Ponte Adds Obama Smears to His Obama Lies Topic: Newsmax
Lowell Ponte's repeatedmisleadingclaims about Barack Obama's relationship with ACORN apparently aren't taking hold, so he's using his Oct. 29 Newsmax column to resort to that old standby, the personal smear:
Barack Obama's ideology of “redistribution of the wealth” can be called socialism, Marxism, fascism or welfare-state liberalism. But whatever label you give it, add the words irrational and sinful.
Mr. Obama describes himself as a Christian, but what he advocates violates at least two of the Bible’s 10 Commandments — the ones covering stealing, and coveting anything belonging to your neighbor.
Ponte is, of course, still spreading lies about Obama, this time claiming that "Mr. Obama has vowed not to renew President George W. Bush's tax cuts set to expire in 2010. This would impose a $2 trillion tax increase that will batter American families earning as little as $42,000 per year." In fact, Obama has repeatedly said he would repeal the Bush tax cuts only for "the wealthiest Americans."
NewsBusters' Sheffield to Pump Up Wash. Examiner's Bias Topic: Washington Examiner
NewsBusters executive editor Matthew Sheffield announced that he has been named managing editor of the Washington Examiner's website. The press release on Sheffield's appointment that he posted at NewsBusters describing his background is notable by its omission of the fact that all of the ventures he has been involved with are all linked to conservative activism. In fact, the word "conservative" appears nowhere in the press release, though it's crucial to his employment history.
The Examiner already swings to the right with an exclusively conservative editorial page under Mark Tapscott and the hiring of former Washington Times reporters such as Bill Sammon, Rowan Scarborough and Susan Ferrechio to helm its political coverage. Another conservative activist, Mary Katherine Ham, formerly of Townhall.com, already works as the Examiner's online editor. (We've detailed some of this.)
It looks like the Examiner is on its way to becoming the new Washington Times, in that its right-wing bias colors everything, including osensibly "fair and balanced" news coverage.
Does Washington really need another slavishly right-wing newspaper operated by a billionaire with bottomless pockets to fund it? And does the Internet really need another slavishly right-wing website?
NewsBusters to CNN: Don't Report Sexist News (If It's About Palin) Topic: NewsBusters
In an Oct. 28 NewsBusters post, Matthew Balan wrote: "CNN anchor Campbell Brown criticized the sexism of the 'diva' comment about Sarah Palin from a supposed anonymous McCain campaign adviser on Monday’s Election Center program, despite how it was her own network that highlighted this remark." He continued:
At the end of her commentary, which led the Election Center program, the CNN anchor attacked the supposed hypocrisy of the McCain campaign and criticized the unnamed McCain campaign official for using the "diva" term: "So, now, for the McCain campaign to be attacking its own candidate in the most overtly sexist way, calling her a ‘diva,’ -- it is beyond ridiculous. Whoever this anonymous adviser is should be ashamed, or, at the very least, have the courage to say it on the record." Since Brown didn’t say anything critical about how her network ran with the comment during her commentary, despite its anonymous nature, one would guess that she isn’t ashamed of CNN’s action in this matter. Isn’t that a bit hypocritical?
Is Balan really arguing that CNN should not have reported what that McCain campaign official said about Palin -- even though it's eminently newsworthy -- just because it could be considered sexist?
Would Balan raise the same "sexist" argument if, say, an "unnamed Obama campaign official" called Hillary Clinton a "diva"? We suspect not.
Newsmax Complains of Negative Palin Coverage, Ignores Own Negative Obama Coverage Topic: Newsmax
An Oct. 28 Newsmax article by David Patten asserts that "the press" is "out to get Sarah Palin." His evidence? Carefully selected headlines from the Associated Press indicating "negative news reports about her."
But a look at Patten's carefully chosen headlines show that he appears to have mistaken factual for "negative." It's absolutely true that, as one headline stated, "GOP Spent $150,000 in Donations on Palin's Look." ANd we don't understand why Patten considers headlines such as "Palin Says Obama's Policies Could Lead to Crises" and "Palin Answers Several Questions from Reporters" and "McCain Says Obama Didn't Call Palin a Pig" are "negative.
Patten, of course, neglects to mention that Newsmax is fully participating in the anti-Obama frenzy of its ConWeb bretheren. Some sample headlines from Newsmax articles in the past few days:
From an Oct. 28 Newsmax article by Jim Meyers, reporting on Michael Savage's endorsement of John McCain:
“I have put my own ego aside and I have to say what’s best for America.
“I’ll take my chances with the old war horse and even with Sarah Palin, who I’m not really a big fan of, by the way, over this naked Marxist revolutionary, because I don’t want to see what the next Pol Pot’s liable to do to the world.”
Pol Pot was the communist leader of Cambodia during the 1970s, and along with his Khmer Rouge followers was responsible by some estimates for 1.7 million deaths in the Southeast Asian nation.
Did Savage really liken Obama to Pol Pot? That's what Meyers seems to have written. We don't listen to Savage's show, so it's hard to tell otherwise. Then again, Savage has a longhistory of smearingObama.
“Hardball” host Chris Matthews showed the ignorance of the mainstream media during his Oct. 20 show. He asked a guest: “Is socialist a bad word, a naughty word?” Of course it is. Ordinary Americans know that answer. Only media types do not.
Will Aaron Klein Report McCain's Ties to Khalidi? Topic: WorldNetDaily
One key staple of Aaron Klein's anti-Obamareporting for WorldNetDaily has been his claim, first made in February, that the Woods Foundation -- at a time when Barack Obama was a member of its board -- issued grants totaling $75,000 to a group run by Rashid Khalidi, who runs "a controversial Arab group that mourns the establishment of Israel as a 'catastrophe.'" Klein further tried to tie Khalidi directly to the PLO at a time when it "committed scores of anti-Western attacks and was labeled by the U.S. as a terror group."
Klein invoked Khalidi again in an Oct. 27 column, calling him a "pro-PLO Professor." An Oct. 28 news article by Klein called Khalidi "an anti-Israel professor who excuses terrorism."
But Klein has never reported that John McCain has similar ties to Khalidi's group as well.
The Huffington Post reports that the International Republican Institute -- chaired for much of the 1990s by McCain -- gave another group headed by Khalidi numerous grants, including one for nearly half a million dollars, dwarfing the money he received from the Obama-linked Woods Foundation.
When will Klein report this to his readers? Probably about the same time he tells his readers that McCain was endorsed by Al Qaeda.
FrontPageMag Gets Obama's Comments Even More Wrong Topic: Horowitz
In an Oct. 28 FrontPageMag article, ex-WorldNetDaily reporter Paul Sperry gets it even more wrong than his fellow conservatives about Barack Obama's statements on a Chicago public radio station in 2001.
Not only did Sperry assert that "Obama said it's a 'tragedy' the Constitution wasn't radically interpreted to force redistribution of wealth for blacks" -- in fact, Obama said it was a "traged[y]" that the civil rights movement relied so heavily on the courts to advance its agenda -- he repeated the lie that Obama said "the Warren Court was not 'radical' enough" -- in fact, Obama stated that the Warren Court's refusal to address the issue of "redistributive change" was evidence that it wasn't as radical as critics claim it was.
Sperry then takes a huge leap of logic and common sense by declaring that Obama's "remarks can only be interpreted to mean one thing: economic reparations for slavery." He then insists that government programs such as "universal health care, universal mortgage credits, college tuition, job training and even universal 401(k)s" are tantamount to "stealth reparations."
Sperry also embarks on creative reinterpretations of Obama's other work as well. He writes:
He also wrote in his recent autobiography that he sympathizes with militant black activists who fear that "white Americans will be let off the hook" for past crimes, such as "a hundred years of lynching under several dozen administrations."
Sperry takes two apparently random statements hundreds of pages apart out of context to stitch together something Obama never said. From "The Audacity of Hope," page 248:
Old habits die hard, and there is always a fear on the part of many minorities that unless racial discrimination, past and present, stays on the front burner, white America will be let off the hook and hard-fought gains may be reversed. I understand these fears—nowhere is it ordained that history moves in a straight line, and during difficult economic times it is possible that the imperatives of racial equality get shunted aside.
Still, when I look at what past generations of minorities have had to overcome, I am optimistic about the ability of this next generation to continue their advance into the economic mainstream.
From "The Audacity of Hope," pp. 21-22:
My wife will tell you that by nature I'm not somebody who gets real worked up about things. When I see Ann Coulter or Sean Hannity baying across the television screen, I find it hard to take them seriously; I assume that they must be saying what they do primarily to boost book sales or ratings, although I do wonder who would spend their precious evenings with such sourpusses. When Democrats rush up to me at events and insist that we live in the worst of political times, that a creeping fascism is closing its grip around our throats, I may mention the internment of Japanese Americans under FDR, the Alien and Sedition Acts under John Adams, or a hundred years of lynching under several dozen administrations as having been possibly worse, and suggest we all take a deep breath. When people at dinner parties ask me how I can possibly operate in the current political environment, with all the negative campaigning and personal attacks, I may mention Nelson Mandela, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, or some guy in a Chinese or Egyptian prison somewhere. In truth, being called names is not such a bad deal.
Those two statements have nothing to do with each other, except in Sperry's fevered brain. But since he's already lying about Obama said in the radio interview, why wouldn't he lie about what Obama said in his book as well?
ConWeb Still Lying About Obama Statements Topic: The ConWeb
For the second day in a row, the ConWeb lies and misleads about Barack Obama's 2001 comments to a public radio station.
The Media Research Center's Brent Baker claimed that "Barack Obama regretted that 'the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.'" CNSNews.com similarly asserted that Obama "lamented in a 2001 radio interview that the civil rights movement had failed to cause 'redistributive change.'" The claim that Obama "regretted" or "lamented" those things are pure inventions on Baker's and CNS' part (who, in turn, are just regurgitating Matt Drudge); rather, Obama merely factually stated that those things did not take place.
At NewsBusters, Lyndsi Thomas complained that NPR didn't report that "John McCain specifically addressed the recently surfaced audio and even quoted Obama as saying, 'One of the tragedies of the Civil Rights movement was because the Civil Rights movement became so court-focused I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change.'" But Thomas failed to report that McCain falsely described the statement as meaning that "one of the quote -- 'tragedies' of the civil rights movement is that it didn't bring about a redistribution of wealth in our society." Scott Whitlock echoed Baker's lie that "Obama lamented to a radio interviewer that 'the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth.'" And P.J. Gladnick misleadingly claimed that Obama "called for legislative means to redistribute the wealth."
At WorldNetDaily, the poll question of the day is: "What's your reaction to Obama saying the Constitution is defective?" Of course, Obama said no such thing. Given that lie, it's no surprise that the leading response by far is, "Obama is defective, not the Constitution."
WND Misleads About GOP Foreclosure Vote Suppression Topic: WorldNetDaily
An Oct. 28 unbylined WorldNetDaily article downplays accusations of voter suppression in Michigan by Republicans in the form of using lists of foreclosed homes to challenge votes, claiming that the accusation is "based solely on unconfirmed reports and rumors" that "started on a leftwing blog in Michigan." At no point does WND report what that "leftwing blog" actually reported.
In fact, the Michigan Messenger quoted a Michigan county Republican leader as saying "We will have a list of foreclosed homes and will make sure people aren’t voting from those addresses" -- hardly "unconfirmed reports and rumors."
While WND reported that the Obama campaign filed a federal lawsuit against Michigan Republicans over the alleged scheme, it failed to report that the lawsuit has been settled. Michigan Democrats later stated that the settlement "acknowledges the existence" of such a scheme, while Republicans claimed there is "no proof ever existed" of it.
The bulk of the WND article, though, is dedicated to attacking Rep. Maxine Waters for promoting the charges, accusing her of "fann[ing] the flames of the deadly Rodney King riots in Los Angeles, earning her the nickname 'Kerosene Maxine,'" and suggesting that she will lead "unrest" among blacks on Election Day.
By contrast, WND regularly runs unconfirmed stories about Barack Obama -- and even outright lies, as well as claims it has previously debunked -- so WND's sudden concern about reporting "rumors" is the height of hypocrisy.
Timmerman Misleads About Source for 'Massive Obama Vote Fraud' Topic: Newsmax
An Oct. 27 Newsmax article by Ken Timmerman trumpeted the claims of "Lynette Long, a Hillary supporter from Bethesda, Md., who has a long and respected academic career," in smearing Barack Obama with charges of "fraud" in Democratic primary caucuses.
In fact, Long's blog reveals her to be a rather enthusiastic supporter of Sarah Palin. Further, a Washington Post article states that Long is "not just voting for John McCain and Sarah Palin, she even took the stage at their rally in Fairfax to trumpet her decision to the world":
Long agrees that Palin is not exactly, um, worldly, and that she lacks a certain base of knowledge. ("But I know character and instincts, and she is real.") And yes, Long vehemently disagrees with the Republicans' social conservatism.
But other factors trump those issues, she says, naming Obama's inexperience, Clinton's treatment by her party and the media, and the Democrats' failure to choose a female running mate.
She seems downright gleeful as she describes her fellow liberals' faces draining of blood when she sings Palin's praises. But when I suggest that the McCain camp is using her even as she uses it to teach fellow Democrats a lesson about taking women for granted, she says: "No, that's too crass. You have to break down a house to rebuild it, but Palin is likable, popular and has integrity. She's a person who will listen. Is she smart enough to do the job? Hey, Reagan was no brain surgeon, but people would follow him. It's about leadership. Sarah has made mistakes, but out of naivete, not out of corruption."
I posit that her newfound activism is really more about sticking it to Democratic men than about any real belief that McCain might promote the interests of women or that Palin would be a good president should she ascend to that role. Long protests that she really would be happy with a President Palin, a woman who understands the majority of Americans as no man could.
And then she says this: "I just don't understand how the Democrats couldn't see that women wanted a woman. I'm not getting back in bed with someone who's just abused me. Yeah, it's payback time."
Timmerman is pretending Long does not have an agenda when, in fact, she not only has one, she's all about payback -- which makes her anti-Obama activism less than trustworthy.
Ponte Still Lying About Obama, ACORN Topic: Newsmax
In an Oct. 26 Newsmax article, Lowell Ponte misleadingly claimed that "Joe Biden did not tell the truth Thursday when hit with tough questions about ACORN from a veteran journalist."
Ponte wrote in response to Biden's claim that the Obama campaign "have not paid [ACORN] one single penny to register a single solitary voter":
A Newsmax Fact Check shows that Obama has had a long relationship with the group, and the Obama campaign did indeed pay an ACORN subsidiary more than $800,000. The radical Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) is a multi-faced creature its founders spun off into about 100 separate legal entities.
In our Oct. 6 investigation, Newsmax reported that ACORN’s founders “created a shell game under which money acquired by one ACORN front group, Project Vote (run in Illinois in 1992 by Barack Obama), would be moved to other ACORN-controlled groups,” some openly political and others tax-exempt and prohibited from direct political activism.
In fact, there is no evidence that the "ACORN subsidiary" to which the Obama campaign paid "more than $800,000" did any voter registration, as Ponte suggests. As we've noted, the money paid to Citizens Services Inc. was used for vote canvassing and other get-out-the-vote efforts, not registration.
Further, as we noted the last time Ponte made this claim, Project Vote was not an "ACORN front group" in 1992.
James Walsh, in an Oct. 27 Newsmax article, referenced "ACORN’s street brawling, fraudulent voter registration, and voter fraud," stated that "This will not be the first time that “direct-action” tactics have attempted to 'change' a form of government" -- then gave a quick history of the Nazi party:
In early 1920, Hitler published the NSDAP agenda. The agenda included redistribution of the wealth through profit-sharing of industries, tax cuts for the farmers and low-end citizens, nationalization of trusts, increases in social benefits for the elderly and poor, and free education.
The agenda was anti-Semitic and made Jewish citizens the scapegoats for all of Germany’s problems. NSDAP remained a minor party until the economic crash of 1929. Then, taking advantage of the financial crisis, NSDAP became the second largest party in Germany.
Supporting Hitler was the Sturmabteilung (SA), an assault section known as the storm troopers or the “brown shirts.” The SA, made up of petty criminals, unemployed sociopaths, street brawlers, and local thugs, disrupted opposition political party meetings and brutalized political opponents and average citizens.
The SA bullied legislators and often blocked their entrance to the Reichstag (Congress), thus ensuring NSDAP voting to carry the day. As SA violence increased, NSDAP Reichstag members fell out of favor.
Hitler, however, prevailed with an effective campaign of fear predicting a communist takeover of Germany. Hitler changed the form of the German government with a combination of eloquence, giveaways, fear, duplicity, and violence.
Walsh then asked: "Must the past be prologue?" We ask: Are cheap, slimy smears all Newsmax has left against Obama?
ConWeb Lies, Misleads About Obama Statement Topic: The ConWeb
It's clear that the ConWeb cares nothing about facts when it comes to Barack Obama. It's demonstrated again with its overheated misinterpretation of, and outright lies about, a statement Obama made in 2001.
I mean, I think that, you know, if you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples so that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order in, as long as I could pay for it, I'd be OK. But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.
And, to that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted, and Warren Court interpreted it in the same way that, generally, the Constitution is a charter of [unintelligible] liberties -- says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf, and that hasn't shifted.
And one of the -- I think the tragedies of the civil rights movement was, because the civil rights movements became so court-focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing, and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change. And, in some ways, we still suffer from that.
In full context, Obama was saying that the civil rights movement relied too much on the court system to advance its agenda instead of promoting change from the bottom up, and the Warren Supreme Court was not as radical as right-wingers claim it to be because it refused to take up "more basic issues of political and economic justice."
But that's not what the ConWeb will tell you Obama said.
NewsBusters' P.J. Gladnick howled that "Barack Obama explicitly calls for the 'redistribution of wealth'" in the interview -- which he doesn't. NewsBusters' Mark Finkelstein claimed Obama said "he laments the Supreme Court's insufficient radicalism in pursuing redistribution and refers to the civil rights movement's failure to develop a better strategy to bring about wealth redistribution as a 'tragedy[']" -- which he didn't.
One of the tragedies of the Civil Rights movement is that it failed to lead to income redistribution in the United States, Barack Obama appears to state in an audio excerpt of a Chicago public radio program recorded in 2001.
Obama, who then was an Illinois state senator, also stated that people continue to “suffer” because there is no government program to take money from the rich and redistribute it to Americans who are less well off.
Susan Jones asserted in an Oct. 27 CNSNews.com article that "The audio clip makes it clear that redistribution of wealth, or 'redistributive change,' is something Obama’s been aiming at for years." Again, not true; Obama could have been referring to political power as well, or exclusively. Similarly, Terry Jeffrey asserted that Obama "expressed disappointment that the Supreme Court 'never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth.'"
The Media Research Center's Seton Motley cited "damning new evidence of Illinois Democratic Senator and Presidential nominee Barack Obama's radical views on how we need to 'break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution' because it 'doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.'" Obama didn't say that.
Motley also quotes MRC chief Brent Bozell saying of this story: "We will monitor who does - and doesn't - cover this story, and we'll document it." We'll be doing the same thing -- but monitoring and documenting how Bozell and his fellow travelers lie and mislead about Obama's words.
UPDATE: Newsmax's Phil Brennan severely misinterprets Obama's words, turning Obama's declarative statement that the Warren court "didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution" into a false question by putting words in Obama's mouth, under the headline "Obama Attacks Founding Fathers, Constitution":
According to Obama if the Constitution "didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and [the] Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties." [emphasis added]
Obama didn't say "if the Constitution"; that's a fabrication by Brennan. Yet Brennan lies that Obama "shows a shocking ignorance of the purpose of the United States Constitution" and "would have sent shivers up the spine of Thomas Jefferson, et al."
UPDATE 2: WorldNetDaily joins the parade, falsely claiming that Obama "said in a radio interview the U.S. has suffered from a fundamentally flawed Constitution that does not mandate or allow for redistribution of wealth."