Janet Porter uses her April 13 WorldNetDaily column to define "four kinds of people: the evil, the fence-sitters, the rock throwers and those willing to do what it takes to overcome evil with good." She wants you to think that she's the fourth kind, but she's actually the third. From her description:
The third people group is perhaps the most annoying: They are the rock throwers. They know the difference between right and wrong; they recognize the evil and are familiar with the followers, but have decided to spend their lives throwing rocks at those who are actually doing (or trying to do) something good. ... The rock-throwers' best accomplishment is writing a letter to the editor, not aimed at eradicating evil, but rather, targeting those working for good. There's a plethora of imperfect people, so finding fault is easy and makes the rock-throwers feel better about doing nothing. These people never graduated beyond the junior-high mentality of making fun of the clothes people wear or the way they comb their hair. ... These are the time-wasters whose "work" isn't worth reading or a response.
If there's anyone who's engaged in vicious rock-throwing to no discernable end other than to vent hatred, it's Janet Porter. She has no moral conscience and is willing to lie and smear and spew hate in order to destroy what she sees as inconveniently in her way.
Porter is so much a rock-thrower that she may even fit her definition of the first group of evil: "They will do anything to shut down that 'fishy' (and reportable) communication. They are few, but they are in power." After all, we've detailed how there's no discernable difference between Porter's raging hate and the work she does for her group Faith2Action, which makes her end-of-column bio disclaimer that her Faith2Action title is listed "for identification purposes only" deceptive and ludicrous.
Sheppard Won't Admit Just How Wrong O'Reilly Is Topic: NewsBusters
Noel Sheppard noted in an April 14 NewsBusters post how Fox News' Bill O'Reilly challenged Sen. Tom Coburn for claiming that Fox News promoted the false claim that the health care reform bill will result in the jailing of people who refuse to obtain health insurance, something O'Reilly denied. Sheppard claimed "it's actually not that simple" and cited the example of Rep. John Shadegg making the claim on Fox. Sheppard added: "As such, Coburn was somewhat correct. But wouldn't his real battle be with Shadegg who made the claim?"
The problem: Coburn is just "somewhat correct," he's very correct. Media Matters found numerous examples of Fox News hosts or contributors falsely claiming that failure to buy health insurance will result in jail time -- including on O'Reilly's own show.
The Media Matters item was live a full 12 hours before Sheppard's post, yet Sheppard failed to reference it as a comprehensive resource to answer his question. Sadly, we're all not surprised that no one at NewsBusters has any interest in reading the competiton.
Aaron Klein Responds -- And Admits His Kahanist Sympathies Topic: WorldNetDaily
Aaron Klein used his April 11 WABC radio show to respond to our article (as published at Huffington Post) detailing his affinity for right-wing extremism. Sadly, Klein selectively quotes from the article to paint himself as a victim and mislead about what we wrote.
Klein begins by whining, "I have been under assault by the liberal media in the United States," going on to call our article "a perfect example of how the left llies and distorts and smears whenever they are threatened by someone." But Klein identifies no lies or distortions by us; indeed, Klein himself distorts what we wrote.
Klein claims that we wrote that he is "somehow associated with the Kahane Chai movement," adding, "Do they have me, like say, launching my journalist career in the living room of a Kahane Chai leader, sort of like Barack Obama, who is associated with real extremists, launched his political career, remember, in the living room of Weatherman terrorist Bill Ayers, who of course sought the downfall of the U.S. government? ... Do they have me being hired for my first job by a Kahane Chai leader, like Obama was actually hired for his first position, which would be at the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, an education reform organization. He was hired by the chairman of that group, the CAC, Bill Ayers. ... Do they have me sitting on the board of a nonprofit organization as a paid director with Kahane Chai leaders like Obama served on the board as a paid director of the Woods Fund with Bill Ayers? ...There better at least be a suggestion that Kahane Chai leaders ghost-wrote my previous books, like a lot of people have strongly suggested that Bill Ayers may have ghostwritten Obama's book 'Dreams of My Father.'"
Of course, we didn't say anything quite like that. We merely pointed out the fact that Klein has repeatedly used his reporting to whitewash the violent extremism of Kahane Chai sympathizers. But rather than directly address that, Klein distorted what we wrote by selectively quoting.
(And Klein is lying about much of the above -- Ayers didn't hire Obama for the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, and even the biographer who noted that Ayers provided "help" and served as an "informal editing service” on Obama book made sure to add, "I definitely do not say he [Ayers] wrote Barack Obama's book.")
"The basis is they say that in 2006 and 2008 I interviewed and quoted Kahane Chai leaders in articles." Klein then addressed our complaint that Klein quoted Kahane Chai sympathizer David Ha'ivri without noting his sympathy for the movement's violent elements by claiming that the New York Times and other outlets have similarly quoted Ha'ivri without noting his Kahanist leanings.
Klein did not discuss his whitewashing of Mike Guzofsky/Yekutel Ben Yaacov or his portrayal of Kahane Chai fellow traveler Eden Natan Zada has having been "murdered" after shooting four people to death on a bus while not describing Zada's victims that way.
Klein then makes an astonishing admission: "Just for the record, I personally do agree with some of the sentiments of Rabbi Meir Kahane. I think he was right about certain things, wrong about other things, but I have absolutely nothing, no association whatsoever with Kahane Chai leaders. Further, I actually -- I believe that some of these leaders of Kahane Chai in Israel are extremists, and more than that, they're absolute embarrassments to the religious national community in israel. And I think that unfortunatly, the media is using the Kahane extremists to basically paint all the Jews in the West Bank as extremists. So, bottom line, I have absolutely nothing to do with these Kahane Chai extremists."
Given that the Kahane Chai movement has been outlawed in Israel for its extremism and violence, Klein can't exactly say that Kahane "was right about certain things" while simultaneously trying to separate himself from the "extremists" in the movement -- especially if you're on record as whitewashing that very same extremism. As Klein himself noted during his show, Kahane supported the expulsion of Arabs from Israel. Does Klein support that as well? He doesn't say. Klein needs to be clear about what Kahanist beliefs he supports and which ones he rejects.
Klein also addressed our claim that he had not explain the circumstances under which he and radio host John Batchelor interviewed a Hamas official in 2008 who offered an "endorsement" of Obama or if the spokesman knew that he was servicing Klein's anti-Obama agenda. After ranting that the claim was "scandalous" and "maybe legally actionable," Klein claimed that the official, "without any prompting on our part, he starts to go off on how excited he is about this new presidential candidate Barack Obama, and he said that he hoped that Obama is elected and he compared Obama to JFK."
That still doesn't answer our question, though, about whether the Hamas official he was interviewing was aware of Klein's anti-Obama bias or that Klein would use the official's comments against him to further inflame anti-Obama sentiment in the U.S.
Klein goes on to state that the article was written by "an individual who also works as an editor for the George Soros-funded Media Matters" -- though we won't identify us or ConWebWatch by name -- and calls Soros "affiliated with far-left extremists." He also uses our noting of his upcoming anti-Obama book as the reason we are "suddenly smearing him" and as evidence that the White House is "concerned" about the book. Klein insists the book is "thoroughly researched" and "none of it is my opinon," but in our article, we documented numerous errors and misleading claims made by Klein about Obama officials (which he didn't address).
Klein concluded by claiming that our article as an example of "what the left does to any independent journalist who begins to investigate their precious president of the United States, Barack Obama."
Klein's dishonest response to our article belies his show's intro, which describes him as "a reporter you can trust to bring you the news." About the only thing you can trust Klein to do is lie and distort -- you know, what he falsely accused us of doing.
WND Still Lying About Calif. Anti-Discrimination Laws Topic: WorldNetDaily
Bob Unruh keeps up his shoddy journalism by quoting only a single highly biased source as information of anti-discrimination efforts in California schools in an April 10 WorldNetDaily article.
Not surprisingly, when you quote only a single source on the issue -- in this case, anti-gay activist Randy Thomasson -- things are wrong. Specifically, Thomasson apparently reaffirms WND's anti-gay bias. For instance, Unruh writes:
In 2007, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed SB 777 prohibiting any public school instruction or activity that "promotes" a discriminatory bias. The law now requires positive depictions of transsexuality, bisexuality and homosexuality at all levels in school.
Impacted by the law are classroom instruction materials, textbooks, guest speakers, videos, drama, music, school assemblies and sports teams.
Unruh is lying. The bill does not "require positive depictions of transsexuality, bisexuality and homosexuality"; as we detailed when WND mislead about it while the bill was being considered, it prohibits school activities and materials from "reflecting adversely" on homosexuality. That does not equate to a "positive depiction."
Unruh goes on to repeat his previous touting of the factually inaccurate claims by the anti-gay American College of Pediatricians who are, in Unruh's words, "warning educators not to promote being 'gay.'"
There's no balance and no facts. But that's what we've come to expect from Unruh.
"[N]o one at WND to my knowledge has ever said Obama wasn't born in the U.S. or suggested he was born in Kenya." -- Joseph Farah, Nov. 22.
"Now that it is plainly evident even prominent officials in Kenya believe Barack Obama is foreign born, it becomes a matter of historical accuracy and constitutional integrity that his life story be fully documented." -- Joseph Farah, April 14.
The transformation is complete: The hack Joseph Farah fully embraces his dishonesty.
Bozell Twists Words to Defend Pope Topic: Media Research Center
Brent Bozell uses an April 12 Media Research Center press release to run to the defense of Pope Benedict XVI and the Catholic Church, even though defense of Catholics is not exactly part of the MRC's mission statement. Bozell declared "declared the intentional disparaging and false reporting" on the issue of sexual abuse of children by priests to be an "atrocity" and adds:
Last week dozens of news outlets – including the Associated Press, Reuters, Washington Post, New York Times, CBS, MSNBC – reported that the abuse scandal is 'widening.' That is absolutely and unequivocally false. The scandal isn't growing. As Catholic League President Bill Donohue aptly noted, citing evidence from the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, abuse is shrinking in the United States, with an even more rapid decline over the last five years.
Any credible journalist would have done his or her research before reporting a fallacy of this magnitude. And any other religious institution that was targeted in this unconscionable fashion would have been rescued by the same liberal media that claims to be objective.
Bozell is deliberately twisting the meaning of the word "widening." None of the articles Bozell cited use the word to describe recent cases of abuse, as Bozell claims. Rather, they refer to revelations about old cases of abuse and what the pope, in his previous role as head of the Vatican's office of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, did or didn't do in regard to priests accused of abuse.
In touting the John Jay study as promoted by the Catholic League's Donohue, Bozell ignores the fact that Donohue has been misusing the study to falsely claim that most victims of sexual abuse by priests were "post-adolescent," which allows Donohue to blame the scandal on homosexual priests. In fact, one of the researchers on the John Jay study points out that same-sex abuse of children does not equal homosexual behavior.
So Donohue is not exactly the most "credible" defender. And neither is Bozell, who fails to disclose that he's on the Catholic League's board of advisors.
New Article: Not-So-Special Reports, CMI Division Topic: Media Research Center
The MRC's Culture & Media Institute follows its parent in issuing reports using skewed evidence and that make questionable conclusions. Read more >>
WND Continues to Prove Farah A Liar Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily seems to be extremely determined to prove its own editor a liar.
We noted that editor Joseph Farah's assertion that "no one at WND to my knowledge has ever said Obama wasn't born in the U.S. or suggested he was born in Kenya" has been discredited (further, anyway) by WND's focus on media references claiming or suggesting Obama was born in Kenya.
WND has since published twomore articles on the subject. At no point does writer Drew Zahn investigate the veracity of those making the claim. Nor does WND mention its own previous embrace of fake Kenyan birth certificates.Nor does Zahn report that claims that Obama was born in Kenya have been repeatedly discredited.
We'd call this shockingly dishonest behavior on Zahn's and WND's part, but sadly there's nothing shocking about it at all. Dishonsest behavior, especially on matters involving Obama, is WND's stock in trade.
An April 10 WorldNetDaily article makes a big deal over WND's petition "demanding proof" Barack Obama is eligible to be president receiving more than 500,000 signatures. But WND's dishonesty on the issue makes it less big.
First, WND has offered no evidence that the signatures are genuine. As we've previously detailed, the signatures have been kept secret, and there's no apparent verification mechanism to prevent people from signing it more than once or the use of fictitious names. Further, signers apparently not screened for being of legal voting age, proof of voter registration, or even U.S. citizenship. Most importantly, there's no independent evidence provided to back up WND's claim about the number of signatures on the petition.
Second, the petition has been flirting with this milestone for months. A Novmeber, 29, 2009, WND article stated that the petition had "more than 480,000 signatures." Which means it took WND four months to gather (or invent) 20,000 signatures. That's not much of an achievement.
NewsBusters 'Editor's Pick' Is From Anti-Semitic Website Topic: NewsBusters
Among the "Editor's Picks" of outside article on the front page of NewsBusters is this story from a website called the European Union Times, which repeats a bizarre alleged claim by French President Nicolas Sarkozy that President Obama is going insane.
The boys at NewsBusters apparently didn't check out the EU Times before linking to it. As the Village Voice points out, the website is littered with anti-Semitic rantings and is reportedly registered to the wife of a racist skinhead gang member who was involved in a stabbing incident.
Of course, NewsBusters wasn't the only right-wing outlet to pounce on the story without checking out the website (or even investigating whether the claim is anywhere close to being correct). Other conservative blogs and even Fox Nation blindly went over the cliff with NewsBusters.
Look for NewsBusters to quickly make this link disappear without an explanation of why they found an unsupported claim newsworthy in the first place, let alone an explanation of its embrace of an anti-Semitic website.
Usually, the nightmare is so bad that the sleeper wakes up – realizing with relief that it was a dream.
I wish that were the case now. It isn't.
The nightmare that has ensued with the election of Barack Obama gets worse daily, and we're awake, watching the growing destruction of our country.
Whether or not you "like" the United States, it's the country that gives you the freedom to hate and destroy it. It also gives those who love the country the right to resist and make certain you don't win this critical battle.
It is a battle. Those who want to maintain the stature and freedoms of this country will not give up – ever.
"Better red than dead" is not in their lexicon. It wasn't 40 years ago, and still isn't.
What you haters haven't learned is that when you finally get what the Obamites have in store, you will not be free. You won't even have the rights you now take for granted, and you will be a slave, no less than slaves in the antebellum South.
NewsBusters' Sheppard Promotes Idea Obama is Anti-Semitic Topic: NewsBusters
NewsBusters' Noel Sheppard used an April 11 post to descend into far-right conspiracy territory by endorsing the idea that President Obama is anti-Semitic.
The post highlights a "Saturday Night Live" skit in which the person playing Obama highlights alleged questions in the census, one of which was, "Do you feel that Jews have too much influence on Wall Street and the media?" In context, of course, that's a joke, playing on the fears of some far-right extremists. Sheppard, of course, didn't see it that way: "Honestly, what kind of question was that? Wouldn't a lot of people find that anti-Semitic, or is my sense of humor lacking at the moment?"
Sheppard then updated the post to add a commenter's observation: "I think Armisen's Obama impression portrayed what Obama truly feels about Jews and about Israel and was not intended to be Armisen or SNL itself being anti-Semitic." Sheppard then asked: "Is he right? Was this a slam at Obama and not Jews?"
Sheppard obviously thinks so -- concurrently, Sheppard used his Twitter feed to affirmatively state what he suggested at NewsBusters: "Was Saturday Night Live actually mocking Obama's anti-Semitism with this sketch?"
We expect far-right outlets like WorldNetDaily to spread such hateful conspiracy theories. Should NewsBusters really be trying to get into that same credibility-destroying business?