Obama Derangement Syndrome Watch, Ben Shapiro Division Topic: CNSNews.com
If Obama were a dog, he'd be a bad dog. The kind of dog that routinely drinks from the toilet, and simply will not be taught that drinking from the toilet is bad manners (think Obama on health care).
He'd be the kind of dog that barks at all hours of the night, just for attention (think Obama's pathetic need for constant adulation). The kind of dog that runs from intruders when danger's in the air (think Obama on Iraq, Iran, Russia, North Korea, China-hell, just think about Obama's position on any country that isn't an American ally). The kind of dog that chews on the furniture out of pure spite (if Obama's actually going to chew on the furniture, by the way, let me be the first to suggest he start with the new, hideous Oval Office accoutrements).
If Obama's a dog, he's a puppy that has never been housebroken, whose owner continually babies it and never requires basic standards of behavior. President Obama has never had to make a living; he has never had to face the consequences of his behavior, whether that behavior is hanging out with terrorists, doing cocaine, or attending a racist church for 20 years. He's never been held accountable. Finally, he's being held accountable. He doesn't like it, so he's rhetorically urinating in the middle of the living room.
Obama, like a bad puppy, acts badly because he doesn't recognize that he's not in the true position of authority. The American people stand above him. He is a public servant, a servant of our will. He seems not to believe that-in fact, he thinks that America's the dog, he's the master, and he can simply order Americans to agree with him. He's utterly disconnected from reality.
In short, Obama has to learn to obey the American public. If not, we'll continue to treat him like a bad dog. Only worse, since he refuses to learn. And in November, he'll find out that bad dogs don't get any electoral Scooby treats.
-- Ben Shapiro, Sept. 8 CNSNews.com column, published at CNSNews.com
In his Sept. 8 WorldNetDaily video, Molotov Mitchell takes on Andrew Breitbart for claiming that raising questions about Barack Obama's birth certificate was "not a winning issue" -- a mere seven months after Breitbart made the claim.
Mitchell praised Breitbart, claiming he has his respect "as a fellow conservative as a savvy media producer," but cited polls showing an increase in Americans who believe Obama was not born in the United States as evidence that Breitbart should rethink his stance.
Mitchell then touted about in 2008, his film company "released the first major viral video about Obama's eligibility," in which he interviewed birther attorney Philip Berg. In the video, Berg pushes the conspiracy that FactCheck.org is covering up for Obama by claiming the birth certificate he released is genuine because it's "owned by Annenberg of Chicago," which "Obama sat on the board for for a number of years, dispersing up to $60 million a year." In fact, Obama never sat on the board of the Annenberg Foundation, which is headquartered in California; Obama was board chairman of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, a local education reform group started with an Annenberg Foundation grant. Berg also repeats the discredited claim that Obama's grandmother claimed that Obama was born in Kenya.
This is the man Mitchell trusts to tell the truth about Obama's birth.
The real laugher is that Mitchell introduced the video by asserting, "I am not into conspiracy theories. I don't wear tinfoil hats."
That Mitchell has embraced such falsehoods -- which he has done elsewhere -- shoots down his case that being a birther is a winning issue, since Mitchell has built his case on a pack of lies.
Then again, ol' Molotov isn't exactly known for letting the facts get in the way of his propaganda, is he?
WorldNetDaily's Zombie Lies March On Topic: WorldNetDaily
When we detailed how WorldNetDaily's Joe Kovacs spread lies about Elena Kagan purportedly representing President Obama in birther-related lawsuits -- followed quickly by a complete walkback and replacement of Kovacs' article with something else -- we noted that the original falsehood-laden article was reposted at numerous other websites, thus ensuring it will live forever uncorrected.
Snopes.com, which published a debunking of the story that sent WND scrambling, is now reporting that it got an angry email from someone questioning the debunking and accusing it of being politically biased liars. Snopes continues:
This correspondent's e-mail was also posted to the web, and from there it was embellished and sent winging around the Internet through e-mail forwards and blog posts, all undertaken by people who also didn't bother actually reading our article or otherwise verifying the veracity of what they were reproducing — they gleefully passed it on with complete disregard for the truth because it seemingly confirmed concepts they wanted to believe.
This phenomenon prompted a wave of e-mail messages to us (many of them collected here) from people who mindlessly forwarded us the original message, accused us of being liars, insisted they would never, ever trust us again, and demanded that we remove the "false" information about the non-existent Obama/Kagan eligibility connection from our site. All of these correspondents had clearly not made even the slightest effort to read our article (if they had, they'd have known that we didn't claim no docket items containing the names "Kagan" and "Obama" existed); they instead either blindly accepted the accusatory e-mail at face value or repeated the very same error that WND made and then berated us for supposedly stating that "there were no such dockets."
Every single one of those correspondents received a detailed response from us explaining why they were mistaken. To date, we haven't received a single apology.
So, WND's zombie lies continue to live. Exactly what Joe Kovacs was paid to do. Good job, Joe -- your sleazy pack of lies accomplished exactly what you and Joseph Farah wanted.
New Article: How David Kupelian's 'Evil' Works Topic: WorldNetDaily
The WorldNetDaily managing editor's new book is filled with the same factually suspect moralizing as his last one, though (so far) without the unethical promotion gimmicks. Read more >>
The headline of a Sept. 7 CNSNews.com article by Terry Jeffrey reads, "Obama Used ‘Invest,’ ‘Investing,’ or ‘Investment’ Seven Times in Labor Day Speech to Describe Federal Spending and Special-Interest Tax Loopholes."
MRC Flails to Portray Couric As Biased Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center has long tried -- and failed -- to paint Katie Couric as an unrepentant liberal and her stewardship of the "CBS Evening News" as an unrelenting font of liberal bias.
The MRC tries yet again in a new "Profile in Bias" to mark Couric's fourth year at CBS. It begins by citing its own report after her first year -- which, as we detailed, could only come up with a dozen instances of "liberal bias" from 200-plus shows. (Media Matters, meanwhile, found 17 instances of "conservative misinformation" from Couric during the same time period.)
The new report claims to serve up "Katie Couric's top forty most biased quotes from her four years at CBS." That's much less impressive than it sounds -- it amounts to less than one a month.
Actually, it's even less than that, since the MRC is also counting things Couric wrote on her blog or did, other CBS shows, and even a Facebook chat. We counted 12 non-"Evening News" attacks, which makes the instances of alleged "Evening News" bias much closer to one every two months.
For most people, that would be a pretty good record. But the MRC tolerates no deviance from the right-wing agenda, so even just one instance would be sufficient to brand Couric as "liberal."
Of that paltry evidence of "liberal bias," it's unsurprising that some examples are hypersensitive takes. For instance, two entries are questions to President Obama deemed insufficiently hostile. One was simply Couric's repetition of New York Times columnist Tom Friedman's statement that Obama is "better at making us smarter than making us angry."
That, apparently, is the best the MRC can do in trying to brand Couric as biased, telling us that its researchers had to seriously struggle to come up with 40 examples.
Ronald Kessler's Sept. 7 Newsmax column presents the idea that Saddam Hussein wanted to develop nuclear weapons as some sort of recent revelation. Kessler proclaimed that the Iraq war "eliminated a nuclear threat," adding that "the mainstream media largely ignored Saddam’s admitted plans to pursue nuclear weapons."
Of course, it's not news that Saddam wanted to have nuclear weapons. The more important question was whether he had the capability to do so. Kessler, however, seems to be conflating ambition with capability -- and Kessler ignores evidence that Saddam lacked the capability to do so in any quick fashion, despite Kessler's unsuported statement that Saddam planed to develop "nuclear capability within a year."
As the CIA points out, Iraq's nuclear weapons program was dismantled in 1991. While Saddam likely intended to resume the nuclear program once sanctions were lifted against the country, those sanctions never were lifted. Saddam attempted to keep his nuclear scientists together and even ordered key equipment buried in one scientist's garden in anticipation of the day that sanctions were removed, the Iraq Survey Group report noted that Iraq's nuclear capability had decayed, not grown, after 1991. As ISG head David Kay stated:
Despite evidence of Saddam's continued ambition to acquire nuclear weapons, to date we have not uncovered evidence that Iraq undertook significant post-1998 steps to actually build nuclear weapons or produce fissile material. However, Iraq did take steps to preserve some technological capability from the pre-1991 nuclear weapons program.
Desire to have nuclear weapons is not the same thing as having the capability to do so. Kessler's attempt to pretend they are is dishonest.
NewsBusters' Double Standard on Juvenile Taunts Topic: NewsBusters
Mark Finkelstein devotes a Sept. 7 NewsBusters post to complaining that MSNBC's Ed Schultz "no fewer than four times referred to FNC host Steve Doocy as Steve 'Douche-y.'" Finkelstein -- who headlined his post "Schultz Goes Below Belt with Juvenile Name-calling of Fox's Doocy" -- sniffed that this was "middle school-worthy mispronunciation."
Of course, NewsBusters is no stranger to juvenile name-calling. For instance, a September 2008 post by Noel Sheppard is headlined, "Did MSNBC Throw Matthews Out With The Bathtub Boy's Water?" Sheppard helpfully explains: "Finally, for those scratching their heads about the headline, 'Bathtub Boy' is Fox News John Gibson's pejorative nickname for Olbermann."
Apparently, name-calling is only juvenile when liberals do it.
NewsBusters Feels Sympathy for Quran-Burning Pastor Topic: NewsBusters
Matthew Balan, in a Sept. 7 NewsBusters post, portrays Terry Jones, the Quran-burning pastor, as a victim after a CNN anchor dared to criticize him for the planned stunt. Balan wrote that CNN's Kiran Chetry "used General David Petraeus's denunciation of a planned Koran burning by a church to blast the church's pastor for any subsequent deaths of U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan."
Balan, curiously, doesn't highlight exactly what Petraeus said about the Quran-burning, leaving it buried in the transcript: "Their actions will in fact jeopardize the safety of young men and women who are serving in uniform over here, and also undermine the very mission that they're trying to accomplish."
Later, Balan wrote, "Chetry turned theologian and quoted Scripture to Pastor Jones as she continued to question his planned action."
It's not often you see a Media Research Center employee rooting for the burning of holy books, regardless of religion, but Balan -- like WorldNetDaily seems quite willing to acquiesce to this hateful pastor.
UPDATE: NewsBusters did temper things a bit later, with Scott Whitlock declaring unhappiness that the upcoming Glenn Beck-Sarah Palin shindig in Alaska was mentioned in the same sentence as the Quran-burning. "Beck's rally, which will take place in Alaska on Saturday, will obviously not involve the burning of the Koran," he huffed.
WND's Klein Gives Quran-Burning Pastor The Softball Treatment Topic: WorldNetDaily
A Sept. 5 WorldNetDaily article promotes an radio interview by WND's Aaron Klein of Terry Jones, pastor of a Florida church who plans to stage a burning of Qurans on Sept. 11.
The attached audio shows that Klein conducted a softball interview, not really challenging any of Jones' claims, not even the nonsensical one that the burning is geared toward "radical Muslims" and not "moderate Muslims" -- who just happen to follow the same Quran. Klein is also much more interested in the death threats Jones claims he has received over the planned burningthan Jones' lack of concern that the burning might provoke an attack against American interests.
As Klein and WND rush to defend and promote Jones, others are backing away from him. Richard Bartholomew details how the publisher of Jones' screed "Islam Is Of the Devil," Creation House, has scrubbed the book from its catalog and website. Meanwhile, Little Green Footballs notes that Jones has posted a video insisting that the N-word is not racist.The video was posted before Klein interviewed Jones, indicating that Klein either did insufficient research before his interview or that he knew about it and chose not to bring it up.
Heck, even Gen. David Petraeus thinks Jones' Quran-burning is a bad idea.
So, Aaron and WND: Is this a guy you really want to be defending?
CNS Columnist Takes Ginsburg Out of Context Topic: CNSNews.com
In a Sept. 4 CNSNews.com column touting the anti-abortion film he made, "Maafa 21," Mark Crutcher writes:
Ironically, within days after the first edition of Maafa 21 was released, U.S Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was being interviewed by a reporter for The New York Times and made the following statement when asked about Roe vs. Wade – the decision that legalized abortion: “Frankly, I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”
Here is the most radical abortion proponent that’s ever been on the Supreme Court openly conceding that the arguments made in Maafa 21 are absolutely accurate. She is admitting that the legalization of abortion was not about women’s rights or reproductive freedom; it was about eliminating certain groups of people. In other words, it was about eugenics.
In fact, Ginsburg did no such thing -- she attributed that view to others, adding that "There will never be a woman of means without choice anymore" and that a law restricting abortions "affects only poor women, and it can never be otherwise, and I don't know why this hasn't been said more often."
Meanwhile, Crutcher's "Maafa 21" has its own issues. Michelle Goldberg writes that the the film takes Margaret Sanger out of context to falsely claim she specifically targeted blacks for abortion, as well as tells outright lies about Nobel-winning economist and family planning advocate Gunnar Myrdal as some who "believed that not only could blacks not help themselves, he felt that nobody could help them, and the only solution in his eyes was to get rid of them"; in fact, he opposed racism.
WND's Welch Conflicted Over Beck Topic: WorldNetDaily
Dave Welch is conflicted over Glenn Beck in his Sept. 4 WorldNetDaily column. While Welch appears to appreciate some of the things Beck has done, there is the issue of him being a Mormon:
The furor over Glenn Beck's Mormon faith and his defense by some evangelical leaders, following closely on the heels of President Obama being called a "devout Christian," does raise critical questions. How far can we ally ourselves with those who believe differently toward common goals without compromising our convictions? Does it matter what we believe?
We can and must stand together with Mormons on a cultural/political level as we have in particular on sanctity of life and defense of marriage issues. I pray that one day the evangelical churches will exhibit one half as much commitment of manpower and money to those causes. However, we are not just different denominations.
I'll restate that active Mormons are not America's problem – inactive, weak and compromised Christians are. Pastors who stay safely in their stained glass towers are. However, Mormonism is not Christianity.
The fact is that by any definition of historic Christian doctrines and theology as compared to those that of LDS adherents, we are on a different planet.
Welch goes on to affirmatively cite a pastor who wrote that 'Mormonism is correctly categorized as a CULT." Welch adds, "Mormonism is not Christianity, and anyone who asserts differently is either ignorant or dishonest."
Glenn Beck could certainly be a follower of Jesus … but which Jesus? It matters. Regardless, he can be a patriotic, God-fearing American who understands the vision of our founding fathers and has given a voice and platform to strong, dynamic Christians like David Barton, Jim Garlow and others who present the real Jesus.
WND has a history of promoting people who have issues with Mormonism.
The Media Research Center has longcomplained about the supposed "revolving door" for people whose jobs shift between news organizations to liberal groups or Democratic administrations. It has even kept a list of "major media journalists who have joined the Obama administration."
What the MRC doesn't want to admit is that there's also a revolving door to conservative advocacy at its news operation, CNSNews.com. Here is an incomplete list of CNS staffers who have made the leap from right-wing journalism to right-wing advocacy (like there's a difference):
Scott Hogenson: He made significant use of CNS's revolving door. He worked for the Republican National Committee before joining CNS, where he eventually became editor, was CNS editor until 2004, when he left to be radio services director for the RNC during the 2004 presidential campaign. After briefly returning to CNS after the election, he left again in 2005 to become deputy assistant secretary for public affairs at the Department of Veterans Affairs. He's now at the PR damage control firm Dezenhall Resources and hangs out at the right-wing Leadership Institute.
David Thibault: Like Hogenson, Thibault worked for the RNC prior to joining CNS, as well as working for Republican Sen. Judd Gregg. He filled in as editor during Hogenson's 2004 sabbatical and ascended to the post after Hogenson left for good. He died in 2007.
Marc Morano: Like Hogenson, Morano was a right-wing activist before joining CNS, having worked for Rush Limbaugh's TV show. Morano left CNS in 2006 to join the press office of Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe, where he regularly peddled (often in a factually challenged manner) the position of global warming skeptics. Morano now runs the Climate Depot website for the right-wing think tank Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow.
Jim Burns: He was a CNS reporter until leaving in 2003 to become press secretary for Rep. Steve Pearce (R-N.M.). He had to leave that job after it was revealed that he copied large parts of a op-ed issued under Pearce's name from the Heritage Foundation.
Nathan Burchfiel: He didn't have to go far to move from news to activism -- in fact, he didn't have to leave MRC headquarters. After serving as a CNS reporter, he moved on to other MRC divisions and is now an assistant editor for MRC's Culture & Media Institute.
Robert Bluey: He's a former CNS reporter -- where he was an early promoter of the Swift Boat Vets attacks on John Kerry -- who left to join Human Events. He's now at the Heritage Foundation, as director of its Center for Media and Public Policy.
WND Conference Is 'All About Debate'? Topic: WorldNetDaily
A Sept. 5 WorldNetDaily article announces that WND's Joseph Farah will debate Christopher Barron, head of the "homosexual activist group" GOProud, at WND's upcoming "Taking Back America" conference. Farah goes on to explain:
"This conference has always been about debate," Farah said. "We invited, among others, the American Civil Liberties Union, La Raza, the NAACP and Freedomworks, to come debate the issues of the day with us. To GOProud's credit, it was willing to stand toe to toe with us. I'm looking forward to the challenge. From my point of view, this represents a much-needed opportunity to expose GOProud's actual goals and agenda."
Huh? The conference "has always been about debate"? So why not debate Ann Coulter, whom WND instead dumped as a speaker over her scheduled speech to GOProud?
Farah tries to explain:
Anticipating that critics will lob a "hypocrite" label his way, Farah draws a sharp distinction between his decision to disinvite conservative star commentator Ann Coulter from the Taking America Back Conference for addressing GOProud's 'Homocon' event in New York and inviting Barron to the WND conference to debate GOProud's positions.
"Coulter's paid speaking appearance at GOProud's event serves to validate the group's agenda, which as I've written goes far beyond just tearing down and remaking the Judeo-Christian institution of marriage, attacking free speech with hate-crimes laws or integrating open homosexuality in the military," he said. "With so-called 'conservative' superstars embracing GOProud, a faceoff like this becomes an absolute necessity. If Ann Coulter were going to 'Homocon' to debate and expose GOProud, I would have congratulated her."
That still doesn't explain why WND dumped her instead of turning her GOProud speech into a teachable (albeit anti-gay) moment. On the other hand, as we've detailed, the water has now been poisoned between Coulter and Farah to the point where they will never appear in the same place at the same time for the foreseeable future, if ever. (Farah will still run Coulter's column at WND, though, for the traffic it brings in.)
Meanwhile, we're still awaiting our invitation to debate the issues of the day -- well, actually, we'd like to debate WND's brand of journalism -- at this conference. Must've gotten lost in the mail...