WND's Klein Misleads About Lessig, Al Jazeera Topic: WorldNetDaily
Another day, another bogus attack by Aaron Klein on another Obama official.
An Oct. 5 WorldNetDaily article by Klein makes the misleading accusation that Obama adviser Lawrence Lessig has "mass marketed" video footage created by Al Jazeera:
In 2001, Lessig founded Creative Commons, a non-profit organization devoted to expanding the range of creative works available for others to build upon legally and to share.
In January 2009, Creative Commons launched a massive repository of broadcast-quality video footage, working with Al Jazeera to make the Arab network's video footage available for free downloading. Lessig's group mass marketed Al Jazeera's footage of Israel's December 2008 war in Gaza targeting Hamas.
Al Jazeera has been widely criticized for disseminating Hamas propaganda, including claims civilians were targeted in Israeli operations.
During the time it worked with Lessig's group, Al Jazeera said its online broadcasts increased by over 500 percent, while views of videos on its YouTube channel increased by more than 150 percent.
Klein appears to be seriously overstating what Lessig did with Al Jazeera. There's no evidence Lessig "mass marketed" Al Jazeera's videos, and Creative Commons does not operate Al Jazeera's video archive. Rather, Al Jazeera operates a video archive from which others can use video under a Creative Commons license, which according to a Creative Commons press release makes that video "available for free to be downloaded, shared, remixed, subtitled and eventually rebroadcasted by users and TV stations across the world with acknowledgement to Al Jazeera." It seems that at most, all Lessig did was help facilitate the license.
Further, as a non-profit group, Creative Commons doesn't really do any "mass marketing" beyond promoting that the video was available under a Creative Commons license.
The Declaration of Independence is America's birth certificate. It is the document that explains why each of us is eligible for "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" – because we were created by God in His own image.
Obama doesn't like it. He no more wants Americans reading the Declaration of Independence than he wants them seeing his own birth certificate. He prefers distributing edited versions of both documents.
There is no process for amending the Declaration, as there is with the Constitution. The Declaration is different. It's an oath. It's a creed. It's a vow. It's the basis for who we are as a people. If some prefer to live under tyranny of one sort or another, there are more than enough nations in the world willing to accommodate them.
But there is only one United States of America and one Declaration of Independence.
Who endowed Obama with the right to tamper with it?
Can someone in the White House press corps please ask him that question?
Communism's resurgence under the Obama/Ayers nexus was nothing short of spectacular! The manmade pandemic that had murdered 60 million of its own countrymen, for the crime of disbelief, returned to repeat its murderous tenure through a series of "czars" imported from Russia's authoritarian government to Washington, D.C. Democratic "representatives" looked America in the eye and told us we would have to pass their bills to find out what was in them. And Obama, channeling Ayers, signed them into law. A man with no past – and no future – intent on destroying the present. America's throat had been slit by its sworn protector, its pockets emptied and the body left in the smoke-filled back rooms where deals are done in Chicago.
The stimulus didn't "trickle down." Instead, it went into the pockets of Obama's bankers and backers – where it was sure to re-emerge and grease the palms of congressional Democrats and their media cheerleaders in the midterm elections.
I also just can't help but be amazed that Obama has done nothing personally to help his destitute relatives in Kenya or here. I'm glad that he feels a sense of compassion for them. But doesn't he have the material wealth to aid them himself? Has he done so? Can he show us through that example how transferring wealth results in long-term success? If it doesn't work on a personal basis – family member to family member – why does he expect it to work through the coercive power of government?
I think you know where I'm going: He doesn't expect it to raise the standard of living in those foreign countries. That's not even the point. The point of these programs is to lower the standard of living right here in the U.S. That's his goal.
Far be it from me to rain on the patriotic parade that the media is throwing for this president. Why let the facts distort the delusions the media hold about their savior?
They helped package, polish and promote Mr. Obama, who is a borrow-and-spend liberal, as a visionary politician of hope and change. The media made sure the masses would vote for Mr. Obama when they refused to do even an ounce of investigation into the background of a man we now know to be a big government socialist with some very strange approaches to leadership.
Mr. Obama is not only promising a chicken in every pot for those who take from the federal trough, but he is throwing in the stove and house to cook it in. Now 41.8 million Americans receive food stamps, 58 percent of households receive some form of government assistance and millions collect years of unemployment checks. That dependence must make Mr. Obama and his czars extremely happy.
I hope this media "patriotism" will not run out when everyone finally realizes we need a grown-up with the experience and wisdom to know that less government, lower taxes and less burdens on businesses and individuals are what is needed to save this nation.
Global Warming Derangement Syndrome Topic: Accuracy in Media
Under any other circumstances, Michael Mann and Phil Jones, to name just two participants, would be subject to trials to determine whether they had, in fact, deceived their respective governments and other donors in order to receive the funding that was at the core of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel (IPCC) reports asserting that the Earth was heating up and that carbon dioxide emissions had to be limited to avoid it.
Justice is not likely to be served in the case of Al Gore who has testified under oath before Congress asserting that “the planet has a fever” lied under oath. A long line of scientists and others have similarly misled Congress. The result in the House was the passage of the Cap-and-Trade bill that awaits a vote in the Senate.
We routinely put people like Bernard Madoff in jail for Ponzi schemes that defrauded people of billions. There is no reason why those who provided the data underwriting the fraud of Climategate should not face justice.
Echoing WorldNetDaily's longtimeobsession with companies who support gay causes, an Oct. 7 CNSNews.com article by Penny Starr gives it away in the overly long and cumbersome headline: "Marriott, Comcast, Giant, Hyatt, Food Lion, Macy’s, Chipotle, Hershey's and Other Businesses Sponsor Dinner for Leading Gay Activist Group That Promotes Same-Sex Marriage, Attacks Catholic and Mormon Churches." That would be the Human Rights Campaign, and describing its criticism of anti-gay behavior by the Catholic and Mormon churches as "attacks" is stretching things a bit.
Starr contacted a few of the companies for a response, albeit botching the description of one. She writes that Giant Food, an East Coast grocery chain, is a "a Dutch-owned multi-national corporation"; in fact, Giant is a division of that "Dutch-owned multi-national corporation," not the corporation itself.
Starr also quotes the anti-gay Robert Knight ranting about how "Many corporations have bought into the false idea that people are born gay, can’t change, and that sexual inclination is the same as race," but she gave the corporations no opportunity to respond to those remarks.
Starr is CNS' anti-gay reporter, most recently expressing offense that a city was spending tourism funds to encourage gays to visit.
Being enthusiastic birthers themselves, WorldNetDaily is already selling Dinesh D'Souza's epic of highbrow birtherism, "The Roots of Obama's Rage," so it's no surprise it would promote the book in a "news" article.
An Oct. 8 article by Michael Carl is utterly devoid of skepticism, uncritically relaying all of D'Souza's assertions and avoiding all discussion of D'Souza's egregiousfactualerrors that seriously undermine his theory that Obama is driven by anti-colonialism (not to mention the general wackiness of the theory). Indeed, Carl quotes nobody but D'Souza, treating him like an oracle. Then again, skeptical reporting on Obama-bashers is not something that WND does.
Meanwhile, in his Oct. 8 column, conspiracy-monger Jack Cashill takes the unusual approach that D'Souza's crackpot theory didn't go far enough. No, really.
Cashill complains that D'Souza makes Obama's mother "seem a hapless innocent," when she "was a veritable teen beatnik, hanging out in Seattle's coffee shops talking jazz, foreign films and liberal politics." Did she wear a beret and have a goatee too, Jack?
Cashill also laments D'Souza's "large omission" that "celebrity biographer Christopher Andersen confirmed my thesis that former terrorist Bill Ayers played a major role in the writing of" Obama's book "Dreams From My Father." In fact, as we've noted, Andersen himself backed away from this claim in an interview on CNN's "Reliable Sources," during which he explicitly said, "I definitely do not say he [Ayers] wrote Barack Obama's book."
A place where a nutjob theory is not only treated with reverence but inspires grousing that it's not nutty enough? That's WorldNetDaily for you.
Graham Thinks FRC, Focus on the Family Aren't Insanely Anti-Gay Topic: NewsBusters
In an Oct. 6 NewsBusters post, Tim Graham complains that the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association has highlighted how news stories about suicides of gay teens "have been blissfully free of 'crazy minister' interviews or the need to include someone from Focus on the Family or Family Research Council to provide a countering voice." Graham responds that the NLGJA "didn't make any attempt to define an example of a 'crazy minister,' but associating that mean-spirited stereotype immediately with Focus on the Family and the FRC implies that these are analogous to 'crazy minister' groups."
Graham offers no evidence that Focus on the Family and the FRC aren't crazy on the subject of homosexuality -- perhaps because there's plenty of evidence they are.
For the FRC, we need go no farther than to Bryan Fischer. For instance, he responded to the death of Tyler Clementi by claiming that it was Clementi's own shame at being gay that caused him to take his life. In the past few weeks alone, Fischer endorsed Rep. Jim DeMint's plan to ban gays from teaching, declared that "Homosexuals are defined by one characteristic and one characteristic only: they want to use the anal cavity for sex," and asserted that the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell would be a "victory ... for the forces of sexual deviancy." (Right Wing Watch has a handy archive of Fischer's lunacy.)
As for Focus on the Family, founder James Dobson has madeclear his disdain for gays.
Are these people who really have anything non-crazy to contribute on the subject of gay teen suicides?
UPDATE: Bryan Fischer doesn't work for the FRC; he works for the American Family Association. Fortunately, the FRC's Peter Sprigg serves as a similarlyhomophobic replacement. (Thanks to reader C.C. for the heads-up.)
NewsBusters Complains Spitzer Sitting Too Close to Parker Topic: NewsBusters
Mark Finkelstein has written some of the loopiest, most paranoid posts at NewsBusters, from speculating that Matt Lauer was a Palestinian sympathizer for wearing a checkered scarf to declaring that a soccer to hyperventilating over how a soccer ball on the cover of Time looks suspiciously like the Obama campaign logo.
Now, Finkelstein shows off his latest example of MRC-approved "media research": Eliot Spitzer is sitting too close to Kathleen Parker on the set of their new CNN show.
No, really. That's it.
Seriously, we're not kidding:
What were the Parker Spitzer producers thinking? If there was one guy you'd want to keep at a decent distance from a female co-host, it's Gov. Love Potion #9. But tuning into the show, for the first time, tonight, I was shocked to see the way the pair had been virtually thrown into each other's laps.
A bit of inside TV baseball: I host a local TV show in my hometown. I'm always struck by how, when I'm sitting what feels quite close to a guest, we appear miles apart on camera. So for Parker and Spitzer to appear so close on TV, they must literally be rubbing, well, elbows.
I can't say Parker looked particularly ill at ease with the set-up, though at times she appeared to lean away some. But it certainly made me, and presumably a chunk of viewers, uncomfortable to see a guy with Spitzer's track record getting so up close and personal.
For the love of Pete, put Spitz behind Plexiglass!
Maybe NewsBusters should try that with Finkelstein to keep him from writing more banal posts like this.
Criminal-Coddling Cashill Named to Police Discipline Board Topic: WorldNetDaily
Conspiracy-monger and WorldNetDaily columnist Jack Cashill has apparently found a new hobby: getting involved with Kansas City politics.
The Kansas City Star reports that Mayor Mark Funkhouser is naming Cashill to a "Citizen Advisory Committee to Review Police Officer Disciplinary Procedures," despite lack of apparent qualifications to serve on such a board. Indeed, Cashill's expertise runs more toward helping criminals avoid responsibility for their crimes.
As we've detailed, Cashill praised the murder of Kansas abortion doctor George Tiller as frontier justice, and has worked to exonerate the killer of a gay man in San Francisco by endeavoring to blame the victim and hiding the facts about the case.
Someone who has shown disdain for the law is probably not the right person to stand in judgment of the police.
Cashill has previously touted Funkhouser in his WND column as a "maverick Democrat" who ignored complaints about a member of the anti-immigrant Minuteman groupu he named to a city board. (The white suremacist American Renaissance website found this worth clipping.)
Perhaps Cashill's new appointed position is just payback for those kind words.
David Kupelian's Inexact Birther Argument Topic: WorldNetDaily
David Kupelian tries to clear things up in his Oct. 5 WorldNetDaily column:
For the record, this is exactly what I – and Joseph Farah and Jerome Corsi and Aaron Klein and pretty much every other journalist at WND – believe. After exhaustive research, we don't know where he was born, and neither do you.
Well, not exactly. Let us refresh Kupelian's memory about what Klein wrote in his book "The Manchurian President":
Aside from the "natural born" debate, there is the question of whether Barack Obama has ever provided documentation that proves he was born in the United States. Understandably, given the unusual and complex story of his origin, there is ample speculation that he may have been born in Kenya. However, as of this writing, the authors find no convincing evidence that Obama was born in Kenya, nor that his birthplace was any place other than Hawaii, his declared state of birth.
That's exactly what Aaron Klein has stated in a WND-published book, which WND just can'tquite be bothered to tell its readers about on its own website.
WJC Has New Birther Conspiracy to Peddle Topic: Western Journalism Center
It's not enough for the Western Journalism Center to have a new falsehood-laden Obama attack book to sell -- it also has a creative new birther conspiracy to peddle.
The unnamed writer of an Oct. 4 WJC blog post -- presumably Steven Baldwin, author of the aforementioned falsehood-laden book -- states that "I started my investigation and analysis by deeming nearly every assertion as open to question, including the claimed identity of Mr. Obama’s parents. A certificate that a child was born to Stanley Ann Dunham and Barack Hussein Obama in Honolulu on 4 August 1961 might be true; but, assuming it’s true, it does not necessarily follow that Mr. Obama is that child." He goes on to claim that the birth certificate released by the Obama campaign is "intentionally ambiguous" and that "it is impossible to tell from the certification whether the purported parents named therein are Mr. Obama’s birth parents or his adoptive parents."
Yes, the WJC is about to push the idea that Obama was adopted. Here is the evidence:
However, on 22 July 2009, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawai’i State Department of Health, issued a statement by which she goes about as close to the brink as she can, without violating her legal obligation to keep the adoption confidential, to tell us that Mr. Obama was adopted. Her statement is quoted in the book “The Manchurian President” on page 76. (It’s amusing that the authors of that highly informative book fail to pick up on Dr. Fukino’s effort to disclose Mr. Obama’s adoption without violating legal restraints; they say on page 77 that her statement “told us nothing new.”)
Dr. Fukino’s statement refers to Mr. Obama’s “vital records” in the plural. He was not dead, so she must be referring to two birth certificates, the original that named birth parents and an amended certificate naming adoptive parents.
Moreover, data in the certification of live birth must have been taken from the amended certificate, for Dr. Fukino also says that the records verify that Mr. Obama is a “natural born American citizen.” If the original birth certificate showed Obama the Luo to be a birth parent, it would have proved the opposite.
Dr. Fukino is very clever. She has tipped us to an adoption without explicitly disclosing an adoption, which would be unlawful. She has also let us know that Mr. Obama’s birth parents were U.S. citizens, which makes baby Obama a natural born U.S. citizen at birth. This leaves open the possibility that he lost American citizenship thereafter.
You read that right: the WJC has declared Obama to be adopted because Fukino said "vital records" instaead of "vital record" -- even though "vital records" is the standard colloquial use and it's unnatural to use the singluar. Indeed, the department's website has an entire page on "vital records" discussing all the documents her department handles.
But the WJC isn't done conspiracy-mongering. It builds on the above to speculate why Obama won't "confirm" he is a "natural born U.S. citizen":
He might maintain that it would be to avoid family scandal and damage to the reputations of others, or to prevent the disclosure of his own illegitimate origins. In all probability, however, that there are two main reasons -
First, neither of Obama’s birth parents is of recent African origin. Mr. Obama’s whole political career has been based on being the son of a black Luo tribesman, with kith & kin in today’s Africa. Mr. Obama’s gross misrepresentation that he is black is arguably election fraud. An American black told Laura Ingraham the other day that a black will forgive one many a fault if he’s black. Wonder what they would think if he is, for example, the son of a Caucasian father and a predominantly Polynesian mother, with perhaps Portagee overtones, who just pretends to be black to get votes and denigrate opponents as racists.
Secondly, the Kenyan birth myth and other false notions about his birth and its constitutional consequences distract attention from his real citizenship problems, his probable loss of U.S. citizenship by forfeiture, disclaimer, renunciation, sedition, or some combination of the foregoing. He is trying to replicate the experience of Chester Alan Arthur, who was helped in distracting attention from the fact that his father William was not yet a U.S. citizen when Chester was born, by successfully rebutting false charges that Chester himself was born outside the U.S. By my hypothesis, Mr. Obama can prove eligibility at birth, but became ineligible by loss of citizenship thereafter.
This message only scratches the surface, but shows clearly what is likely needed to confirm Mr. Obama’s status as natural born citizen at the time of his birth: Hawai’i’s vital records of him and his DNA along with, perhaps, DNA analyses of others.
As we've previously noted, the release of the full birth certificate would never be enough for Obama-haters like Joseph Farah and the WJC. Now they want a sample of his DNA -- something never demanded of any other presidential candidate.
WND's Farber Likens Obama to Romanian Dictator Topic: WorldNetDaily
To mark, as WorldNetDaily proudly proclaims, his 50th anniversary in radio, Barry Farber has decided to liken President Obama to Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceausescu. From his Oct. 6 WND column:
The Romanian strongman and President Barack Obama seem to share a lamentable trait. Public unpopularity in the case of both leaders serves, not to inspire changing direction, but rather as proof that the "agenda" is working and should be intensified. You've heard the theory that President Obama is not "making mistakes"; instead, he's on a course deliberately calculated to bring America down so as to allow for a Marxist makeover.
Please, Mr. President, learn from Nicolae Ceausescu! The American mood is very ugly and getting worse. In 1940, Republican candidate Wendell Wilkie took an egg in the face from a Roosevelt supporter. I remember nothing of the kind, or any kind, aimed at Barry Goldwater, who won only five states; George McGovern, who won only one; or big losers Mike Dukakis and John Kerry. The national negativity is much worse at this moment than when the absolute worst befell President John F. Kennedy.
Overt hatred of you, your team and what you represent, Mr. President, has soared to a new level. Former Vice President Al Gore's speech was shattered the other day when someone yelled, "You're a fraud!" Those who agreed obliterated the rest of Gore's remarks. You, yourself, recently had to stand there lamely and gamely and suffer face-to-face excoriation from a woman your protectors and image-buffers had every reason to believe was on your side.
You know what you're doing that generates this negativity. Stop it! Cut it out! Reverse it, please, while we're still far from any "Romanian" moment! You and Ceausescu both decided to "stick it to them"; in his case, until it was too late. You still have time to use the glow of our anger as your guiding light.
We will oppose you in the American, not the Romanian, way. The letter "D" beside a candidate's name may as well mean "delete." You and your Democrats are not our only betrayers. You are, however, our most recent betrayers, and we want you out – safely, cleanly and, above all, non-violently.
We want to see the smashing of your diseased agenda, the retirement of your tax-evading cadres and the abrupt annulment of your incontinent lunge to the left.
But we want you to be OK.
You can help!
You know, we're not exactly getting the vibe that Farber means it when he says he doesn't want Obama to be killed Ceausescu-style.
MRC Joins the Gold Bandwagon Topic: Media Research Center
Following in the footsteps of Newsmax and Glenn Beck (and after defending Beck over the issue), the Media Research Center has decided to clamber fully onto the right-wing gold-shilling bandwagon.
In an Oct. 5 MRC Business & Media Institute article, Jeff Poor -- author of the aforementioned defense of Beck and gold -- highlights how "Over the last 12 months, the price of gold has appreciated considerably" and that CNBC's Jim Cramer has explained that "the current high price of gold is not the result of a bubble, which he debunked by explaining the definition of a bubble." and that "gold's going to $2,000" an ounce.
Poor offers no contrasting view, even though the Wall Street Journal points out that speculation about gold sharply divides the investing community. And it was not all that long ago that Poor was mocking Cramer for admitting he was wrong for telling his viewers that Bear Stearns wasn't in trouble days before the investment bank tanked.
So when can we expect to see some Goldline ads pop up across the web pages of the MRC empire?
WND Cranks Up the Gay-Bashing Topic: WorldNetDaily
With the recent rash of suicides among gay youths -- and even "ex-gay" grouup Exodus International has into abandoned its support for a right-wing counterprotest to the "day of silence" as too divisive and confrontational -- notoriouslyanti-gay WorldNetDaily is torn between avoiding responsibility and throwing more fuel on the fire.
Taking the former route is anti-gay activist Linda Harvey, who makes no effort to countenance that gay-haters like herself could possibly be responsible, instead blaming gays for it:
The already troubled youngster is often the one drawn to homosexuality or gender compromise and is extremely vulnerable. For many reasons, the grand experiment is crashing before our eyes. But it's our precious young people, the targets of the double barrels of cruel words as well as cruel sexual manipulation, who are paying the ultimate price.
One wonders if any of these kids ever heard a clearly articulated warning against homosexuality. Or were they faced with a continuous onslaught of pro-homosexual diversity lessons, novels and events like the "Day of Silence"? Were they surrounded with liberal teachers as role models and the bad example of a homosexual school club? What part did any of this play in the sad belief that homosexuality was an inevitable destiny, instead of a wayward yet changeable sexual inclination? Under almost continuous pressure to accept a lie – confusion and then despair may be the predictable result.
On top of all this, then, in some young lives come the bullies. They are a part of life, especially for boys. But for the young person with same-sex attractions, this is the final straw where they feel totally trapped, with internal feelings they have been carefully taught "cannot be changed" on the one hand, and harsh peer rejection on the other. Yes, it looks hopeless indeed.
Could the stifling political correctness in certain schools be one of the reasons some kids feel utterly hopeless? Think about it. Even in the face of relentless taunts about homosexuality, many if not most kids would be able to survive intact if they saw the perpetrators punished and also knew they had a choice.
Harvey doesn't ask whether activists like herself are the ones inspiring those bullies.
Doing the latter is Molotov Mitchell -- remember, he's the man's man who has no problem with a proposed law in Uganda that would kill people for engaging in homosexual behavior. In his latest video, Mitchell feels the need, apropos of nothing except perhaps inspiration from gay suicides, to blame anorexic models on gay fashion designers -- and, of course, insult gays in the process:
Frankly, I think the anti-homosexual agenda should be raging in the fashion world more than it is in politics. The problem with the fashion industry isn't the women, it's the gay men who direct and cast them. Sure, gay men have contributed to fashion and art, but nobody talks about the numerous negatives that they have foisted upon us consumers, and models are the perfect example.
Straight men don't want a skeleton with lipstick, they want curves, man! Womanly, buxom figures. But gay men dominate fashion, and they do everything in their power to make beautiful women look like little boys. You heard me right. Gay designers wouldn't know beauty if it walked on the the set of "Mad Men" and kissed them. They've got one thing on their mind, and it sure ain't beautiful women.
Ol' Molotov even offers a little lifestyle advice for de-gayifying yourself:
So the next time you women see an ad featuring an emaciated, skeletal chick, remember gay men find that attractive, not real men. Men, do not do this, but women, you could borrow a copy of Maxim. Those are the figures men prefer, not the gay Ralph Lauren fantasy that we've all been sold. So be healthy, exercise and ignore the Madison barrage because you are a woman. Be a woman. Don't be anything else.
And for you men who bought into the waif campaign: wake up! You're living a gay man's fantasy, man! You're the ones who are supposed to be hard and tough and straight. So start jogging, start a martial art, and tell your ladyfriends that they are beautiful. Because I don't let pedarasts dictate my definition, and neither should you.
But if men aren't supposed to read Maxim, won't it go out of business? It seems like he's defeat his own purposes.