An Oct. 2 article by Chelsea Schilling downplays Taitz's involvement in a birther-related lawsuit in favor of elevating fellow birther lawyer Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation. Schilling fails to report that Kreep's clients, Wiley Drake and Markham Robinson, used to be represented by Taitz, but dropped her after determining she was "in over her head." Schilling also didn't report that Taitz for a while refused to sign papers transferring Drake and Markham's representation from her to Kreep, then filed papers stating Drake and Robinson's desire to be removed from the lawsuit.
(And, needless to say, Schilling made sure not to report that Drake has prayed for Obama's death, which makes him a less-than-objective plaintiff.)
Schilling benignly wrote that "Taitz and Kreep have expressed significant differences of opinion in how the case should be handled"; in fact, Taitz has been feuding with Kreep.
An Oct. 5 follow-up article by Bob Unruh largely repeated Schilling's claims without offering the full truth -- which, in this case, according to the OC Weekly, meant more specious and bizarre arguments:
Carter seemed genuinely perplexed by the issue of standing. A plaintiff claiming harm must prove that that harm is not "speculative and hypothetical." Again and again, he asked Taitz and Kreep to explain why that wasn't the case for their plaintiffs. After returning from a twenty minute recess, Taitz was armed with a compelling answer: Because she came from the USSR!
Taitz's question to the court: "Have you ever heard of a lawyer being able to challenge Stalin?" She then launched into the story of how her great uncle was sent to a labor camp in Siberia, and lawyers weren't able to free him. Her great aunt, stricken with grief, slit her own wrists but was rescued by a neighbor. After years and years in Siberia, Taitz's uncle returned to his family, only to die soon after. The moral of the story? "That's what happens when citizens don't have the power to enforce their constitutional rights given by God and given by the Constitution."
It was the biggest applause line of the day.
Since WND is still protecting its readers from tales of Taitz's increasing legal incompetence, there's no mention at all at WND of how, in a separate case, Taitz is accusing the judge of secretly meeting with Attorney General Eric Holder.
NewsBusters Defends Beck, Misleads on Reporting About Him Topic: NewsBusters
In an Oct. 5 NewsBusters post, Jeff Poor uncritically repeated Glenn Beck's "impassioned plea to stop looking into his past" and his complaint that the media has "looked into Glenn Beck's past - and not corruption in government." But isn't a demand by someone that the media stop examining them de facto evidence that said person has something to hide and that, in fact, his past should continue to be dug into?
Poor went on to state that "the McClatchy-owned The News Tribune of Tacoma, Wash. and the left-leaning Salon.com ran stories questioning whether or not Glenn Beck's mother, Mary Beck committed suicide. It was later propagated by the left-wing storefronts." But Poor is buying into Beck's framing of things. The issue is not whether Beck's mother committed suicide; it's whether Beck is insisting she did when the official evidence is at best inconclusive.
Instead of regurgitating what Beck says, shouldn't Poor be asking why Beck is suddenly getting squeamish about media attention?
Poor's link on "left-wing storefronts," by the way, goes to Media Matters. But isn't NewsBusters, not to mention the rest of the Media Research Center, a right-wing storefront?
An Oct. 5 NewsBusters post by P.J. Gladnick asserts that in a new TV ad and website statement, Consumer Reports has "now come out in support of ObamaCare." Gladnick insists that Consumers Union, the nonprofit publisher of Consumer Reports, is abandoning "any claim of political neutrality" and endorsing "endorsing a highly unpopular Democrat health care bill that will be costly to the taxpayers."
In fact, Consumers Union is endorsing no specific plan and doesn't even mention Obama by name -- as the CU statement Gladnick quotes makes clear:
You may wonder why we are injecting ourselves so publicly into a heated debate that has generated an enormous amount of concern and confusion. We believe that so much attention has been focused on the politics of health care that we're losing sight of the core problems. Health costs are skyrocketing, which affects all of us, and if you get seriously sick, having insurance is no guarantee that you'll get the care you need.
We are in the business of providing information and advice that helps consumers. We don't make campaign contributions. We don't endorse candidates. And we don't care who gets the credit for fixing the problems with health care—we just need them fixed. Doing nothing about health care is not a solution.
Too many Americans are just one pink slip away—or one major illness away—from losing their health coverage. That's why policymakers need to find a solution this year.
At no point does CU endorse "ObamaCare" -- just reform that fixes "the problems with health care." Is Gladnick incapable of basic reading comprehension?
While, of course, weaselly denying that he's making any such connection:
Don't you dare point out in polite company that socialized medicine in Germany provided the mechanism for the Holocaust.
Don't do it.
Even though it's undeniably true from a historical standpoint, Barack Obama, the Democratic Party and their accomplices in the Big Media will vilify you, ridicule you and accuse you of minimizing the tragedy of the Holocaust.
But I don't really care if they play that card with me. They've already played the race card. They've already played the Nazi card. They've already played the "extremist" card. Consider me inoculated from the venomous poison of these vipers.
Am I suggesting that socialized medicine of the kind being promoted in America today leads inevitably to holocaust and mass murder?
But I am saying it is a necessary prerequisite for government-directed holocaust and mass murder to occur.
It's also clear that the kind of state-enforced medical rationing and the politicization of medicine observed in Germany before and during Hitler's reign of terror would not be possible without that first step of nationalized health care.
This does not mean Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are little Hitlers in the making. I am not calling them Nazis, though they share some common values and common friends with the German national socialists. I am saying their statist work in the area of so-called "health-care reform" can make it possible for some future American version of Hitler to carry out his most diabolical plans.
WorldNetDaily's book division is publishing a new title, "O God," by Josh McDowell and Dave Sterrett, which purports to demonstrate that Oprah Winfrey is not, well, a right-wing evangelical Christian.
McDowell and Sterrett -- who set up their evangelical credentials as "Christian apologists who believe that salvation is by God's grace alone, through faith alone, and in Christ alone" -- set up their attack as "a fictional conversation – or series of conversations – between two female graduate students, both seeking spiritual truth." Because nothing says authenticity more than two adult males passing themselves off as female graduate students.
WND dismisses Oprah's spirituality as nothing more than "casual New Age proclamations," adding:
It is Oprah's compassion that lures millions to her TV show and her magazine and the persona that has become an industry. Yet, McDowell and Sterrett explore the possibility that misguided compassion, based on human emotions rather than divine revelation and God's law, can lead people in dangerous directions.
So evangelicals aren't big on compassion? Or is compassion only for people who agree with them?
We'd like to read the book, but somehow we suspect that the chances that WND will send us a review copy are negligible at best.
An Oct. 3 NewsBusters post by Tim Graham complains that a Time magazine columnist "joked that it’s time for an Obama dictatorship," further complaing that "The problem with all this joking is it becomes a little difficult to discern just to what degree Stein is joking and to what degree he is seriously dreaming."
By contrast, Graham -- along with everyone else at the Media Research Center -- has yet to express an opinion about a Newsmax columnist calling for a military coup against Obama. Does silence equal assent?
More Name-Calling From Ellis Washington Topic: WorldNetDaily
Ellis Washington devotes his Oct. 3 WorldNetdaily column to attacking two "doyens of liberalism," Gore Vidal and Garrison Keillor.
Washington describes Vidal as "a petite Leni Riefenstahl," and makes a big deal out of noting that Vidal's first book, "The City and the Pillar," was "a sexual tome that infuriated mainstream critics in that this was one of the first major American novels to feature conspicuous homosexuality." He goes on to call Keillor "a petite Walter Duranty."
Washington concludes by declaring: "Indeed, Mr. Gore Vidal, Mr. Garrison Keillor and President Barack Obama, your replacements have arrived and they are – God, America's Founding Fathers and We the People."
Shocker: Someone In the ConWeb Finally Denounces Newsmax's Coup-Advocating Column Topic: Horowitz
It took a while, but someone has broken the ConWeb silence on John L. Perry's Newsmax column advocating a military coup against President Obama.
David Forsmark criticizes the column in an oct. 2 NewsReal post, though it was curiously done so as backhanded praise for the hated Keith Olbermann highlighting it (along with Chris Hayes of "the Marxist magazine The Nation"):
In fact, I would argue they gave Newsmax too much credit. There is no statement denouncing the piece to be found on the site, or to be obtained by calling Newsmax’s office– which is the minimum requirement if they are going to maintain that they hold to some kind of journalistic standard. When I asked the person who took my call if they were “just going to take it down and pretend it never happened,” she chuckled and said, “That’s about right.” My emailed request for a response or a statement has been ignored for over a day.
Perry’s initial response was that he was not calling for a coup, just examining a lurking possibility—and the column is couched as reporting—but that’s not a defense. That’s worse. It’s a slander on the only military in the world that has NEVER turned its guns on its own citizenry. It’s a slander generally reserved for liberal novelists and screenwriters and the Seven Days in May scenarios that Olbermann and Hayes indulge in toward the end of this segment.
Forsmark then curiously claims that "Newsmax is also probably single-handedly keeping the 'birther' farce alive, with staff 'reporting' and commentary on the issue, which are sent out to their huge email list." In fact, while Newsmax did go birther in Christopher Ruddy's advocacy of it and publishing the factually challenged rantings of Pam Geller, it pales in comparison to the all-birther-all-the-time rabidness -- and out-and-out lies -- of WorldNetDaily.
Forsmark is correct in noting that Newsmax has refused to acknowledge the controversy over Perry's column on its website, let alone apologize to its readers for posting it.
James Hirsen uses an Oct. 1 Newsmax column to rant against Hollywood types who signed a petition demanding the release of Roman Polanski, who was arrested in Switzerland on a 30-year-old arrest warrant after he fled the country before sentencing on a charge of having sex with a 13-year-old girl:
These people are truly certifiable. They will forgive the likes of Polanski, the rapist, seek clemency for Tookie Williams, the murderer, but will never forgive Elia Kazan, the truth teller.
Of course, as we've detailed, Hirsen has been an apologist for his buddy -- and foundation funder -- Mel Gibson, a relationship Hirsen has not disclosed to his readers. Hirsen has declared Gibson no longer needs to apologize for his drunken anti-Semitic rantings, and he has remained silent on Gibson's extramarital escapades.
Seems to us that Hirsen is a bit on the certifiable side, too.
MRC Promotes False Parallels Between Letterman, O'Reilly Scandals Topic: Media Research Center
An Oct. 2 MRC Culture & Media Institute item (and NewsBusters post) by Colleen Raezler and Carolyn Plocher draws false comparisons between sex scandals involving David Letterman and Bill O'Reilly to complain that "How the networks cover media sex scandals apparently depends on the political views of those involved."
Raezler and Plocher complain that the media "largely portrayed Letterman as a victim" while they "gave the [O'Reilly] scandal nearly the same weight as they did a presidential debate." But they ignore the significant difference between the scandals:
Letterman was indeed the victim of an extortion attempt by someone other than a person with whom he had an affair; O'Reilly was sued by a former staffer, Andrea Mackris, alleging sexual harassment.
Letterman admitted his behavior on national TV; O'Reilly denied it, filed a countersuit against Mackris, then settled out of court, reportedly paying Mackris millions of dollars.
Letterman has not set himself up as a judge of the morals of others; O'Reilly has.
But if Raezler and Plocher admitted these differences, they wouldn't have an article.
Klein Grants Anonymity to Terrorists -- Again Topic: WorldNetDaily
Aaron Klein provides anonymity to terrorists once again in an Oct. 2 article quoting "U.S.-trained Palestinian gunmen" as claiming that their training "will likely be utilized in the not too distant future to kill Israelis."
Klein wrote: "The pardoned gunmen agreed to speak on condition their names be withheld and that WND does not print the name of the city in which the meeting took place, citing concerns over their current jobs in the PA's U.S.-backed security forces."
This is not the first time Klein has given anonymity to terrorists; as we noted, a July 2008 article quoted members of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades who were "speaking to WND on condition of anonymity." A May 2008 article quoted members of Hamas similarly "speaking on condition of anonymity" in the service of Klein's attempts to link Barack Obama to Hamas.
All this anonymity would seem to be in contradiction of WND editor Joseph Farah's assertion that "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."
Farah Hypocritically Sings Praises of Andy Williams Topic: WorldNetDaily
We've previously detailed how WorldNetDaily's Joseph Farah bashed "spoiled-brat political activists masquerading as entertainers" and wanted to bring back the blacklist against such celebrities -- but only if they expressed political views to the left of Farah.
Celebrities who agree with Farah, however, get a much different reception from him. Chuck Norris, for example, was given his own column. And Farah spent his Oct. 1 column singing the praises of singer Andy Williams for bashing President Obama.
"It's funny where you have to search for truth these days. Who would have thought we'd hear it from 81-year-old singer Andy Williams, best known for his rendition of 'Moon River'? " Farah wrote, adding that "I agree with Andy Williams that Barack Obama's goal is to see the country fail."
Williams' "truth," of course, is in reality nothing more than one man's opinion. But when others offered an opinion Farah didn't agree with, he wanted to censor them and destroy their careers.
Farah thus joins NewsBusters in the hypocritical stance of "shut up and sing" -- except when they're singing your tune.
In an Oct. 1 Newsmax article purported to detail the "new taxes, fees, and other costs over the next 10 years" President Obama's policies "could" result in, David A. Patten repeats a discredited claim about an energy "tax."
Patten cites a "Treasury Department document obtained by the Competitive Enterprise Institute following a Freedom of Information Act request reveals that the administration projected revenues of '$100 to $200 billion annually' from auctioning off the right to emit greenhouse gases – the system known as cap and trade" as evidence that "cap and trade as currently proposed would cost consumers $140 billion per year."
In fact, as we pointed out the last time Newsmax cited it, the Treasury document Patten cites -- which Newsmax previously claimed computed to a cost of "$1,761 a year" to "every American household" -- is not applicable to the cap-and-trade bill currently before Congress since it, among other things, didn't figure in methods to reduce the impact of cap-and-trade on consumers. A Congressional Budget Office analysis of the current legislation found that that average cost to households in 2020 is $175 per year when various methods of impact mitigation methods are included.