CNS Bombshell: John Holdren Owns A Car! Topic: CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com's weird obsession with Obama adviser John Holdren continues with a March 23 article by Fred Lucas and Matt Cover featuring this shocking discovery:
Obama Science Czar Dr. John P. Holdren, an ardent environmentalist who has called for an end to the auto industry since the '70s, owns two automobiles.
According to the Massachusetts Department of Transportation, Holdren and his wife, Dr. Cheryl E. Holdren, have active registration plates for a 2000 Subaru Legacy and for a 2004 Toyota Prius – with both of them co-owners of both vehicles.
That's right -- CNS considers somebody owning a car to be news. Sad, isn't it?
WND Happy That State-Controlled Foreign Media Is Covering Birther Conspiracies Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily's Chelsea Schilling is positively giddy in a March 27 article:
While many U.S. mainstream media outlets spike news about the Obama eligibility investigation, Russia’s government radio is keeping the world abreast of the scandal that has caused “the biggest censorship and blackout in the history of journalism.”
The Voice of Russia – successor of Radio Moscow, the official station of the Soviet Union – published an exclusive interview with Sheriff Joe Arpaio March 26 titled, “Obama’s birth certificate may be forgery.” As WND reported, Arpaio and his Cold Case Posse announced there is probable cause indicating the documents released by the White House last April purported to be Obama’s original, long-form birth certificate and Selective Service registration card are actually forgeries.
The Voice of Russia is state-controlled. As such, it can be presumed that ultimate controlis in the hands of Vladimir Putin, who most can agree is not a friend of the United States.
There's a pattern here: Last month, Schilling touted an birther article in Pravda.
This is how desperately WND is clinging to its birther conspiracies -- it's taking refuge in old Soviet propaganda mouthpieces.
MRC's Gainor Still Hearts 'Pink Slime'; Ammonia Is An 'Added Bonus' Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's Dan Gainor is still indulging his love of "pink slime," the controversial meat byproduct -- he has a new column complaining that ABC's "strategy" to attack "pink slime" has "put at least 600 jobs in jeopardy as the targeted company suspended operations in three separate plants."
"Few companies can survive an extensive media assault – even when it’s on a safe and legal product we’ve all been eating for two decades," Gainor declared. He's still trying to make this stuff appealing:
The meat, often called lean finely textured beef, is made up of beef that is just harder to get at. It requires special processing so the meat isn’t lost. It’s treated to get rid of the fat and included with the rest of the ground beef. The USDA declares it healthy, but it is less expensive. As an added bonus, it is treated tiny amounts of ammonium hydroxide to make it safer to eat.
Most people wouldn't call the addition of something normally found in household cleaners and furniture stain an "added bonus." Instead, Gainor laments that "None of the broadcast stories mentioned that the company takes the extra step of adding ammonium hydroxide in an effort to prevent deadly E. coli bacteria."
Gainor followed this up with a March 28 appearance on Fox News, in which he complained that "pink slime" is an "activist-driven name" that's "wildly unfair." (There was no discussion of the fact that the product is pink and slimy, thus making "pink slime" merely a descriptive term.) He described the company that makes the product as "award-winning," and is producing not only "leaner beef" but "safe beef."
Richard Bartholomew catches WorldNetDaily's Chelsea Schilling playing down the reason why Glenn Beck and Jerry Boykin were criticizing the "Kony 2012" video: They thought the video may have been funded by George Soros and/or the White House.
The video, of course, was created by a group called Invisible Children. Bartholomew reports that WND has good reason to play down criticism of the video: WND Books editor Megan Byrd used to work for Invisible Children.
NEW ARTICLE: The Root of Obama Derangement Topic: Newsmax
Newsmax columnist and former Libertarian Party presidential candidate Wayne Allyn Root has fantasized about Obama's resignation, likened the president to Hannibal Lecter, and peddles exaggerations and falsehoods about him. Read more >>
WND Afraid to Name Media Matters in Headline Topic: WorldNetDaily
Misogynistic radio host Rush Limbaugh took to the airwaves to childishly attack Media Matters (disclosure: my employer) as "jock itch." Needless to say, WorldNetDaily's resident Limbaugh-phile, Joe Kovacs, found this newsworthy enough to make a "news" article out of.
But, strangely, Kovacs found himself unable to identify who Limbaugh was childishly smearing in the headline of his article. It reads, "Now Rush Limbaugh calls someone 'jock itch.'"
Is WND really so afraid of Media Matters that it is afraid to name the group in a headline? Apparently so.
MRC Baselessly Accuses Planned Parenthood of 'Vicious Attacks' Against Komen Topic: Media Research Center
In a March 23 Media Research Center item, Kyle Drennen wrote that NBC's Brian Williams "touted the handiwork of Planned Parenthood's vicious attacks against the Susan G. Komen foundation." What were these "vicious attacks" by Planned Parenthood? Drennen doesn't say -- perhaps because there weren't any.
For instance, here's a Feb. 1 Los Angeles Times article quoting Planned Parenthood officials after Komen decided to cut off funding to Planned Parenthood clinics:
"We had the sense this was coming and that they were under pressure," said Sue Dunlap, chief executive of Planned Parenthood Los Angeles. "I find this really disappointing. I think when women's health is more of a political conversation than a conversation about healthcare and taking care of people, then we've gone too far."
Officials for Planned Parenthood Federation of America said they learned of Komen's new stance on funding late last year and asked the Komen board of directors for a meeting to resolve any issues or questions related to funding. The meeting did not take place, said Cecile Richards, the federation's president.
"We are alarmed and saddened that the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation appears to have succumbed to political pressure," Richards said in a statement. "Our greatest desire is for Komen to reconsider this policy and recommit to the partnership on which so many women count."
Critical? Sure. "Vicious"? Not so much. Same with a statement from Richards a few days later:
"In recent weeks, the treasured relationship between the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation and Planned Parenthood has been challenged, and we are now heartened that we can continue to work in partnership toward our shared commitment to breast health for the most underserved women. We are enormously grateful that the Komen Foundation has clarified its grantmaking criteria, and we look forward to continuing our partnership with Komen partners, leaders and volunteers. What these past few days have demonstrated is the deep resolve all Americans share in the fight against cancer, and we honor those who are at the helm of this battle.
"Planned Parenthood has been a trusted partner with the Komen Foundation in early cancer detection and prevention services. In particular, Planned Parenthood helps the Komen Foundation reach vulnerable populations - low-income women, African-American women, and Latinas - especially in rural areas and underserved communities where Planned Parenthood health centers are their only source of health care. With Komen Foundation grants, over the past five years, Planned Parenthood health centers provided nearly 170,000 clinical breast exams and more than 6,400 mammogram referrals. With the outpouring of support over the past week, even more women in need will receive lifesaving breast cancer care."
Again, nothing "vicious" there. Indeed, one could argue that there was no incentive for Planned Parenthood to be vicious because it wanted to continue to receive Komen's funding, and vicious rhetoric would have alienated Komen officials. As it turned out, Komen eventually reversed its decision.
Even though almost half of registered voters tell pollsters they are not convinced Barack Obama’s birth certificate is authentic – and even though the first official U.S. law enforcement investigation into the matter established “probable cause” that the document released with great fanfare by the White House last April is a computer-generated forgery – a virtual media blackout remains in effect on the most controversial story of the Obama presidency.
Even when one of several bombshell findings of Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s six-month investigation into Obama’s constitutional eligibility was rated last week by Internet ranking service Alexa.com as one of the most-read news stories in the entire world – due almost entirely to coverage by WND and the Drudge Report – not only the establishment press, but most of the “conservative” media as well, looked the other way.
WND, of course, is engaging in its own media blackout by hiding from its readers the reasons Arpaio's investigation isn't being (and shouldn't be) taken seriously, as is WND's birther obsession:
WND instigated the investigation by having Jerome Corsi give a presentation on his birther conspiracies to a tea party group, which then petitioned Arpaio for an investigation.
Corsi served as a de facto member of Arpaio's "cold case posse" by doing research for it.
WND is raising money for the posse, while skimming an undetermined amount off for itself.
The posse refused to talk to anyone who did not reinforce birther conspiracies, such as John Woodman, thus skewing the findings.
WND has refused to report on Woodman's findings, nor has it reported that birther lawyer Phil Berg debunked the idea that Obama is using a fraudulent Social Security number.
WND published numerous flattering articles about Arpaio in an apparent attempt to obtain a favorable result from his posse. Most people would call that bribery.
WND worked so closely with the posse that it published an article about the posse's findings at the same time the posse was presenting them to the public.
Corsi and posse leader Mike Zullo are trying to profit from the investigation by issuing a quickie e-book about the findings, depriving the posse of revenue by doing so.
WND and Arpaio are apparently coordinating releases from the posse, in possible violation of professional ethics.
WND won't say a thing about any of this. Gee, wonder why?
MRC Adds More 'GCB' Offenses to List (Which It Won't Publish) Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center is still hating on "GCB": Lauren Thompson's latest column claims that the TV show's latest episode "fired up to 20 shots on Christians."
As she has throughouther anti-"GCB" crusade, Thompson refuses to publish the entire list of offenses she claims are in the show -- now apparently up to 122 -- so her readers can judge for themselves.
Like a fly to fresh horse manure or his wife to a hot-buttered biscuit, Obama wasted no time injecting himself into the cruel tragedy of the Trayvon Martin shooting.
AIM's Kincaid Suggests Sgt. Bales Was 'Programmed' By The Taliban Topic: Accuracy in Media
CBS reporter Sharyl Attkisson received an award last month from the right-wing group Accuracy in Media, which is best known for peddling wild conspiracy theories. Christopher Isham, CBS vice president and Washington bureau chief, accepted the award in person on her behalf. Attkisson and Isham accepted AIM's award despite news experts warning that Attkisson's credibility would be harmed by doing so.
Since then, AIM has returned to doing what it does best: promoting conspiracy theories. And AIM's Cliff Kincaid has a doozy in his March 26 "special report": He asserts it "has to be seriously considered" that Army Sgt. Robert Bales, accused of killing 17 Afghan civilians, may have been a sort of Manchurian candidate who was working with the Taliban. Kincaid writes that the "rampage had the earmarks of somebody programmed or manipulated to kill."
More from Kincaid:
What can be safely assumed at this point is that the anti-American narrative that the U.S. was backing Bales with a squad of soldiers in a deliberate conspiracy to massacre civilians is almost certainly a conspiracy theory that is part of a global attempt to convince the world of the opposite of what really happened.
Which means that another theory -- that Bales engaged in the killings, with the help of the Taliban, in order to accelerate an American withdrawal -- has to be seriously considered.
There is no direct evidence at this stage for the theory of Bales as an enemy agent or dupe. But Bales' attorney says he has seen "no forensic evidence" and there have been "no confessions" to support the Army's case. The fact is that so little is known about the killings that both sides of the story -- the one told by the U.S. Army and the one told by anti-American foreign propagandists -- have to be questioned.
[...]
If the enemy recruited Bales and then helped him carry out the massacre, so it could be blamed on the U.S., then we gain an additional important insight into the brutal nature of those who want the U.S. to leave so they can take over. Staging a massacre and blaming it on the Americans is something that makes sense, if we examine what is already known about the killings.
Consider that the enemy has infiltrated and recruited among members of the Afghan Army. Is it so far-fetched to believe that an American soldier was recruited as well? Perhaps he was not converted to Islam. But he may have had his outlook on the war completely twisted by the propaganda telling him that he is a member of an occupying force that has to leave the country.
Kincaid goes on to state that "a cover-up may be underway, intended to obscure the nature of the apparent brainwashing that Bales underwent at some point in his military career."
Are Attkisson, Isham, and CBS still proud to have received that award from AIM?
An unbylined March 24 WND article on how "an eyewitness to the incident told police Martin was beating [George] Zimmerman before he shot him" is curiously devoid of any sourcing for its reporting. That, along with the lack of byline, a huge red flag that WND did no original reporting for this article and simply stole the content from other news organizations.
Joseph Farah followed up in a March 25 column by railing against coverage of the Martin case, citing the earlier purloined article as evidence. But an alert ConWebWatch reader noticed that Farah appears to have stolen from a New York Daily News article for an example of "real racism" -- a "13-year-old white boy" in Kansas City who was set on fire by "two black 16-year-olds" -- that wasn't getting noticed.
Farah rearranges things a little, but all the details he cites also appear in this article. From the Daily News article:
"It was pretty bad stuff," Detective Stacey Taylor told the TV station, adding that police are concerned the boy may have suffered damage to his eyes and lungs.
Coon said her son put out the fire with his shirt and called 911 himself. He was rushed to the hospital and was treated for his injuries.
She believes the students also attend East High School with her son, and said he will not be returning to the school. She also told KMBC her traumatized family plans now plans to move.
"My 5-year-old came in and asked me, 'Mom, am I going to get set on fire today?'" Coon said. "I was in tears."
Farah writes:
“It was pretty bad stuff,” Detective Stacey Taylor told a local TV station.
The boy himself struggled to call 9-1-1, according to his mother, Melissa Coon. He was rushed to the hospital where the medical team fears he may have suffered permanent damage to his eyes and lungs.
Coon said she believes the students attend East High School with her son. But she will not be returning her son there even if he recovers. In fact, her family is so traumatized by the attack they plan to move from the area.
“My 5-year-old came in and asked me, ‘Mom, am I going to get set on fire today?’” Coon said. “I was in tears. We were told it’s a hate crime.”
Reads strangely familiar, doesn't it?
Farah also writes: "By the way, it is entirely plausible, though it is too early to assume, that the perpetrators in this hideous attack were actually inspired by the media’s drummed up hysterics about racism in the case of Trayvon Martin."
Well, no, it isn't. Martin was shot and killed on Feb. 26; the Kansas City incident occured on Feb. 28. The Martin case did not receive any substantial media coverage outside Florida until mid-March. There were no "drummed up hysterics" in the media over Martin at the time of the Kansas City incident.
Which makes Farah not only a thief but a liar too.
CNS' Jeffrey Trots Out Attacks on Kagan One Last Time Topic: CNSNews.com
Terry Jeffrey, it seems, still can't get over his failure to keep Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan from ruling on a legal challenge to health care reform.
We've documented how Jeffrey has spent the past several months trying to manufacture a conflict of interest that would keep Kagan from ruling on health care reform challenges, while simultaneously ignoring a more clear conflict of interest involving a conservative justice, Clarence Thomas.
Jeffrey gave it one final shot in a March 26 article:
When the Supreme Court on Monday began hearing oral arguments in the cases challenging the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act—AKA “Obamacare”—Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan showed up to hear the arguments and gave no indication she would recuse herself from judging the cases even though she had cheered enactment of Obamacare as an Obama political appointee and had personally assigned her top deputy in the Obama Justice Department to defend the law in federal court.
Jeffrey doesn't explain how Kagan appointing someone else to handle defending the law equates to an actionable conflict of interest (perhaps because it doesn't). As for the the claim that Kagan "cheered enactment of Obamacare," this is limited to an email in which she wrote to law professor Lawrence Tribe: "I hear they have the votes, Larry!! ... Simply amazing." Again, Jeffrey doesn't explain how thisequates to having "expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy."
As before, Jeffrey makes no mention whatsoever of Thomas, whose wife, Ginni, is a right-wing activist who founded a group that has attacked health care reform. Thomas also failed to report his wife's income on financial disclosure forms, despite the fact that she earned hundreds of thousands of dollars over the last several years working for right-wing groups that oppose health care reform.
Jeffrey apparently wanted to get the old, unsubstantiated claims out there one last time before he is forced to retire these tired, ineffective talking points once and for all.
Obama Derangement Syndrome Watch, Larry Klayman Edition Topic: WorldNetDaily
In the last weeks in particular – following the visit of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to the White House to discuss the Iranian nuclear threat – Barack Hussein Obama has stepped up his “Muslim crusade” to discredit the Jewish state’s assessment that Iran is close to acquiring weapons of mass destruction and that a pre-emptive joint military strike is now necessary. In this way, Obama hopes to justify his refusal to join with Israel to use force to remove these nuclear weapons before they are targeted against the Jewish state, the United States and our European allies to further Tehran’s Islamic revolution. Outrageously, in so doing Obama’s “evil anti-Semitic and anti-Christian express” has committed additional acts of treason against the United States, seriously compromising our national security.
[...]
Our so-called president must not only be quickly removed from office by all legal means, but he must also be prosecuted for treason. If the Justice Department or a military tribunal won’t act, then the “citizen’s grand jury,” which the Supreme Court has acknowledged exists in principle in the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, must now be taken out of the legal closet to indict Obama for these treasonous acts.
The nation’s national security and well-being depend on quick and forceful justice for this truly evil president and commander in chief – particularly since time is short with regard to Islamic Iran and its nuclear plans to annihilate Israel and to kill other infidels, meaning Jews and also Christians worldwide.
Which seems to explain Gainor's March 23 MRC column defending "pink slime" -- a meat byproduct used as a filler in ground beef. His column is headlined "ABC Takes a Pro- E-Coli Position in Hit Job on Meat Industry." That's right -- according to Gainor, if you don't like "pink slime," you're a lover of deadly bacteria.
Gainor serves up this benign description of the byproduct:
The meat, often called lean finely textured beef, is made up of beef that is just harder to get at, so the meat isn’t lost. It’s treated to get rid of the fat and included with the rest of the ground beef. The USDA declares it healthy, but it is less expensive. As an added bonus, it is treated tiny amounts of ammonium hydroxide to make it safer to eat. But network broadcasts and activist videos act as if this treatment is somehow bad.
You know what else contains ammonium hydroxide? Household cleaning products and furniture stain. Gainor doesn't mention that. Nor does he mention that, while the USDA considers the byproduct as generally safe, the scientist who coined the "pink slime" term points out that it apparently has never been specifically approved for use in ground beef.
Instead, Gainor rants that ABC, by promoting the story, "is out to destroy a family owned business to push the agenda of a couple of 'whistleblowers' who don’t like the company’s beef ," dismissing one of them as a "loony activist" while not backing up the insult.Gainor also touted how " The International Association for Food Protection gave its singularly best award – called the Black Pearl Award" to the company that makes "pink slime."
Gainor goes on to attack the media in general: "Major media have attacked a long list of industries in recent years – coal, oil, guns, Wall Street, banks and more. Each time, they savage an industry, they do it for ratings, never caring what damage they do to a company, shareholders or employees who might soon be looking for work." This from an employee of an organization that manufactures controversies over museum art it doesn't like.
Gainor even complains that an ABC commentator has advised viewers to limit their intake of red meat to six ounces a week over two servings: "When’s the last time someone dealt you just six ounces of red meat in a week – or in one sitting. The ABC food police think they know better than you what you should eat and how much."
Dietary advice is "liberal bias" too? We had no idea.
