Clay Waters takes pains to separate art from artist in a July 19 MRC TimesWatch item, running to the defense of "The Passion of the Christ" as something wholly separate from Mel Gibson. Waters was complaining that New York Times columnist Frank Rich went after "not just the artist but his artistic achievement, 'The Passion of the Christ,' the bloodily authentic 2004 portrayal of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ directed by Gibson."

Waters offers no comment on the racist, violent Gibson tapes that have been released, but he denounces Rich's description of "The Passion" as "sadomasochistic," calling such a description a "slur."

Weirdly, Waters also avoids comment of Rich's observation that "The Passion" is "nakedly anti-Semitic, to the extreme that the Temple priests were all hook-nosed Shylocks and Fagins with rotten teeth." Is that because Rich has a point that Waters doesn't want to admit?

Waters' insistence on separating art and artist in Gibson's case contrasts with the MRC's treatment of Roman Polanski, convicted of having sex with a 13-year-old girl. For instance, Waters' boss, Brent Bozell, denounced critics for committing the sin of judging Polanski's latest film on its merits rather than the director's personal life.

Bozell also huffed that "the Beautiful People" in Hollywood believed that Polanski "had too much 'empathy' as an artist to be bothered" to be held accountable for his crime. Waters, however, seems to believe the same thing about Gibson.

Posted by Terry K. at 10:51 AM EDT

Share This Post

Permalink

A July 19 CNSNews.com article by Penny Starr promotes CNS' longstanding lie that the Obama administration is funding abortion. Starr uncritically repeats the claim of a "revelation by the National Right to Life’s legal counsel that the new health care law will allow some states to use federal funds for abortion," and Republican Rep. Mike Pence's assertion that it "must not stand," without mentioning that the claim is utterly discredited.

As Starr should know, CNS reported that the Department of Health and Human Services and anti-abortion Rep. Bart Stupak both say that abortion will not be funded beyond current Hyde Amendment restrictions. Yet Starr chose not to include this information in her article.

This makes her either incompetent or willfully deceitful. Why does CNS continue to employ such a reporter?

Posted by Terry K. at 10:16 AM EDT

Share This Post

Permalink

In February, we noted that Newsmax had taken a stab at trying to rehabilitate the reputation of former Rep. Vito Fossella, who had left office in disgrace after a DUI arrest led to the revelation that he had a mistress and illegitimate child. Newsmax touted him as "the only Republican in Congress from New York City" who "had very high scores for his votes from the American Conservative Union," without a mention of the scandal that brought him down. Not unlike what Newsmax tried to do to rehabilitate scandal-tarred (and now imprisoned) Bernard Kerik.

Newsmax takes another stab at Fossella rehab with a July 19 Moneynews article by Dan Weil in which Fossella is given free rein to bash the Obama administration. Weil describes Fossella only as "chief operating officer of Superfund Investment Group," not even mentioning his status as a former congressman (and, of course, not a word about his scandal).

All this helps to explain why Fossella remains bullish on gold. Fundamentals are strong for the precious metal, he says. The budget deficit and government debt burden are exploding.

“With monetary policy, it looks like the spigot continues to be open,” he said.

“Gold is the one asset that truly maintains its value when central banks print money like it’s going out of style. And there doesn’t seem to be an end in sight.”

While the U.S. is acting in a way that will hurt the dollar, “Gold has done well against major currencies across the globe, because smart investors know gold maintains value much better than fiat currencies.”

Given Newsmax's fondness for financial schemes that depend on gold advocacy and Obama-bashing, it's not surprising that Fossella would throw them both in his interview.

This isn't the only recent instance in which Newsmax gave Fossella space to pretend he isn't scandal-ridden:

• Fossella also sat down for an interview with Newsmax on May 6, in which he pontificated about national security.
• A Feb. 26 Moneynews article by Weil highlighted Fossella's predictions on gold prices.
• A July 6 Moneynews article by Weil touted a webinar on "economic policy and financial market issues" featuring Ron Paul that Fossella would be hosting.

Needless to say, Newsmax stayed silent about Fossella's scandal-ridden personal life there as well.

Looks like we'll be seeing a little more of Fossella at Newsmax -- and a lot less about any hint of scandal.

Posted by Terry K. at 8:36 AM EDT

Share This Post

Permalink

A July 19 NewsBusters post by Noel Sheppard expressed outrage that "CNN this weekend invited a 'diversity consultant' on its 'Saturday Morning' program that actually likened black Tea Party members to Jews that worked as guards in Nazi concentration camps" -- specifically, the guest referenced "kapos." Sheppard declared it to be "disgustingly offensive anti-Tea Party rhetoric" and lamented, "How come folks that condemn inflammatory rhetoric use equally inflammatory rhetoric to castigate those their accusing?"

Sheppard's outrage might be more justified if he and his employer had bothered to condemn the same insult when used by their side.

In April, CNSNews.com -- like NewsBusters a division of the Media Research Center -- published a column by Ben Shapiro in which he asserted that White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel "is a kapo."

NewsBusters also links to the right-wing blog Gateway Pundit, whose proprietor, Jim Hoft, similarly portrayed Emanuel as a "kapo." Like Sheppard, Hoft is full of faux outrage over the CNN segment.

If "kapo" is such an offensive term, why didn't anyone at NewsBusters condemn Hoft for  invoking it? Or lift a finger to stop the organization it's a part of from promulgating the slur?

Posted by Terry K. at 12:56 AM EDT

Share This Post

Permalink

In one of the dumbest blog posts we've seen in a while, Ann Kane uses a July 17 NewsReal post to go on a tirade about the re-engagement of Levi Johnston and Bristol Palin, declaring it "A Coup for the Left."

How so? It's all the fault of that homewrecker Kathy Griffin! Kane helpfully explains:

Scenario: Sarah Palin’s seventeen-year-old daughter comes home and tells her she’s pregnant. Sarah takes it hard, and tells her they will handle it. Her daughter plans to marry the father of the child.

Within months of Palin losing the election, Levi dumps her daughter for a forty-nine year-old leftist foul mouth comedienne, Kathy Griffin, who has a highly public relationship with him. Then he poses nude for Playgirl magazine.

At Palin’s convention debut, Levi was obviously caught up in the fanfare. Griffin, aka, hovering vulture looking for her next prey in her crusade to wipe out decency from civilization, swept in on Levi, and took advantage of his fifteen minutes of fame. Griffin saw in Levi a messenger from whom she could launch her vitriol against Sarah Palin.

Just one little problem: There was never a relationship between Johnston and Griffin. The New York Daily News article Kane links to as evidence of the alleged affair clearly states the two "never actually dated" and it was all a "comedic charade."

But forget the facts -- Kane is on a roll:

Celebrities like Griffin hate the wholesome goodness of Palin. She tried to destroy the former Alaska governor by seducing the her star struck future son-in-law. Now that Levi’s going to marry Bristol nonetheless, what’s Griffin going to do, fade into the background? I doubt it. Heaven forbid the Palin clan should let Levi, with his despicable past, into their home again.

Um, yeah. Glad to see the standards for being a NewsReal blogger remain as high as always.

Posted by Terry K. at 10:59 PM EDT

Share This Post

Permalink

Note the ad on the left side of this screenshot taken from Newsmax on July 18:

James Edwards is the host of the "Political Cesspool" radio show on a Tennessee radio station. Edwards' website states that "the hallmark of his work on Political Cesspool" is that he delivers "an unapologetically pro-White viewpoint."

Edwards' book, Racism, Schmacism, appears to cover similar territory. The promotion for the book on the” Cesspool” website declares that “James Edwards gets it” -- among the others who apparently “get” Edwards are Jerome Corsi and WorldNetDaily's new birther hero, Tim Adams. -- and also that “James isn’t afraid to call a spade a spade” (underlined for emphasis). The promotion continues (emphasis in original):

When liberals and race hustlers use the word "racist," it doesn't have the meaning it used to have -- someone filled with hate and animosity for other races.

No, when when the race hustlers and leftists use the word "racist," they simply mean "conservative white person."

Period.

Until you get this, you will never understand politics in modern day America.

And once you do grasp it, you'll be amazed at how everything suddenly starts making sense.

In this brilliant (and often hilarious) new book, James Edwards proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that in today's politically correct climate, "racist" simply means "white person" or "conservative white person." And "racism" is simply anything a white person does that minorities and leftists don't approve of.

Here are some examples of what is claimed to be in the book:

• “Ever get the feeling that white people are damned if we do, and damned if we don't? You're not imagining it -- James shows how no matter what white people do, it's called racism -- even the exact opposite actions. When white people move out of neighborhoods that are majority black, that's ‘white flight,’ and it's racist. And when white people move into neighborhood that are majority black, that's gentrification, and it's racist, too.”
• “How public schools help black kids score better on tests than white kids -- by banning the white kids from ‘blacks only’ college prep courses.”
• “Now that the Confederate flag has been all but outlawed as a symbol of ‘racist hate,’ guess what the next step is? Yes, going after the Stars & Stripes -- an apartment complex in Oregon actually sent a letter to residents saying that anyone who displayed an American flag sticker on their vehicle would have to remove it, or face eviction, because a lot of non-whites live in the complex. Then there's the white woman in Texas (with a daughter serving in Iraq) who had to remove the American flag in her office because an African immigrant found it offensive.”
• “And, in what may be the most important chapter of the book, you'll see how conservatives walked right into Eric Holder's trap after he made his infamous speech calling us (meaning white people) ‘a nation of cowards’ when it comes to race. What was the conservative response? Almost every blogger, pundit and conservative leader said Eric Holder was wrong, and that we all have lots of black and brown friends, our churches are integrated, etc. Which proved, once again, that conservatives just don't get it. And it was just about the worst response we could've come up with. James will tell you how how we should've responded, and more importantly, why.”

Does Newsmax really want to be promoting anything involving James Edwards, let alone accept money to do so?

Posted by Terry K. at 7:58 PM EDT

Share This Post

Permalink

Right-wingers love to hide behind anonymity to hurl their smears, don't they?

Already in the past month we had one coward, "Jonah Knox," slime Obama at Accuracy in Media. AIM loved his cowardly sleaze so much that it posted a radio interview with the alleged "Knox."

Now, WOrldNetDaily has embraced another coward, "Frank J. Bleckwenn," whom it admits is "the pen name of an attorney in Washington, D.C." This time the smear victim is Elena Kagan; in a July 17 WND column, "Bleckwenn" portrays what Kagan purportedly say in her Supreme Court confirmation hearing were she administered "truth serum."

When you hide behind a fake name, you can lie and smear all you want. And that's what "Blackwenn" does, falsely portraying Kagan as a socialist because "You can see that from my senior thesis at Princeton and from my subsequent expression of sympathy for a 'more leftist left.'" That, of course, is false.

So "Bleckwenn" isn't just a coward, he's a liar too. Which makes his cowardice somewhat understandable.

Posted by Terry K. at 3:32 PM EDT

Updated: Sunday, July 17, 2011 8:40 PM EDT

Share This Post

Permalink

James Hirsen seems determined to keep the omerta for his friend Mel Gibson.

We noted that Hirsen failed to mention the story of Gibson's hateful phone conversations with the mother of his out-of-wedlock child in the week after it first broke. Hirsen is keeping up the silent treatment: The most recent edition of his "Left Coast Report" also fails to make any mention of Gibson, even as more tapes were released.

As we've detailed, Hirsen has a close relationship with Gibson -- a relationship Hirsen did not disclose as he was promoting Gibson's films and serving as defender of Gibson at Newsmax by claiming he had apologized sufficiently for his 2006 anti-Semitic tirade.

Posted by Terry K. at 8:25 AM EDT

Share This Post

Permalink

In a July 12 NewsBusters post, Ken Shepherd wrote about an Israeli Defense Force internal investigation of the incident between IDF troops and a flotilla of ships bringing supplies to Gaza, in which IDF troops killed several people. Shepherd's opening statement is, "The Israeli commandos who intercepted a flotilla bound for the Gaza Strip on May 31 were cleared of wrongdoing by a military inquiry into the matter," and he goes on to complain that some news reports on the investigation "focused on the negative" and downplayed "the conclusion that there was no wrongdoing by the Israelis in the now infamous raid."

Another internal investigation, however, got quite a different reception.

A July 8 NewsBusters post by Jeff Poor begins:

Surprise - a British panel ruled that the scandal known as ClimateGate that supposedly revealed the manipulation of certain data strengthen the case of manmade global warming was much ado about nothing. But, The New York Times in a July 7 story called these findings of an inquiry led by Muir Russell, a retired British civil servant and educator, "a sweeping exoneration" of the ClimateGate scientists in question.

Poor went on to insist that "there are still some serious and legitimate concerns to be raised about what ClimateGate reveal despite the findings" and that "ClimateDepot.com's Marc Morano has compiled a list of the various concerns about the Russell report that has supposedly exonerated these ClimateGate scientists."

In an extremely long July 15 NewsBusters post (and MRC Business & Media Institute column), Julia Seymour further attacked the veracity of the investigation: "The Post and many other outlets didn't mention crucial indications that the so-called 'independent' investigations were a 'whitewash.'" Among other things, Seymour complained that the investigation was "commissioned and paid for by the University of East Anglia (UEA), the same university whose climate department was under investigation."

Seymour failed to mention that many of those complaining about the exoneration are the very same people who push exaggerated claims about what "climategate" meant. For instance, Seymour cited an op-ed by Patrick Michaels attacking the report, but Michaels also claimed that the stolen emails that formed the basis for the investigation "have dramatically weakened the case for emissions reductions." That means Michaels has a vested interest in discrediting the invesigation -- something Seymour does not note.

To repeat: An internal investigation of a cause NewsBusters likes is perfectly legitimate and should not be questioned, while an internal investigation of something NewsBusters hates must be discredited at all costs.

Posted by Terry K. at 12:18 AM EDT

Share This Post

Permalink

A July 17 WorldNetDaily column by Chuck Morse is entertaining in that he pretends that a billboard likening President Obama to Hitler and Lenin is offensive to liberals' memories of Lenin, and then that the billboard wasn't really likening Obama to Hitler and Lenin:

Perhaps the aspect of this ad that is even more aggravating to the left than the juxtaposition of President Obama with the other two socialist leaders, Lenin and Hitler, is the fact that Lenin and Hitler are being equated as socialists without any differentiation made between the two. This perhaps raises some old sensitivities with regard to comparing Lenin and his brand of socialism with that of Hitler. The fact that the Russian Bolshevik Lenin had committed unprecedented atrocities in Europe and had set up concentration camps in Russia over a decade before Hitler came to power in Germany is ignored because, after all, Lenin was a "progressive." The possibility that Hitler and the Nazis might have been influenced and inspired by the example set by the left-wing Russian leaders, Lenin and Stalin, who were machine-gunning their political opponents into open pits and who were deliberately starving millions of innocent Ukrainians and Kulaks to death in politically inspired famines before the Nazis came to power, is ignored.

[...]

But back to President Obama and the billboard in question. Obviously there is no suggestion here that our president is comparable to either Hitler or Lenin in terms of his being as radical a socialist as the two aforementioned. There is no suggestion that Obama plans to commit a Holocaust against the Jews or to murder 10 million people, which is what the left-wing Soviets did to those they deemed to be not politically correct. No one is suggesting that Obama has plans to create a superrace or a collective. The difference between "Democratic Socialism" and the other two radical versions of Socialism, "National" and "Marxist", is understood by all.

This billboard, rather, simply points out that under Barack Obama's leadership, America is gradually moving in an overall authoritarian socialist direction while recounting the history of socialism as a reminder of the ultimate consequences of its system once implemented. 

Chuck Morse thinks you're stupid.

Posted by Terry K. at 9:32 PM EDT

Share This Post

Permalink

A July 16 Accuracy in Media column by Gary Larson, under the headline "Illegitimate Senator Al Franken," embraces "an 18-month study of Minnesota voting in the ‘08 election" claiming that "Convicted felons and ACORN-driven voters handed the wacky “Saturday Night Live” guy a slim win in the 2008 election in Minnesota."

Unfortunately for Larson, the "study" by the right-wing group Minnesota Majority lacks credibility. As we've detailed, there's plenty of evidence debunking the study's conclusions, including the number of purported convicted felons accused of voting.

Larson also rehashes baseless attacks on the recount process in the election between Franken and Norm Coleman, claiming that "it was clear to all, even local DFLers, that rules for tossing-out absentee ballots were far stricter in Republican-strong precincts, tightly observing election laws, than in loosey-goosey Democrat precincts, where nearly anything went."

Larson offers no evidence to support this claim, perhaps because he can't -- experts agree that the election was extrordinarily fraud-free.

Posted by Terry K. at 5:10 PM EDT

Share This Post

Permalink

A July 12 WorldNetDaily article by Drew Zahn promotes evangelist Bill Keller's plan for a "9-11 Christian Center" in Manhattan to counter a proposed mosque near the site of the World Trade Center; according to Keller, he wants to "combat the lies of this world and Islam with the Truth." And it is a promotion: Zahn's article concludes with instructions on how to donate to it.

Zahn describes Keller only has head of "LivePrayer.com, an Internet ministry that claims over 2.4 million subscribers," which hides the extent of Keller's extremism. As Richard Bartholomew details, Islam is not the only thing Keller seeks to "combat"; he has also attacked Jews (he considers Kaballah a "cult") and Mormons "a vote for Mitt Romney is a vote for Satan").

Further, Keller is a rabid, WND-worther Obama-hater. Keller's website portrays President Obama as an "Enemy of God," andhe was also the producer of a sad little birther informercial starring Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation, a birther lawyer with close ties to WND.

Posted by Terry K. at 12:32 AM EDT

Share This Post

Permalink

For at least the fifth time, Ronald Kessler has asserted that "In a Sept. 6, 2001, radio interview, Obama expressed regret that the Supreme Court hadn’t engaged in wealth redistribution." This time was in a July 15 Newsmax column.

It isn't any truer than it was the first four times he asserted it. Obama actually said that because the Supreme Court under Earl Warren did not address "redistributive change," it was evidence that the court was not as far-left as its critics have claimed. And Obama's "regret" was specifically aimed at the civil rights movement for overly relying on the court system to advance its agenda.

This latest assertion comes in a screed claiming that "Obama abhors capitalism. If you doubt that, look at his own words — and the words of his wife."

You only need to look at Kesslers words to know that he abhors Obama -- and, thus, cannot be trusted to write accurately about him.

Posted by Terry K. at 6:57 PM EDT

Updated: Saturday, July 17, 2010 11:26 PM EDT

Share This Post

Permalink

We've previously detailed how CNSNews.com treated false claims that the Obama administration is funding elective abortions as fact, and when CNS finally got around to publishing the fact that it was not occurring, it was treated as a he-said, she-said claim instead of the correction it should have been.

Now, it's like that corrective article never even existed. A July 16 article by Matt Cover asserts that "Maryland will join Pennsylvania as the second state to use federal tax dollars to pay for abortions under the new health care law signed by President Barack Obama in March, according to information released by Maryland’s State Health Insurance Plan."

Cover cites no actual evidence for this claim; all he does is quote a Republican congressman and pulls parts of the Maryland law out of context. Nowhere does Cover note -- as his fellow CNS writer Susan Jones eventually got around to reporting the day before -- that both the Health and Human Services and Rep. Bart Stupak have pointed out that federal money going to the high-risk insurance program that the feds are funding in Pennsylvania and Maryland, which Cover is referencing, will not be allowed to pay for abortions beyond those allowed under the Hyde Amendment, which limits abortions to cases of rape, incest and the threatened life of the mother.

And neither Cover nor Jones have ever mentioned that, according to the Pennsylvania insurance department, high-risk insurance pools are not exactly hotbeds of abortion, elective or otherwise, since the reason people are in the pool in the first place is because of pre-existing conditions that preclude them from getting health insurance anywhere else.

Let's not pretend that Cover, Jones and CNS care anything about factual reporting. All they're interested in is promoting right-wing talking points, and the truth doesn't matter.

Posted by Terry K. at 1:40 AM EDT

Share This Post

Permalink