CNS Embraces Smear of DOJ Lawyers Topic: CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com has chosen to serve as press agents for Liz Cheney's group Keep America Safe, with Fred Lucas spending twoarticles uncritically repeating the group's attacks on Department of Justice lawyers who once defended terrorism detainees, to the point of lovingly transcribing the group's video smear of the lawyers as thte "Al Qaeda 7."
Kupelian: Obama Is Date-Raping America Topic: WorldNetDaily
No, really. From David Kupelian's March 5 WorldNetDaily column:
The spectacle of a far leftist president literally forcing socialized medicine down the throat of an unwilling center-right America is reminiscent, perhaps more than any other contemporary metaphor, of date rape.
A man determined to have his way with a woman may start off seducing her with lies, flattery and the usual pretense of caring about her. But at a critical moment, when she says, "Stop, I'm not comfortable with this and don't want to go any further," he has a choice: Either do the right thing and back off, or abandon all prior pretensions and take her by force.
As president, Barack Obama courted us with sweet talk, but America grew increasingly uncomfortable with his advances and firmly said, "Stop" – in fact, screamed bloody murder for months. Yet Obama remains obsessed with forcing himself on America.
Cliff Kincaid, Conspiracy Arbiter Topic: Accuracy in Media
Accuracy in Media's Cliff Kincaid, in a two-part series, has declared himself arbiter of what are and aren't acceptable conspiracy theories to hold. Generally, anything that can be linked to liberals and commies is unacceptable -- "Communism was and is a conspiracy," he states -- while conservative conspiracies, like birtherism, are perfectly acceptable:
By releasing a copy of my own birth certificate, I have tried to demonstrate what other necessary information is lacking about Obama's birth. The only way to address these questions is to identify where exactly he was born, in what hospital, and what doctor was present. All of this information should be on an original birth certificate. There is some unexplained reason why this document has not been released. That is why the "birther" issue is still legitimate and why Beck and others should not cavalierly dismiss those like Joseph Farah of WorldNetDaily who are willing to keep asking the hard questions.
So-called "conservatives" in the media, such as those mentioned in the Vogel Politico story who refuse to tolerate even the asking of serious questions about Obama's background, have either been intimidated by the liberal/left or are afraid of doing the hard work required to get answers. In any case, they are not part of any "conservative establishment" and have no claim of influence over the conservative media as a whole. Indeed, they give conservative journalism a bad name.
Kincaid also does a takedown of the Russia Today operation as a haven for conspiracists like Alex Jones:
Interestingly, Jones has become a regular on Russia Today (RT), the English-language state-owned TV propaganda channel for the Russian government. Last September Russia Today aired a three-part television series about 9/11 being an "inside job."
RT, which has a studio in Washington, D.C., broadcasts in New York, Los Angeles, and the Washington, D.C. area on various cable systems.
Russia Today's Anti-Americanism
More recently, RT has been taking out ads featuring superimposed images of President Barack Obama and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and asking "Who poses the greater nuclear threat?" The implication is that the U.S. nuclear arsenal is as much of a threat--or more--than nuclear weapons in the hands of Muslim fanatics in Iran.
Another RT ad compares U.S. military troops to Islamic terrorists.
Like its Soviet-era predecessors, Russia Today television tends to emphasize stories and interviews that make the United States look bad internationally. As Heritage Foundation scholars Ariel Cohen and Helle C. Dale note in a new study, "The Kremlin is using anti-Americanism as a strategic tool for pursuing domestic and foreign policy goals. Through media controlled or owned by the state, the Russian government is deliberately spreading poisonous anti-U.S. propaganda at home and abroad, blaming many of Russia's problems on the West, particularly the United States."
It's worth noting that, like fellow Kincaid target al-Jazeera, WorldNetDaily's Aaron Klein has appeared on Russia Today: A Nov. 23 WND article touted how Klein planned to "debate a commentator from Iran" on the network. WND didn't mention Russia Today's state ownership, describing it positively as "a globally broadcast English-language news channel from Russia and the first all-digital Russian television network."
Kincaid has yet to call out Klein and WND for appearing on al-Jazeera. Will he criticize Klein for appearing on Russia Today? It's probably unlikely, since WND is valuable to him for its birther agitation.
Is Joseph Farah still bitter that WorldNetDaily was caught making false claims about an associate of Al Gore and had to settle and apologize (and, we can presume, shell out cash to the associate who was lied about) just before it was to go to trial? It appears so.
Farah's March 3 column is one long harangue of Al Gore that laughably begins: "Which are you going to believe: Al Gore or your own eyes?" He's more trustworthy that WND has proven to be.
Since facts aren't his strong suit, Farah also perpetuates at least one lie about Gore, that he "once claimed credit for inventing the Internet. No, he didn't.
Farah goes on to call Gore a "two-bit charlatan," but Farah may as well be talking about himself.
CNS Embraces Bishops' False Claims on Abortion Funding Topic: CNSNews.com
A March 1 CNSNews.com article by Edwin Mora uncritically repeats the claim that "The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops issued a 13-page document explaining why the Senate bill allows tax dollars to funded abortion," which states, "Of the two bills, only the House bill conforms to current law on abortion funding." But the bishops' statement misleads on one key claim.
The statement asserts that "Federal funds will make overall healthplans afforable for millions of new customers, who will then pay a nominal fee for full access to elective abortions -- estimated at 'not more than $1 per enrollee per month,'" further asserting that "insurers will requuire all enrollee to pay premiums for other people's abortions."
But it's not true that all enrollees would pay for abortion coverage they're not getting or subsidizing the abortions of others. As Slate's Timothy Noah explained:
If a health insurer selling through the exchanges wishes to offer abortion coverage—the federal government may not require it to do so, and the state where the exchange is located may (the bill states) pass a law forbidding it to do so—then the insurer must collect from each enrollee (regardless of sex or age) a separate payment to cover abortion. The insurer must keep this pool of money separate to ensure it won't be commingled with so much as a nickel of government subsidy.
Stupak is right that anyone who enrolls through the exchange in a health plan that covers abortions must pay a nominal sum (defined on Page 125 of the bill as not less than "$1 per enrollee, per month") into the specially segregated abortion fund. But Stupak is wrong to say this applies to "every enrollee." If an enrollee objects morally to spending one un-government-subsidized dollar to cover abortion, then he or she can simply choose a different health plan offered through the exchange, one that doesn't cover abortions.
The bishops' statement also falsely asserts that the House bill's abortion provisions -- better known as the amendment introduced by Rep. Bart Stupak -- "conforms to current law on abortion funding," i.e., the Hyde amendment blocking federal funding of abortion. In fact, the Stupak amendment goes beyond Hyde by blocking insurance companies that take part in the health care reform bill's insurance exchange from offering any abortion coverage whatsoever, even if it is paid for by the policyholders' own money.
Kincaid: Gay Males Are 'Notorious Disease Carriers' Topic: Accuracy in Media
THE FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION (FDA) STILL BANS MALE HOMOSEXUALS FROM donating blood because they are notorious disease carriers. This fact was pointed out by Bryan Fischer, the director of Issue Analysis for Government and Public Policy at American Family Association, in a column arguing that homosexual behavior should be outlawed because it is a public health threat. He also points out that most of those getting AIDS are male homosexuals. Yet President Obama and Defense Secretary Gates want the military to admit these people into the ranks, to live in close quarters and even bathe with normal heterosexual service personnel.
-- March 3 Accuracy in Media "AIM Report" by Cliff Kincaid
If one uses Glenn Beck's definition of progressives, the difference between progressives and communists becomes quite akin to the difference between armed robbers and white-collar criminals. As a result of deception and voter indolence, we now have a white-collar junta (this being the Democratic congressional leadership and the Obama administration) composed of career public teat-suckers and activists who are wholly inept in the area of prudent governance – which is convenient, given their intent to dismantle the current system, and then rule rather than govern. They are now just this side of attempting policy moves that have resulted in armed rebellion in other nations, and their level of deception has become more pronounced due to the extreme nature of their objectives.
Aaron Klein's desperate guilt-by-association war on Obama nominees continues with a March 3 WorldNetDaily article accusing longtime WND witch hunt target John Holdren has "shocking communist connections."
The purportedly shocking connection? He "served on the board of editors of a magazine whose personnel were accused of providing vital nuclear information that helped the Soviet Union build an atom bomb." But even Klein can't stray too far from the facts -- namely, that any such alleged espionage happened 40 years before Holdren was involved with the publication.
New Article: Jack Cashill Endorses Murder Topic: WorldNetDaily
The conspiracy-happy WorldNetDaily columnist hides facts to defend a Navy sailor convicted of killing a gay man -- and praised the death of an abortion doctor as "frontier justice." Read more >>
WND Still Misleading About Street Preacher's Protest Topic: WorldNetDaily
A March 2 WorldNetDaily article by Bob Unruh perpetuates previous false and misleading claims by WND regarding a 2007 incident involving a street preacher's disruption of a gay event in Elmira, New York.
Unruh asserts that street preacher Julian Raven was merely "praying in a public park" when he was arrested for disorderly conduct. He parrots the Alliance Defense Fund's account of the incident, which claims that Raven and his followers "made their way to an area in front of the stage and began to pray silently while lying prostrate in the grass."Unruh made no effort to obtain new reaction to the story, though he repeats a quote from a police officer first gathered in 2007.
In fact, as we've detailed, Raven has a history of disruptive behavior, and his preaching style has been described as "zealous and militant."And portraying the incident as merely "praying in a public park" is highly misleading -- it was done in front of a stage at the event with the apparent goal of disrupting it. Why else would you stage such a stunt in front of a stage?
As we've also detailed, the fine Raven faces for his disorderly conduct is $100 plus court costs. The ADF has in all likelihood spent many times more than this defending an obviously guilty man than it would if it had paid the fine out of its (or WND's) petty cash drawer.
AIM Chief Reads Us At CPAC Topic: Accuracy in Media
We've finally gotten a hold of video from Accuracy in Media's CPAC award ceremony in which Andrew Breitbart says he wants to hug us:
AIM president Don Irvine read our post on AIM's award during the ceremony, calling us AIM's "favorite little lefty." (Gee, we didn't think telling the truth was such a "lefty" position.) Irvine responded to our pointing out how honoring inaccuracy is "antithesis of its name. That's how depraved and irrelevant AIM has become" by asserting, "I wear that with a badge of honor, and I think everybody else in here should as well." Irvine then asked if we werein the audience (we weren't), and it was then that Breitbart, off-camera, said, "If Terry's here, I'll give him a hug."
We remain wary of a hug from Breitbart -- we expect he wants to stab us in the back. But we now have confirmation that people at AIM read ConWebWatch.
Is that going to keep Cliff Kincaid from lyingabout the anti-gay Uganda law? Probably not. But he knows we're catching every lie, and that will catch up with him.
CMI Writer Pretends She Can Read Reporters' Minds Topic: Media Research Center
In a March 2 MRC Culture & Media Institute item, Sarah Knoploh imparts emotions to a reporter she can't possibly know.
Knoploh asserts that a USA Today reporter "lamented" a business slump in the "porn industry," assailing the reporter for writing about it "as though it was just another suffering business" and snarking, "The poor porn industry." How doesKnoploh knowthe reporter "lamented" the state of the porn industry? She doesn't -- she's merely invoking the Depiction-Equals-Approval Fallacy by essentially claiming that any reporter who reports on pornography must endorse it and may be an actual user of it. (That's not just a logical fallacy -- in this case, it may be libelous.)
Knoploh further clamed that "This is not, however, the first time the media has pitied the porn industry." Again, Knoploh offers no evidence of "pity," just another article reporting on the industry's slump.
Note to Sarah Knoploh: Reporters write all the time about things they don't personally approve of. Does every reporter who writes about a murder endorse it?
Kupelian Condemns Abusive Behavior (When It's Not Christian) Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily published an excerpt from WND managing editor David Kupelian's new book "How Evil Works" in which he explores "what causes an innocent child to morph into an instrument of great evil":
Let's understand, even a violent philosophy like that of radical Islam isn't necessarily sufficient, by itself, to create a rage-fueled jihadist. No, you become full of hate and driven to violate others only when someone else first violates you – when a parent, older sibling, teacher, cleric or other authority figure intimidates, frightens, degrades, bullies, humiliates or perhaps sexually abuses you. And such cruelty and degradation are, unfortunately, endemic in much of the Islamic world. Its rigid, authoritarian religious system, the near-slave status and abuse of women, the suffocating sexual repression, the widespread incidence of what can only be called the world's most flagrant child abuse (where even toddlers are groomed for future "martyrdom operations"), and the pervasive fear of flogging, amputation or stoning if one runs afoul of the ultra-strict Sharia legal code – all this creates an environment reeking of quiet terror. No wonder its victims take to terrorism so readily.
Yet WND once defended a man calling himself a Christian who behaved in a very similar way.
As we detailed, WND repeatedly lionized a man who, according to court records, "has a long history of physically abusing the children." More evidence of the man's authoritarianism from the court records:
He will not permit the children to attend school. He will not permit them to receive childhood vaccinations. He will not permit the girls to wear pants at home. He will not permit birth certificates. There is evidence that mother does not interfere with his discipline of the children and his rules. There is evidence she does not make even tentative decisions in dependency matters but rather defers issues until father can make decisions on them. Several of the children gave answers to the social worker, forensic evaluator, and the court that have all the appearance of reflecting what the children were told to say or believed father would want them to say or not say.
And yes, there was sexual abuse -- one of the children was allegedly abused by a family friend.
Why did WND praise such a vile man? Because he claimd to be a Christian and he homeschooled his (terrified) children -- never mind that the court found the "education" being provided to be horribly inadequate. Even after these revelations about this man were made public by ConWebWatch, WND continued to defend him -- because he homeschooled. The man claimed he homeschooled because, in WND reporter Bob Unruh's words, "he won't allow the pro-homosexual, pro-bisexual, pro-transgender agenda of California's public schools ... to indoctrinate his children."
(WND's defense of a man who refused to provide his children with birth certificates is highly ironic given WND's current obsession with Barack Obama's certificate.)
Is there any real difference between this man Kupelian's organization defended and the Islamic extremism Kupelian claims to deplore? We don't see it. If there is one, perhaps Kupelian can enlighten us.
UPDATE: Kupelian also purports to condemn the "toxic programming" of indoctrination, adding that "for such outrageous and counter-intuitive falsehoods to be both believed and acted upon, those being indoctrinated must be kept in a very emotional state." That's something Kupelian's website has regularly done by repeatedly likening President Obama to Nazis and even the Antichrist -- not to mention the incessant hate WND's columnists spew (prison rapist, anyone?).
Could it be that Kupelian is such an expert on the subject of dehumanizing indoctrination because his entire career is built on disseminating it?
Geller Still a Newsmax Columnist After All Topic: Newsmax
It seems we spoke too soon.
Last week, we wrote that it appeared Newsmax had dumped Pamela Geller as a columnist, presumably in response to her repeated hateful rhetoric. But Geller has since published a new column at Newsmax, this time on the Rifqa Bary case.
This means it's clear that Newsmax has no problem with Geller's anti-Muslim hate-fest at CPAC a couple weeks ago or, apparently, with very little of the hate she spews. The column in which she smears President Obama as "jihad-enabling" and "President L-dopa," which Newsmax had deleted, remains off the website, however (it's still in Google cache).
Newsmax needs to explain why -- after dumping a columnist who advocated a military coup against Obama -- it continues to provide space to a writer whose hateful rantings it has had to remove at least once before.