Washington's Latest Rant: 'Iran Has Come to America' Topic: WorldNetDaily
Chronic Obama Derangement Syndrome sufferer Ellis Washington brings the crazy once more in his June 27 WorldNetDaily column:
I am struck by the dichotomies between their righteous indignation over the sham elections versus America's indifference and apathy concerning our own stolen elections six months ago by Obama (who's most likely not even a natural born citizen), the Democrat Party and the government-controlled media. Other than hundreds of "tea parties" that broke out in cities and towns across America to memorialize the Boston Tea Party of December 16, 1773, there have been no mass demonstrations in Washington, D.C., in front of the White House expressing outrage that 62.7 million voters, 54 percent of the voting population willfully elected a neo-Marxist with fascist tendencies as president of the United States.
Obama is enslaved by his neo-Marxist, socialist ideology, which hates American exceptionalism, or the idea that America, by her unique history, religious traditions and Constitution is better than other countries possessing inferior historical and political traditions.
Washington goes on to whine that "Iran has come to America," citing a case where "a federal judge has recently upheld a decision by festival organizers in Dearborn, which is about 30 percent Muslim, to ban a Christian ministry from handing out religious tracts on public sidewalks." Washington added: "If America wasn't already a benign dictatorship, Congress would have immediately drawn up articles of impeachment against this renegade judge for so blatantly abridging freedom of religion and freedom of association protected by the First Amendment."
Washington, unfortunately, got his information from WND. He links to a June 19 WND article by Bob Unruh on the issue. Washington leaves out numerous facts in his reference to the incident, making it sound much worse than it is. The ban applies only to streets occupied by an upcoming Arab festival, and the Christian ministry would still be permitted to hand out its tracts, just in a designated area. There is no abridgement of "freedom of religion and freedom of association protected by the First Amendment."
Further, both Unruh and Washington failed to note, as the Detroit Free Press did, that Dearborn officials had been working with the groups to accomodate them, that thecity was never notified of the lawsuit when it was filed by right-wing legal group Thomas More Legal Center, and that the city views the controversy as a publicity stunt.
Washington also notes a letter the Obama administration reportedly sent to Ayatollah Khamenei prior to the election that laid out the prospect of "cooperation in regional and bilateral relations." That, of course, set Washington off on another rant:
After this letter Obama sent to the ayatollah is fully vetted, I'm sure it will become clear that much in the same way as the 1938 Munich Treaty between Neville Chamberlain and Hitler lit the fuse for World War II and the Nazi genocide of 6 million Jews in the Holocaust, so we will soon learn that Obama's appeasement letter to the ayatollah gave Iran the green light to steal the presidential election, brutally crush all political dissent and develop nuclear weapons with impunity to "wipe Israel off the map."
Only in the fevered mind of Washington can a letter calling for "cooperation in regional and bilateral relations" be the same thing as "appeasement" and giving Iran "the green light to steal the presidential election."
What is Washington smoking? 'Cause we'd like to try some of that.
CNS Misleads Inhofe on Miranda Rights Topic: CNSNews.com
A June 26 CNSNews.com video by Bridget Miller features Miller asking Republican Sen. James Inhofe: "The Obama administration has been reading Miranda rights to captured terrorists in Afghanistan before the CIA can interrogate them. Is this the right thing to do?"
But Miller, as CNS reporter Edwin Mora before her, makes no mention of the fact that the policy of Mirandizing some captured detainees in Afghanistan actually began under the Bush administration.
Another Unfunny Anti-Obama Rant From Jackie Mason Topic: WorldNetDaily
Jackie Mason unleashes yetanother unfunny anti-Obama rant in a June 25 WorldNetDaily video, accusing him of not speaking forcefully enough about.
We should treat them if they are our own children, our own family, and we should fight for them. If somebody was killing your own children, would you worry about how the enemy or the murderers are gonna interperet it, what they murderers are gonna claim? Or would worry more about saving your children? These are the children of every American in the world, of every freedom-loving person in the world. Our job is to save them by telling them we're behind them and we're encouraging them. And stop using phony, stupid excuses about what the Iranians would say. What do you think Hitler would say? Would we care what he says? Would we stop fighting Hitler because we worried what he would say? This is sickening.
Barack Obama ought to be told, "Say something. Open your mouth and don't make these lame statements. Tell them what you believe in." Otherwise, yous houldn't have any right to even be a president of a free country.
Mason doesn't mention that the man around whom those "freedom-loving" Iranian protesters are rallying is apparently a founder of Hezbollah and allegedly had a hand in the bombings of U.S. Marines and a U.S. embassy, among others, in the 1980s. Does Mason really think America should rush to enthusiastically support such a man?
That's why Mason is ranting in front of a camera for a far-right website instead of working as a diplomat -- or, it seems, engaging in his supposed day job as a comedian.
An Open Response To An Open Letter Topic: WorldNetDaily
A June 26 "open letter" by WorldNetDaily's David Kupelian -- ultimately begging for money from its readers, even though it's a for-profit operation -- starts off with your usual right-wing blather about the "liberal media," with special emphasis on complaining about how some on cable news were "making on-air jokes about oral sex" regarding the anti-Obama "tea party" rallies. That builds up to Kupelian's stirring defense of his employer:
At WND, we don't mock patriotic Americans trying to set their country right.
But WND doesmock and dishonestly attack anyone who dares to offer reasonable, fact-based criticism of WND.
We don't rewrite White House press releases and call it news.
We don't bow and scrape before President Obama or anyone else.
So what's that creepy little altar WND has set up before OrlyTaitz?
We don't pretend abortion is OK, or that same-sex marriage is good, or that global warming is "proven science," or that more government is the solution to all problems, or that Palestinian leaders wants peace, or that the Constitution is old-fashioned, or that the "Federal Reserve" is good for America.
In short, we're not politically correct and we have no sacred cows.
Except for WND's fellow right-wing travelers. Orly Taitz is one; a guy who served as a conduit for anti-abortion extremists is another.
Instead, we really do strive to tell the truth that Americans desperately need and deserve to hear.
Actually, WNDtellslies Americans do not deserve to hear from something purporting to be a "news" organization.
But what you might not realize is that what we do is very difficult. It isn't easy taking on the media elite, slaying the dragons of political correctness, bucking the tide of conventional wisdom, and constantly challenging tyranny, injustice and lies.
But how can you fight lies if you're the source of those lies?
For example, currently WND is the only news organization in the world that is vigorously pursuing the Obama eligibility story.
My point is this: If you believe, as Thomas Jefferson did, that "the only security of all is in a free press," and if you want to see major growth in WND's kind of courageous, watchdog reporting
What, exactly, is "courageous" about, for instance, repeatedly smearing President Obama as a Nazi? Most clear-thinking people would call that childish and cowardly.
I'm asking you to consider becoming a WND "subscriber."
But wait, you say, I thought WND was free. Yes, it is free, and will remain that way. However, here's what I'm getting at:
Traditionally, newspapers have relied not only on advertising, but also on reader subscriptions for financial support. But in the Internet age, we find we can deliver the news to far more people by keeping the service free. Does that mean we have to lose the needed subscription revenue? Not necessarily.
It's a time-honored tradition in the newspaper business that free newspapers ask for voluntary subscriptions.
Really? Can Kupelian point to any examples of this? We worked in newspapers for 17 years and have never heard of this "tradition."
As a rule, satisfied readers who depend on a free publication for their news don't mind paying a little bit for it.
That's why voluntary subscription donations have been the lifeblood of many "free" newspapers over the years – it's the honor system, you might say.
Again, can Kupelian offer any examples?
If you'd consider supporting WND with your "voluntary subscription," here are a couple of easy options:
1. Choose the amount you would like to donate for your voluntary monthly subscription payment and it will be deducted from your credit card on that same date each month. (Just call or e-mail WND if you ever want to cancel or change the amount.)
2. If you prefer, you can make a one-time voluntary subscription payment to WND.
3. You may also donate to WND's Legal Defense Fund, to help us battle the lawsuits and threats that always accompany honest journalism.
You mean the "honest journalism" legal defense fund that paid for seven years of WND's denying it published false claims about Clark Jones, before abruptly deciding that it did?
Thank you very much. All of us at WorldNetDaily deeply appreciate your support. It's truly what enables us to keep going. And I think you'll agree, with what's going on in America today, we need a vibrant, free press more than ever.
If Kupelian could point us to a news source that, unlike WND, didn't repeatedly tell lies to its readers, thus more closely fulfilling the constitutional mission of "a vibrant, free press," we'd sure appreciate it.
Waters Suggests NY Times Film Critic Endorses Stoning Topic: NewsBusters
In a June 26 TimesWatch item (and NewsBusters post), Clay Waters takes offense at New York Times film critic Stephen Holden's description of the new film "The Stoning of Soraya M." as "lurid torture-porn." But Waters doesn't offer an explanation of why it isn't. Given that the film's depiction of the stoning itself takes up a full 20 minutes (by Holden's estimation, a number Waters doesn't dispute), that would seem to fit the definition of "torture-porn," no?
After noting that "Holden generally likes politically activist movies, especially left-wing documentaries that take aim at politically correct targets like big business and heartland hicks" -- though Waters offers no evidence that Holden's favorable reviews of such movies is in any way linked to his personal political views, let alone offers any definitive knowledge of what Holden's actual personal political views are -- Waters then went on to say: "Holden found the movie didactic -- fair criticism, but one he usually fails to apply to movies whose message he approves of."
Huh? Is Waters saying that, by criticizing "Stoning," Holden is endorsing the stoning of innocent people?
And why, by the way, is Waters taking such offense at criticism at this particular movie? Because, as he notes, "Conservatives have embraced the movie." Unmentioned by Waters: "Stoning" was directed by Cyrus Nowrasteh, the screenwriter for the factually challenged (not that Waters and his MRC buddies will ever admit it) TV miniseries "The Path to 9/11."
It's time for Americans to consider a very scary possibility – that the president of the United States and the Congress are actually embarked on an intentional plan to destroy most everything that throughout history made the country great and unique.
Could it be that the sweeping, wholesale policy changes we have seen implemented and begun in the last six months are not just "mistakes" or the results of miscalculations? Could it be that the clear intent is to bring America down – and that those controlling America's political future know exactly what they are doing? Could it be that those holding the levers of power in Washington are not just ill-equipped for their jobs and making bad choices, but that they are determined to destroy America's economy and culture because they don't like it, never liked it and wish to see our nation operate more like the rest of the world?
CNS Avoids Ideological Label for Medical Group Topic: CNSNews.com
A June 26 CNSNews.com article by Pete Winn is entirely devoted to the ranting of "Dr. David McKalip of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons," who claims that a public option in health care reform -- which Winn describes as "a mandatory government insurance option" -- will cause doctors to "simply start migrating out of medicine." At no point does Winn identify the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons as a right-wing group with extreme and controversial positions on medicine.
As we've detailed, AAPS has promoted dubious links between abortion and breast cancer, bashed the idea of peer review, and even took the side of a doctor sentenced to prison for sparking an epidemic of drug abuse by prescribing patients literally thousands of painkillers a day. The AAPS even opposes Medicaid.
The AAPS' journal, which claims to have peer review, published an anti-immigrant screed by Madeleine Pelner Cosman falsely claiming that leprosy cases have dramatically increased due to immigration.
McKalip himself has opposed a Florida rule requiring hospitals to report how surgeons use antibiotics to prevent infections, complaining that it's a moved toward "socialized medicine."
A June 25 Newsmax article carries the headline, "Hoyer Blames Reagan for D.C. Metrorail Crash." But Steny Hoyer, the House majority leader, did no such thing.
As the article itself details -- cribbed from a CNSNews.com article reporting Hoyer's comments -- Hoyer merely stated that President Reagan opposed funding for mass transit during the 1980s, which Congress circumvented. CNS never claimed that Hoyer "blames" Reagan for the recent Metrorail crash.
Sarah Knoploh reacts in a June 25 NewsBusters post to the news that Rosie O'Donnell will launch a new show on satellite radio: "Given her history of making outlandish statements it’s quite hard to believe anyone gave O’Donnell a talk show."
Funny, we thought that a history of outlandish statements was precisely why someone gets a talk show. If that's now a disqualifying factor, will Knoploh advocate shutting down the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage?
Examiner 'Corrects' Something That Wasn't False Topic: Washington Examiner
Via the Fired Up Missouri blog (via Media Matters), we learn that the Washington Examiner did a little scrubbing to an article on Mark Sanford's little marital scandal. In quoting Missouri congressman Roy Blunt opining on the Sanford affair, the Examiner originally noted that Blunt "is no stranger to scandal, having gone through an affair, a public divorce and remarriage under the scrutiny of the press." The Examiner later quietly expunged the reference to a Blunt "affair." When folks asked why, Examiner online community manager Charlie Spiering responded on Twitter: "its called a correction."
But Blunt's affair with the woman he married just six months after jettisoning the previous one is demonstrably true, so removing a reference to it is not "correcting" anything.
NewsBusters' Double Standard on Political Scandals Topic: NewsBusters
A June 25 NewsBusters post by Dave Pierre bashes the Los Angeles Times for reporting on Republican Mark Sanford's extramarital adventures when last year, a Times editor "forcefully instructed the staff not to report" on allegations of an affair involving Democrat John Edwards "until further notified." Pierre linked to a July 2008 NewsBusters post he wrote on the subject -- a post, as we noted at the time, made when the Edwards affair story was being pushed only by the National Enquirer ... and right-wing blogs like NewsBusters who don't treat the Enquirer with the same reverence when it reports on salacious stories involving Republicans.
By comparison, the Times was reporting on confirmation of Sanford's affair by Sanford himself -- a little more direct source than the type of people usually interviewed by the Enquirer.
Will WND Be A Party to Savage's Threat Against Media Matters? Topic: WorldNetDaily
So Michael Savage has vowed to post "full pictures and other pertinent information about" Media Matters employees on his website. That presumably includes us as well, being that we work there and everything.
It's pertinent to note that, as we first reported last year, Savage's website is hosted by WorldNetDaily -- which means if Savage follows through on his attempt at intimidation, WND will be a party to it and, thus, partially liable for any actions that result from it. Will WND allow Savage to use its servers to dish out such threats and intimidation?
Given how much WND editor Joseph Farah hates us for simply telling the truth about him and WND, we've have to guess yes.
UPDATE: Savage appears to have backed off his threat, now claiming he will only post publicly available information.
NewsBusters Offended That Obama Answered Questions He Was Asked Topic: NewsBusters
A June 25 NewsBusters post by Jeff Poor expresses annoyance that the majority of the time in an ABC special dedicated to asking President Obama questions about health care reform was used ... by Obama answering those questions. Poor even supplies a handy pie chart of the time breakdown:
Poor claims that Obama was "vaguely answering or not answering the questions asked of him" and that ABC "allowed him to dominate the program with long-winded and vague answers," but he provides no evidence that any of Obama's answers were "vague."
Corsi Still Lying About Obama Topic: WorldNetDaily
Jerome Corsi just can't stop telling lies about Obama.
Ina June 25 WorldNetDaily column, Corsi repeats an old claim that "Obama, with a donation of nearly $1 million, and a son of Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi were among the biggest contributors to Odinga's 2007 presidential campaign, according to an internal document obtained by WND in Kenya." But as we've previously detailed, the document "obtained by WND in Kenya" is almost assuredly not original; it appears to be a recreation of a document cited by PolitiFact in debunking the claim of Obama fundraising for Odinga several months before Corsi's trip to Kenya. Corsi has never responded to PolitiFact's debunking, let alone offer any evidence to cast doubt on it.
Corsi also stated that "when then-Sen. Obama visited Kenya in 2006, the administration of President [Mwai] Kibaki objected that [Raila] Odinga was using Obama's visit to win votes. Obama's repeated public appearances with Odinga and the senator's almost daily criticism of the Kigaki [sic] government added to the administration's objections." But Corsi leaves out certain inconvenient facts:
Contrary to Corsi's claim of "Obama's repeated public appearances with Odinga," the Huffington Post reported that the only joint appearance by the two reported by Corsi in his Obama-bashing book of last year was an Obama speech in which Odinga was standing nearby.
While Obama did criticize the Kibaki government, he had a legitimate reason for doing so. According to The Hill: "Obama all-out criticized the Kibaki government for corruption. Chicago TV crews complained that they had to pay bribes at the Nairobi airport to get their equipment into the country. Obama took their complaint to Kibaki, who ordered a 'refund,' sending envelopes stuffed with dollars and Kenyan shillings back to the crews." Does Corsi think Obama should have stayed silent about such blatant corruption? The Huffington Post noted that "Corsi seems to be arguing that there's no corruption in Kenya, and the shakedown fees reported by a local Chicago news team to enter Kenya were simply a miscommunication."
Given WND's eagerness to smear and lie about Obama, it's no surprise that Corsi is being a loyal employee by joining in the action.
A June 24 CNSNews.com article by Christopher Neefus uncritically quotes Republican pollster Kellyanne Conway (whom Neefus fails to identify as a Republican pollster, something CNS has failed to do in the past) criticizing a New York Times/CBS News poll finding a little too much support for a public health insurance option than right-wing organizations would like to see, claiming that the poll's breakdown of 48 percent of respondents who said had voted for Barack Obama, versus 25 percent for McCain, means that, in Neefus' words, "Had those results been reflected in the November presidential election, Obama would have garnered 66 percent of the vote to McCain’s 34 percent." Conway is quoted as adding, "Was the vote 66-34? You tell me."
In fact, as we've already pointed out when CNS sister organization NewsBusters made the same bogus claim, this ignores the 27 percent of respondents who said they didn't vote, said they voted for someone else, or refused to say for whom they voted -- which means that the breakdown cannot be 66-34.