Obama Derangement Syndrome Watch, Ben Shapiro Division Topic: CNSNews.com
The Obama administration is racist. They are using that racism to let black criminals off the hook, justify illegal immigration, hamstring law enforcement across the country, and push redistribution as a solution to supposed continuing discrimination against “people of color.”
Meanwhile, the Obama administration continues to ramp up the anti-white rhetoric. This is nothing new. Holder famously called us a “nation of cowards” on racial matters last year; Obama himself called his white grandmother a “typical white person” and blasted the Cambridge Police Department for racial profiling; Michelle Obama wrote her Princeton thesis on how white folks were racists; Michelle and Barack went to Rev. Wright’s racist church for 20 years.
They’ve all just upped the ante recently. Now Holder says that the Arizona law will promote racial profiling; Obama agrees with him; and Michelle Obama visits the NAACP, where she tells the black audience to “increase our intensity.”
What’s their motivation? Supposedly, the Obama administration is simply fired up by the presence of the tea partiers, in the same way the KKK was fired up by the presence of voting blacks in the South. Black Democrats in the House have fabricated claims of tea partiers shouting the “n-word,” even as they ignore white union members shouting the “n-word” at black tea partier Kenneth Gladney. The NAACP claims that the tea party is “racist,” with NAACP President Benjamin Jealous telling members that his goal was to pour “ice on the tea party.”
That’s just an excuse. The Obama administration is racist. They are using that racism to let black criminals off the hook, justify illegal immigration, hamstring law enforcement across the country, and push redistribution as a solution to supposed continuing discrimination against “people of color.”
-- Ben Shapiro, July 15 syndicated column, published by CNSNews.com
Mark Crutcher writes in his July 16 WorldNetDaily column:
Let's see if I've got this straight.
First, the country elects a godless Marxist as president.
Second, in order to ram through one of his pet socialist projects, this moral degenerate stands in front of the American people and solemnly promises that his government-run health-care system will not pay for abortions.
Third, less than four months later, government funding of abortions is discovered to be already in place in at least two states.
To put it succinctly, Comrade Obama was lying through his blood-stained teeth. Of course, this is precisely what those of us in the pro-life movement were saying all along, only to be ridiculed and dismissed by the abortion-lobby stooges who dominate the media.
Crutcher is a hateful little liar. The government is not funding abortions beyond what is currently permitted under the Hyde Amendment.
In a July 15 WorldNetDaily column, Corsi asserts that President Obama has an “association with the New Black Panther Party.” How so? Because the NBPP once had a user-generated page on the website for Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign. No, really, that’s all Corsi has for “proof.”
Then, Corsi approvingly cites David Duke to make a “point”:
The New Black Panther Party posting as an Obama fan on the campaign website was clearly polarizing, drawing at the time the criticism of yet another racial extremist in the person of David Duke, the Louisiana former state representative who discredited himself as an outspoken white supremacist and former grand wizard of the Ku Klux Klan.
"Now that Obama has a real chance to be president and needs white support, he claims to condemn Rev. Wright," Duke wrote on his website March 25, 2008. "In fact, Obama's official website even welcomes the support of a racist, communist black organization such as the Black Panthers, an organization with a long history of violence against white Americans."
The point is not that David Duke is right. Clearly, Duke's racism demands to be condemned just as does the racism of the New Black Panther Party.
The point is that instead of making race a non-issue, President Obama's record is that he polarizes race issues, perhaps because deep down he intellectually agrees with the radical polemics he admits in his autobiography were his intellectual pillars growing up -- including anti-white firebrands such as Malcolm X and Frantz Fanon.
Is David Duke really the best example Corsi could come up with to validate his “point”? If so, that would seem to be further evidence of something we already knew about Corsi -- that he’s all too comfortable around white supremacists.
As Media Matters has detailed, Corsi had appeared in 2008 on a radio show called “The Political Cesspool,” which declares that it "represent[s] a philosophy that is pro-White." After word got out about Corsi’s follow-up appearance on the show to promote his Obama smear book, he canceled it. We don’t recall Corsi demanding any condemnation of racism then, which makes Corsi’s call for it regarding Duke more than a little disingenuous.
(This radio show, you may recall, is the same one on which WorldNetDaily’s latest birther hero, Tim Adams, first made his unsubstantiated claim that there is no Obama birth certificate in Hawaii; at the time, he was attending a convention of the Council of Conservative Citizens, which the Anti-Defamation League describes as having a "white supremacy, white separatism" ideology. WND has tried to portray anyone pointing this out as running a “vicious smear campaign” against Adams, but it’s never been explained why he was on a “pro-White” show or at the convention of a white-supremacist group in the first place.)
If the best backup for Corsi's “point” is David Duke, then perhaps that point isn’t worth making.
Corsi goes on to write, “The issue of the New Black Panther Party has the potential to dog Barack Obama, much as the Rev. Wright issue did during the 2008 campaign and the professor Gates controversy did in the first months of his presidency.” Corsi most assuredly wants to make that “potential” into reality.
CNS Won't Treat False Claim on Abortion Funding As False Topic: CNSNews.com
A July 14 CNSNews.com article by Susan Jones began:
If you want proof that President Obama's Executive Order on taxpayer-funded abortion was a sham, look no further than Pennsylvania, says House Republican Leader John Boehner (Ohio).
Boehner and other Republicans point to reports that the Health and Human Services Department is giving Pennsylvania $160 million to set up a new high-risk insurance pool that will cover any abortion that is legal in the state.
Jones went on to treat those reports as true, making no apparent attempt to verify the claim.
Guess what? It's not true.
Jones followed up with a July 15 article that's not exactly a correction, but it tells the other side of the story she couldn't be bothered to get the day before. Instead of properly portraying it as the correction it is, Jones framed it as a he-said, she-said. Her article began:
Several Democrats say pro-life conservatives have it wrong: They say the $160 million taxpayer dollars going to fund Pennsylvania's new high-risk insurance pool will not fund abortion, except in cases of rape or incest, or where the "life of the woman would be endangered."
Jones then spent the next four paragraphs repeating the false claim beforegetting around to statements by federal officials and Rep. Bart Stupak discrediting it.
Jones closed her article with a section titled "‘Elective abortions are not covered’ – or are they?" in which she repeats yet again the National Right to Life Committee's discredited assertion that abortion is covered.
If CNS is not going to treat facts as facts and discredited claims as discredited claims, why is it even pretending to be a "news" organization?
NewsBusters' Double Standard on Dehumanizing Terms Topic: NewsBusters
In a July 13 NewsBusters post, Tim Graham is upset that the AP described a 6-month-old fetus killed in an assult as, well, a fetus. Graham quoted a 2008 column by his boss, Brent Bozell, calling "fetus" a "cold, humanity-negating word."
It can be easily argued that the term " illegal alien" is also a "cold, humanity-negating word" -- after all, an undocumented person is not an "alien," he's human. But NewsBusters uses that term all the time. And even Bozell wrote a column headlined "The Pro-Illegal Alien Media."
Imposing conservative correctness on the issue of immigration, however, does not pay the politicial dividends that it does on the issue of abortion. Even Graham and Bozell know that.
WND's Schilling Lies About Reid, Illegal Immigrants Topic: WorldNetDaily
A July 13 WorldNetDaily article by Chelsea Schilling states:
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid claims there are no illegal aliens working in the construction business in Nevada – the same U.S. state that is reported to have the highest percentage of "unauthorized immigrants" in the labor force.
Responding to a Pew Hispanic Center study that shows 17 percent of all construction workers are in the U.S. illegally, Reid told Las Vegas 8NewsNow, "That may be some place, but it's not here in Nevada."
Schilling is lying -- Reid never said that "there are no illegal aliens working in the construction business in Nevada."
From the full video of Reid's comments to a Las Vegas TV station:
BACA: But if you go to the unemployment office, though, there's many U.S. citizens who are unemployed construction workers, and they don't have specific jobs because right now, some of those construction companies find it easier to hire undocumented workers.
REID: I think that any information you have in that regard is absolutely without foundation.
BACA: The Pew Hispanic Trust, though, says that about 14 percent of illegal immigrants -- 14 percent of construction workers are unauthorized immigrants.
REID: That may be some place, but it's not here in Nevada.
Reid is clearly saying that he disagrees that 14 percent of construction workers in Nevada are undocumented -- not that there are no undocumented construction workers in Nevada.
This is just another in the long list of false and misleading claims Schilling has made that WND has not seen fit to correct.
Media Matters' Simon Maloy details how NewsBusters' Tim Graham expresses outrage that the New York Times committed the conservatively incorrect sin of reporting criticism of the killing of geese in order to increase airline safety, he treats a parody Facebook page supporting the geese, which has a total of 15 followers, as something serious and of national concern.
Graham now has a note at the top of his post saying, "I should have noticed that the "Stop the Goose Holocaust" page on Facebook is an animal-rights parody."
Another Aaron Klein Guilt-By-Association Classic Topic: WorldNetDaily
Gulit-by-associationmaestro Aaron Klein turns in another stellar effort in which he intimates much wrongdoing but proves absolutely nothing.
Here's how Klein's July 13 WorldNetDaily article starts:
A federal bill that seeks to restore voting rights in national elections to felons released from prison previously was a pet project of the radical Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN.
Meanwhile, Barack Obama's 2008 presidential campaign was briefed on state laws governing voting-rights restoration for former felons encountered during general voter-registration drives.
The information comes as a study released this week by Minnesota Majority, a watchdog group, found the six-month election recount that determined Al Franken won the Minnesota Senate seat may have been decided by convicted felons who voted illegally.
Klein offers no evidence whatsoever there's anything wrong with restoring voting rights to "felons released from prison" or advising former felons of their voting rights. Indeed, there's nothing at all wrong with it. Whether it was a "pet project" of ACORN is utterly irrelevant -- just another desperate attempt at guilt by association.
Regarding the claim that "convicted felons who voted illegally" gave the win to Franken, Klein fails to report evidence debunking the Minnesota Majority "study."
The Minneapolis Star Tribune reported that "[i]nitial reviews by state and local officials, however, indicate that the problem may be far smaller than the group found in a recent study being championed by the Minnesota Republican Party." The Star Tribune added that "the group's reports are likely inflated and hard to verify because of difficulties determining whether the suspected felon voters had their voting rights restored, if they knew they were ineligible to vote, or if they were actually the people whose names appear on voter rolls."
MinnPost quoted a county election official saying that "much of their data is not good," adding, "Of the 475 cases Minnesota Majority questioned, 270 examples were just not accurate":
There are reasons for so many inaccuracies, Carruthers said. For example, because of data privacy laws, Minnesota Majority was able only to get year of birth of many of the people they claimed had voted illegally. But, for the group to be sure it had the right individual, it would have needed the actual date of birth.
“In a state with so many Johnsons,’’ said [county prosecutor Phil] Carruthers, “you have many people with the same name born in the same year. You have to have date of birth, to be sure you have the right person.’’
Additionally, Carruthers said, Minnesota Majority would not have had access to changes in sentencing. For example, a person who initially had been sentenced to 10 years of probation may have had that probation reduced during the period of the sentence. At that point, the individual’s civil rights - including the right to vote - would have been restored.
Of course, Klein doesn't believe in telling the truth when the truth interferes with his anti-Obama agenda.
WND's White House Coverage Is About Kinsolving, Not White HOuse Topic: WorldNetDaily
Most news organizations, when covering a press briefing, treat what is said by the person in the briefing as news. WorldNetDaily, however, is more concerned about whether its "reporter" gets to ask questions.
Thus, WND's coverage of White House press briefings is totally centered around whether Les Kinsolving is called on. Such is the case in a July 13 article complaining that Kinsolving, "WND's correspondent at the White House and the second most senior reporter on the beat, was bypassed today at the daily news briefing with press secretary Robert Gibbs."
This descended into a third-person view of the situation: "Kinsolving, who has been at the post since he began covering the executive branch during the Nixon administration, reports that he has been excluded from daily access to the White House more under President Obama's spokesman, Gibbs, than during the tenures of any of the 14 other press secretaries with whom he has worked." Who did Kinsolving say this to? Why is he unable to report this himself?
The answer is that Kinsolving is not, in fact, a "reporter." As Eric Boehlert has noted, Kinsolving is a radio host who pushes right-wing talking points masquerading as questions. He hasn't done any real reporting in years and certainly doesn't do any for WND, where his byline appears only on an opinion column.
WND helpfully serves up the questions Kinsolving would have asked, which only proves the point that Kinsolving isn't interested in actual reporting:
Kinsolving was prepared to ask: "Does the president think it was right -- or wrong -- for the authors of Medicare to exempt Congress?" and "Does the president agree or disagree with officials of the Health and Human Services agency advisory committee on blood safety and availability, who in a 9-6 vote decided against allowing MSM (men who have sex with men) to donate blood?"
Kinsolving has a longtime obsession with homosexuality, repeatedlydenouncing what he calls the "Sodomy Lobby."
As Boehlert pointed out, Kinsolving is similar to Helen Thomas in that they are both opinion-based writers and not actual reporters. While WND has repeatedly demanded that Kinsolving be accorded respect for being "the second most senior reporter" in the White House briefing room, it offered no such respect to Thomas; for instance, when the syndicator of Ann Coulter's column eliminated a description of Thomas as an "old Arab," WND restored it.
Meanwhile, WND launched a hissy fit -- well, more to the point, a lawsuit -- over not getting as many seats as it demanded for the White House Correspondents Dinner. WND claimed it "needed three tables in order to bring its personnel and distinguished guests to the event, [to honor] Les Kinsolving's tenure as a distinguished White House correspondent, and his daughter, Kathleen Kinsolving Willmann, has just written a book about his career, entitled 'Gadfly.' " When WND didn't get what it wanted, Joseph Farah took his ball and went home and wouldn't even allow Kinsolving to attend.
Boehlert and others have noted that an offensive comment by Thomas caused her to hastily give up her seat in the briefing room, while Kinsolving makes similarly outrageous comments -- like promoting birther conspiracy theories -- without any apparent repercussion, let alone cries for him to lose his press pass.
Neither Kinsolving nor WND seem to have put two and two together -- that it's questions like those (not to mention WND's vehementlyanti-Obama agenda) that keep him and his employer from being taken seriously by Gibbs. Or, indeed, anyone else.
Afghanistan's Taliban terrorists are training monkeys to shoot American soldiers with automatic weapons, according to British and Chinese media agencies.
In the Taliban stronghold of Waziristan, journalists took pictures of some "monkey soldiers" holding AK-47s and Bren light machine guns.
The official People's Daily in China explained the emergence of "monkey soldiers" as just another facet of "asymmetrical warfare."
WND treats this story seriously, even providing historical context by claiming that "in the 1920s, Russian dictator Josef Stalin ordered his scientists to breed a half-ape, half-man super-army that would be impervious to pain and not fussy about rations." No attempt is made to investigate the story's veracity.
Of course, it's less than true. From Stars & Stripes' Rumor Doctor:
The Rumor Doctor asked NATO officials whether these killer monkeys have yet been encountered on the battlefield in Afghanistan.
“We have absolutely nothing that leads us to believe that this tale could be even remotely based in reality,” said NATO spokesman Lt. Col. Todd Breasseale.
Given WND's compulsiontolie, it's no surprise that it would promote a bogus story -- even choosing to trust communists in doing so.
A July 12 CNSNews.com column by Ken Connor touts a documentary called "Generation Zero," which he claims is "based upon the premise that the indulgent parenting style of the Greatest Generation produced the self-centered risk-takers ultimately responsible for the collapse of 2008."
This denies reality. It is in fact the conservative movement that has regularly supported the power of personhood for corporations, and the resulting dissolution of personal responsibility for corporate decisions. In fact, one of the producers of this very film is David Bossie. Bossie is behind Citizens United, the conservative activist group who recently won a Supreme Court case that affirmed the power of political speech for coporations like Citizens United (the case was decided 5-4 with the justices regularly categorized as conservative voting in the affirmative).
It might be possible, maybe, that Bossie is secretly one of those corporate loving hippies in disguise. But I'm doubtful.
nevertheless, Connor thinks this biased, ahistorical little film is Very Important.
NewsBusters Offended That 'Only Pro-Gay Side' of Story Was Told Topic: NewsBusters
The headline of a July 12 NewsBusters post sums up Scott Whitlock's lament: "No Balance Required? MSNBC Features Only Pro-gay Side of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Debate."
Interestingly, Whitlock didn't describe the other side of the debate as "anti-gay." Nor can we remember any Media Research Center employee describe opposition to repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell as "anti-gay" even though it appears to consider support of repeal as "pro-gay," as Whitlock demonstrates.