NewsBusters Touts Irrelevant Media Donation List Topic: NewsBusters
An Aug. 27 NewsBusters post by Lachlan Markay touts a Washington Examiner column by Mark Tapscott claiming that, in Markay's words, "of the roughly $1.15 million network TV employees gave to political candidates in 2008, a full 88 percent of it went to Democrats."
As an attempt to counter News Corp.'s $1 million donation -- which Tapscott's effort, and Markay's promotion of it, surely is -- it's a meaningless, apples-and-oranges comparison.
As Media Matters points out, Tapscott's search paramaters include numerous people who have nothing to do with producing network news products. For instance, Tapscott listed one Democratic donor as a "CBS 'journalist,' " when in fact he's a CBS Sports contributor who serves as a college basketball analyst, where the pro-Obama bias being suggested is not a factor.
Further, donations by a company (i.e. News Corp.) and a company's employees are not comparable, and 2008 was a historic year in which Obama broke fundraising records, so comparing 2008 donations to News Corp.'s 2010 donation is especially meaningless.
Nevertheless, Markay insists, "Though the numbers are striking, the imbalance is not altogether surprising. But they do help to put in prospect the left's righteous indignation over the political activities of Fox News's parent company."
No, they don't -- it's just anotherpatheticattempt by the NewsBusters and its MRC parent to spin away the News Corp. donation.
WND Can't Tell Difference Between Election, Coup Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily's promo for the latest issue of its Whistleblower magazine -- "BATTLE PLAN: Strategies and tactics for overturning Obama's socialist revolution" -- carries the headline: "Palin, Beck, Hannity, Morris, Gingrich on ending Obama coup." That headline also appeared on the front page:
Of course, there was no "coup" -- Obama won an election that no one has credibly claimed was stolen, and he most certainly was not installed by a military takeover, the traditional definition of a coup.
Given howlittle WND regards facts as they apply to Obama, it's no surprise Joseph Farah and crew can't comprehend the definition of simple words.
While opinion polls showed that a majority of Israelis viewed Bill Clinton as a true friend, the same cannot be said for President Obama. In fact many see him as – ta da – a closet Muslim. Living around millions of Arab Muslims all of their lives, Israelis recognize the chief characteristics of many of Muhammad's followers. Told by their parents and imams from birth that they are the unique Chosen People of Allah – not the rejected Jews or idolatrous Christians – pride is one of those recurring traits among Muslims. Many would cite its cousin, arrogance, as another.
No doubt Obama's mother came from a European Christian heritage. But her son chose to marry an African-American woman and have children of color. In other words, he ultimately identified more with his father, from African Muslim stock, than he did with his white Christian mother from Kansas. Psychologists point out this is a natural process for most male and female children. The main role model as they mature into adulthood is the parent of their own sex.
In his 1995 memoir, "Dreams From My Father," Obama relates at great length his 1988 conversion at Jeremiah Wright's church. The one person left out of the retelling is Jesus Christ.
Obama hears the name "Jesus" being shouted and sung at church, but nowhere in "Dreams" does Obama have anything to say about the man or his mission.
For Obama, secular humanism with a third-world, anti-American twist has always trumped Christianity. This is evident in his discussion of Hawaii's heroic Christian missionaries.
Writing six years after his alleged conversion, he cites as the missionaries' contribution to Hawaiian culture only "crippling diseases."
Obama may not be the first politician to use Christianity as a voter registration tool – Bill Clinton comes to mind – but on the question of Obama's true faith, "Don't know" is the smart answer to give a pollster.
So what did we learn with the "victory" of Ben Quayle? Simply put, the next crop of Republicans in Congress – typified by a brain-dead, immature 33-year-old who will now be the next congressman from Arizona (as District 3 is solidly Republican) – will not be the solution to the country's ills. And the Republican Party as a whole is not the solution since the establishment still rules. Indeed, its abject failure to lead the nation effectively, competently and honestly during the Bush years is why we now have a "Muslim," anti-Semitic, anti-Christian socialist like Barack Hussein Obama in The White House!
The French Revolution is not some bygone series of unfortunate events. The same depraved spirit that gave humanity Darwinian evolution, the genocide of Marxism and Hitler's anti-Semitic, anti-Christian pogroms is now being manifested in the Age of Obama through utopian socialism, welfare-state progressivism and liberalism.
Like the atheists and secular humanists of the Age of Enlightenment, Obama arrogantly decreed that America is no longer a Christian nation. He is evidently dismissive of America's constitutional principles and clearly hates the historical role America has played in the world, which places him at constant odds with American constitutionalism and exceptionalism. Obama hates our Judeo-Christian heritage and detests America's historical allies.
If a self-proclaimed non-Muslim president would fight repeatedly for Muslims' religious rights to the degree that our president has, don't you think "a committed Christian" president would at least fight once for any antagonistic oppression of Christian faith and practice, too? Yet, on no occasion since taking office has President Obama stood up publicly for a single Christian individual, group, church, act or event, whom or which was being opposed or oppressed by others.
All of it makes me ponder the application of the verse in the biblical book of James, which says, "Faith without works is dead."
Even more apropos might be Quran 4:76: "Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah."
AIM's Kincaid Defends Bringing Up Obama Baptism Issue, Denies He's Asking for Proof Topic: Accuracy in Media
In his Aug. 24 Accuracy in Media column, Cliff Kincaid makes a big deal out of a purported lack of evidence that Barack Obama was ever baptized as a Christian, claiming that "being a Christian is not just a function of attending church services. Rather, it is related to being baptized. Did this critical development occur in Obama’s life?" Kincaid goes on to quote a columnist who asked, "Where is the baptism certificate? We do not see one because there was no baptism."
Of course, this is nothing more than yet another effort to denigrate Obama as an "other"; Kincaid goes on to quote people who are "adamant that Obama is a Muslim, based on the fact that his birth father was a Muslim and that there is no evidence that Obama ever specifically rejected Islam."
In his Aug. 27 follow-up column, Kincaid defends bringing up the baptism issue, whines that he's being supressed for asking about it, and also denies that he's asking for proof:
The questions that have been offered by Accuracy in Media concern Obama’s claims about being baptized in the Christian faith. AIM believes that politicians should be held accountable for the claims they make about themselves, even on personal matters of religious faith.
Obama’s aides have claimed the President is a committed and practicing Christian and that he was baptized in Jeremiah Wright’s Trinity United Church of Christ. But he has gone to church only a few times since he became President.
“We understand that these are contentious times,” say the Christian leaders, “but the personal faith of our leaders should not be up for public debate.”
However, the First Amendment expressly permits not only freedom of religion but freedom of the press.
The Christian leaders say, “We believe that questioning, and especially misrepresenting, the faith of a confessing believer goes too far.” They do not identify who has misrepresented Obama’s faith.
AIM also wants accountability. What AIM has done is quote directly from Obama’s books about his spiritual and political journey. We have pointed out that Obama’s claim about his own baptism, as reported in his second memoir, The Audacity of Hope, is subject to interpretation because of the lack of detail about how and when he was baptized and by whom. It appears, based on information provided by Obama’s own church, that Obama was describing how he became a member of that church.
Obama’s claim of being baptized is presented in the context of discussing the fact that he was not born and baptized a Christian. He describes his Muslim father and grandfather and attendance in a Muslim school as he was growing up. Obama acknowledges that, before he joined Wright’s church, some people regarded him as a Muslim. Wright himself dabbled in Islam before establishing his church, Obama concedes.
The proof of the baptism claim is precisely what is lacking in his book. There is no need or demand for a baptismal certificate, but there is no detail about the ceremony, other than talking about a walk down an aisle and a profession of faith, and no information about who performed the baptism and who attended. Traditionally, water is used in such a ceremony. There is no reference to water in Obama’s book.
To add further to the mystery, AIM cited evidence that Christian baptisms were not required to join Wright’s church, which emphasized liberation theology, and that Muslims were permitted to join and not disavow their faith.
Claims about a baptism cannot be taken at face value, especially because his statements and actions as President have led so many to believe he has a pro-Muslim bent. These have led to the perceptions, captured in the public opinion polls, that Obama may not be a Christian.
The controversy will not go away just because a few religious leaders demand that the media stop covering it.
If Kincaid is claiming there's "no need or demand for a baptismal certificate," why is he raising the question? Because he hates Obama, that's why. That makes him someone who can't be trusted in discussing such things since his agenda is to destroy, not illuminate.
Tancredo Falsely Attacks Islamic Center Imam Topic: WorldNetDaily
In his Aug. 28 WorldNetDaily column, Tom Tancredo falsely attacks Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, who wants to build an Islamic center near the Ground Zero site in New York, asserting that Rauf "has connections to Hamas and other radical organizations" and has made "statements in defense of al-Qaida."
In fact, Rauf has no "connections to Hamas," and he has never defended al-Qaida. Tancredo did not indicate what evidence he has to support his claims.
WND Pretends Audience at Beck's Rally Was Diverse Topic: WorldNetDaily
Here's how Drew Zahn began his Aug. 28 WorldNetDaily article on Glenn Beck's big rally in Washington:
People of every race and color in red, white and blue T-shirts gathered in the nation's capital today for Glenn Beck's Restoring Honor rally only to receive a heavy dose, not of the radio host, but of Jesus Christ.
Zahn offered no evidence that the rally audience was diverse, aside from quoting someone with a Hispanic name.
The truth is qute the opposite -- the New York Times pointed out that the audience was "overwhelmingly white and largely middle-aged," and the Washington Post similarly noted the crowd was "overwhelmingly white."
That didn't stop WND from trying to portray the crowd as diverse. A follow-up article by Anita Crane carried the headline "Glenn Beck crowd: Not so white as advertised," and Crane insisted that 'many creeds and colors" attended:
The crowd itself included veterans, parents, disabled Americans, people of all ages and – contrary to some criticism leveled against the rally – attendees of many races and ethnicities.
But Crane talked to only two -- the head of the National Black Pro-Life Union and Ron Mille, "a black Christian and author of 'Sellout: Musings from Uncle Tom's Porch.'" Miller played into Crane's agenda by stating, "Americans of many races were given prominence on stage for the world to see."
As for the "many creeds" supposedly in attendance, Crane cited "Catholics, other Christians and Jews." The only Jew that took part in Beck's rally was Daniel Lapin, a right-wing rabbi with ties to disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
By the way, Zahn also indulged Alveda King's ego by referring to her as "Dr. Alveda King" even though, as we've noted, her doctorate is honorary, not earned.
AIM's Favorite Coward Strikes Again Topic: Accuracy in Media
"Jonah Knox" -- the pseudonymous "noncommissioned officer and analyst in the United States Army Reserves" who Accuracy in Media provided a perch to launch his cowardly smears against Obama -- brings his cowardice back to AIM for an Aug. 24 screed against gays in the military.
Like fellow AIM gay-basher Cliff Kincaid, "Knox" wants to link homosexuality to treason through the Bradley Manning-WikiLeaks case :
The kid-gloves treatment of Manning demonstrates that the current policy that the Department of Defense and Army have on homosexuals in the military stems from a desire to bow at the altar of political correctness and seek approval from the same-sex advocates and their leftist allies. The left has generated enough politically correct pressure that the Department of Defense and Army now go out of their way to ignore homosexuals within their ranks—even if that costs the lives of service personnel and betrays national security.
"Knox" also complains that "the Manning story has not only failed to unify those supposedly on the right, but it has become clear that some so-called 'conservatives' are intent on fracturing and destroying the conservative movement with their abandonment of morality and their support of the same-sex agenda."
No wonder "Knox" wants to stay hidden -- he's too much of a gutless coward to take responsibility for his hateful words.
NewsBusters Attacks Bloomberg for Something He Didn't Say Topic: NewsBusters
An Aug. 27 NewsBusters post by Nathan Burchfiel carries the headline "Bloomberg: ‘100 Percent’ of 9/11 Families Support Ground Zero Mosque," and points out that "In fact, there are many 9/11 family members speaking out against building a mosque so close to Ground Zero."
But Bloomberg didn't say what Burchfiel insists he said.
Indeed, Burchfiel quotes Bloomberg accurately: "And the family members that I've talked to -- and I'm chairman of the board of the World Trade Center Memorial -- 100 percent in favor of saying, ‘These people, if they want to build a mosque, can build a mosque.'"
Note the words we highlighted. Bloomberg never said that all 9/11 families supported the Islamic center nearGround Zero -- he said that all of the 9/11 families he has talked to support it.
Bloomberg could fairly be criticized for falsely suggesting that all 9/11 families support the center, but that's not what Burchfiel does -- he misportrays Bloomberg's words as something he didn't say.
It's little dishonesties like this that keep the MRC from being taken seriously as media critics.
MRC's Gainor: Telling Truth = Taking Sides Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's Dan Gainor writes in his Aug. 25 column:
The unseen hand of journalism manipulating American democracy is no longer unseen, nor is it as effective as it once was. But that hasn't stopped the media from trying its best.
The Associated Press "Standards Center" issued a "staff advisory on covering New York City mosque" on Aug. 19 as just one piece of that spin. "We should continue to avoid the phrase ‘ground zero mosque' or ‘mosque at ground zero' on all platforms."
Since that spin memo, finding the term "Ground Zero Mosque" on network news is all but impossible. Before the memo came out, journalists like ABC's David Kerley were allowed to use it. On Aug. 15, there was Kerley talking about Obama "trying to steer through the treacherous waters of the Ground Zero Mosque" debate. "Early Today" host Lynn Berry talked about the "Ground Zero Mosque controversy." Other reporters echoed the term.
But AP had to choose sides. To the great spinmeisters in that organization, a building near the World Trade Center that was actually damaged in the attack isn't at Ground Zero. Had AP headquarters been in that building, you can bet they would have covered their own damage like it had been Ground Zero. It's the terminology game reporters and editors play.
Gainor is pretending that his position on the definition of Ground Zero is not also "spin."Defining Ground Zero as the grounds of the World Trade Center complex and immediately adjacent buildings that suffered significant damage -- of which the Islamic center site is not one -- is not an unreasonably narrow definition. The planned Islamic center is not merely a mosque.
Thus, "Ground Zero mosque" is an inaccurate term for the project. AP's efforts to strive for an accurate term means it "chose sides" with the truth.
Gainor portrays this as "Americaphobia." Apparently, we're not supposed to tell the truth with it interferes with Gainor's political agenda.
FrontPageMag Tries to Solve The 'Obama Problem' Topic: Horowitz
The last time we heard about the "Obama problem," the solution was a military coup.
The latest effort to solve the "Obama problem" comes from FrontPageMag's David Solway. He writes in an Aug. 23 column:
Regular readers of this site need not be reminded of Barack Obama’s countless gaffes, aberrations, indulgences, prevarications, poor decisions, shady dealings and worrisome patches of biographical obscurity. These blemishes have been rehearsed in article after article to the extent to which we can say that, by this time, the issue of his competence and bona fides should have reached critical mass. Nevertheless, for the fence sitters, the undecideds or those of a different political persuasion who out of curiosity occasionally scan the conservative media, it might be expedient to revisit the Obama problem and set down a brief summary of the president’s track record.
And who does Solway choose as his sources for this examination? Jerome Corsi and Pam Geller. Solway tries to offer a weak defense: " Corsi has been viciously attacked as a liar and a 'discredited, fringe bigot,' but his defense of his allegations is point-device." But Corsi actually is discredited, a bigot, and a liar, and his defense of his book also included corrections.
Solway then unleashes a massive bill of particulars that he described as a "lengthening rap sheet of Obama’s character defects, equivocations, dissemblings, bad judgments and actions harmful to the integrity of the nation." On this list are things the previous president also did, like taking alot of vacations and "puerile blaming of the previous administration for his own inadequacies."
Finally, Solway gets down to brass tacks: "Nobama is the watchword. How to do this in indeed the question." He manages to stay within the legal and constitutional, unlike his fellow "Obama problem" commiserant, Newsmax's John L. Perry. But he also repeats Tom Tancredo's baseless claim that "the president’s refusal to enforce immigration law [is] an impeachable offense"; in fact, border enforcement is at record high levels.
But staying with the legal and constitutional doesn't preclude Solway from descending into a fit of Obama derangement:
In any event, there should be little doubt by this time that Barack Obama is a grave security threat to the United States. He is, as Sowell argues, a president the country may not survive. And still many of us are disinclined to grasp how truly dangerous this man is, for he is not just another Democrat seeking the privilege of power but a crypto-Marxist who hauled his buckets from the wells of the left (e.g., Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, which, as James Lewis points out, he “taught his ACORN followers in all his Community Agitator classes in Chicago”), a clear Islamo-sympathizer and a man who gives every indication of intensely disliking the country he was elected to serve. He is not simply naïve, misdirected, frivolous, unprepared for office, partisan and ignorant—he may be all these things—but, to quote Pajamas Media CEO Roger Simon, he may also suffer from “a serious personality disorder.”
America’s allies, from Taiwan to Ukraine to Israel and the United Arab Emirates are feeling profoundly at risk as a result of Obama’s fecklessness or intentions. Indeed, Obama has effectively abdicated America’s role as the guarantor of the free world. But it is America itself that is in direst jeopardy from the operations of a president who governs at a great distance from the people. It is as if a majority of electors and salon intellectuals hurtled down the rabbit hole and found themselves in a sinister wonderland whose gaudy illusions they foolishly took for reality. Many have been chastened and are now scrambling to climb back out.
Sounds like Solway is just itching to call for a military coup if he thought he could get away with it.
CNS Still Thinks Alveda King Is A Real Doctor Topic: CNSNews.com
An Aug. 27 CNSNews.com article by Adam Cassandra touts claims by anti-abortion activist Alveda King trying to link herself to the legacy of her uncle, Martin Luther King Jr. CNS has frequentlygivenher an unchallenged platform.
The headline and first paragraph of Cassandra's article refers to "Dr. Alveda King" even though, as we've previously noted (and others have pointed out), her doctorate appears to be honorary.
Keyes Picks Up WND's Dubious Attack on Obama Topic: WorldNetDaily
Alan Keyes writes in his Aug. 27 WorldNetDaily column:
Now we have the report that the relatives of some U.S. personnel in Afghanistan "have accused the U.S. government of leaving defenders of its freedoms without basics such as blankets, food, feminine hygiene supplies and even bullets." If true these allegations suggest a degree of criminal neglect at the highest level of command that warrants the immediate dismissal of those responsible, including the one who lays still doubtful claim to the authority of commander in chief.
As we've pointed out, this WND-originated story is unsubstantiated, has no named sources, and contradicts WND's previous stance on questioning the military's supply chain when George W. Bush was president.
Keyes' embrace of this unsubstantiated story is intended to be evidence that "Obama's dissipation of U.S. military strength and resources is intentional; that Obama's pattern of decisions and actions undermining the U.S. strategic posture is intentional; and that it is also his intention to give aid and comfort to the terrorist forces presently at war with the United States by repeated gestures of U.S. submission to Islamic authority, repeated fabrications about Islamic contributions to the history of the United States and repeated statements and other gestures of support for Muslim leaders such as those seeking to build, on the site of the 9/11 attacks, a monument to victory for the forces of Islamic terror."
More Leading Questions from WND's Ethically Challenged Pollster Topic: WorldNetDaily
An Aug. 24 WorldNetDaily article by Bob Unruh details the latest poll conducted for WND by its ethically challenged pollster, Fritz Wenzel, and darn if they aren't the usual leading questions we've come to expect from him.
Note the slanted wording of the questions and how they feed into creating an impression to be answered in the final question:
Recently some 20 states joined together to challenge the federal government's plans to force Americans to buy their own health-care insurance because, the states contend, it is unconstitutional to require citizens to purchase a product or service. Do you agree or disagree with this challenge?
Voters in Missouri recently overwhelmingly passed a ballot initiative calling for repeal of the federal health-care plan approved by Congress earlier this year. Do you agree or disagree with the Missouri ballot initiative?
While the federal government is suing Arizona for its law intended to curb illegal immigration, other states are lining up in support of Arizona. Do you agree or disagree with the state of Arizona in its fight with the federal government over immigration?
At least two state legislatures last year introduced bills to ensure future presidential candidates are required to prove constitutional eligibility before being placed on the ballot. Do you support or oppose such requirements?
Overall, since Barack Obama took over as president, do you think the federal government has been too aggressive in over-ruling the rights of individual states to pass and enforce their own laws, OR have they been too passive?
The first three questions highlight challenges to federal policy, and the final question asks if "the federal government has been too aggressive in over-ruling the rights of individual states to pass and enforce their own laws." Why, you'd think that was deliberate.
It was, of course. That's what WND is paying Wenzel to do.
Bozell Takes Dr. Laura's Side, Pushes Bogus Study Topic: Media Research Center
In his Aug. 25 column, Brent Bozell takes Dr. Laura's side on her N-word controversy, uncritically repeating her nonsensical claim that she was quitting her radio gig because "If she could not exercise her freedom of speech, she said, she was not interested in the job."
But she did exercise her freedom of speech; she simply does not want anyone to hold her accountable for what she says.
Bozell goes on to distort the facts about the controversy:
Watchdogs on the left had pounced on a conversation she had with a black woman in which she proclaimed something that everyone with cable TV knows is true. The N-word is acceptable vernacular for black comedians on HBO, but it’s not something you can ever, ever say if you’re not black.
While making this point, Dr. Laura purposely said the N-word repeatedly during this proclamation, and that was all the Left needed to start contacting sponsors, suggesting they shouldn’t want their products associated with this viciously racist talk show. It didn’t matter that even liberal editorialists in The Washington Post declared that there was nothing at all racist in what the doctor said.
The Left had found their to chance to silence her, and they pounced. All they needed to do was distort the context completely, and they did so masterfully.
As others have pointed out, Dr. Laura's use of the N-word may haveactually been the least offensive part of her rant:
In actuality, it's the rest of her rant that drips with racial animus. To recap: Dr. Laura immediately dismisses her caller's problems, uses a racist joke to prove her non-racism, insists that black people voted for Obama over nothing but racial solidarity (as if pre-Obama, African Americans never voted for Democrats), strongly resents the fact that "black guys" can use the N-word but she can't, and declares that "if you're that hypersensitive about color and don't have a sense of humor, don't marry outside of your race." Dr. Laura isn't known for her sensitivity, but this is an impressive display of raw racial resentment.
Nevertheless, Bozell goes on, because he has something to promote:
The hypocrites. Leftists say outrageous things on the radio routinely, things they truly mean, too, and those remarks never see the light of day on ABC, CBS, and NBC. Talking about the N-word is wrong but wishing death on political enemies is okay when the rhetorical bombs are dropped on conservatives. The Media Research Center has a new report chronicling who the real radio hatemongers are.
In fact, neither Bozell nor anyone else at the MRC have any idea "who the real radio hatemongers are" because they have done no comparative analysis of liberal vs. conservative radio hosts, and thus has not established an emperical basis on which to decide which "hatemongers" are more "real."
And as we've previously noted, the MRC reportfails to account for the fact that the liberal radio hosts it criticizes have a much smaller audience than the top conservative radio hosts, who do -- despite Bozell's insistence that no conservative has "ever said anything remotely similar" -- sayoffensivethings on a regular basis.