CNS' Jeffrey Puts Words In Obama's Mouth Topic: CNSNews.com
In an Aug. 14 CNSNews.com article, Terry Jeffrey asserted that President Obama "referred to American opponents of amnesty for illegal aliens as 'demagogues.'"
But Obama said nothing about "amnesty." Answering a question about "comprehensive immigration reform," Obama said, "There are going to be demagogues out there who try to suggest that any form of pathway for legalization for those who are already in the United States is unacceptable."
Jeffrey provides no evidence that the proposed "pathway for legalization" is "amnesty," or even that only "pathway" critics (like Jeffrey) refer to any legalization pathway as "amnesty."
Jeffrey has previously baselessly conflated comprehensive immigration reform with undefined "amnesty."
And somehow Farah has the sheer audacity to attack other news organizations for being "debauched, faithless, nefarious, reprobate and unprincipled"? And then to claim that "my little Internet-based news organization provides something of an antidote to this mind-control, liberty-denying poison all around us"?
We don't know what to say, except that Farah is apparently incapable of self-reflection. Or is so far down the rabbit hole that he no longer cares about the facts (or has decided that cashing in on his hate is more important).
Examiner Columnist Hides Full Story of Man With Gun At Obama Rally Topic: Washington Examiner
An Aug. 13 Washington Examiner column by Gregory Kane noted that "Someone at a New Hampshire rally President Obama attended to promote health-care legislation was carrying a handgun," then dismissed the threat because "the man with the gun was nowhere near Obama."
Kane doesn't define "nowhere near Obama," nor does he say how close a man with a gun must get to the president of the United States to be considered a threat. Kane also failed to note that the man with the gun was also carrying a sign reading, "It is time to water the tree of liberty," an apparent reference to the Thomas Jefferson quote, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
CNS Misleads on 2000 Florida Recount Topic: CNSNews.com
From an Aug. 13 CNSNews.com article by Patrick Goodenough:
The claim that Bush won unfairly still has its supporters despite the fact that a comprehensive review carried out by a consortium of eight news organizations concluded the following year that Bush would have won even if the U.S. Supreme Court had not ruled as it did.
“Contrary to what many partisans of former Vice President Al Gore have charged, the United States Supreme Court did not award an election to Mr. Bush that otherwise would have been won by Mr. Gore,” the New York Times reported in November 2001.
“A close examination of the ballots found that Mr. Bush would have retained a slender margin over Mr. Gore if the Florida court’s order to recount more than 43,000 ballots had not been reversed by the United States Supreme Court.”
That's an incomplete reading of the Times article, which went on to state:
But the consortium, looking at a broader group of rejected ballots than those covered in the court decisions, 175,010 in all, found that Mr. Gore might have won if the courts had ordered a full statewide recount of all the rejected ballots. This also assumes that county canvassing boards would have reached the same conclusions about the disputed ballots that the consortium's independent observers did. The findings indicate that Mr. Gore might have eked out a victory if he had pursued in court a course like the one he publicly advocated when he called on the state to "count all the votes."
For Goodenough to complain that the idea that "Bush won unfairly still has its supporters" overlooks not only that there were scenarios in which Gore could have won in Florida but also the fact that the Supreme Court halted a recount that would have helped to put the idea to rest.
Cashill Still Hiding Facts to Defend Killer, Smear Victim Topic: WorldNetDaily
In his Aug. 13 WorldNetDaily column, Jack Cashill returns once again to his current cause celebre, Steven Nary, convicted of killing a gay man, Juan Pifarre, in 1996 and recently denied parole.
As before, Cashill attempts to denigrate the victim as suggesting he deserved to be murdered not only because he was gay but because he was "an immigrant, an illegal one, who got a green card through a sham marriage" and "an angry coke-head." As before, Cashill whitewashes Nary's actions, not mentioning that Nary allowed Pifarre to perform oral sex on him, for which Pifarre offered to pay Nary $40, or that Nary told police he choked Pifarre for five minutes, or the apartment where Nary killed Pifarre was strewn with blood, or that Nary originally denied any sexual contact with Pifarre and told the Navy medic who treated the broken hand Nary suffered in killing Pifarre that he had hurt it playing basketball.
Cashill bizarrely complained that the district attorney at Nary's parole hearing "chastised Nary for not calling 911 after he had fled Pifarre's apartment in the early hours of the morning. That he had called the police of his own accord days later scored him no points." So it's the thought that counts? Wouldn't a truly repentant killer with conscience have called 911 immediately, when there might have been a chance to save Pifarre's life? Waiting days to call 911 for someone long dead is a meaningless gesture.
But then, Cashill's overeagerness to defend a killer and denigrate his victim is a tad meaningless as well.
Farah: Grandmother May Be Obama's Real Mother Topic: WorldNetDaily
Right Wing Watch reports that on some obscure right-wing talk show called "Crosstalk," WorldNetDaily's Joseph Farah suggested that Barack Obama's maternal grandmother, Madelyn Dunham, was really his mother:
Well, Madelyn Dunham is a very interesting person. As you know, Barack ... the ... and I want to be careful when he identify people as "mother," "father," "grandmother," and so forth because honestly I don't think we know with any certainty whatsoever who those players are in Barack Obama's life. And perhaps he doesn't either. I suspect he does, but it's possible he doesn't know. And it is entirely within the realm of possibility that Madelyn Dunham was his mother and there's a lot of circumstantial evidence to suggest that."
Right Wing Watch adds: "if this were in fact true, wouldn't it demolish the Birther movement's foundational claim that Obama in ineligible to be president because was born in Kenya?"
This particular claim has not been mentioned at WND, but they seem to be building up to it with things like an Aug. 4 article by Jerome Corsi raising questions about Obama's parentage because Stanley Ann Dunham, "was registered for college classes in Seattle only 15 days after reportedly delivering her first-born child in Honolulu."
Does Farah have the guts to tout this conspiracy at his own website instead of the dog-whistle frequency of right-wing radio? We shall see.
The "Crosstalk" radio show, by the way, is operated by a ministry called VCY America, which (like Farah) despises Rick Warren and his "Purpose Driven Life" model.
In an attempt to distance conservatives from the Nazi imagery some right-wingers have used at town hall protests, Seton Motley uses an Aug. 12 NewsBusters post to highlight the fact that Lyndon LaRouche-linked groups are the ones behind one particular image, one of President Obama with a Hitler-like mustache.
Making sure to copy from LaRouche's Wikipedia that "LaRouche has run for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States seven times" -- and failing to note that no mainstream Democrat supports LaRouche-- Motley also repeatedly calls LaRouche a "Communist." Really?
While LaRouche's Wikipedia page notes that LaRouche began his political career as a Trotskyite, it also points out that the Communist Party USA tried to "eliminate" LaRouche. And while LaRouche may hold some left-leaning views, he also holds some right-leaning views as well, such as disdain for the counterculture and global warming skepticism, as well as oppositon to globalism.
Nevertheless, Motley insists: "It could very well be that many (most? all?) of the swastikas and Hitler images on display at these rallies are being toted by supporters of the very Leftist LaRouche, and not the conservatives to whom the media so readily and repeatedly ascribe them." Given right-wingers' enthusiasm for likening Obama to Nazis, that's likely not the case.
UPDATE: An Aug. 13 post by Motley describes LaRouche as an "esoteric left-winger" who "most certainly can not be described as a conservative" -- even though, as noted above, he supports traditional values and is a global warming denier.
WND's Washington Slobbers All Over Farah Topic: WorldNetDaily
Ellis Washington writes in his Aug. 11 WorldNetDaily column that he doesn't want his tribute to Joseph Farah "to become unduly fawning." And it doesn't become unduly fawning -- it becomes embarrassingly (and falsely) so:
Farah alone continues defending himself against universal blacklisting and vicious libel and slander leveled against his name by socialist radicals and the state-controlled media for 12 years since his cofounding of WorldNetDaily with his dear wife, Elizabeth.
In conclusion, Joseph Farah is a man's man. He is fearless and is loyal only to God, America and the truth. His indefatigable spirit and prolific output in writing an original and interesting column every day, as well as path-breaking books such as "Taking America Back: A Radical Plan to Revive Freedom, Morality and Justice," his informative online intelligence newsletter, Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin, and many news articles from a career as a professional journalist spanning over 30 years, is an achievement that even conservative icon Bill Buckley would be envious of.
Exceeding gratitude to you, Joseph Farah, and to all the editors, writers and staff at WorldNetDaily for being a clarion voice of Veritas (truth), when all other voices have either been silenced or compromised.
Washington clearly does not know Farah like we do.
First and foremost, he does not care about the truth. He is a liar. He and his WorldNetDaily employees have repeatedlylied about Barack Obama. Farah has lied about us.
Second, he is not fearless -- as demonstrated by his list of demands before he would appear on "The O'Reilly Factor," chief among them being that he would not have to stoop to appearing with any other guests. O'Reilly declined to give in to Farah's demands.
And Farah himself says he's an activist, not a journalist.
So take away the illusion of truth, fearlessness and journalism, what is left for Washington (or anyone, really) to admire about Farah?
Yes, but what mythological or historical hero does he bear a resemblance to that only you can see? Michael Savage is Prometheus and Captain Dreyfus. You’re Sisyphus this week. Even Obama got to be Emmanuel Goldstein from 1984. You ask me, Farah ain’t getting his 20 bucks worth here.
Ponte Hits the Hateful Talking Points Topic: Newsmax
Lowell Ponte is down with all the hateful right-wing talking points on health-care reform in his Aug. 11 Newsmax column.
Falsely claiming that Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer "accused health reform critics of being 'un-American'" when, in fact, they asserted that "Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American"? Check.
Hypocritically denouncing Pelosi's criticism of Nazi imagery by protesters at town halls whileclaiming that "Obamocracy 2009" has a "chilling resemblance to 1936 Germany"?
Simply making up stuff in claiming that "By age 7, Pelosi was already accustomed to demanding political payoffs in telephone calls with those needing her father's favors"? Check. Making up more stuff in claiming that Barney Frank and Chris Dodd "threatened and bullied banks into making millions of home loans to NINJAs, people with No Income and No Job"? Check again.
Needless viciousness in claiming that any plane Pelosi is on is "said to be designated Broomstick One"? Double check.
An Aug. 10 email by right-wing retailer The Patriot Depot, sent out on the Newsmax mailing list, touted the Aug. 2 WorldNetDaily article presenting what it purported to be Barack Obama's "Kenyan birth certificate." The WND article was further touted on the Patriot Depot's blog.
But WND itself conceded that the certificate was a fake four days before the Patriot Depot sent its email out.
The Patriot Depot folks need to keep current on their conspiracies.
In an Aug. 6 NewsReal blog post, David Swindle takes us to task for our previous criticism of him and David Horowitz for their apparent support of racial profiling:
David Horowitz had a great one-line response to Terry’s inability to even bother engaging our arguments for discussion:
What is it you don’t understand about protecting black people from black predators?
To which we respond: What is it you don't understand about not treating all black people like potential predators?
As we originally pointed out, Horowitz and Swindle seemed to justify the full search of a vehicle of a black person pulled over on the New Jersey Turnpike for a minor traffic offense -- mentioned during an appearance by Horowitz on Glenn Beck's Fox News show -- by claiming that "a high percentage of drug dealers in the New York-New Jersey area were black." That, on its face, implies support for racial profiling due to the apparent belief that because most drug dealers are black, all blacks should be therefore treated as potential drug dealers. No additional justification was provided.
Swindle then added:
I’m not sure Terry really understands what Horowitz and I are defending here. We’re not suggesting that it’s acceptable for a cop to pull over an African-American male who’s just driving down the street, not breaking any laws. To do so would be true “racial profiling” and a genuine example of a “DWB” — “Driving While Black.”
But if an African-American male is pulled over and fits the offender profiling (which would include many factors apart from his race), a cop shouldn’t be afraid to search his car because some leftist, anti-cop activist will try and attack him as a racist.
But there was no indication from the person mentioned during Horowitz's "Glenn Beck" appearance who was stopped and searched that he fit the profile of a drug dealer beyond being a black male.
We have no problem with police using profiling techniques to catch criminals -- after all, that's their job. We have a problem with race being a disproportionate factor when it's not justified, which is what Horowitz and Swindle (as well as Newsmax's Ronald Kessler) appeared to be endorsing.
We believe in color-blind justice. We hope Horowitz and Swindle do too.
Jeffrey managed to discredit himself by following up his false assertion with the actual quote from Pelosi and Hoyer -- "Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American"-- which is clearly not what Jeffrey, Johnson and Gainor claimed they wrote.
Johnson, Jeffrey and Gainor are just thelatest in the ConWeb to lie about the Pelosi-Hoyer op-ed.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi can hardly blink (and the cosmetic surgery tax to pay for Obamacare died nanoseconds after the thoughtless congressional sponsor was reminded of Madame Speaker's obsession) so she knows the power of Botox, a poison that tightens skin and reduces wrinkles.
Nancy has spent the last week injecting American politics with one poisonous shot after another of rhetorical Botox to firm up support and eliminate the wrinkles of opposition to the increasingly unpopular Obama health insurance "reform."
But the Botox didn't work. Each time Pelosi increased the dose, ratcheted up the rhetoric, ordinary Americans just got madder.
Make no mistake, Nancy, the wrinkles of opposition are getting deeper. The Botox is not working. We the People will not be intimidated, marginalized or ignored.
So Nancy, hold the Botox. The Constitution does not need a facelift. It needs to be respected. We the People will be heard.
WND Promotes False Internment Camp Conspiracy Theory Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily has found a new conspiracy to latch onto: the government is creating internment camps for critics of President Obama. Too bad it's not true.
An Aug. 7 WND article by Bob Unruh asserted "An ad campaign featured on a U.S. Army website seeking those who would be interested in being an 'Internment/Resettlement' specialist is raising alarms across the country, generating concerns that there is some truth in those theories about domestic detention camps, a roundup of dissidents and a crackdown on 'threatening' conservatives." In addition to quoting the usual alarmists, Unruh throws in the usual anonymous attacks by quoting YouTube commenters.
Janet Porter followed up in her Aug. 11 WND column by being even more paranoid:
Internment/confinement/correction camps for American civilians? Maybe there's something to all those rumors of FEMA concentration camps. After all, those internment/resettlement specialists are going to have to report to work somewhere. If you're going to round up American citizens, you're going to need a place to put them.
Internment and confinement are for criminals ... for terrorists. And terrorists, according to DHS, are ... us.
Both Unruh and Porter, as per WND style, ramped up the conspiracy factor without knowing what the hell they're talking about. As Media Matters detailed, "internment" is a term frequently used by the military when discussing detention facilities of all types -- a custom that goes back well before the Obama administration.
More sensible conservatives have tried to deflate the conspiracy. Ed Morrissey wrote at Hot Air:
It's not really a great mystery, nor is it a conspiracy to set up camps for political dissenters. It's a good job for people who want to serve the cause of liberty and freedom, and those who volunteer deserve our respect for choosing what's usually a pretty thankless job even without the paranoid overtones.
WND has yet to report this debunking to its readers. Apparently, a false conspiracy makes for better web traffic than the truth.
Newsmax engages in a bit of creative reinterpretation in an Aug. 10 article touting a Ben Stein column at the American Spectator claiming he was fired as a New York Times in part because of his 2008 movie "Expelled -- No Intelligence Allowed."
Newsmax rather bizarrely described the movie as "calling for a dialogue between science and faith." Er, not so much: When you're arguing that evolution paved the way for the Holocaust and obtaining interviews from evolutionists under false pretenses, that's not exactly calling for a dialogue.
In his Spectator column, Stein didn't deviate from reality quite so grandly as Newsmax, claiming instead his film was "a plea for open discussion of the possibility that life might have started with an Intelligent Designer." But again, invoking Nazis and engaging in deception does not exactly facilitate open discussion.