Cashill Still Rejoicing in Death of Abortion Doctor Topic: WorldNetDaily
Jack Cashill can't quite bring himself to critize Scott Roeder for killing abortion doctor George Tiller. Back in June, Cashill appeared to justify it by calling it inevitable and "a kind of crude frontier justice," blaming not Roeder for pulling the trigger but, rather, former Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius for not running Tiller out of the state before Roeder had a chance to kill him.
Cashill's Nov. 12 WorldNetDaily column again revels in Tiller's death and refuses to hold Roeder accountable:
Scott Roeder, the accused murderer of late-term Wichita abortionist George Tiller, admitted killing Tiller earlier this week in an interview with the Associated Press.
Roeder told the AP that the shooting was provoked by "the fact [that] preborn children's lives were in imminent danger." He plans to plead "not guilty" and hopes to use this "necessity defense" at trial.
Roeder's public defenders, however, were quick to disown this strategy if for no other reason than that the Kansas Supreme Court rejected a similar defense in an abortion clinic trespassing case in 1993.
Indeed, were Tiller legally performing a state sanctioned service, however malevolent, it is hard to imagine that Roeder's hoped-for strategy would have much of a chance.
Got that? Cashill doesn't find Roeder's "necessity defense" morally reprehensible; he merely regrets it won't hold up in court.
Cashill goes on to once again blame the victim: "Say what one will, Roeder was not a terrorist. There was nothing random about his actions. Nor was Tiller an innocent victim. Far from it." And again, Cashill blames politicians: "Had Tiller gotten the trial he deserved, he would be where Roeder is today, but at least he would be alive."
If Cashill is truly offended by the act of murder, shouldn't he be bothered by Tiller's murder as well? Or is he laying the groundwork for a "necessity defense" of his own? After all, he's been using that argument to defend killer Steven Nary.
We are witnessing an Islamized America. This is well beyond political correctness. We are enforcing Shariah. We will not insult Islam. That is Shariah. We self censor. That is Shariah. We disrespect ourselves, our nation, so that we might respect Islam. This is dhimmitude.
very “Soldier of Allah” who goes jihad is an enemy combatant. Every devout Muslim who believes in the word of the Quran has his duty to Islam, her call to jihad. Hence this terrible act of war, the 14,363 Islamic attacks across the world since 9/11, and all of the relentless plots and plans to take down America in the past month alone. Devout Muslims should be prohibited from military service. Would Patton have recruited Nazis into his army?
Graham Forgets Recent Conservative History Re: Internment Topic: NewsBusters
Tim Graham uses a Nov. 11 NewsBusters post to take issue with Montel Williams' fear that anti-Muslim hysteria in the wake of the Fort Hood shootings might result in the creation of internment camps for Muslims in America. Graham calls Williams' claim "whiplash-inducing paranoia," adding that "Montel is so afraid of a dramatic overreaction that he’s guilty of a dramatic counter-overreaction."
Um, has Graham forgotten that one of the most popular right-wing commentators, Michelle Malkin, published a book that, for all practical purposes, advocates exactly what Williams is fearing?
UPDATE: A Nov. 12 WorldNetDaily article repeats Williams' claim and, like Graham, fails to mention Malkin's "In Defense of Internment."
Meanwhile ... Topic: NewsBusters
Our colleagues at Media Matters have been doing a fine job of dismantling NewsBusters on a regular basis. The latest: Jeff Poor bashing Paul Krugman for doing a "media critic impersonation" when, just two hours earlier, Poor was seriously touting the political analysis of Chuck Norris.
CNS Ambushes Senators on Health Care Question Topic: CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com is ratcheting up its manufacturedstory that the health care reform bill is unconstitutional, publishing separate stories about threedifferentsenators ambushed by CNS for their opinion on the supposed issue.
As in previous stories on the issue, CNS fails to acknowledge the views of non-conservative experts who believe the bill's mandate that all American obtain health insurance is constitutional.
The crusade even gets an echo in Walter Williams' Nov. 12 column (published at CNS, of course), which begins by noting that "At Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s Oct. 29th press conference, a CNSNews.com reporter asked, 'Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?'"
While the focus of Fort Hood's inquiries is Nidal Hasan, the Muslim Army psychiatrist accused of murdering soldiers in support of the Muslim jihad against the West, any focus that remains there and fails to broaden the inquiry is misplaced and a disservice to our nation's future. The focus ought to be on the Fort Hood jihadist's boss – Barack Hussein Obama.
Obama declared it is time for Middle East peace "without preconditions." This dovetails Javier Solana's assertion that if Israel and the Muslim nations don't sign a peace agreement soon, then the international community should force an agreement.
The president does not appear to be a friend to Israel. He does, however, look to be a close ally to the global government and its coming leader, the Antichrist.
Molotov Misleads on Constitutional Issue Topic: WorldNetDaily
Molotov Mitchell is so desperate to attack Barack Obama that he's digging up the emoluments clause.
In his Nov. 11 WorldNetDaily video, Mitchell claims that Obama broke the law "willfully and with malice aforethought" by appointing Hillary Clinton as secretary of state. How so? As Mitchell's "constitutional professor" details, the Constitution's emolument clause was put in play, which states that "[n]o Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time." The "professor" continues:
In other words, if a senator were to vote for a raise for the office of secreatary of state, he would no longer be eligible to serve in that office. And since then-Senator Clinton did indeed vote for such a raise in January 2008, Obama defied the Constitution by appointing her to be secretary of state.
In fact, Clinton did not vote for the raise -- it was done by executive order of President Bush. Still, the Constitution does not distinguish whether a lawmaker was involved in the raise or not. Which is where the Saxbe fix -- in which Congress rolls back the salary increase of the appointed position to the level it was before the lawmaker took office for his/her current term -- comes in. And indeed, that's what Congress did to the secretary of state's salary before Clinton assumed the office.
There is debate on whether the Saxbe fix properly addresses the constitutional issue involved -- and it can be argued that the founders' intent was to discourage a lawmaker from creating a job he can get himself appointed to at the end of his term, not to bar all lawmakers from appointed office -- but neither Mitchell nor his "constitutional professor" mention the Saxbe fix.
Nevertheless, Mitchell rants that Obama is "willfullly defying our Constitution in an attempt to create something new." Mitchell then snarks that members of the armed forces take an oath to defend the Constitution from enemies foreign and domestic, and "since Obama's Kenyan, Indonesian and American, I guess he qualifies as both."
The photo-opped dead/wounded soldier routine is one of Obama's favorites. Back in July 2008, Obama canceled a planned trip to visit wounded troops at Rammstein and Landstuhl U.S. military bases in Germany because, as MSNBC reported, Obama "could not bring any media. Only military photographers would be permitted to record Obama's visit."
That attack was discredited long ago -- no evidence has ever surfaced to support the claim that Obama canceled the Landstuhl visit because the media would not be able to attend.
Further, Shapiro misleadingly frames the quote from from the MSNBC report he is citing. Here's how the quote Shapiro uses appears in the July 24, 2008, MSNBC "First Read" article he is apparently citing:
A U.S. military official tells NBC News they were making preparations for Sen. Barack Obama to visit wounded troops at the Landstuhl Medical Center at Ramstein, Germany on Friday, but "for some reason the visit was called off."
One military official who was working on the Obama visit said because political candidates are prohibited from using military installations as campaign backdrops, Obama's representatives were told, "he could only bring two or three of his Senate staff member, no campaign officials or workers." In addition, "Obama could not bring any media. Only military photographers would be permitted to record Obama's visit."
At no point does the MSNBC report claim, as Shapiro suggests, that Obama canceled the visit because he could not bring media with him.
Meanwhile ... Topic: NewsBusters
Media Matters notes a Nov. 10 NewsBusters post by Matthew Balan complaining that CNN "neglected to include sound bites from conservatives during a report about Sarah Palin," instead using "clips from moderate commentator David Frum, Democrat Bill Owens, and colleague Wolf Blitzer." That clip of Owens is of him saying, "Thank you very much."
Gaubatz Walks Back Muslim-Bashing Remark Topic: WorldNetDaily
We've previously noted WorldNetDaily author David Gaubatz's claim that 'Now is the time for a professional and legal backlash against the Muslim community and their leaders" (and WND's refusal to report it). Now, that statement has been scrubbed from the right-wing Family Security Matters website where it first appeared, according to TPM. Gaubatz and Family Security Matters are now walking that assertion back:
Pam Meister, editor at Family Security Matters, explained the change this way in am e-mail to TPMmuckraker (emphasis ours):
The interview was conducted via e-mail. After publication, Mr. Gaubatz realized he had written "Muslim community" when he really meant to say "Muslim Brotherhood." He asked us to make the correction.
Oops. Looks to us that Gaubatz got caught telling the truth, and it's costing him enough to make a public correction.
WND Gives Yet Another Platform for Obama-Nazi Smear Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily is among the mostprolific hurlers of the Obama-Nazi smear, so it's no surprise that it would provide a platform for it to be hurled yet again.
WND is publishing an updated edition of "When Hell was in Session," Jeremiah Denton's memoir of life as a prisoner of war in Vietnam, which includes "a major new section written by Denton for today's generation." Promoting the book in a Nov. 10 article, WND allows Denton to rant during an interview:
President Obama, Denton contended, is usurping the rights of God, "as did Hitler and Stalin and the emperors of Rome."
"They all had gods – but when they didn't have good enough gods to constitute a culture, they went to hell," Denton told WND. "And we are too, if we continue to believe that man, all of us individually, or our government, can determine what the rights are and set up everything else to match that. We're done."
Denton is, unsurprisingly, quite right-wing, having once served as a consultant to Pat Robertson at his Christian Broadcasting Network. He also takes credit for "proposing a comprehensive strategy for confronting communism in Latin America that [Ronald Reagan] accepted and successfully implemented."
WND Falsely Takes Credit for Dunn's Departure Topic: WorldNetDaily
A Nov. 10 WorldNetDaily article by Aaron Klein notes that White House communications director Anita Dunn is "is slated to step down from her post at the end of the month," adding that this "makes her the second Obama administration official to step down following controversies on which WND has reported."
In fact, WND had nothing to do with Dunn's departure. As Media Matters notes, Politico reported in April -- months before WND focused on Dunn -- that she was filling the job on an interim basis "until the president settles on a permanent replacement" for previous communications director Ellen Moran.
Further, the "controversy" Klein claims brought down Dunn is itself bogus. Klein previously attacked Dunn by dishonestly framing her comments about how the Obama presidential campaign tried to frame coverage of the candidate as a claim that Obama controlled the media, ignoring the fact that this such media tactics are standard for any major political candidate.
CNS Auditions Another Bogus Story Topic: CNSNews.com
CNS is auditioning another scary, nit-picking story about health care reform. A Nov. 10 article by Karen Schuberg tries to peddle the idea that the health care reform bill "does not prohibit the use of federal funds to pay health care providers who provide 'end-of-life care' that involves denying food and water to a patient."
After quoting spokespeople for two Republican congressmen parroting the supposed alarm about this lack of mention, it's not until the 11th paragraph that Schuberg gets around to telling her readers that there is no story here:
Aaron Albright, press secretary for the majority Democratic members of the House Education and Labor Committee, told CNSNews.com the bill does not address the question of payment for end-of-life care. “We leave the current system intact,” Albright said.
When asked if the health-reform bill would rule out the use of federal funds to reimburse health-care providers who withdraw or withhold nutrition or hydration, Albright said it was a “false question.”
“We do not change any practice, or any law, or anything like that,” Albright said. “(End of life decisions) will be left up to the patient and their doctor and their family.”
Schuberg does her best to ignore this, insisting that "a source close to Republican members of the committee" claims that "it would be up to the government--Medicare and the Department of Health and Human Services--to develop guidelines to specifically prevent government-funding going toward withdrawal of feeding tubes and water." Why was this person given anonymity? Schuberg doesn't say.
CNS likes to auditiondubious stories in the hopes of providing more anti-Obama for the right-wing base, even after their dubiousness has been exposed -- often by CNS itself.
Kupelian Fearmongers About Islam, Shills for WND Legal Defense Fund Topic: WorldNetDaily
David Kupelian's Nov. 9 WorldNetDaily column is a big ol' pile of Islamic fearmongering, kicking off by describing alleged Fort Hood shooter Nadal Malik Hasan as "a certifiable, America-hating, jihadist "ticking time bomb" waiting to go off."
Kupelian then goes on to willfully mislead about what other news organizations have reported about Hasan:
Kupelian states that "Time magazine moronically blamed posttraumatic stress disorder – even though Hasan has never been deployed in a war zone." In fact, Time pointed out that "Cases of posttraumatic stress disorder quadrupled from 2005 to 2007, and PTSD affects even those — like Hasan — who haven't gone off to war" adding: "Hasan had spent six years dealing with the mental wreckage of war at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington and, since July, at Fort Hood's Darnall Army Medical Center. His own susceptibility to mental problems was likely heightened because he was pretty much a loner: he wasn't married or in a relationship."
Kupelian wrote, "According to the Washington Post, the problem was that Hasan was lonely. That's right, the newspaper's report, titled "The lonely life of alleged Fort Hood shooter," was subtitled: "'He was mistreated. He didn't have nobody. He was all alone,' says neighbor." But the Post never blamed Hasan's actions on loneliness; the article in question merely described Hasan's life as seen by his neighbors in Fort Hood.
Nevertheless, Kupelian insisted that the "news media always torture themselves and their readers with the most wildly improbable explanations in their attempts to avoid the obvious truth." You know, like how WND portrayed DC sniper John Muhammad and accomplice Lee Boyd Malvo as "homosexual lovers with ties to the al-Qaida terror network," citing the National Enquirer as an authoritative source.
Kupelian went on to rant that anyone who says anything nice about Islam is suffering from Stockholm syndrome because "Being intimidated by Islam (or by anything, for that matter) actually causes some of us to mysteriously grow sympathetic toward it, to defend it, to side with it, even to convert to it." In case that was too subtle for his readers, Kupelian restates his argument: "Bottom line: We're intimidated, bullied, threatened, terrorized – and so we capitulate, not just in word and deed, but in thought. Get it?"
Kupelian concludes by doing some old-fashioned cynical shilling for the WND-published anti-CAIR "Muslim Mafia" book: "One last point: If you really want to do something besides complain about the spread of Islamic radicalism in the United States – a level of infiltration already far more advanced than you can imagine – then make a donation to WND's legal defense fund." But given WND's historical lack of accountability in the use of its legal defense fund and even its own defense of "Muslim Mafia" -- not to mention WND's lousy track record in lawsuits in which the legal defense fund has been used -- people are better off withholding their money from WND until it comes clean.
'Muslim Mafia' Author Still Anti-Muslim Topic: WorldNetDaily
Remember when WorldNetDaily defended David Gaubatz -- writer of the CAIR-bashing tome "Muslim Mafia" -- against claims that he is an "anti-Muslim bigot"? The defense was specious then, and the Fort Hood massacare has now allowed Gaubatz to revel even more in his anti-Muslim sentiments.
TPM reports that in an interview with the right-wing Family Security Matters, Gaubatz said:
Politicians, Muslims, and law enforcement are concerned about a 'backlash' against Muslims. Now is the time for a professional and legal backlash against the Muslim community and their leaders. Muslims know what materials are being taught in their mosques and they know many of the materials instruct young Muslims to kill innocent people who do not adhere to Sharia law. If Muslims do not want a backlash, then I would recommend a "house cleaning." Stack every Saudi, al Qaeda, Pakistani, Taliban, Hamas, and Muslim Brotherhood piece of material from their mosque and have a bonfire. Tell the American, Jewish, and Muslim community this hatred will no longer be allowed in their mosques.
Gaubatz makes no distinction between regular Muslims and radical ones -- hence, Gaubatz can be truthfully described as nothing other than anti-Muslim.
Which means, of course, that WND will completely ignore this, preferring to revel in the fiction that Gaubatz is a friend to all Muslims.