WND Ignores Gingrich's Flip-Flop on Individual Mandate Topic: WorldNetDaily
A March 25 unbylined WorldNetDaily article touts Newt Gingrich's claims that Republicans can put a stranglehold on "President Obama's nationalization of health care" simply by cutting off funding to it. The article goes on to claim, "Polls show a high level of opposition to Obama's plan among American people. One recent poll showed 49 percent believe it to be unconstitutional to require under penalty of law that consumers buy health insurance policies approved by the government." It also quoted Gingrich as saying, "Based on a 1992 Supreme Court decision which said that the federal government cannot punish you for failure to do something, I think that there's an outside chance the suit will hold up. And that … will stop the individual mandate at the federal level."
WND fails to mention that Gingrich was for an individual mandate before he was against it. As Media Matters details, Gingrich endorsed an individual mandate as recently as 2008, asserting in his 2008 book "Real Change" that "we should insist that everyone above a certain level buy coverage" or "post a bond."
Brennan Bashes Health Care Reform, Doesn't Disclose It's His Job Topic: Newsmax
Phil Brennan's March 23 Newsmax column is dedicated to attacking the "healthcare deform bill," asserting that President Obama "has shown himself prepared to use all of them to their fullest extent, and beyond, to achieve his sinister goals." He also claims that "many ... in the media are themselves conscious or unconscious committed Marxists hiding under the liberal label."
Brennan disclose that bashing health care reform is his job, as an employee of the League of American Voters. Indeed, Brennan has never disclosed his employment with an advocacy group to Newsmax readers.
CMI Pretends Wash. Post Didn't Discredit Its 'Research' Topic: Media Research Center
On March 12, the Media Research Center's Culture & Media Institute published a bit of so-called research claiming that the Washington Post "Quoted supporters 10 times more often than opponents" on the subject of gay marriage in the previous seven days as gay marriage became legal in Washington, D.C. Colleen Raezler went on to sniff: "Nobody can accuse The Washington Post of being objective when it came to covering the District of Columbia’s decision to legalize same-sex marriage. The Post has reported on the event with a celebratory zeal more appropriate to The Advocate or The Blade."
Post ombudsman Andrew Alexander responded to CMI in his March 21 column:
"As soon as this became law, it was basically The Washington Post standing up and saying 'Yay!' " Dan Gainor, the group's vice president, said in an interview. "It's news," he acknowledged, but the coverage was excessive and "one-sided." Conservatives see it as evidence that The Post is hopelessly liberal, he said.
The Post is not always sufficiently attuned to conservative perspectives. But with gay marriage coverage, the accusations of journalistic overkill are off base.
By any measure, the issuance of same-sex licenses was historic. And many among the District's large lesbian and gay population are directly affected. A study last October by the nonprofit Williams Institute at UCLA, whose Web site says it uses research to advance "sexual orientation law," estimated that roughly 3,500 same-sex couples live in the District. At about 14 per 1,000 households, the percentage is nearly three times the national average and ranks above all states.
Also, The Post's coverage should be viewed broadly to include the run-up to the D.C. Council's Dec. 15 final approval of same-sex marriage. That's when debate was most intense. During that period, The Post ran roughly 20 stories, many airing opponents' views.
In mid-November, the Style section featured a 2,200-word profile of Bishop Harry Jackson of Beltsville's Hope Christian Church, a national figure and local leader in the movement against same-sex marriage. Earlier, Style ran a lengthy profile of Brian Brown, executive director of the anti-gay-marriage National Organization for Marriage. The Brown and Jackson profiles drew protests from gay readers who felt their side wasn't given equal exposure.
CMI isn't about to concede that its attack on the Post was too narrow. A March 25 CMI article by Raezler made a passing mention of Alexander's column, then bashed the Post anew, claiming that "the Post itself keeps piling up evidence of its pro-gay agenda."
If Raezler is not going to admit the fact that it's attacking the Post based on a very narrow reading of its coverage -- and then continues to attack the Post in the same manner -- why mention Alexander's critique at all?
Obama Derangement Syndrome Watch, Robert Ringer Edition Topic: WorldNetDaily
I rarely compliment BHO, but I'm obliged to say that I respect him for his unwavering Marxist beliefs. His nonstop lying about those beliefs should not be held against him. It's just part of the Marx-Lenin-Alinsky "ends-justifies-the-means" philosophy of bringing about the loss of liberty that all of them sincerely believed was a moral objective.
I have no doubts BHO sincerely believes this morally deficient garbage. Even with his college papers sealed, the man's public statements (as well as his own books) make it clear that he has been consistent in his Marxist beliefs. You don't hang out with Marxist professors in college if you're a believer in freedom and free markets and love the American way of life.
So, yes, I'm sticking up for the Duplicitous Despot: He is consistent. When he told Joe the Plumber that he thought the wealth should be "spread around" more, he was merely echoing his on-record complaints that the Constitution doesn't provide for "redistributive change."
-- Robert Ringer, March 26 WorldNetDaily column
In fact, as we've detailed, Obama did not "complain" that "the Constitution doesn't provide for 'redistributive change'"; he expressed concern that the civil rights movement relied too much on the court system instead of "political and community organizing, and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change."
More Press-Release Journalism At WND Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily just can't stop portraying Julian Raven as a victim.
A March 24 WND article by Bob Unruh takes his new information solely from an Alliance Defense Fund press release on the arrest of Elmira, N.Y., street preacher Raven on the disorderly conduct charge he and ADF have been fighting since 2007, even though Raven could have simply paid the $100 fine and be done with it. Instead, he served a nine-day jail sentence.
Both Unruh and the ADF leave out the key fact that the jail sentence was the result of his refusal to pay the fine -- something local media reported.
As WNDhasbefore, Unruh uncritically endorses ADF's benign description of Raven, portraying him has having been arrested merely because he "prayed in a public park with six other people," downplaying the fact that Raven and his band of activists did so in front of a stage at a gay festival with the apparent goal of disrupting it.
Molotov Responds To Us (Sort Of) -- And Still Can't Stop Misleading Topic: WorldNetDaily
Molotov Mitchell's latest WorldNetDaily video is a response to a letter from "Erin, a proud liberal," who wrote him after she "read about you in Huffington Post and seen several of your disgusting videos." It seems that Erin read our HuffPo article on Mitchell (adapted from an earlier ConWebWatch article), for she repeats a couple claims we made in it rebutting previous Mitchell videos: "Obama's grandmother never said she was born in Kenya," and "the study you used to support your claim that straight people live longer than homosexuals is from the '80s before HIV treatment had been developed."
But ol' Molotov has chosen to respond to Erin, not us. Oh well.
On the former claim: "But Erin, according to Kenyan witnesses, that's exactly what she said. Here's the link, check it out." The link he displayed was to an August 2009 WND article by Jerome Corsi repeating the claims of Ron McRae, a Anabaptist minister who claims Sarah Obama said that during an interview with her. But Corsi doesn't tell the entire story. As we've detailed, McRae's claim has been discredited by a translator during the phone call between McRae and Sarah Obama, who pointed out that the grandmother misunderstood the question McRae was asking. Once it was clear to her that McRae was asking if Barack Obama was born in Kenya, she answered in the negative.
Further, as we've also noted, McRae is a major Obama-hater, having spread discredited claims and cited "common knowledge" -- not any actual, verifiable facts -- to back up his claim that Obama was born in Kenya.
As to the latter charge, Mitchell first claimed "I just like everything from the '80s," then scrounged up another study: "A study in 2005 confirmed the 20-year life expectancy gap between homosexual men and straight men. Here's the link, check it out." The link goes to the abstract of a study by Paul Cameron, based on obituaries published in a gay newspaper, the Washington Blade. But as the Box Turtle Bulletin points out, that methodology is flawed:
The Blade doesn’t have a general community obituary section. The obituaries they cover are mostly limited to the more well-known members of the local community or prominent national figures. Many gay newspapers do not accept obituaries about just anyone unless they are likely to be known among its readers.
And even if they did, surviving family members arn’t likely to be aware of the gay press, and they may not think to place an obituary in the local gay paper.
Closeted gays and lesbians would not appear in the gay press simply because nobody would know about them.
Older gays and lesbians are more likely to be closeted than younger generations.
The Southern Poverty Law Center describes Cameron as an "anti-gay propagandist" who "churns out hate literature masquerading as legitimate science. Cameron dresses up his "studies" with copious footnotes, graphs and charts, and then pays to publish them in certain journals."
Curiously absent from Mitchell's response is any mention of his endorsement of the anti-gay Uganda bill that permits the death penalty for mere homosexuality, which HuffPo highlighted -- and is the main reason Erin would have been aware of Mitchell's rantings in the first place.
Mitchell then delivers a mini-lecture: "Sweet, sweet Erin, I do not despise you, I pity you. You are a victim of public education, liberal mythology, indoctrination. I prescribe that you stop reading the Huffington Post and start reading 'Mere Christianity' by C.S. Lewis, for starters."
Of course Mitchell doesn't want people reading HuffPo -- that's how people learn he's relying on unreliable haters and charlatans to back up his claims. Name-checking C.S. Lewis doesn't change that fact.
So, America, have you deduced that the current occupant of the White House, his underlings and congressional leaders are manifestly evil -- or are you going to wait until they're gunning us down in the streets?
On March 22, WND reprinted remarks made by President Barack Obama on March 21, after the House passed the much-contested health-care reform bill.
Many of you (those over 35) recall hearing Soviet leaders deliver speeches just like Obama's. Do you remember chuckling sardonically, knowing their words were lies and that their people were essentially nothing but slave labor, toiling to maintain a cyclopean, hideously ineffective mega-bureaucracy and a pitiless, criminal privileged class?
How far across the line do our elected officials have to traverse before we come to the conclusion we've come to as regards history's infamous tyrannical oppressors - that they are of low character, possess malign intent, and that is why they crave this degree of power? Will we have to see Americans executed in stadiums by former ACORN workers before we believe? Will we allow ourselves to be shepherded into a position where we are truly powerless to stop those who will do because they can?
I don't know how many Americans are really so dim - as opposed to advocating this abomination - that they haven't a hint yet that abject tyranny is halfway through the door. But I, like others, believe that if enough people in their right minds become engaged, we still may be able to stem the tide until we can dispose of the Democratic majority in Congress and Barack Hussein Obama. We will have to be equally vigilant, however, that we replace them with nationalistic, conservative Americans, rather than smiling RINO whores; people who know who our enemies are and who won't play nice with those enemies.
While we are doing that, for the next hundred years -- at least -- we must vigorously and relentlessly beat the drum of progressivism being as great an evil as any historical atrocity.
New Article: Aaron Klein, Extremist Topic: WorldNetDaily
The WorldNetDaily reporter's increased profile doesn't change the fact that he sympathizes with far-right terrorists and his reporting techniques are shaky at best. Read more >>
The Mitchells Identify More People They Want To Kill Topic: WorldNetDaily
D.J. Dolce's "News! News!" continues on its unfunny way. In the latest WorldNetDaily video, Dolce says this about John Edwards' mistress Rielle Hunter: "You know, it's hussies like her that make me want to reinstate the death penalty for adultery."
(Remember, her hubby, Molotov Mitchell, favors the "aboliition of homosexuality" and has endorsed the Ugandan method of doing it, so killing people who fall short of their standards of morality is not out of character for this dynamic duo at all.)
CMI Can't Tell the Difference Between Anger, Excitement Topic: Media Research Center
Jeff Poor actually spends an entire March 24 MRC Culture & Media Institute article complaining that the media "applied two different standards" to Joe Biden's and Dick Cheney's 2004 use of the F-word on the Senate floor directed at Patrick Leahy.
It seems not to have occurred to Poor that Biden used the F-word in excitement and celebration, while Cheney used it in hate and anger, intended as a deliberate insult to a sitting senator. Is Poor really not able to tell the difference between the two?
Speaking of double standards...
We looked in the MRC archive to see what it had written on Cheney's F-bomb at the time. The answer: Nothing. Zip, zero, nada. Even the notorious prudes at the MRC couldn't get worked up over it.
If the MRC gave Cheney a pass then, it has no moral authority to complain about Biden now.
NewsReal: Health Reform Supporters Like An Abusive Spouse Topic: Horowitz
For almost a decade I worked in a domestic violence shelter. I sat with women who were shaking, bruised and ashamed. They were in utter shock and disbelief at the violence that had just occurred. The names of the people in each woman’s story were different; but the story lines were remarkably the same.
Police responding to domestic violence calls can tell a similar story. Often times, the officer responding to a call finds a calm man sitting on the front porch steps, smoking a cigarette, quietly waiting for the police to arrive. He greets the officers, and coolly explains to them that his wife is inside, ranting and raving. “She’s crazy, out of her mind. I don’t know what her problem is.”
Her problem is she has just realized what has happened to her.
In much the same way, as Americans try to grasp what just hit them...
-- Rhonda Robinson, March 24 NewsReal post, who goes on to claim that "The difference between the anger so many Americans feel right now, is quite different than the hatred and rage that has long been a part of the Left’s political arsenal."
Brent Bozell And That "Snarky Gay Sense of Humor" Topic: Media Research Center
Brent Bozell was in full snit-fit mode in a March 23 Media Research Center press release, trying to push back against reports of racist and homophobic remarks made by tea party protesters outside the Capitol during debate over the health care reform bill.
Bozell avoids denying the claims, downplaying them as "the disgraceful outbursts of a few" and instead focusing on Keith Olbermann, where the "crescendo of bigotry by the left-wing media against the Tea Party movement reached a disgusting pinnacle" with Olbermann "indicting the entire movement as being homophobic racists based on the actions of a few fringe protestors."
That led to this statement by Bozell:
“What an exercise in hypocrisy. Some of you in the left-wing so-called ‘news’ media have actively participated in insulting conservatives with vulgar ‘tea bagging’ jokes. You’ve done it on live national television, snickering at your own snarky gay sense of humor. And if you haven’t done that, you have been a coward, doing nothing to condemn your colleagues for their disgusting behavior.
“Don’t you dare give us any more lectures on civility. You hypocrites disgust me.”
First: Vulgarity is not the same thing as racism or homophobia. Second: "snarky gay sense of humor"? Really, Brent? Anyone care to unpack the homophobia implicit in that remark?
On March 21, 2010, a day that will live in infamy, our beloved constitutional republic came to an end. Its murder was committed by a slim majority in the House of Representatives by socialist Democrats who have given us a new form of government: state socialism. By that vote, the great legacy of freedom given us by our Founding Fathers was thrown on the trash heap. And the man most responsible for making this happen is the socialist despot in the White House, Barack Hussein Obama.
We can now say with nothing less than certainty that Barack Obama absorbed every word of his America-hating preacher in the church he and his wife attended for 20 years. He lied his way into the White House with the help of socialist Democrats who admire Fidel Castro more than they do George Washington.
And so, Barack Hussein Obama will go down in history as having achieved what no one believed an elected American president could ever achieve, the destruction of our constitutional republic. He joins that freedom-hating pantheon of philosophers and despots like Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin, Josef Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Mao Zedong, Fidel Castro, Pol Pot and other such political leaders who led millions of people into slavery and death.
-- Samuel L. Blumenfeld, March 23 WorldNetDaily column
Porter repeatedly and shamelessly suggests that President Obama wants to outlaw Christianity. Referring to her upcoming "May Day" rally, she writes, "We will be meeting on May 1 to stand for God at the Lincoln Memorial. But we don't face arrest for it. At least not yet." She later added, "The underground church risked arrest and torture to stand for God in the face of Communist rule. We don't face arrest just yet, but if we don't come to God on bended knee and receive his hand of mercy and rescue, there is no question that we will."
Porter is not taking the passage of health care reform well: "Desecrating the Sabbath, Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and her Democratic lynch men in Congress did exactly what they said they'd do when they were voted into office." She ranted that "Bart Stupak has blood on his hands, and he and his cohorts must be removed from office in November." She also claims that Stupak "voted for abortion funding in the health-care bill," adding that "this bill forces us to participate in killing innocent lives with our hard-earned tax money." Porter islying.
Porter asserted that "Barack Obama, when he took over the car industry, closed only Republican dealerships (or those who supported his Democratic opponents or who gave less than $200 to his campaign)," adding that "he decided that the exceptionally successful Republican car dealerships weren't 'eligible' to remain open." That is a baseless conspiracy theory. Actually, let's call her claim what it is -- a lie.
Porter also insists that "the New England Journal of Medicine predicts a mass exodus of medical providers." That too is a lie.
We can go on -- her column is replete with even more falsehoods and misrepresentations.
While Porter is using her "May Day" rally to pray for her country, maybe she should take some time out to ask forgiveness from God for her shameful and disgraceful lies.
CNS Joins Battle to Defend Hannity, Bash Schlussel Topic: CNSNews.com
The ConWeb has certainly arrayed some significant firepower to defend Sean Hannity.
We've previously detailed how WorldNetDaily has rushed to Hannity's defense over accusations by right-wing blogger Debbie Schlussel that Freedom Alliance, an organization affiliated with Hannity and co-founded by Oliver North, has misspent money designated for scholarships (while hiding its tangled relationship with her). Now CNSNews.com has joined the battle in a March 22 article by Michael Chapman.
Chapman's clear goal is to discredit Schlussel, describing her as "a blogger who cited an unnamed source who, in turn, cited an unnamed 'guy' at Fox News Channel in suggesting that the charity used some of its donations to pay lavish expenses supposedly incurred by Hannity." Chapman does not mention Schlussel's ideological leanings.
Chapman went on to complain that "Schlussel did not name the source who sent her the message citing the unnamed 'guy' at Fox News who claimed that Hannity had run-up big expenses on the tab of the Freedom Concerts." He lavishes much more attention on Freedom Alliance's defense.
We don't have a dog in this fight, but Schlussel is known for making hyperbolic claims. We do find it interesting how much effort is being put into shooting down Schlussel on this, while pretending she's not a fellow right-winger -- even though that ideological link is the reason her claim has gathered traction to the point that other right-wingers are working hard to shoot it down.