WND's Washington Seizes on Ginsburg's Illness to Bash Her Topic: WorldNetDaily
Anyone whose main sources of comfort are "the Bible, WorldNetDaily and the Michael Savage radio show" has problems dealing with reality. And Ellis Washington comes through again with his whacked-outright-wingstylings in his Feb. 7 WND column marking Ruth Bader Ginsburg's recent cancer surgery by spreading lies about her.
Washington cites "an interesting article on Justice Ginsburg by Edward Whelar," and proceeds to repeat alleged "facts" in the article that Washington makes no apparent attempt to fact-check -- even though they have been debunked long ago. Let's examine a few, as quoted by Washington:
1. Protecting prostitution. Citing Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972), and Roe v. Wade (1973) as judicial precedent in support of prostitution, Ginsburg theorized that federal laws against prostitution "are subject to several constitutional and policy objections. Prostitution, as a consensual act between adults, is arguably within the zone of privacy protected by recent constitutional decisions." Ginsburg proposed that the federal laws against prostitution be repealed.
In fact, Ginsburg merely stated that an argument could be made that the act of prostitution is constitutionally protected. When the issue arose during Ginsburg's 1993 confirmation hearings, Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch agreed that the sentence could not be construed as a stated position, much less a belief: "You were making an academic point. I understand. I'm not trying to indicate that you were justifying prostitution."
Certainly, as a law professor, Washington understands what an academic legal point is. Uh, right?
2. Protecting bigamy. Throughout her long legal career, Ginsburg has considered laws prohibiting the rights of bigamists "of questionable constitutionality since it appears to encroach impermissibly upon private relationships."
In fact, Ginsburg questioned the constitutionality of legislation that restricted the right to vote or hold office of bigamists or "persons cohabiting with more than one person." Ginsburg wrote that the provision "appears to encroach impermissibly upon private relationships" and recommended that it "be narrowed to avoid conflict with constitutionally protected privacy interests."
6. Reducing the age of consent to 12. Ginsburg had recommended legislative changes that would reduce the age of consent for statutory rape under federal law from 16 to 12.
In fact, Ginsburg advocated no such thing. Ginsburg's report noted a 1973 Senate bill as an example of legislation that rejected the "traditional sex discriminatory fashion" in which the United States Code defined rape. The bill laid out three circumstances as constituting rape, including that "the other person is, in fact, less than twelve years old." But Ginsburg cited the bill only for the purposes of noting its gender-neutral language and did not address the merits of the clause regarding "age of consent."
As we noted above, Washington does indeed claim to be a law professor. Anyone unfortunate enough to have to learn law from him has our sympathies.
Aaron Klein Carries Water for Netanyahu Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily's Aaron Klein has long been a hater of outgoing Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert -- even trying to destabilize him during an Israeli military action -- and a promoter of right-wing Israeli politician Benjamin Netanyahu.
So it's no surprise that Klein would be touting Netanyahu less than a week before Israeli national elections. In a Feb. 5 WND article, Klein highlights how Netanyahu allegedly "secretly issued a stern warning to Hamas that if its rocket campaign continues once he's in power, he will not hesitate to eliminate the terror group's leadership in both the Gaza Strip and Syria." Klein offers no on-the-record confirmation of this story.
Also unsurprisingly, Klein fails to identify the right-wing political leanings of Netanyahu and his Likud party, describing Netanyahu only as a "opposition leader."
The article, however, mentions nothing about the alleged cost of the standards, making Newsmax's assertion that the standards are "costly" completely baseless. Further, the article points out that Obama is not ordering new standards, just that previously established standards be followed:
Laws on the books already require new efficiency standards for household and commercial appliances. But they have been backlogged in a tangle of missed deadlines, bureaucratic disputes and litigation. In essence, Obama's intent is to say that legal deadlines must be met, with priority being given to those standards that are likely to yield the best pocketbook savings for consumers.
Apparently cribbing from the same Republican talking points, two Newsmax columnists have attacked President Obama's response to deadly ice storms in Kentucky. From a Feb. 5 column by Brad Blakeman:
Devastating ice storms have rocked Kentucky, prompting Gov. Steve Beshear to seek disaster aid, USAToday reports. And yet the Obama administration has remained silent on the issue.
This marks Kentucky’s largest and most extensive natural disaster in history: 25 are dead, 600,000 are without power, and people by scores are holed up in shelters.
Yet, in spite of the suffering of hundreds of thousands of our fellow Americans, Obama hasn’t said a word.
To be fair, he did sign disaster declarations; but these are pro forma and done by staff at the request of the states affected. The situation warrants much more.
Where is the outrage? The president should have at least dispatched the vice president to the region if he himself could not make it.
As the president was at his Super Bowl party at the White House, thousands of Kentucky residents sat in darkness waiting for help, as power had yet to be restored to many parts of the area.
When somebody asks why Barack Obama isn’t flying over storm-ravaged Kentucky the way they asked why George Bush why he didn’t fly over New Orleans after Katrina, you can bet his flunkies will say it was a mistake.
Here’s a tragedy where hundreds of thousands of people are shivering in frigid weather without electricity, and Barack Obama is hosting Super Bowl parties in the warm and comfy White House.
When George Bush didn’t go the New Orleans, it was seen as a crime of enormous proportions. When Barack Obama gives a party instead of giving aid and comfort to ice-stricken Kentuckians, it must be an oversight — a mistake.
The problem with Reagan's and Blakeman's anti-Obama rants? They doesn't reflect reality. From a Feb. 2 Associated Press article:
In the first real test of the Obama administration's ability to respond to a disaster, Kentucky officials are giving the federal government good marks for its response to a deadly ice storm.
[...]
[Kentucky Gov. Steve] Beshear asked Obama for a disaster declaration to free up federal assistance Thursday, two days after the storm hit, and Obama issued it hours later. Trucks loaded with supplies began arriving at a staging area at Fort Campbell, Ky., on Friday morning, said Mary Hudak, a spokeswoman for the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
On Saturday, Beshear ordered all of the state's Army National Guardsmen into action to distribute supplies, many of which came from FEMA.
Beshear has consistently praised Obama, a fellow Democrat, for the attention he's devoted to what Beshear calls the biggest natural disaster to hit his state.
"We have had tremendous and quick response from President Obama and his administration," Beshear said Monday. "I don't think any of our folks that have dealt with disasters before ever recall as quick a response as we got last Wednesday."
Trina Sheets, executive director of the National Emergency Management Association, based in Lexington, Ky., said that from what she's heard, FEMA's response has been very good so far. Her group represents emergency management directors from all 50 states.
"The governor's declaration request for an emergency was turned around very, very quickly by FEMA and the White House," said Sheets, who just had her power restored Monday after four days without it. "And President Obama has spoken with the governor of Kentucky on several occasions throughout the event."
Sheets said she hadn't heard any complaints so far about the federal response.
"FEMA and the Kentucky National Guard are doing everything they can to get things back up and running," Sen. Jim Bunning said.
If the governor of Kentucky and state emergency officials don't have a problem with the Obama administration's response, why should Blakeman and Reagan?
Reb Bradley writes in a Feb. 5 WorldNetDaily column:
Democrats have won the presidency and both houses of Congress. Should we expect that their reputation as angry liberals will change? Don't count on it. It has been my observation that liberals are angry whether they are in power or not.
[...]
In case you have never read the research, conservatives do tend to be happier in life than both liberals and independents. According to a series of Gallup polls over the years, Republicans consistently rate happier than Democrats – as much as 12 percent higher, even when liberals are in power.
Bradley is clearly not reading WND's commentary page. From a Feb. 5 WND column by Erik Rush:
Having Barack Obama as our first black president is analogous to Dennis Rodman having been America's first black basketball player. No one can deny Mr. Rodman's credentials as an outstanding basketball player, unless one is a mental deficient. However, no one can deny that he is also a skanky creep, unless one is a mental deficient bereft of any character whatsoever.
[...]
Then, this pretentious clown (and I mean that in the most Ringling Brothers sort of way) publicly ripped into corporate executives for the economic problems the world is facing to perpetuate the myth that they are responsible, when he knows – he knows – that the Barney Frank and Chris Dodd (the only senator to take more from Fannie Mae than Obama himself) contingent in Congress actually brought it all about. It is his own party that gingerly and eagerly flicked the first domino with its augmentation of the Community Reinvestment Act.
To the informed, this is not a matter of giving a new president the benefit of the doubt to see if he'll "make good" and "do what's right" for America. The informed have known since 2007 (if not earlier) that Barack Obama is the worst of the Democratic left, a practiced liar and a Marxist.
[...]
This national Obamagasm is like an episode of "The Twilight Zone" or "Star Trek" (the original): Only one, or perhaps a select few, recognize the monster for what it is; everyone else is either oblivious, or somehow paying slavish deference to it. By the time it is unmasked, the damage it has done is incalculable.
Does a man who likens the president of the United States to a "skanky creep" sound like a happy conservative to you?
Examiner Misleads on Obama Defense Budget Topic: Washington Examiner
A Feb. 5 Washington Examiner editorial forwards a version of the false meme that President Obama wants to cut the defense budget, asserting that "Obama has demanded that the Pentagon trim its budget request by an astonishing 10 percent."
While what the Examiner wrote is technically true, at no point does the Examiner bother to put it into context -- as we've noted, Obama's budget target for the Pentagon is still $14 billion higher than the current budget, so there's no cut at all.
The Media Research Center has been screeching for a while now about a Politico report that ABC host George Stephanopoulos engages in daily round-robin calls with former colleagues James Carville, Paul Begala and Rahm Emanuel, as they have since the Clinton administration. The MRC has decided that this means Stephanopoulos is a shill for the Obama administration, and has been on the attack ever since.
A Jan. 29 press release featuring MRC honcho Brent Bozell demanding that Stephanopoulos "must from this point forward recuse himself from any reporting involving the Obama Administration" was followed by a Feb. 4 open letter to ABC News president David Westin demanding that "ABC News must address this publicly and comprehensively" (bold underline in original), adding the not-so-subtle threat:
ABC News may decide that silence is the best policy. I assure you that will be a mistake. We will not stop this discussion. If you think you are bleeding audience numbers now, what do you suppose will be your audience’s reaction when it is established that your Chief Washington Correspondent continues to be a key strategist for the Democratic Party?
ABC has now responded in a letter by Kerry Smith, senior vice president of editorial quality at ABC News, posted by Politico's Michael Calderone, and he attacks right back, accusing Bozell and the MRC of deception:
In your letter and public utterances you falsely assert that ABC News has been silent on this matter. That is simply untrue. Upon reading your press release last week, we reached out to the MRC to make it abundantly clear that you had totally mischaracterized the Politico story written by John Harris last Tuesday. Indeed, Politico posted a story last Friday by Ben Smith pointing out exactly how badly you had mangled the facts.
Oh, but it gets better:
Furthermore, last Friday, a reporter from CNS News, which was founded by you and continues to be directly affiliated with the MRC, contacted our media relations staff for a piece he'd been assigned to write on this very topic. We cooperated immediately and provided him an on the record response. We have since learned from your reporter that his story was killed.
As County Fair's Jamison Foser points out, the question now is whether the CNS story was killed so that Bozell could claim that ABC refused to talk about it. Refusing to tell the other side of the story is certainly of a piece with CNS' new aggressiveanti-Obamaagenda.
How will Bozell -- not to mention CNS' Terry Jeffrey -- respond to being called on their BS? We can't wait to find out.
A Feb. 4 CNSNews.com article by Ryan Byrnes uncritically stated that Republican Sen. James Inhofe, ranking member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, "issued a minority report last month that quoted 650 top scientists who challenge the claim that global warming is man-made."
Byrnes failed to note legitimate concerns raised about the report -- as we've noted, it's been pointed out that the vast majority of the people in the report were recycled from a similar previous report, which included people with no demonstrated expertise in climate science (or science, period). That would seem to contradict the assertion that the report includes only "top scientists."
A Feb. 5 NewsBusters post by Warner Todd Huston sneered that a reporter jumped a rope line seeking Barack Obama's autograph, "like a star struck 15-year old at a Hannah Montana concert" who "apparently couldn't resist the siren call of The One." Huston's sneering dragged on:
Gosh, it's always great to hear of these types of stories of the hard-nosed press corps that is so cynical as to scoff at anyone that might be a tad awed by a mere politician isn't it? We all know that reporters are way too nonchalant about the lure of The One to be all taken with his presence so, right? His autograph? Pshaw. That is absurd. Why, WHO would want the autograph of a politician? Heck, reporters see politicians everyday, so it's just old hat, part of the job, uninteresting. Yep, good thing they are above hero worship!
But wait, this is The Obammessiah we are talking about. He's no normal politician! He's the man that can decide how much you are allowed to make as a head of industry. A man who can lay hands upon you and make all your tax cheating disappear. The man that can claim the moral high ground against lobbyists, yet hire over a dozen lobbyists anyway. He's the man that can control even other nations with but the gesture of a finger, he's so loved across the world.
No wonder the press acts like autograph hounds at a Hollywood premiere every time they see him. It's a wonder that the press doesn't mob him every time he appears! One wonders how many room keys and thrown underwear the White House cleaning staff finds on the floor every time the press and Obama leave the room?
The star struck press. I wonder how many of them that have had the good fortune to have shook The One's hand told their significant others that they'll never wash that hand again?
But who was that reporter? As Politico reports, it's Robert Feuereisen of Jewish World Review -- a conservative website that Huston's colleagues think so highly of, it's on the NewsBusters blogroll. (Then again, NewsBusters also has Ace of Spades on its blogroll, so maybe that's not as prestigious as it seems.)
We'd complain about Huston engaging his brain before opening his mouth, but that would rob us of a lot of prime material.
CNSNews.com has descended into full Obama attack mode. Today's slate of articles demonstrate CNS' heavy bias by touting Republican criticism and providing no opportunity for anyone to respond to it:
By contrast, the one story that begins with a Democratic claim -- "Pelosi: ‘I Can’t Think in Terms of Stimulus Failing in Senate’" by Ryan -- permits a Republican congressman and a spokesman for the conservative Heritage Foundation to respond to the claim.
So much for CNS' declared mission of "fairly present[ing] all legitimate sides of a story."
Moore Takes Obama's Words Out of Context Topic: WorldNetDaily
While CNSNews.com has been obsessed with singling out Barack Obama's mention of "nonbelievers" in an inclusive description of Americans, WorldNetDaily has been nearly as bothered by by his mention of Muslims.
We've previously noted Aaron Klein taking "Muslim" out of its context as describing America as "no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation and a nation of nonbelievers." Now lawbreaking judge Roy Moore purports to take offense in his Feb. 4 WND column.
The headline of his column asks, "Is America really a 'Muslim nation'?" But Obama never claimed it was. Moore goes on to insist that, Obama's recognition of all Americans aside, the only religion that should matter is Christianity:
I recognize that many cultures have influenced America. But those who settled this country and shaped its laws and governments were overwhelmingly Christians, from Christian countries, who believed in Christian values. Obama is like many other secularists who believe that religious freedom is a gift from man.
[...]
To state that this is a Muslim nation, a Hindu nation, or a nation of nonbelievers is to deny that God is the grantor of religious freedom. It is also a denigration of the Christian faith to just another religion.
[...]
I thank God that we are not a Muslim nation, but a Christian nation that acknowledges the God Who gives religious freedom to all people according to the dictates of their conscience. That is why Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Jews and non-believers can practice what they choose in America.
Moore ignores the fact that Christians have a long history of persecuting Jews and Muslims, among others, which has happened to some extent in America, and that it's the secularism of the past half-century which Moore disdains that created the current situation in which "Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Jews and non-believers can practice what they choose in America" (though maybe not Muslims) without a fear of persecution. If Moore had his way, that would not be occuring.
Kinsolving Throws Another Temper Tantrum Topic: WorldNetDaily
In 2007, when WorldNetDaily's Les Kinsolving declared that he wasn't getting the respect he thought he deserved from then-White House press secretary Tony Snow, he threw a temper tantrum and declared he wouldn't attend White House press briefings, staging a passive-aggressive protest in which WND published "the questions that WND would have asked." That lasted for about a week, after Snow and Kinsolving held a mysterious "one-on-one conference."
Kinsolving's at it again, throwing another tantrum.
Kinsolving hinted at it in his Feb. 3 WND column, complaining that the press conferences held by President Obama "are 'fixed' in advance with some reporters selected for questions and others left out, that it raises the serious question as to whether such reportorial selectees by Obama may not have supplied him with their questions in advance."
In other words: Kinsolving was being ignored.
That apparently resulted in WND announcing later on Feb. 3 that "
WND is announcing a plan starting immediately to submit questions to President Obama's press secretary, Robert Gibbs, via the technology of the Internet and e-mail, since his news briefings at the White House so far have been dominated by a select few reporters to the exclusion of the majority." Again, it's a complain that Kinsolving is being ignored: "Les Kinsolving, WND's correspondent at the White House and one of the more senior journalists in the White House press corps, was not allowed to voice his questions on issues on which millions of WND readers have expressed an interest." Kinsolving then tries to spin it:
Kinsolving said the fact that he cannot ask a question every briefing is not the point; but the fact that some reporters are given four or five opportunities is.
"Why are so many of us not recognized for even a single question," he wondered.
Ah, but Kinsolving being ignored is exactly the point. Why go through this charade of a stunt if he wasn't out to get attention?
Further, the preonderance of evidence demonstrates why Kinsolving has earned the right to be ignored by presidential press secretaries: As we'vedocumented, he asks loaded, right-wing-leaning questions that swing from Jeff Gannon-esque sycophancy to stunning irrelevence.
Plus, let's not forget the utterhostility Kinsolving's employer has demonstrated toward Obama. Why would the Obama administration want to deal with a "news" organization that spreadslies about the president?
And if Kinsolving's first response to perceived slights is to throw a temper tantrum, why should anyone take him seriously as a journalist at all?
NewsBusters Heathering Watch Topic: NewsBusters
Tim Graham gets all Heather-y again on Kathleen Parker in a Feb. 4 NewsBusters post. Graham dismisses parker -- a frequent victim of Heathering by Graham and his NewsBusters buddies whenever she dares to deviate from right-wing dogma -- as a "[p]seudo-conservative columnist" writing a "a provocative 'Look at Me!' column trashing social conservatism," going on to suggest that the only possible reason Parker "has been published in The Washington Post" is said pseudo-conservatism (ignoring the fact that the Washington Post Writers Group has syndicated Parker's column since 2006).
