arrested, tagged in the ear and bussed back to Calgary posthaste.
And then, let’s get about the business of impeaching (posthumously, of course. Whaddya think, we’re idiots?) James Madison, James Monroe, Andrew Jackson and the rest of them shifty immigrants already mentioned above, before we hold even one more debate.
Imagine WND running a column by one of its stable of right-wing columnists mocking Obama birthers between 2007 and 2014. Actually, you have to imagine it because it didn't happen. We don't recall Barber weighing in on the subject of eligibility before -- hating gays takes a lot of time, after all -- and he makes sure not to mention Obama in his column.
Oh, and Barber is completely wrong that the first nine presidents are ineligible to serve. The Constitution -- article 2, section 1 -- specifically grants presidential eligibility to those who "a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution," which covers "James Madison, James Monroe, Andrew Jackson and the rest of them shifty immigrants."
And since he asked: Yes, we do think Barber is an idiot.
MRC's Double Standard on Rock-Star Jailbait Topic: Media Research Center
In their Jan. 15 column, Tim Graham and Brent Bozell complain that stories on the death of David Bowie "ignored new reports surfacing just in the last two months that Bowie deflowered a 15-year-old groupie named Lori Mattix (and then brought in her 15-year-old gal pal Sable Starr to make it a threesome)." They add that " it adds to the litany of famous male entertainers who've exploited underage girls with their celebrity, from Roman Polanski to Bill Cosby to Woody Allen."
Graham and Bozell conspicuously omit one name off that list: Ted Nugent.
As Larry Womack details at the Huffington Post, Nugent has a historic predeliction for underage girls, which he celebrated in a song called "Jailbait," about having sex with a 13-year-old.
During a "Behind thte Music" documentary, Nugent bragged about bedding underage girls, suggesting that it was OK because he "got the stamp of approval from their parents." Nugent even made himself the legal guardian of one 17-year-old so he could a patina of legality to his relationship with her.
Ah, but Nugent is a conservative, not to mention a member of the board of the National Rifle Association. So he gets a pass on this from Graham and Bozell.
We presume Graham and Bozell will also give a pass to Nugent's death threat against President Obama.
WND Columnist Repeats False Internet Rumor About Cargo Ships Topic: WorldNetDaily
It appears that vaccines and other medicalissues aren't the only thing Jane Orient will peddle misinformation about.
Orient -- head of the right-wing Association of American Physicians and Surgeons -- writes in a Jan. 17 WorldNetDailiy column:
The economy, despite Obama’s State of the Union celebration, is as dead as the logs in Ollie’s fireplace. One map shows that there are no cargo ships crossing any of the earth’s oceans. They are all stuck in port.
That would be alarming if it was true. It's not, of course.
The mythbusters at Snopes detail that the claim originated from some previously unknown website known for publishing false stores, which ignored the fact that tracking system from which it drew its map covers only certain coastal areas, not the middle of the ocean. Other tracking systems show numerous cargo ships in the Atlantic.
Remember, WND editor Joseph Farah is weirdly proud of the fact that WND publishes misinformation, so Orient is simply being a good WND columnist.
ConWeb Praises The 'Rightwing Propaganda' Of '13 Hours' Topic: The ConWeb
The ConWeb is so happy that the new Michael Bay film "13 Hours," about the attack on U.S. diplomatic facilities in Benghazi, Libya, because it reinforces the right-wing -- read: anti-Obama and anti-Hillary -- narrative on Benghazi.
Dreew Zahn pretty much gives the game away in his Jan. 17 WorldNetDaily review of the film, proudly proclaiming it to be "rightwing propaganda" and insisting that the film "doesn’t mispresent what actually happened in Benghazi." The headline of the review gets even more to the point: "How can Hillary possibly win after this?"
CNSNews.com serves up a review of the film by former soldier -- and, more relevant, an employee of the right-wing Heritage Foundation -- proclaims how the film is "highlighting the Obama administration’s inaction that directly contributed to the loss of four Americans." Wood goes on to note that one of the Libyan terrorists who attacked the facility had been imprisoned at Guantanamo, adding: "Various reports cite a recidivism rate of those released from Guantanamo of nearly one-third, surely something to keep in mind as Obama seeks to close the detention facility before the end of his final year in office." In fact, actual confirmed recidivism is about 17 percent; Wood makes sure not to explicitly point out that the Libyan terrorist in question was released from Guantanamo under the Bush administration.
The Media Research Center, meanwhile, whined that anyone dared to criticize the film. Christian Toto asserted in a Jan. 16 NewsBusters post that the movie's being bashed because it depicts "depicting heroic military types risking their lives against people from a foreign country" and because "the men in the movie are men." Toto also makes sure to get his right-wing talking points in on the incident: "We’re mad because Hillary Clinton blamed the coordinated terrorist attack on a YouTube video to the families of the dead and the media rolled over rather than speak truth to power. We’re seething because some of those who died that day might still be alive if help could have reached them in time."
Toto doesn't mention that this central narrative has been challenged by one of the key figures involved in the actual incident. The Washington Post reports that the CIA chief in Benghazi at the time that there was no stand-down order, as the movie claims. This reinforces findings by a Republican-led House committed that came to the same conclusion.
Toto also takes care not to mention that as someone who as written for right-wing sites like Breitbart and the Washington Times -- his personal website describes how Andrew Breitbart is an inspiration to him -- he is the target audience for "13 Hours," to the point that the filmmakers are actively courting people like him.
The Hollywood Reporter describes how the film is being marketed to conservatives, buying commercial time on Fox News and courting right-wing radio hosts. It describing the Texas-sized premiere held for it:
Even the film’s Tuesday night premiere, held at AT&T Stadium (home of the Dallas Cowboys), seemed to be aimed at the right. Beyond Bay, star John Krasinski and other castmembers, there were performances by The Band Perry, a country act, and Madison Rising, a patriotic group whose rendition of "The Star-Spangled Banner" closes Dinesh D’Souza’s film America (which clearly targeted conservatives). About 32,000 people attended the premiere, and each was asked to donate $1 to a veteran’s charity with Paramount promising to match the total collected.
Guess who was at that premiere? Accuracy in Media.
AIM's Roger Aronoff devoted his Jan. 15 column to the flim, lovingly describing how "This week I had the great honor and opportunity to attend the world premiere screening of the new Michael Bay movie, '13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi.'" It was quite the junket, too -- Aronoff points out that "I was there along with other members of the Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi." You remember, the right-wing kangaroo court AIM established a couple years back because it wanted some scalps and didn't care how they got them.
Aronoff didn't mention whether the list of commision guests included Wayne Simmons, the commission member who was scrubbed off the AIM website after it was alleged that hehad invented the 27-year CIA career he invoked to get government consultant jobs and get on AIM's little kangaroo court. He also doesn't mention who paid for the kangaroo court to fly from Washington, D.C., area to Dallas for that premiere -- that's no small expense for a shoestring organization like AIM.
Anyway, back to the slobbering. Aronoff pretends that the film doesn't have a political agenda, then praises it for serving right-wing purposes:
I personally thought the film was brilliant, powerful and emotional. It felt like you were watching this horrible nightmare unfold before your eyes. I strongly urge everyone to go see this film. You won’t wonder any more what all the fuss is about Benghazi. And I certainly hope that the members of the House Select Committee on Benghazi all see the film before issuing their final report.
Aronoff joined the rest of the ConWeb in avoiding any mention that the film's key event is disputed by one of its key participants. There's an agenda to advance, after all.
Birther Corsi Flip-Flops, Embraces Report On Eligibility He Once Attacked Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily's foot-dragging on covering Ted Cruz birtherism is finally getting a little less foot-draggy. First WND editor Joseph Farah has had to address it; now birther extraordinaire Jerome Corsi has been foot-dragged into it -- and he's changing his birther tune.
In a Jan. 17 WND article, Corsi hits a couple of the old birther notes, referencing Vattel and sneering that Obama's birth certificate was "supposedly issued in 1961 by the Hawaii Department of Health." Apparently he's forgotten that the Cold Case Posse he was a part of learned that Hawaii has officially verified Obama's Hawaiian birth, even if state officials wouldn't let Corsi, Mike Zullo and the other amateur sleuths see the physical certificate.
Corsi also throws in this unusually even-handed passage:
On Nov. 14, 2011, the Congressional Research Service published a research report authored by legislative attorney Jack Maskell, titled “Qualifications for President and the ‘Natural Born’ Citizenship Eligibility Requirement.” The document was published as Obama was being pressed to make public his original long-form birth certificate, supposedly issued in 1961 by the Hawaii Department of Health as proof Obama was born in Hawaii.
The CRS document said the applicable standard for defining “natural born citizen” was the 1790 Naturalization Act.
The 1790 First Congress, which included 20 members who had been delegates to the original Constitutional Convention – eight of whom were members of the Committee of Eleven that drafted the “natural born Citizen” clause – passed the Naturalization Act of 1790 (1 Stat. 103, 104). It provided: “And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond the sea or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens.”
If this meaning of “natural born” is considered with regard to Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution, there is no requirement that the person be born in the United States to be a “natural born Citizen,” as long as he or she is born to parents who are U.S. citizens.
The CRS argued that the applicable legal precedent for the 1790 Naturalization Act was not the political theory of natural law relied upon by Vattel, but English common law.
“Concerning the history of the constitutional provision, the clause’s apparent intent, the English common law expressly applicable in the American colonies and in all of the original states, the common use and meaning of the phrase ‘natural born’ subject in England and the American colonies in the 1700s, and the subsequent action of the first Congress in enacting the Naturalization Act of 1790 (expressly defining the term ‘natural born Citizen’ to include those born abroad to U.S. citizens), it appears that the most logical inferences would indicate that the phrase ‘natural born Citizen’ would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship ‘by birth’ or ‘at birth,’” Maskall wrote on page 3 of the CRS report.
“Such interpretation, as evidenced by over a century of American case law, would include as natural born citizens those born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction regardless of the citizenship status of one’s parents, or those born abroad of one or more parents who are U.S. citizens (as recognized by statute), as opposed to a person who is not a citizen by birth and thus an ‘alien’ required to go through the legal process of naturalization to become a U.S. citizen,” Maskall continued.
Under this definition, all three – Obama, Cruz and Rubio – would be “natural born citizens” under the meaning of Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution. None of the three had to undergo a naturalization process to become U.S. citizens, but rather were considered U.S. citizens from the time of their birth.
But when the Maskell research report was first issued, Corsi was much less even-handed, accusing the writer (without evidence, of course) of shilling for Obama.
In a November 2011 WND article, Corsi huffed that the very same Maskell report he's now uncritically reciting "appears aimed at providing members of Congress with talking points to respond to constituents contending that Barack Obama is not a “natural born citizen” within the meaning of Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution." Corsi went on to grumble:
The end result of Maskell’s analysis is that an anchor baby born to two illegal immigrants, or a baby born in “birth tourism” to two foreign national parents and raised outside the United States would both be eligible to be president, provided the person was 35 years old and had spent 14 years as a resident living within the United States before running for president.
Maskell typically states as established fact legal principles that truthfully remain in dispute – for instance, on page 1 of the report, where he asserts that a person born “in” the United States of one or more alien parents is “clearly a U.S. citizen ‘at birth’ by the 14th Amendment.”
In so concluding, Maskell intentionally ignores the “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” qualification within the language of the 14th Amendment that opponents to anchor babies and birth tourism feel invalidates the entire concept that being born in the U.S. is sufficient to being deemed a “U.S. citizen at birth.”
Moreover, even if the 14th Amendment were to establish being born a native to the U.S. is sufficient to being deemed a “U.S. citizen at birth,” that does not make a “natural born citizen” equivalent to being a “U.S. citizen at birth.”
Similarly, Maskell wants to read English Common Law into the “natural born citizen” requirement of Article 2, Section 1, because under English Common Law a “natural born subject” is anyone born on English soil, a principle known as jus soli – a right conferred by place of birth – rather than jus sanguinis – a right conferred by blood, requiring an inquiry into the citizenship of the parents at the time a child is born.
That English Common Law is applicable to the interpretation of Article 2, Section 1, was advanced by the Supreme Court in dicta – i.e., arguments made by the justices that are not central to the decision in the case, hence arguments that are not considered determinative for the purposes of legal precedent – in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898).
While Maskell accepts the dicta in Wong Kim Ark because he agrees with the argument, he dismisses as dicta the only Supreme Court definition of “natural born citizen” that is on point regarding the meaning of Article 2, Section 1, namely, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 21 Wall. 162 (1874), where the Supreme Court implied “natural born citizens” were those born on U.S. soil to parents who were U.S. citizens at the time the child was born.
Corsi repeats none of these attacks on the Maskell report in his new article, nor does he mention the Minor v. Happersett case long clinged to by birthers like himself as the controlling precedent.
Corsi also writes in the 2011 article that amongh the "several obvious liabilities" Obama has regarding the "the natural-born-citizen question" is that "Obama’s father was a citizen of Kenya when Obama was born in 1961, hence both Barack Obama Sr. and his son at birth were citizens of the Commonwealth of Great Britain." That very same issue is a "liability" for Cruz as well, but Corsi does not describe it as such in his new article.
In 2010, Corsi further attacked previous research Maskell did on eligibility for a member of Congress because it included "copies of four articles from the Internet aimed at debunking and dismissing arguments questioning Obama’s eligibility" and not "published articles questioning Obama’s eligibility" (read: Corsi's birther conspiracy theories). Corsi actually interviewed Maskell for that article; Corsi noted that "he ended the call abruptly saying, 'I am getting contacted by irate people over this memo. It was meant as an advisory to a member of Congress. It was never meant to be released to the public'."
Corsi ended his 2011 article this way:
Unfortunately, rather than advance the eligibility debate with a truly scholarly analysis, Maskell produced for Congress what amounts to a footnoted polemic aimed at appearing scholarly to prop up Obama’s eligibility defense.
In the final analysis, Maskell’s purpose appears thinly disguised – namely, to advance the ongoing cover-up regarding Obama nativity facts and evidence by quashing with arguments couched in legalese the continuing concerns held by millions of Americans that Obama has truly not proved to the American public or any duly-constituted governmental institution that he is eligible to be president.
Corsi is much less harsh on Maskell now because his work supports the idea that Cruz is eligible to be president. The fact that Corsi has flip-flopped on the report is more evidence that his birther crusade was never about the Constitution and was completely about trying to destroy Obama.
Does Corsi have the guts to publicly admit this truth? Doubtful. We'd ask Corsi ourselves, but he's blocked us from following him on Twitter.
NEW ARTICLE: Anti-Abortion Damage Control, Redux Topic: The ConWeb
Just as it did when an abortion doctor was murdered in 2009, the ConWeb rushes to spin away a fatal shooting spree inside a Planned Parenthood clinic. Read more >>
Joseph Farah spends his Jan. 15 column ranting about a Daily Beast article linking WND to Cruz birtherism. Farah does have a point for once, despite his notoriously thinskin; the Daily Beast does falsely portray WND's perfunctory reporting on Cruz birtherism as support for it, ignoring that WND has adamantlyrefused to treat Cruz birther like it did Obama birtherism -- namely, admit that by its own standards Cruz is as ineligible to be president as it claims Obama is.
Then, Farah rants about how far he's running from Cruz birtherism -- and still perpetuates Obama birther lies:
No one at WND – not one single employee or executive – is supporting [Daily Beast reporter Gideon] Resnick’s elusive “cause” to declare Ted Cruz ineligible. In fact, I told him that in no uncertain terms. What I said to him was the following: I think Ted Cruz acted admirably in handling the potential for confusion on this matter – by releasing his birth certificate before announcing his candidacy, explaining the circumstances of his birth and citizenship status. It stood in marked contrast to what Barack Obama did beginning in 2008.
Obama, I explained, was the original birther. When it was convenient for him to label himself as “born in Kenya,” he did so – for many years. We know he did it when he was marketing his first book and for years afterward. We don’t know if he used it to be accepted to Occidental, Columbia or Harvard, because he refused to release any college records. He made a point of not releasing his birth certificate during the campaign or for years after he became president. It became a national joke. In effect, he mocked the constitutional requirement, even after his opponent in 2008, John McCain, was investigated for his own status as a “natural born citizen” because of his birth in Panama. McCain’s eligibility was investigated by the New York Times and eventually the U.S. Senate, which approved his eligibility, with Obama’s vote.
Farah's lying when he claims Obama didn't release his birth certificate while running for president; Obama released a certificate of live birth, which is what Hawaii routinely issued and which is legally binding, no matter how much WND has claimed otherwise. The issue became a "national joke" in part because of WND's obsession with it and refusal to publish any evidence that discredits its birther conspiracies.
Farah, it seems, just can't stop lying about how much of a (Obama) birther he is:
Finally, after 17 paragraphs, the Beastie boy typist informs his readers, if they got this far, that I actually like Ted Cruz, but not before he labels me a “purveyor of conspiracy theories about Obama’s birth in Kenya.” Again, to show you how egregious this insulting lie is, I began our conversation by telling Resnick that I was talking to him reluctantly because MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow was still going off on her TV show accusing me of claiming Obama was born in Kenya. I explained that in the hundreds of thousands of words I had carefully written on this subject and in the hundreds of interviews and speeches I gave, never once did I say Obama was born in Kenya. I was attempting to make sure he wouldn’t step on this one land mine, but he did – obviously intentionally.
As we point out everytime Farah tells this lie, Farah has at least twice promoted a discredited claim that Obama's grandmother said he was born in Kenya -- not to mention WND's embrace of a fake Obama "birth certificate" claiming he was born in Kenya.
Farah also takes offense to something else the Daily Beast suggests, that WND's publication and promotion of a new book by Rafael Cruz, Ted Cruz's father, is an expression of support for Cruz's candidacy; he huffs that "my motives are impugned." Given that Farah's refusal to apply Obama birtherism to Cruz birtherism is a clear indication that his motive in Obama birtherism was to destroy him instead of enforce the Constitution, there's good reason to question, and impugn, Farah's motives.
Finally, Farah's ranting about how unfair the Daily Beast article is -- although he does have a point -- is rather rich considering WND's own abysmal journalistic standards. What goes around comes around.
And throughout all of this, Farah refuses to admit the obvious: that by WND's own Obama birther standards, Cruz is not eligible, or that two years ago he declared that he didn't think Cruz was eligible. Talk about dishonest.
MRC's Lame Attack On Andrea Mitchell Topic: Media Research Center
Rich Noyes' Jan. 17 Media Research Center attack, as it were, on Andrea Mitchell starts this way:
Longtime NBC News correspondent Andrea Mitchell will join Nightly News anchor Lester Holt in moderating tonight’s debate among the three Democratic candidates for President. If history is a guide, Mitchell’s participation is a good omen for Hillary Clinton, since NBC’s “Chief Foreign Affairs correspondent” (who, despite her title, seems to spend most of her time covering U.S. politics) has a long history of fawning over the Democratic frontrunner.
There's a couple things wrong with Noyes' approach, however. First, all of his clips of Mitchell are taken out of context, so it's impossible for anyone to tell whether the clips actually say what Noyes says they say.
Second, there's plenty of reason to doubt Noyes' interpretation because he ascribes emotions to Mitchell he cannot possibly know. At various points, according to Noyes, Mitchell "fawned" and "fretted" over, "chirped" and "crowed" about and "salute[d]" Hillary and "felt Hillary's pain."
None of this is "media research," by the way. Noyes is simply making stuff up, allowing his (and his employer's) right-wing bias to color his work. Actual research involves documentable facts; Noyes is simply issuing opinions.
Noyes is apparently also buying into the right-wing conspiracytheory that Hillary Clinton is "physically unfit for the presidency" and is hiding that from the public:
Mitchell was also bothered by any suggestion that Hillary, who will be 69 years old on Election Day, might be physically unfit for the presidency. After Karl Rove in May 2014 talked about Clinton’s hospitalization for a fall and concussion 18 months earlier, Mitchell acidly reported on the Nightly News: “There is no longer any doubt that some powerful Republicans are playing hardball against Hillary Clinton, raising questions about her age and her health, even before she decides whether she’s a candidate....As one Republican operative said, ‘Karl is either an evil genius — or just evil.’”
Noyes doesn't mention that Rove didn't just "suggest" that Hillary was "physically unfit," he actively pushed the idea that she has brain damage. He also doesn't mention that Rove's political operative-style smear -- for which Fox News praised him as a "evil genius" -- was denounced by none other than MRC fave right-wing radio host Mark Levin. Which means that Mitchell and Levin are on the same page.
Noyes is so desperate to attack anything remotely resembling "liberal media" that he doesn't care about intellectual or factual consistency. That's "media research" at the MRC these days.
Linda Harvey's Jan. 12 WorldNetDaily column is mostly her usual anti-gay claptrap -- this time her theme is, "When will America stop giving homosexuals everything they demand, even when others are placed at risk?" One part of it is this:
In December, a court in New Jersey ordered JONAH, Jews Offering New Alternatives for Healing, to end its programs and activities, effectively shutting it down. The group had been hauled into court by the hate-conjuring Southern Poverty Law Center on a trumped-up “consumer fraud” suit, because JONAH, like many other groups and churches around the country, helps people overcome same-sex attractions.
SPLC provided no proof of harm other than unsubstantiated anecdotal claims from unhappy homosexuals. The New Jersey kangaroo court exhibited breathtaking bias, even preventing JONAH’s six defense experts from testifying and barring JONAH from launching a First Amendment, religious-freedom defense.
Arthur Goldberg and Elaine Berk, JONAH co-directors, released this comment to the press: “The tragic miscarriage of justice which occurred in the JONAH case reflects the near triumph of political correctness and the gay activist agenda in the USA.”
Harvey doesn't explain why JONAH deserves a "First Amendment, religious-freedom defense" for a consumer fraud case -- perhaps because there is no such thing. And defending their conversion-therapy practice as something legitimate and successful was something JONAH did a bad job doing. According to the Jewish news website the Tablet:
The defense claimed that their methods—including “Journey into Manhood” weekends where much of the time was spent doing different naked “processes”—were scientific and did in fact help clients of JONAH who “put in the work.” JONAH brought in witnesses to testify to the success of these exercises. One witness testified to having a happy sex life, but also said he had a “wet noodle,” or had trouble getting an erection for his wife. When the jury was not in the courtroom, the judge responded to a defense witness, “Frankly, I don’t even know how this was a success story.”
And Harvey hides the fact that at least one client did, in fact, claim harm from JONAH's procedures. The Forward reported:
During and after JONAH’s so-called therapy, [Benjamin] Unger, 27, became suicidal, anxious and depressed. He put on weight and could not go to yeshiva or to work. He testified about his experiences during the three-week trial.
Unger described another group therapy session where the boys were told that their close relationships with their mothers had played an integral role in turning them gay. Unger was then instructed to reimagine a pillow in the therapy room as his mother, and to then beat that pillow as hard as he possibly could with a tennis racket, according to court documents.
He testified that the therapy temporarily destroyed his relationship with his mother.
And as Newsweek reported -- but Harvey won't -- Goldberg presented himself as "Dr. Goldberg" though he held no medical degree and his only advanced degree was in law (and he was disbarred after being sentenced to prison for his role in a municipal-bond scandal). JONAH's practices went unnoticed for years because 1) JONAH catered to orthodox and ultra-orthodox Jewish communities where homosexuality is frowned upon, and 2) therapy participants are forced to sign nondisclosure agreements.
McCain is no conservative, and Romney brought a doily to a gunfight, blowing his opportunity for victory over the glaring crimes of Obama and his gang of Saul Alinsky henchmen. Mr. Rogers would have kicked more a– than Mitt Romney did in those debates.
Now after nearly eight years of scamming, lying, fraud, deceit and the blatant criminal dismantling of the America we love, we cannot afford the luxury, or better stated, the stupidity of waiting for our favorite boat to transport the life-saving medicine to a dying America.
The Obamas have turned being in the White House into the greatest welfare benefit in the history of subsidized living. Now, as they take their taxpayer-funded separate jets to Hawaii, to tack millions more onto the hundred million or more taxpayer dollars they have already misused living high on the old hog, Ryan makes sure Obama gets the Christmas gift of sticking it to the American people “one mooorrrre time.”
The Obamas eschew faux couture such as “swaddling clothes” in favor of suits for him by Hartmarx of Chicago (interesting that Obama would find a way to incorporate “marx” into even a clothing line) and Michael Kors, Jason Wu, Narciso Rodriguez and Isabel Toleda, to name but a very few clothing designers for her.
Indeed, 2015 has been for all practical purposes the “Year of the Muslim.” So I will satirically recognize the most influential “Muslim of the Year,” someone who has cleverly through various means, radically changed the world order and most furthered the Islamic caliphate based on the death of all infidels to Allah.
But when the card at the award ceremony for “Muslim of the Year” announcing their victory was double checked and inspected by independent experts on terrorism, it was revealed that the prize was, in reality, meant for our own supreme leader, Barack Hussein Obama.
No other Muslim has done as much, particularly given his power as president of the United States, to further Allah’s goal of a Christian and Jew-free world. The Holy Quran, as Obama likes to call it, teaches that this false god’s will must be obeyed and that all infidels must perish from the earth. As the inscription reads on a ring the “Muslim of the Year” has worn since college, “There is no god but Allah,” his actions and non-actions have paid homage to his real and only “deity.” Indeed, Obama can issue all the Christmas messages he falsely utters to the American people and the world – pretending to be a Christian for political expediency, subterfuge and dastardly cover – but after seven years of his presidency, “We the People” are no longer fooled. You do not have to be Donald Trump to see reality at this point.
Keep in mind that Rice not only graduated from Stanford, but Oxford, where she was a Rhodes scholar. For his part, Obama graduated from Columbia and Harvard Law School. Anyone still think affirmative action is a good thing?
Blackism is designed for the Barack Obamas of the world, those who are at least partially black biologically but for whom black culture is a foreign language. The ideology is a simple method that, being a method, is comprised of a few principles that need only be affirmed in order to achieve “racial authenticity.” One of these principles is that ultimate reality is comprised of collectivities, primarily racial collectivities. Another principle is that non-whites are perpetually oppressed by whites. It isn’t that Obama or any other Blackist would think to deny that whites (and others) can and have been harmed and killed by blacks and Muslims. It’s only that they must see such violence as stemming from “root causes” – “racism,” a “legacy of slavery and Jim Crow,” “the Crusades,” “imperialism,” “poverty,” etc. – that, ultimately, whites should have rectified.
-- Jack Kerwick, quoted by Ilana Mercer, Dec. 31 WND column
Political correctness has a hero, and in the absence of Hillary Clinton’s hero and mentor, the great scammer Saul Alinsky, president Obama takes the Oscar.
In his most recent charade, the president performed flawlessly for the dumbed down clueless sheep that blindly worship him and his America-hating agenda.
If our Founding Fathers had access to a crystal ball, they could have replaced the words “shall not be infringed” in the Second Amendment with “shall not be Obama’d.”
This guy is a real piece of work. The mind scrambles furiously to grasp how stupid anyone could possibly be to listen to this scammer in chief with his never-ending lies about so-called “gun violence.”
With regard to those unarmed Americans who will be maimed or killed the next time Islamists execute a terrorist attack employing firearms, in Obama’s putrefactive, twisted mind, the victims will deserve it for partaking in the fruits of America’s serial pillaging of undeveloped nations and oppression of the little brown people of the world.
Remember, America, Barry cannot go a day without thinking about the first graders of Sandy Hook Elementary, yet no administration to date has advocated the murder of innocent children in the womb more than this criminal (Proverbs 6:17).
In other words, America, “Do as I say, and don’t pay attention to what I do!”
Having established that President Barack Hussein Obama is a Muslim under Shariah law thanks to his Muslim father and by virtue of his actions, and thus as the winner of the “Muslim of the Year” award, it now appears that our ineligible “leader” can be more precisely defined as a Shiite.
While I really like Cruz and see him as a true patriot – I feel otherwise with regard to Rubio who is in my view a two-faced phony – it is indeed ironic that they would now undergo intense scrutiny by Democrats and some Republicans alike such as Sen. John McCain, who hates Cruz, while our black Muslim president effectively escaped all scrutiny, despite having likely been born in Kenya to only one American parent. We now have confirmation that indeed the concept of affirmative action is embedded in our living Constitution.
Well done, Mr. President. There is nothing quite as heart-warming as an enemy too stupid to believe his own tactical failings who then stands up there in front of a nation foolishly thinking we will continue to allow you to get away with your oath-violating nonsense.
And for yet another opportunity in your Big Scam State of the Union lie-fest to see right through your glaring anti-American agenda, we the people thank you.
We have all the painful evidence and documentation any thinking person could ever demand to prove once and for all that the dumbing down of America has been on the fast track for many, many years. But never before could it have been more volatile and painfully obvious than Tuesday night in that room full of brainwashed Pavlov’s dogs/sheep as they mindlessly cheered your lies.
I’m sure Frank Marshall Davis, Cloward, Piven and Saul Alinsky are so very proud of you and Valerie Jarrett.
MRC Loves Fox-Hosted Debate, Because Of Course It Would Topic: Media Research Center
We've documented how the Media Research Center demanded that that Fox News right-wingers host Republican presidential debates and they got their wish -- which meant a lot of tongue-biting when Fox News' Megyn Kelly suddenly started acting like a real journalist and challenged the candidates. But then Fox Business was given a debate and it stuck to the GOP script and Brent Bozell was happy again.
Well, Fox Business got to hold another Republican debate. Since it knows who butters its bread, it again stuck to the GOP script and got its cookie -- er, praise.
Not that there wasn't a tense moment or two. MRC chief Brent Bozell tweeted at one point during the debate, "Again tonight, the Fox anchors are not avoiding the topics the liberal media would pick. Suggesting GOP is extreme, even."
Bozell seems not to understand that if biased right-wingers are bringing up a "liberal media" issue, maybe it's not really a "liberal madia" issue.
But the Fox Business moderators more than made up for it by showing their right-wing bias. NewsBusters' Ken Shepherd cheered Maria Bartiromo's "great question" about Bernie Sanders, in reality a softball to set up right-wing talking points: "So what does it say about our country that a candidate who is a self-avowed socialist and who doesn't think a 90 percent tax rate is too high, could be the Democratic nominee?"
Meanwhile, Bozell and the MRC gave a complete pass to moderator Neil Cavuto bizarrely suggesting that the 2008 financial crisis started under President Obama, not Republican President George W. Bush.
Having thus pandered to the right-wingers, the Fox Business moderators got back into Bozell's good graces, dedicating threefulltweets to slobbering over how well it went: "My congratulations to @TeamCavuto tonight....well done, my friend, well done. Yours was the best of them all tonight. It was riveting."
Bozell would like to keep appearing on Fox News and Fox Business, after all.
UPDATE: Bozell was undoubtedly happy that Ted Cruz went into media-bashing mode, dismissing a New York Times article exposing Ted Cruz's failure to disclose a campaign loan he received through Goldman Sachs as a "hit piece." So much so, we're guessing, that the MRC's Curtis Houck dutifully transcribed it while refusing to dispute any aspect of the Times story.
WND Cheerleads For DDT Return To Kill (DDT-Resistant) Bedbugs Topic: WorldNetDaily
The ConWeb is undulyfond of DDT, thinking that reversing its ban would solve all our problems. WorldNetDaily is part of that DDT mob. In an unbylined Jan. 10 article about how hard it is to kill bedbugs, WND includes this line:
Older Americans remember a time when the country was virtually free of the pests. DDT killed them. But then DDT was banned. No other pesticide was as effective. And, despite the environmental fears DDT raised, it was relatively safe for humans.
Actually, the "environmental fears" about DDT are very real -- DDT persists in the environment and damages wildlife, particularly fish. Whether it's "relatively safe for humans" is beside the point.
WND fails to mention that there's a good reason why DDT isn't brought back to attack bedbugs: it doesn't work on them anymore. Expertsagree that most bedbugs are immune to DDT.
The WND article also has a misleading headline: 'Invasion of the KILLER bedbugs." But bedbugs don't kill -- though, as the article notes, people have been killed in attempting to eradicate the pesky bugs.
The Hateful Gainor: MRC Official Pens Anti-Tarantino Screed Topic: Media Research Center
Roger Ebert he ain't.
Media Research Center official Dan Gainor begins his Jan. 13 purported review of the new Quentin Tarantino film "The Hateful Eight" in mean-spirited style: "Spoiler Warning: If your life is so dull that you want to waste three hours of it watching this awful movie, this article reveals some key details."
Gainor does indeed spoil the film's ending for no good reason. Rather than serving up an actual review, he looks at the film as a right-wing apparatchik would, documented all the instances of violence in it (as if Tarantino didn't have a sufficient enough track record that this would surprise people), sniffing, "It’s 'Ten Little Indians' for sociopaths and sadists. A snuff film with big name stars."
Gainor spends a good part of his so-called review attacking Tatantino personally for committing the one thing that's even more offensive to Gainor than making violent movies: supporting gun control.
Gainor concludes: "Tarantino clearly aimed for shock, but settled on schlock. And the only people he seems really hateful toward, other than police and conservatives, are his viewers." Well, Gainor certainly does know hate, having spewed it throughout his so-called review.
WND Grows Bored With Oregon Rancher Militia Standoff Topic: WorldNetDaily
In 2014, WorldNetDaily was all over the Cliven Bundy ranch standoff and stood by him even after he proved to be kind of a racist and his standoff attracted thuggish militia members, one of whom was plotting to use women as human shields for the militia thugs.
Fast forward to this month, where a new standoff involving ranchers agitating against the federal government -- and led by one of Bundy's sons -- is taking place with the illegal occupation of a wildlife refuge office. And WND doesn't seem that interested in it.
Oh, it was at first, pounding out a bunch of articles about it. An unbylined article purported to recount "the story behind the Oregon armed standoff," whitewashing the deeds of the ranchers purportedly being defended by the militia in Oregon, Dwight and Steven Hammond, whose resentencing on arson charges to follow mandatory minimum sentences as at the center of the dispute. WND uncritically repeated spin that a 2001 fire started by the Hammonds was started "on their property" and merely "ran off the Hammond land." In fact, as prosecutors pointed out:
Witnesses at trial, including a relative of the Hammonds, testified the arson occurred shortly after Steven Hammond and his hunting party illegally slaughtered several deer on BLM property. Jurors were told that Steven Hammond handed out “Strike Anywhere” matches with instructions that they be lit and dropped on the ground because they were going to “light up the whole country on fire.” One witness testified that he barely escaped the eight to ten foot high flames caused by the arson. The fire consumed 139 acres of public land and destroyed all evidence of the game violations. After committing the arson, Steven Hammond called the BLM office in Burns, Oregon and claimed the fire was started on Hammond property to burn off invasive species and had inadvertently burned onto public lands. Dwight and Steven Hammond told one of their relatives to keep his mouth shut and that nobody needed to know about the fire.
Bob Unruh followed with an article with a skewed view of the situation as told by the only person he apparently interviewed, a representative of the right-wing Pacific Legal Foundation, who sneered that those critical of the ranchers were merely "sipping lattes" and those who support the government's ownership interests in the land are "green groupies."
There were a couple other stories as well, one touting a "case for civil disobedience in Oregon" and, perhaps more tellingly, an article highlighting that the Hammonds do not support the armed standoff and the head of another militia group declining to join in the standoff because of it.
And then, not much else. Near as we can tell, the last original article WND dedicated to the standoff was on Jan. 5. It published an article from the right-wing Daily Signal on the standoff on Jan. 9 (making sure to note that it was "with permission," because we know WND's record on content theft), and a Jan. 7 column by Ilana Mercer touted the ranchers' purported heroic qualities, but that's been pretty much it.
Why the change? Perhaps because WND is trying to promote itself as "the largest Chrtistian website in the world" and the armed takeover of someone else's property (even if it is the government's) is not exactly in keeping with Christian principles.
WND is also trying to get politicians to advertise on its website -- it even did an article earlier this week begging for ads and insisting that "you can’t afford to ignore the WND audience that can give you the edge over your opponent. Endorsing an takeover by armed terrorists is not something most politicians aren't down with.
These are also arguably the reasons WND is downplaying the Cruz birther case, even though it was a little over two years ago that WND editor Joseph Farah declared that he didn't think Cruz was eligible to be president (or Marco Rubio, for that matter).
It appears that WND is trying to tamp down its conspiratorial tendencies in order to attract (slightly) more mainstream advertisers. But given how throughly WND destroyed any shred of credibility it might have had trying to ruin Barack Obama, that's a tough task.