ConWebBlog: The Weblog of ConWebWatch

your New Media watchdog

ConWebWatch: home | archive/search | about | primer | shop

Monday, April 11, 2011
The MRC's Sad Little Friday Night Petition Dump
Topic: Media Research Center

You've heard of the Friday night document dump, when politicians release bad news before a weekend begins in the hope that it's overlooked by the media because journalists would rather be doing other things on the weekend.

Well, the Media Research Center managed to create something altogether new: the Friday night petition dump (though the intent probably wasn't to be ignored).

Late on April 8, the MRC's political action division, MRC Action, posted a petition attacking liberal philanthropist George Soros:

Demand the Media Tell the Truth About George Soros and His Plan to Undo America  

Left-wing billionaire George Soros has launched a campaign whose sole purpose is to advance his radical, globalist world order agenda while diminishing American sovereignty...and the liberal media are in on it.

For years, Soros has used his billions to influence elections, fund radical anti-American organizations including ACORN, La Raza,, NOW and the Center for American Progress -- an organization that is feeding progressive talking points to the Obama administration.

 In fact, Townhall recently listed Soros #1 in their 50 Most Dangerous Liberals in America publication, and still the media are mum about his true intentions and desires for America.

And the media should take the word of a niche, small-circulation right-wing publication that has a history of putting bias before facts because ... ?

The petition continues:

George Soros is bad for America, and the media aren’t saying a word. That’s why the Media Research Center -- the nation’s foremost liberal media watchdog has launched its national “Demand the Media Tell the Truth About George Soros” petition -- alerting the public, and holding the liberal media accountable for their active participation in Soros’ anti-American plans in bringing our nation down.

The MRC is asking for the help of liberty-loving Americans, to rally 25,000 citizen-signers of our petition. They will use this grassroots coalition as leverage against the media to report the truth about George Soros and his true intentions for our nation. As a people we must expose the threats to our freedom and way of life, and push back against those (including the media) that are attempting to reshape our nation. 

No evidence is offered to back up the MRC's claims; rather, it states, "After signing our petition, click submit to go to our special FREE report."

It's not explained why the MRC dumped this petition on a Friday, thus guaranteeing it would be ignored outside of its niche audience. An accompanying NewsBusters post suggests one reason by noting that there are a pair of Soros-related conferences this weekend:

Starting Friday and continuing through the weekend, two George Soros sponsored conferences will take place in New England. In Boston, a "media reform" conference discusses means to “Change the World,” by changing the media. And, while we certainly agree that the media need changing, we’d prefer change that reflected the values of hard-working Americans as opposed to those of a billionaire socialist intent on taking the U.S. down a notch.

A second conference 150 miles north in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire will feature lefty academics and activists planning the best way to remake the global economy with a one world government, global currency, and even more power for anti-American forces in the United Nations.

Unmentioned is the fact that the MRC has accepted funding from a certain other billionaire with a radical agenda -- the Koch brothers.

Releasing a petition on Friday night is hardly the best way to generate attention for it.  But the MRC has a bad habit of being incompetent with publicity.

(Full disclosure: My day job is with Media Matters, which has received funding from Soros.)

Posted by Terry K. at 9:50 AM EDT
NEW ARTICLE: Les Kinsolving, Homophobe
Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily's White House "reporter" so hates gays that he considers them no different than pedophiles and necrophiliacs, and he endorses quarantining AIDS victims. Read more >>

Posted by Terry K. at 12:29 AM EDT
Sunday, April 10, 2011
MRC's Graham Sneers At The Idea of Actual Media Research
Topic: Media Research Center

Tim Graham is clearly unable to figure out what to do when someone does actual media research -- as opposed to what he and the Media Research Center (where he is director of media analysis) does, which is well, not media research.

So, predictably, Graham turned up his nose at NPR's David Folkenflik, who analyzed six months of guest lists for the "All-Star Panel" on Fox News' "Special Report"  and found that "the same mix typically prevailed: two clear cut conservatives and one other analyst, sometimes a Democrat or a liberal, but usually a journalist from a non-ideological news outlet." Why? Because his findings run counter to the MRC's talking points.

In an April 9 NewsBusters post, Graham scoffed at the idea that the news outlets like Washington Post would be considered "non-ideological": The Post is a 'non-ideological news outlet'? See the arrogance of media liberals on display." Graham, of course, is proudly displaying the arrogance of media conservatives by portraying any outlet that does not uncritically regurgitate right-wing talking points -- which, of course, Fox News does on a regular basis -- as axiomatically "liberal."

At no point, though, does Graham dispute the basic conclusion of Folkenflik's research -- that even if you assume that "Special Report" host Bret Baier is neutral and every reporter from a "non-ideological news outlet" is a liberal, most "Special Report" panels are unbalanced because the other two participants are conservatives. Even Graham, it seems, is not so foolhardy to even try to counter that.

Instead, Graham responds with a rather desperate misdirection claim in another April 9 NewsBusters post: claiming that the weekly political panel on NPR's "All Things Considered" is not truly balanced because liberal E.J. Dionne is up against David Brooks, who he claims is a "surrogate conservative."

Graham writes that "To use NPR's lingo, it's one clear-cut liberal and one 'non-ideological' journalist." Wrong -- Brooks is an opinion columnist, not a reporter. He's also a conservative Graham and the other Heathers at the MRC have repeatedly attacked for his purported lack of total commitment to hard-core conservatism. Indeed, Graham has sneered at Brooks in the past for being a guy who will "blithely sit around with liberals at pricey restaurants like Le Cirque and complain that those hicks from Texas and Alaska aren’t reading enough Niebuhr."

Meanwhile, this is what passes for "media research" at the MRC: an April 7 NewsBusters post by MRC employee Matthew Balan complaining that an NPR report was "slanted towards President Obama and two of his Democratic allies in Congress on Thursday's Morning Edition on the continuing battle over the federal budget, playing seven sound bites from them versus only three from Republican House Speaker John Boehner."

But as Media Matters pointed out, four of those quotes were from President Obama, while two more were from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. The Democrats control the White House and the Senate, while the Republicans control the House. Offering a mostly balanced representation of the branches of government involved is not bias, even if it means that more Democrats will be quoted.

So you can see why Graham was upset with Folkenflik's work -- he showed what his own MRC employees ought to be doing. 

(Which reminds us -- when is the MRC going to do what NewsBusters associate editor Noel Sheppard requested that somebody do, add up the number of right-wing versus left-leaning guest in a week's worth of NPR programming? Or are Graham and the MRC to do such a simple thing out of fear that it would undercut its NPR talking points?)

Posted by Terry K. at 7:53 PM EDT
CNS' Jeffrey Dishonestly Links Planned Parenthood's Federal Funding to Abortion

The federal funding Planned Parenthood recieves does not pay for abortions. editor Terry Jeffrey knows that. Yet he and CNS have repeatedly sought to falsely portray a linkage between the two.

Jeffrey goes even further in trying to create a false linkage in a pair of recent articles. He writes in an April 8 article:

Planned Parenthood spokeswoman Tait Sye recently told Bloomberg Businessweek that 90 percent of that $363.2 million came directly from the federal government or from Medicaid, a federal-state program. Thus, Planned Parenthood received about $326.88 million from federal programs in 2009.

Although the money from federal programs that went to Planned Parenthood in 2009 theoretically paid for things other than the 332,278 abortions the organization performed that year, the fact remains that Planned Parenthood—an abortion provider--received subsidies from federal programs that equaled about $932 per abortion it performed.

Of course, it's not theoretical that federal money doesn't go toward abortions -- it's an undisputed fact, as evidenced by Jeffrey's use of the fudge term "theoretically."

And breaking down Planned Parenthood's federal funding on a per-abortion basis is utterly dishonest and nonsensical since, again, the money is not used on abortion.

Jeffrey doubled down on his dishonesty in an April 9 article in which he complains that the budget compromise that averted a government shutdown "permits federal funding to continue for Planned Parenthood, a group that does an average of 910 abortions per day."Jeffrey repeated his "theoretically" fudge and his dishonest per-abortion breakdown.

What sort of an example does it set when the head of a "news" organization is so transparently dishonest?

Posted by Terry K. at 10:22 AM EDT
Saturday, April 9, 2011
Report: WND 'Patched In' To Trump's Birther Meeting, 'Privy To What Was Going On'
Topic: WorldNetDaily

With Donald Trump going full birther, it's no surprise that WorldNetDaily would want to get in on some of that action. Now we have apparent proof that it is working with Trump.

The right-wing website The Post and Email contains a report from an anonymous "citizen reporter" about what happened inside a meeting Trump had with tea party activists and an Arizona state representative who sponsored an "eligibility" bill in the state that highlights WND's involvement:

Trump gave them a little over 30 minutes.  WorldNetDaily had been patched in somehow and apparently had been privy to what was going on.  Also, there were a lot of media outside in the hallway, but none was allowed into the meeting.  The only people in the meeting were Trump, (Michael D.) Cohen, and the three people from Arizona.

Between this and its creation of an affidavit for birther and former Hawaii election temp Tim Adams to sign, it seems WND isn't content reporting the news; it's working behind the scenes to invent birther news to report. That's not the role of a "news" organization.

The Post and Email also includes another account from a meeting participant rehashing the claims the participants fed to Trump:

The discussion trend allowed me to ask Mr. Trump right after he was speaking about the Kenyan grandmother, whether he knew about the Kenyan Assemblyman, (James Orengo) who stated on their Assembly floor so that it is documented that Obama was a son of their soil.  He apparently did not know of that and asked me to send him the documentation.  Anyone who has it readily available is welcome to send it to me so that I can forward it.  Even more importantly, I also had the opportunity when we were discussing whether a real long form birth certificate actually exists to do two things.  I mentioned Tim Adams, the Hawaiian election clerk and recent affadavit and ALSO asked whether he, Trump, was going to take the issue beyond the birth certificate and place of birth to the question of NATURAL BORN CITIZENSHIP.  He asked me to explain precisely what that was and I then got to recite the precise clause from Article II, Section I and explain what the founders meant by it; and where they got the concept from, that being Vattel.  He said that he liked the way I was explaining it and gave me another “homework” assignment to send him more information about it.  Also, at some point in the discussion, the false social security number belonging to someone from Connecticut born in 1890 came up and so they are aware of that situation to some extent – maybe not all the way to the FOIA actions and suits filed vs. the Social Security Administration by Orly Taitz.  Time did not allow getting into the issue to that full extent.  ANYONE WHO WANTS TO HELP ME WITH THESE HOMEWORK ASSIGNMENTS, PLEASE DO, I WELCOME IT.

Much of this twaddle has been promoted by WND, and much of it has been discredited, in particular the stuff about Obama's grandmother, which originated from translation problems in an interview the grandmother had with a rabidly anti-Obama minister.

The participant also noted that the meeting was shortened "because Mr. Trump took a call from Newsmax during the meeting." We've already noted how Newsmax has apparently partnered with Trump to promote his would-be presidential campaign and is feeding him its prelimiary polling results on him.

Posted by Terry K. at 10:26 AM EDT
MRC: Boy With Painted Toenails = "Transgendered Child Propaganda"
Topic: Media Research Center

The Media Research Center finds a way to freak out about just about anything even remotely non-heterosexual. A prime example is a April 8 Culture & Media Insitute article by Erin R. Brown over, yes, painted toenails.

Brown declared that "popular preppy woman's clothing brand and favorite affordable line of first lady Michelle Obama" J. Crew "is targeting a new demographic -- mothers of gender-confused young boys. At least, that's the impression given by a new marketing piece that features blatant propaganda celebrating transgendered children."

Sounds scary, huh? Turns out it really isn't:

An email sent to customers on Tuesday, April 5th contained a promotion for free shipping if the customer spends $150 or more. The email also contained a feature called 'Jenna's favorites,' highlighting special selections by J.CREW designer Jenna Lyons. Jenna selected a striped long-sleeve t-shirt, and hot pink nail polish by Essie, modeled by her young son.

In the feature, Jenna is pictured with her adorable curly-haired son Beckett, and the two are seen giggling with Jenna holding Beckett's feet, containing hot pink painted toe-nails. 'Lucky for me, I ended up with a boy whose favorite color is pink,' read Jenna's quote. 'Toenail painting is way more fun in neon.'

Here's the picture Brown is so freaked out about:

Nevertheless, Brown remains in freak-out mode:

Not only is Beckett likely to change his favorite color as early as tomorrow, Jenna's indulgence (or encouragement) could make life hard for the boy in the future. J.CREW, known for its tasteful and modest clothing, apparently does not mind exploiting Beckett behind the façade of liberal, transgendered identity politics.

Huh? A boy with painted toenails is suddenly a political symbol and a transvestite-to-be? Does Brown believe that the notion that pink can be a favorite color for a boy something that must be suppressed or beaten out of the boy? Further, Brown seems to believe that Beckett is such a horrible and ignorant mother that she is unaware that her child's favorite things might change on a fairly rapid basis -- something Brown has provided no personal knowledge of beyond trying to read the woman's mind through a picture in an ad.

Brown then tried to claim that "Propaganda pushing the celebration of gender-confused boys wanting to dress and act like girls is a growing trend, seeping into mainstream culture," as evidenced by the "Princess Boy" story, which fellow CMI writer Matt Philbin freaked out about in January as "promot[ing] the tolerance of cross-dressing boys."

Is insulting a woman over so-called "transgendered child propaganda" that is happening only in the writer's head really the best way for the MRC to spending its time?

Posted by Terry K. at 12:09 AM EDT
Friday, April 8, 2011
Newsmax Helps Huckabee Whitewash His Records Issues
Topic: Newsmax

A March 6 Newsmax article by Luis F. Perez rewrites a U.S. News & World Report item in which Mike Huckabee tries to dismiss a Mother Jones report on the inaccessibility of his records from his 12-year stint as Arkansas governor, in part because he had the hard drives of the computers used by him and his staff erased and physically destroyed before he left office.

Perez portrays the issue as one of Mother Jones "falsely referring to missing records and computer hard drives from his time as governor" -- going even farther on the whitewashing limb than U.S. News' Paul Bedard did -- but Huckabee never disputes the central facts of the Mother Jones article. Documents confirm that the hard drives were "crushed under the supervision of a designee of [Huckabee's] office," and the backup tapes of the information on the hard drives have not been seen since they were turned over to a former aide. Neither U.S. News nor Newsmax address the issue of the missing backups.

As the Arkansas Times notes, everything Huckabee did was perfectly legal under state law, which is unusually permissive in the amount of records a former governor can keep secret. U.S. News and Newsmax have apparently decided that merely following the law is good enough.

Posted by Terry K. at 12:52 PM EDT
Bozell, MRC Struggle To Paint Couric As A Liberal
Topic: Media Research Center

Writing about Katie Couric's imminent departure as CBS Evening News anchor in his April 6 column, Brent Bozell asserts that "Couric didn’t fail at this job or lack authority because she was the first female nightly news anchor. She lacked authority because she was such a blatant feminist and liberal activist."

And what is Bozell's prime example of this alleged bias? "Attacking Rush Limbaugh as 'certainly heartless' in mocking Michael J. Fox’s ads for Democrats." No, really.

Of course, as we've detailed, Limbaugh never gets criticized by Bozell and his Media Research Center minions no matter how offensive he is, and the Fox incident was yet another example.

An October 2006 MRC CyberAlert set the tone by trying to change the subject, unwilling to acknowlege that Limbaugh did anything wrong but attacking critics because they "ignored how Fox was injecting politics into medical research funding policy, how Fox has admitted going off his meds in order to look worse and that Limbaugh was also criticizing Fox's anti-Talent ad in Missouri in which Fox made the distorted claim that 'Senator Talent even wanted to criminalize the science that gives us the chance for hope.' Plus, it's worth noting that Fox was a lot more steady in a clip of him responding to Limbaugh."

Bozell's other major example of Couric's alleged bias is her alleged "her pounding on Sarah Palin in 2008." Yeah, Couric asking Palin what newspapers she read was a real"pounding" -- one Palin could have easily avoided by giving Couric a straight answer to her very simple question.

Meanwhile, Bozell's minions are still desperate to come up with any significant number of examples of her alleged "liberal bias." An April 4 NewsBusters item by Rich Noyes could only come up with a dozen examples of her "worst bias." That's not very many for nearly five years of newscasts.

As we pointed out a few years back, Media Matters found more examples of "conservative misinformation" on Couric's newscast in her first year as anchor than the MRC found examples of "liberal bias."

Posted by Terry K. at 8:56 AM EDT
Ben Shapiro Falsely Attacks Samantha Power

In his April 7 column, published at, Ben Shapiro falsely attacks Obama adviser Samantha Power:

Back in 2002, Power told a University of California at Berkeley interviewer that America should put military forces on the ground in Israel to prevent Israeli "human rights abuses." "What we need is a willingness to actually put something on the line in sort of helping the situation," she said.

Channeling the conspiratorial ruminations of anti-Semitic scholars the world over, Power added, "And putting something on the line might mean alienating a domestic constituency of tremendous political and financial import. It may more crucially mean sacrificing -- or investing, I think, more than sacrificing -- literally billions of dollars not in servicing Israel's, you know, military, but actually in investing in the new state of Palestine, in investing billions of dollars it would probably take also to support, I think, what will have to be a mammoth protection force."

Then Power went even further -- she stated that America should impose a solution on Israel. "You have to go in as if you're serious, you have to put something on the line," she explained.

In fact, Power was discussing how to react to a hypothetical move toward genocide by "one party or another," not Israel alone. Power specifically stated that United Nations peacekeeping forces were insufficient to stop genocides in Rwanda and Bosnia, and her reference to "put[ting] something on the line," in its proper context, is to a force sufficient to stop a genocide, not, as Shapiro claimed, imposing a "solution" on Israel only.

Posted by Terry K. at 12:17 AM EDT
Thursday, April 7, 2011
Even WND Is Now Correcting Orly Taitz's Birther Lunacy -- But Jack Cashill Embraces It
Topic: WorldNetDaily

Are the days when WorldNetDaily serve as an apologist and whitewasher for Orly Taitz over? It appears so.

An unbylined April 6 WND article highlights a claim by Taitz -- who it describes as an "eligibility gadfly," a far cry from when WND was fawning over her in a 2009 profile as a "fierce blond attorney" with "a vibrant smile and an ebullient personality" -- that Barack Obama "only attend[ed] Columbia University for nine months," only to follow up with a stinging response: "But according to information obtained by WND, it appears Obama did indeed attend Columbia for two years."

After proving Taitz wrong, WND descended into its usual birther blather. But WND throwing Taitz under the bus is an interesting development.

But as WND was correcting Taitz's bogus claim, conspiracy-monger extraordinaire Jack Cashill was embracing it in his April 7 column, citing "irrepressible researcher Orly Taitz" (though he does aver that "Taitz is likely unaware of competing evidence").

Cashill then takes it further:

In his definitive 2010 biography of Barack Obama, "The Bridge," New Yorker editor David Remnick features a photograph of a dapper young Barack Obama sitting between his grandparents on a Central Park bench.

The bench is real. The grandparents are real. The wall behind them is real. Barack Obama is not. He has been conspicuously photoshopped in. Who did this and why remains as much a mystery as Obama's extended stay in New York.

Actually, as Media Matters points out, Obama has in fact been Photoshopped out of the photo, and the the one Cashill is portraying as "real" is actually the fake -- as evidenced by Obama's right knee still appearing in it.

Posted by Terry K. at 7:21 PM EDT
Updated: Thursday, April 7, 2011 11:24 PM EDT
Newsmax Doesn't Correct Trump's False Birther Claim
Topic: Newsmax

An April 7 Newsmax article by Hiram Reisner uncritically repeats Donald Trump's claim that Barack Obama's "grandmother in Kenya is on record saying he was born in Kenya." But Reisner fails to report that Trump's claim is false.

As we documented when WorldNetDaily tried to peddle this same claim, the charge originates with an Obama-hating Anabaptist minister named Ron McRae, who contacted Obama's grandmother, Sarah Obama, and tried to talk to her through translators. McRae has twisted misunderstandings due to translation problems into a definitive claim that Sarah Obama said Barack was born in Kenya.

Reisner also uncritically repeats another Trump claim: "The hospital has, not only no birth certificate — or if they have it they should produce it, maybe there is something on it, who knows — but they have no records that he was there. The family is fighting over which hospital in Hawaii he was born in. There is not one record, in any hospital in Hawaii, that Barack Hussein Obama was born there." Trump simply cannot know that; in fact, federal privacy laws forbid hospitals from releasing patient records.

Why is Reisner allowing such clearly false and misleading information to stand uncorrected? Perhaps because his boss seems to have partnered with Trump to promote his wannabe presidential campaign.

Posted by Terry K. at 6:52 PM EDT
CNS Still Falsely Suggesting Federal Funding For Planned Parenthood Pays For Abortions
Topic:, it seems, is bound and determined to falsely portray federal money for Planned Parenthood as paying for abortions.

In an April 5 CNS article, Fred Lucas interprets President Obama's comment about "using last year’s budget process to have arguments about abortion, to have arguments about the Environmental Protection Agency, to try to use this budget negotiation as a vehicle for every ideological or political difference between the two parties" to actually mean that Obama "would not sign a budget agreement to keep the government running that cuts funding for Planned Parenthood and the Environmental Protection Agency." At no point does Lucas quote Obama actually saying that.

As misleading as that is,  the headline on Lucas' article gets it even more so, claiming: "Abortion, Environmental Regulation are Priorities for Obama in Seeking Budget Compromise." But Lucas never quotes Obama saying that, either.

As we've previously noted, federal funding that goes to Planned Parenthood pays for health care and family planning services and does not pay for abortions outside of what is permitted by the federal Hyde Amendment, which restricts federal spending on abortions to cases of rape, incest or to preserve the life of the mother.

Posted by Terry K. at 8:54 AM EDT
WND Still Whitewashing Adams -- And Ignores His Biggest Scoop
Topic: WorldNetDaily

Remember Tim Adams, the former Hawaii elections clerk temp who had no real access to election records yet insisted that President Obama wasn't born in Hawaii? He's back!

An  April 6 WorldNetDaily article by Joe Kovacs details Adams' latest claim: that "the president and his aides have been 'caught fibbing' about Obama's background, and the 'embarrassing' situation is making it difficult to fess up to the truth." As he has before, Kovacs is covering up for Adams.

Kovacs writes that Adams made his claim "in a two-hour interview with a group looking to disprove claims made by so-called birthers." But Kovacs fails to mention the most significant claim Adams made during that same interview -- that people connected with WND created the affidavit Adams signed in January (which WND made a big deal out of at the time).

From the transcript of the March 31 edition of the Reality Check Radio show (h/t Turning the Scale):

RC: Well, you, you were certainly able to say what, what you wanted to say. Now, now you, you did mention, I believe, and we'll get to your, the affidavit that you filed. First, I think we're able to move on to that. You filed, you filed anaffidavit that appeared in WorldNetDaily. First of all, was, was this sworn under, under oath to any officer of the court? Under penalty of perjury?


RC: To what court?

MR. ADAMS: Uh, I'd have to look at a copy of the darned thing.

RC: Well, I've got it here. It's, it's signed by a notary public, but you know I could get my, any, any document I can get a notary public to sign. But, again, an affidavit is normally, uh, a court document -

MR. ADAMS: If you want to go over the affidavit, I can, can tell you about that.I had agreed -- I had been willing to do an affidavit last June, but, um, I'm poor, so, uh, this past year, uh, some of the folks with, at WorldNetDaily, or affiliated with WorldNetDaily, they paid for the lawyer to draw the thing up. They, uh, sent it up here and I had it, uh, notarized and signed, and swore out the statement and sent it back. There's no duplicity going on there, that's just the way it was done.

RC: So, you, did WorldNetDaily pay you for the affidavit?

MR. ADAMS: No, they just paid -- someone associated with WorldNetDaily, I forget who, it might have been Mr. Corsi, um, had their attorney draw it up. So they paid for the attorney services to draw the document up.

Foggy: And did the attorney talk to you before he drew itup?

MR. ADAMS: Yeah. They contacted me about two or three times on the phone before they sent it up here and told me what I had to do with it when it arrived. And then I faxed it down back to them.

RC: But they, they wrote it for you then?

MR. ADAMS: They wrote out the document based on my testimony. Yeah. Yep.

Besides, as we've previously detailed, Adams' affidavit is complete hearsay, repeating claims from unnamed "senior officers in the City and County of Honolulu Elections Division"; at no point does he relate any firsthand knowledge regarding Obama's birth certificate.

As he has repeatedly before, Kovacs ignores the charges of racism against Adams, starting with the fact that Adams first made his claim about Obama's birth certificate on the radio show of self-described "pro-White" host James Edwards, who was broadcasating from the 2010 National Conference of the Council of Conservative Citizens, a decendent of the openly racist White Citizens Councils of the 1950s and 1960s that the Anti-Defamation League describes as having a "white supremacy, white separatism" ideology.

But Adams has said more racially charged things that WND has never mentioned -- for instance, repeatedly referring to Hawaii as a "ghetto paradise" on his MySpace blog.

This and other statements -- such as calling the hateful Westboro Baptist Church a "blessing" and sarcastically describing Obama as a "chosen messiah" who "is gettin whipped like a Hebrew slave child by a white woman from Alaska" -- were covered during the radio interview Kovacs wrote about, but he mentions none of it in his article.

Not only is Kovacs still whitewashing Adams to keep up his birther-hero status, he's hiding the fact that WND is working behind the scenes to advance his claims.

Posted by Terry K. at 12:50 AM EDT
Updated: Thursday, April 7, 2011 12:56 AM EDT
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
Les Kinsolving Homophobic Freak-Out Watch
Topic: WorldNetDaily

Les Kinsolving begins his April 5 column this way:

One of the best veteran reporters and columnists in our nation's capital is Rowan Scarborough of the Washington Times.

That is probably why he was leaked a copy of our armed forces training material for 2.2 million active and reserve troops, as a prelude to opening the ranks to self-announced homosexual males and lesbian females.

Well, no. The more likely reason Scarborough was leaked the manual is that he's a right-wing hack, as we documented back in 2007 with his attempt to smear a CIA official who was an outsider to the particular management regime he favored (and was probably in bed with).

But you'll notice that the subject of the leaked manual involved "self-announced homosexual males and lesbian females." Cue another homophobic freak-out by Kinsolving!

Noting a statement from the man ual that ""Commanders may honor a request not to shower with known-gay service members," Kinsolving adds:

In a brief interview with Scarborough, I cited that and asked: "If they allow that refuge from the possibility of excessively peering homosexual eyes in the showers, what about the presence of peering by announced homosexuals in the latrines?"

Scarborough replied, "Nothing at all about that in that training material!"

Kinsolving went on to declare "grim news" the Supreme Court has ruled that "private consensual sexual activity to include consensual sodomy, regardless of sexual orientation, is a protected liberty under the 14th Amendment." Then he writes:

QUESTION: Do the U.S. Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces know of any sexual orientation with a higher rate of AIDS and syphilis than homosexuality, which has led to so many thousands of deaths? And if homosexuals in our armed forces are medically examined for AIDS and syphilis when they are accepted into the armed services, should they not be re-examined whenever they return from leave – given the possibility of an AIDS- or syphilis-infected civilian lover, together with this homosexual armed forces member's possible promiscuity in search for others in barracks or aboard ship?

This is the kind of thing that happens when a hack and a hater (who is also a hack) get together.

Posted by Terry K. at 7:58 PM EDT
NewsBusters Thinks Dead Afghan Troops Are Obama's 'Problem'
Topic: NewsBusters

In an April 5 NewsBusters post, Rusty Weiss takes offense at the idea that, as one news article reported, "many of America's problems predated [Obama's] presidency." Weiss reported with "a short list of American problems since Obama took office," among them being "858 U.S. soldiers killed in Afghanistan since Obama’s inauguration."

You gotta love a conservative declaring dead soldiers fighting for American freedom to be a "problem." 

And what does Weiss link to as evidence for this claim? A certain article. If you were wondering why CNS has been doing monthly body counts on Afghanistan when it felt no need to do so while soldiers were dying under a Republican president, you now have your answer.

(And who invaded Afghanistan in the first place, only to neglect it for a war elsewhere, causing the initial gains to be negated? Hint: Not Obama.)

Weiss also lists as an Obama "problem" the claim that he "Tripled the national deficit in his first year in office." Actually, the fiscal year 2009 budget deficit was mostly the consequence of Bush-era policies. Perhaps he shouldn't be citing as evidence Gateway Pundit's Jim Hoft, better known as the Dumbest Man on the Internet.

Posted by Terry K. at 12:11 PM EDT

Newer | Latest | Older

Bookmark and Share

Get the WorldNetDaily Lies sticker!

Find more neat stuff at the ConWebWatch store!

Buy through this Amazon link and support ConWebWatch!

Support This Site

« April 2011 »
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Bloggers' Rights at EFF
Support Bloggers' Rights!

News Media Blog Network

Add to Google