P.J. Gladnick is one of the Heathers at NewsBusters, hurling bile and snark at any right-winger deemed to have committed the offense of thinking for themselves and straying from conservative dogma. Gladnick's latest target is Meghan McCain, and the Heathers' favorite crime is invoked in Gladnick's April 18 post:
One has to hand it to Meghan McCain. She has certainly found the perfect shtick for extending herself beyond her allotted 15 minutes of fame. And the method Meghan has discovered is to slam conservative Republicans. That is her meal ticket to getting invites on cable news shows such as Larry King and, "OMG," she is also going to be guest co-host of The View for a couple of days this week. Think any of these invitations would have materialized had Meghan urged Republicans to become more conservative? If that were to happen all those TV appearances plus her new book deal would dry up more quickly than a drop of water in Death Valley.
Jealousy much? Seems like Gladnick would like McCain's TV face time.
Gladnick goes on to complain that McCain "Meghan also indulged in the almost obligatory slams against Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh," seemingly oblivious to any reason such criticism is deserved (or maybe Gladnick is sticking to his MRC overlords' doctrine of Coulter and Limbaugh as They Who Must Not Be Criticized.
Gladnick then bashes McCain for purportedly failing to acknowledge the anti-Obama tea parties, adding, "Of course, any positive response from Meghan to the tea parties would jeopardize her self-promotion tour in the MSM which is why there has been no response from her."
Yep, Gladnick is totally jealous of McCain. Like, totally.
Joseph Farah thundered in his April 18 WorldNetDaily column that CNN's Anderson Cooper's use of the word "teabagging"in reference to the anti-Obama tea party protests was "grossly degrading," and he "should have his dirty, little gutter mouth washed out with soap" and then be fired. Farah added: "This is hardly the kind of comment Americans would expect from a respectable TV newsman paid by one of America's largest media corporations in prime time." This from someone whose website published a column by Erik Rush calling Attorney General Eric Holder "another floatie in the septic tank that is the Obama administration" -- that is, a piece of shit.
Then again, perhaps we have come to expect such grossly degrading hate by dirty, little gutter mouths to ooze from WND.
Farah also noted that Cooper said regarding pray-the-gay-away therapy enrosed by right-wingers like Farah, "every one of them basically admits that they still are attracted to a member of the same sex, they're just forcing themselves to repress those feelings." Farah retorted: "One wonders just how many happy homosexual Christians Cooper has met. ... Cooper handpicks the guests he has on his program. How many members of Exodus International has he chosen to interview?"
As World O'Crap points out, Cooper hashad Exodus head Alan Chambers on his show, adding: "Actually, why guess? I mean, it’s the internet after all, so why risk looking like an ill-informed jackass who’s too lazy or stupid to type a Google search if you don’t have to?"
Cooper can also, if he's interested, interview Michael Bussee and Gary Cooper, two co-founders of Exodus International who left the group to be with each other. And then there's John Paulk, chairman of Exodus International at the time he was identified drinking and flirting at a gay bar. (He now insists that he made a "very foolish decision," a claim WND uncritically accepted.)
If Farah really wants Anderson Cooper fired from CNN for referencing "teabagging," he should lead by example on how to handle employees who make "foul-mouthed, offensive comments" by firing Erik Rush.
WND's Anonymous Attacks on Obama Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily's Joseph Farah once defended his reporter Aaron Klein by asserting, "Aaron Klein doesn't use anonymous sources when he quotes senior terrorist leaders in Gaza and many of the most prominent Islamists in the world. He names names." That, of course, is a complete and utter lie -- Klein has granted anonymity to terrorist leaders.
Klein does so again in an April 17 article, in which he claims that President Obama will move to create a Palestinian state "more quickly than anybody could imagine," cting only an anonymous "chief PA negotiator" as his lone source. At no point does Klein explain why he has granted anonymity to the negotiator, whom, by definition as a Palestinian, is a terrorist in Klein's eyes.
WND wasn't done with hurling anonymous smears at Obama. An April 18 article promoting Farah's G2 Bulletin, "the premium, online intelligence newsletter edited by the founder of WND," asserts that Obama employed "restrictive rules of engagement that actually hampered the rescue of Capt. Richard Phillips and extended the drama at sea for days." The article cites anonymous yet purportedly "reliable military sources close to the scene" to back up the claim, which is otherwise unsubstantiated.
It appears that Farah's lies and hypocrisy about granting anonymity extend to his own work -- after all, he once denounced anonymous sources as a convenient basis for "quotes made up out of whole cloth to help make the story read better." There's no reason not to apply that same sentiment to Farah's own anonymous sources.
WJC Strikes Back With Attacks, Smears Topic: Western Journalism Center
We seem to have hit a nerve.
It appears that the Western Journalism Center has responded to our report on the WJC's revival (also posted at the Huffington Post) pretty much the way you'd expect -- by attacking me. From a WJC email apparently sent out on Human Events' mailing list (we haven't seen the actual email yet, but parts of it are posted here):
Terry Krepel, the senior web editor for Socialist Billionaire George Soros' Media Matters just put out an inflammatory hit-piece on us in The Huffington Post and called us smear-mongers, right-wing hitmen and conspiracy theorists.
He even accused us of "naked partisanship" (We'd refute that one if we could figure out what he means by partisanship 'sans clothes' and also, whether Krepel actually believes that adherence to the Constitution is a partisan issue).
What does the WJC get wrong here? First, my article wasn't written for Media Matters; second, George Soros does not fund Media Matters. Demonstrating that the truth doesn't matter to them, they do concede that latter point later in the email, parentically noting that Media Matters is "more accurately, funded by a Soros-funded organization... those little degrees of separation appear to matter to liberal spin-meisters." Yet they call it "George Soros' Media Matters" anyway.
If Floyd Brown and the WJC are going to continue to insist on referring to "George Soros' Media Matters," does that mean we can refer to Richard Mellon Scaife's Western Journalism Center? (Unlike Soros and Media Matters, Scaife did directly fund the WJC.)
The WJC then to proceeded to attack Media Matters based on claims made by ... discredited journalist Catherine Moy:
Catherine Moy with Human Events perhaps described them best when she wrote that Media Matters appears "to care more about taking out the kneecaps of conservatives than pursuing truth or accuracy in the media."
As we detailed, the 2007 Human Events article by Moy that the WJC reliles on to bash Media Matters is full of hyperbolic assertions, unsubstantiated or false claims and overblown leaps of logic.
What you won't find in the WJC's email (at least in the posted excerpt): any factual refuting of the claims I made. Indeed, it seems that the WJC wants to operate in dog-whistle mode --despite sending out this paid email, there is no mention of my report on the WJC website. It's impossible to tell at this point whether the WJC included a link to my report without a copy of the actual email itself, but I would venture to guess that there isn't one -- they're afraid to let their readers make their own decisions about what I wrote.
To the contrary, the WJC sticks to repeating its bogus claims about the birth certificate, claiming he "refuses to release an actual birth certificate" when, in fact, he has.
The WJC goes on (enthusiasm for all-caps in original):
And now that Krepel (and The Huffington Post) has taken time out of his busy day to slime us, one can only ask why?
Answer? Because, we are asking the ONE pivotal and credible question that the left does not want asked and we're driving the point home and taking the Mainstream Media to task for NOT asking that ONE SIMPLE QUESTION.
Specifically, why are teams of lawyers thwarting efforts to compel Barack Obama to produce, the ONE document that can verify that he is eligible, under the Constitution, to hold the office of President of the United States - his actual birth certificate.
If Barack Hussein Obama has nothing to hide, simply producing an actual birth certificate is not an unreasonable request.
But, because it is the ONE question that the left CANNOT answer and the question that Barrack Hussein Obama REFUSES to answer, it MUST NOT be asked... it MUST NOT be addressed... and it MUST NOT be acknowledged.
And, here's the most important part, since the question MUST NOT be be asked; those who dare to ask it must be discredited... they must be personally attacked.... lest the American people start asking the question too.
That is what the left really FEARS and that's why we're in the crosshairs.
Actually, judging by the amount of vitriol in this email and its apparent refusal to link to my report so readers can judge for themselves, the people who are afraid here are Floyd Brown and the WJC -- and they're afraid of me, a guy with a website who told the truth about them.
Ellis Washington Redefines Adultery In Latest Obama Smear Topic: WorldNetDaily
Even Ellis Washington knows he can't credibly accuse Barack Obama of committing adultery -- he seems to be enough of a law professor to know that he would be sued for libel in a second. So, as part of his anti-Obama hate campaign to claim that Obama has violated every single one of the Ten Commandments, he redefines the term in his April 18 WorldNetDaily column, while insisting that "I have used Obama and his policies as a case study not to judge the man."
Really? Smearing Obama as a Nazi, a fascist, a gangster, and a devil is not "judging the man"?
Thus, Washington claims that Obama is committing "political adultery" by claiming that under him, "red-blooded Americans cannot exercise their First Amendment rights which part says: 'The right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances'" -- despite the fact that he also highlights "the thousands of tea parties that took place across America on Tax Day," which would be evidence to the contrary.
Washington then offers a list of what "conservative intellectual Michael Savage" saw as "as the first 10 of Obama's executive orders should he be elected, based on the Democrat's campaign website" -- even though none of the things on the list have actually happened, let alone by executive order.
In another stunning moment of self-awareness, Washington concedes that "To many readers it may be a stretch to equate Obama's goals with political adultery." But then, that goes away and he slips into his hateful smears again: "Obama and his fascist minion's intent is to provoke a socialist revolution in the image of the father of communism, Karl Marx; to bring to its apotheosis his diabolical vision including the abolition of Christianity, private property, the free market, separation of powers and individual liberty."
It's too bad that his knowledge that he can't actually accuse Obama of adultery didn't keep him for telling the contemptible lie that Obama intends to bring about "the abolition of Christianity, private property, the free market, separation of powers and individual liberty."
He -- and his publisher, Joseph Farah -- may be seeing that libel suit after all.
Gladnick Botches Attack on "Che" Topic: NewsBusters
P.J. Gladnick builds an April 18 NewsBusters post out of the claim that the movie "Che" "has turned out to be one of the worst box office bombs in film history," on the scale of the infamous "Heaven's Gate."
What does Gladnick botch in his attack?
1. Gladnick claims that "Che" and "Heaven's Gate" were made on similar budgets and lost a similar amount of money, but fails to index "Heaven's Gate" for inflation. As Wikipedia notes, "Heaven's Gate's" $40 million cost in 1979 is equivalent to about $120 million today," which means that "Heaven's Gate" cost three times as much to make -- and lost three times as much money -- than "Che." Indeed, the $39 million loss Gladnick claims "Che" has taken is not even in the ballpark of bombs by today's standards: As Wikipedia states, "The biggest box office bomb in terms of dollars spent that were not recouped is 'Alexander' with a loss of $120,702,809."
2. Unlike "Che" (rated at 63% at Rotten Tomatoes), "Heaven's Gate" got uniformly bad reviews and contributed to the collapse of a movie studio.
3. Gladnick baselessly posits that a movie's quality is measured by its popularity. At no point does Gladnick discuss the artistic merits of the movie, let alone suggest that any movie might have artistic merit. For instance, "Citizen Kane" did not make a profit on its initial release -- the same basis upon which Gladnick is declaring "Che" to be a failure -- yet it's heralded as one of the greatest movies ever made. We're not saying that "Che" is as good as "Citizen Kane" (heck, we haven't even seen "Che"), just illustrating the failure of profit as an reliable indicator of cinematic quality. Hey, "Batman and Robin" made a profit, so Gladnick must believe that it's a great film, right?
WND Adds Another Hateful Columnist Topic: WorldNetDaily
Apparently, adding Michael Savage to the columnist lineup didn't make WorldNetDaily sufficiently hateful for founder and editor Joseph Farah. So Alan Keyes has returned for another gig. The sycophancy at WND for Keyes is disturbing, to say the least:
"Alan Keyes was one of the very first commentators to contribute to WND back in the late 1990s," said Joseph Farah, WorldNetDaily's founder and CEO. "It's so good to have him back as a regular columnist. He is brilliant, principled and a great communicator."
Added WND commentary editor Ron Strom: "I remember watching Dr. Keyes debate Barack Obama on television during the 2004 Senate race in Illinois. Simply put, he cleaned Obama's clock. Dr. Keyes is an extraordinary thinker and speaker – and we look forward to him once again sharing his wisdom and insight with WND readers on a regular basis."
Real Americans, meanwhile, understand that Keyes is a nutjob.
And what is the "wisdom and insight" Keyes shares with his readers for his first WND column? That President Obama plans "to consolidate dictatorial control over the economy" (over-the-top hyperbole, one of Keyes' hallmarks) and "to establish a KGB-style national security force" (a contemptible lie).
Further, as befits a WND-style birther, Keyes asserts that Obama has made an "open display of contempt for the Constitution's eligibility requirements for the presidency." Never mind, of course, that he has released a birth certificate, as even WND concedes (even if it pretends it didn't).
Keyes' animosity toward Obama can mostly be attributed to Obama cleaning Keyes' clock during his carpetbagging 2004 Senate campaign in Illinois. That's just another reason to not take Keyes seriously -- a judgment that can be fairly applied to the majority of WND's columnists.
ConWeb Offended by 'Teabagging' -- Not Limbaugh's Anal Sex References Topic: Media Research Center
Like Brent Bozell, WorldNetDaily is opposed to media depictions of anal sex:
It has criticized Wikipedia for including a "photo of two nude men having anal sex on a bed," bashed Spencer Gifts for carrying "pornaments" that "graphically depict anal intercourse between a snowman and a bare-breasted 'snowwoman,'" disapproved of the Wal-Mart website selling a book that "gives explicit instructions for engaging in oral or anal sexual acts," and denounced the movie "Brokeback Mountain" for depicting characters who "awkwardly and violently engage in anal sex."
And Joseph Farah asks: "Isn't it time to make anal sex taboo, again?"
Yet WND, like Bozell's Media Research Center, has been silent about Rush Limbaugh's frequent references to anal sex during interviews and on his radio show.
The hypocrisy continues on the part of Bozell and WND, who both take offense at references to the anti-Obama "tea parties" as "teabagging."
Bob Unruh complained of the references in an April 17 WND article: "Perhaps it's a new 'If you can't beat 'em, bad-mouth 'em' strategy on the part of some news anchors to denigrate the grass-roots Tea Parties that blanketed the United States this week." Unruh dramatically began with a parental advisory thathis story makes "explicit references to graphic sex and will be objectionable to readers. It is not suitable for children" and quoted anti-gay activist Peter LaBarbera whining about "snotty liberal journalists telling insider sex jokes."
Of course, WND is no stranger to the "If you can't beat 'em, bad-mouth 'em" strategy: It once presented as "news" a picture of a copy of Hillary Clinton's biography in a bookstore's science-fiction section.
An April 17 WND article by Drew Zahn argues that CNN's Anderson Cooper should be fired for making "an openly lecherous comment that mocks protesting Americans with a homosexual term for a sex act." But mocking protesters used to be a good thing as far as WND is concerned -- it bashed those who protested the Iraq war as anything from two-bit agitators to vampires to crazy Froot Loops.
To sum up: Smearing Obama as a Nazi is perfectly legitimate and acceptable discourse at WND (as is, apparently, references to anal sex made by conservatives), but referencing "teabagging" is not. Got it?
Meanwhile, an April 16 MRC press release complained about "woeful bias," "lowly crassness," and "sleaze-riddled condemnation," and featured Bozell thundering that "MSNBC and CNN both allow this vulgar attack-journalism to go out on their airwaves without blinking an eye and without any sign of guilt."
This from the same organization that has regularly indulged in the lowly crassness of Clinton sex jokes, their favorite form of sleaze-riddled condemnation.
The relase also features a quote by Dan Gainor of the MRC's Business & Media Insitute (where he apparently carries the snazzy title of "Vice President of Business and Culture") baselessly claiming that the tea party protests were "grassroots."
WND Promotes Inflated Tea Party Attendance Figures Topic: WorldNetDaily
An April 17 WorldNetDaily article by Jerome Corsi and Chelsea Schilling begins: "An estimated 1 million Americans participated in at least 1,000 tea parties, according to reports by organizers tabulating the nationwide numbers, with documented protests held in 50 states." But nobody they quote in their article offers any solid evidence to back up the numbers.
Corsi and Schilling quote one organizer as saying, "I would estimate it at over 1 million. I'm waiting on more numbers to come in from organizers right now. I can tell you it is absolutely over 750,000 right now." But it's clear that all attendance estimates are coming from the organizers themselves -- who would be prone to inflate their numbers in order to help their cause -- and have not been independently verified.
Indeed, the organizer's claim appears to be contradicted by an Americans for Tax Reform blog entry noted by Corsi and Schilling, which at this writing has counted only 360,495 tea party attendees. Like the organizer's count, these too are self-reported and vulnerable to inflation.
For example, Corsi and Schilling report that "as many as 10,000 protesters" attended a rally in Sacramento, Calif., a number also reported by ATR. But according to the San Francisco Chronicle: "While the California Highway Patrol does not make official crowd estimates, CHP Sgt. Steve Stone said the Sacramento gathering appeared to be around 5,000."
Unsurpringly, since it would contradict their agenda, neither ATR or Corsi and Schilling acknowledge the existence of the lower number.
CNS Still Pushing IHS Cover-up Non-Story; NewsBusters Joins In Topic: CNSNews.com
Undeterred by previous attempts to baselessly attack President Obama, CNSNews.com is trying to create another Obama controversy where there isn't one.
We noted an April 15 CNS article by Edwin Mora suggesting that the Obama administration demanded that Georgetown University cover up the monogram "IHS," a symbol for the name of Jesus Christ, during an appearance by Obama there, even though he offered no evidence of it -- indeed, Mora admitted that the administration asked only that the university cover up "all of the Georgetown University signage and symbols" behind Obama's stage, not the IHS symbol specifically.
End of story, right? Wrong.
An April 16 article by Matt Cover noted that "Laura Bush spoke at Georgetown University in front of the same 'IHS'" -- falsely suggesting that Obama administration demanded that it be covered. As with Mora, Cover's suggestion is contradicted by his own reporting, in which he quotes an Obama White House statement that "Any suggestions to the contrary are simply false."
Mora, meanwhile, makes the false suggestion once more in an April 16 article, calling it "the unintended consequence of the White House’s desire to have a backdrop of flags behind the president." Despite all the denials issued by the university and the administration, Mora still treats the claim as legitimate, further falsely suggesting that there's a "contradiction" between those denials.
Other branches of the Media Research Center are now jumping on the non-story. An April 17 NewsBusters post by Mark Finkelstein breathlessly asserted that Obama's "hand-picked DNC Chairman [Tim Kaine] just went on national TV and denied that the Obama administration requested Georgetown University to cover up the IHS monogram representing the name of Christ" -- which, of course, is absolutely true -- further asserting that CNS "flatly report[ed] that such a request had indeed been made."
Wrong, Mark. CNS never claimed that the Obama administration demanded that Georgetown cover up the IHS -- which is exactly what Kaine said. Nevertheless, Finkelstein called Kaine's claim "credulity-busting."
No, what's credulity-busting is that CNS and Finkelstein are trying to build this molehill of a non-story into a fraudulent mountain of an attack on Obama.
Michael Reagan ups the paranoia factor by ranting against the Department of Homeland Security report on right-wing extremism in his April 16 Newsmax column:
Are you a veteran returning from Iraq or Afghanistan after risking life and limb to protect your fellow Americans? If so, you are a ticking time bomb likely to be recruited by those dangerous right-wing extremists.
After all, the vaunted Extremism and Radicalization Branch of the Homeland Environment Threat Analysis Division, Department of Homeland Security, warns that you “possess combat skills and experience that are attractive to rightwing extremists,” and these Obama-ite loons are concerned that right-wing extremists “will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to boost their violent capabilities.”
Have we really come to this? Has Adolf Hitler’s propaganda chief Joseph Goebbels been reborn and recruited by the Obama administration to scare the heck out of the American people with absurdities such as this whacked-out document?
Because there's no better way to respond to a fully supported claim that extremist groups will attempt to radicalize veterans than by baselessly likening Obama to a Nazi (as right-wingers are wont to do). Reagan keeps the smear going by calling the report "something out of a Gestapo directive."
Reagan, tellingly, makes no mention of the DHS report on left-wing extremism. But then, he would have to criticize that, too.
Media Matters notes an April 15 CNSNews.com article by Edwin Mora carrying the misleading headline, "Georgetown Says it Covered Over Name of Jesus to Comply With White House Request." In fact, as the article itself points out, the White House requested that Georgetown "cover up all signs and symbols" on the stage -- not solely the name of Jesus.
Newsmax peddled the same distortion: An April 16 article by Dan Weil asserted that "The White House had a monogram that symbolizes the name of Jesus hidden from the backdrop of a speech President Obama gave at Georgetown University Tuesday," even though he offers no evidence that the White House specifically asked for that symbol to be covered and he even states that "The White House requested that all university signs and symbols behind the stage be concealed" -- and therefore contradicts Weil's lead paragraph.
MRC Gives Limbaugh's Anal Sex Fixation a Pass Topic: Media Research Center
Media Research Center chief Brent Bozell is not, to put it succinctly, a fan of anal sex:
In 2006, he complained that at a Comedy Central roast for William Shatner, "the audience was buried in man-on-man anal-sex and oral-sex jokes."
In 2008, he was offended that "Ugly Betty" includes "catty references" to, among other things, "anal sex."
On March 13, he bashed "Family Guy": "This Jesus-bashing is offensive, but it isn’t so surprising – it’s a 'Family Guy' staple. Now add the allusions to anal penetration and we’re on another trip down Grossout Lane."
Bozell has thus clearly established his opposition to references to anal sex in the media. So why does his organization give Rush Limbaugh a pass for making those very same "allusions to anal penetration"?
Limbaughhasalonghistory of making anal-sex references on his radio program and in interviews. But MRC employees, far from criticizing him for it, have uncritically repeated and even endorsed those references.
In a Jan. 22 NewsBusters post, Noel Sheppard touts Limbaugh's interview with Sean Hannity, during which he says of Barack Obama: "We are being told that we have to hope he succeeds; that we have to bend over, grab the ankles, bend over forward, backward, whichever; because his father was black, because this is the first black president." Sheppard did not highlight or ciriticize the remark.
In a Jan. 28 NewsBusters post, Jeff Poor noted MSNBC's highlighting of the "grab the ankles" remark, but that's not what offended him. Rather, he complained that the remark was used to ask a Republican congressmanto "denounce the talk radio king."
A Jan. 28 NewsBusters post by Geoffrey Dickens transcribed the remark as it was repeated in a segment of MSNBC's "Hardball," but did not highlight it; instead, he asserted that Chris Matthews "fell into the same trap many other journalists have in misunderstanding the term 'Dittoheads.'"
And in an April 2 NewsBusters post, Jeff Poor wasn't offended that Limbaugh said of praise for Obama, "if he keeps this up throughout the G20, Gordon Brown will come down with anal poisoning and may die from it." No, he was offended that CNN's Rick Sanchez was offended by Limbaugh's words:
Throughout George W. Bush's presidency, insults were doled out repeatedly about the commander-in-chief and that was just a fact of life for the highest-ranking public official in the land. However, now there's a new president, there seems to be a different standard on how you talk about a president.
CNN's Rick Sanchez, the host of the 3 p.m. hour of "CNN Newsroom" on April 2 took offense to conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh described a flowery praise of President Barack Obama by British Prime Minister Gordon Brown.
The alleged indiscretion: Limbaugh noted on his April 1 broadcast that Brown, who isn't exactly a free-market capitalist that reflects the ideals the United States was founded upon, was kissing up to Obama, in a way that might contaminate his person.
Poor goes on to dismiss the criticism as "an outcry by a lefty" -- even though his own boss has railed against those same terms.
So, apparently, it OK to reference anal sex only if you're trying to forward a right-wing agenda which, as Bozell has demonstrated, traditionally opposes anal sex? We're confused.
CNS Ignores Full Story on DHS Report Topic: CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com is following the ConWebtemplate of criticizing the Department of Homeland Security report on right-wing extremismby not telling the full truth behind the claims made in the report.
An April 15 article by Susan Jones repeats claims that "Veterans and pro-life groups are among those protesting" the report. Jones asserted that the report "label[ed] pro-life supporters as rightwing extremists" without noting the history of violence perpetrated by some anti-abortion extremists.
Jones repeated criticism by the American Legion of the report for noting that Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh was a former member of the military without also noting that, as we've mentioned, a 2008 FBI report stated, in the words of the DHS, that "some returning military veterans from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have joined extremist groups," adding: "A review of FBI white supremacist extremist cases from October 2001 to May 2008 identified 203 individuals with confirmed or claimed military service active in the extremist movement at some time during the reporting period." (One abortion clinic bomber, Eric Rudolph, was also a former member of the military.)
Jones also seems to justify Richard Poplawski's killing of three Pittsburgh policemen by writing that "People who knew the suspect said was worried about his weapons being seized during the anti-gun Obama administration." At no point does Jones offer any evidence that Obama is "anti-gun" -- perhaps because there isn't any.
An April 16 article by Jones claiming that "Many conservative gun owners will feel threatened and insulted by the report" (though quoting only one) basessly suggests that a call for "re-imposing the ban on semi-automatic weapons" by "Obama’s own Justice Department" is a direct contradiction of Obama's statement during the campaign that "he would not take their weapons away." In fact, the weapon ban that the Obama administration has shown interest in re-instituting does not ban all "semi-automatic weapons," as Jones falsely suggests, but only selected types of semi-automatic military-style guns.
CNS has yet to address the DHS report on left-wing extremism, which was obtained by WhoRunsGov's Greg Sargent.
MRC's Baker: Telling Full Truth About Tea Parties = Discrediting It Topic: NewsBusters
An April 16 NewsBusters post by Brent Baker carries the headline, "ABC, CBS and NBC Try to Discredit 'Tea Party' Protests." How did those networks "discredit" the "tea parties"? Judging from Baker's evidence, by telling the full truth.
ABC offended Baker by noting that the rallies were "Cheered on by Fox News and talk radio"and that "critics on the left say this is not a real grassroots phenomenon at all, that it's actually largely orchestrated by people fronting for corporate interests." CBS' offense was noting that "a fistful of rightward leaning Web sites and commentators embraced the cause."NBC is in Baker's doghouse by similarly noting that "some observers suggest not all of it was as home-grown as it may seem."
At no point does Baker dispute the accuracy of those claims -- perhaps because he knows they are accurate. Rather, he plays an equivalence game, claiming that the networks lacked this same "concern for motives and hidden agendas the same programs ... when championing the 2006 pro-illegal immigrant marches."
One of the links Baker offers to support his claim is an April 2006 post on network coverage of the marches in which he complained that "Not one syllable from any protest podium was shown by ABC, CBS or NBC -- likely because of the radical messages delivered by speakers and organizers." Baker offered no examples of these purportedly "radical messages."