WND Serves Up More Race-Baiting, Finds A Way to Blame Obama For It Topic: WorldNetDaily
Colin Flaherty's latest sleazy bit of race-baiting for WorldNetDaily informs us of "several black mob attacks on – and robberies of – Jewish people in Brooklyn over the last two years, leaving broken bones and life-threatening injuries in their wake." Time to race-bait, Colin:
The assaults are part of a larger pattern in the New York area and around the country: Black mobs assaulting, robbing, destroying property and creating mayhem – hundreds of times in more than 60 cities.
Good job, Colin! You keep up the string of race-baiting that WND is paying you to produce.
So where does Obama fit into this? Flaherty doesn't mention it, but WND promotes his story as if he did, declaring in a promotional email that this is somehow Obama's fault because " the election of Barack Obama supposed to heal the nation of any racial and religious divide."
Apparently, it's going to be a long, hot summer of race-baiting for Flaherty and WND.
Terry Jeffrey takes the Media Research Center's anti-gay agenda to a new, stupid level in his June 27 CNSNews.com column:
So, what does Obama's "marriage equality" mean for bisexuals?
According to Merriam-Webster, homosexual means "characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex." Bisexual means "characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward both sexes."
Obama, we now know, believes homosexual men have a "right" to marry other men, and homosexual women have a "right" to marry other women. So, who does he believe bisexuals have a "right" to marry?
In Obama's world, does a bisexual man have a "right" to enter into a bigamous union with one other man and one woman? Or can the state force him to limit his marriage to the union of just two people?
And if that is the case, how would Obama, within his philosophy of government, justify prohibiting a bisexual from forming a tripartite marriage?
Of course, as anyone without an anti-gay agenda knows, bisexuality is not the same thing as polygamy, or does it preclude someone from having a monogamous relationship.
Then there is the regime of Barack Hussein Obama. Having defrauded American voters that he is eligible to be president, given that he is not a “natural born citizen” as required by the Constitution, for “good measure” he spent the next four years not only foisting his evil socialist, anti-Christian, anti-Semitic, pro-Muslim agenda on our nation and Israel, but also compromising the national security of both countries. His latest criminal atrocities include, but are not limited to, releasing into the public domain highly classified national security information about how we spy on Iranian nuclear sites, select drone targets to eliminate terrorists, how we killed Osama bin Laden, how we used cyber-warfare to attack Iranian atomic bomb plants, how we plan to wage war against Iran if we are drawn into a unilateral Israeli attack on the nuclear bomb plants and a host of other outrageous national security breaches and acts (such as not destroying the drone that fell into Iranian hands), which were intended or have the affect of aiding and abetting foreign enemies of the United States. These treasonous acts – undertaken not just to boost his re-election prospects but obviously also to help his Muslim brothers in Iran and elsewhere – are so severe that even hapless and two-faced members of the Washington establishment club, like Republican Sen. John McCain, have been forced, thanks to my and your outcries, to finally speak up in protest – having been largely silent for the better part of Obama’s presidency. Obama’s treasonous acts are the most serious and damaging in American history!
This is the most important thing to be remembered: What [Obama] did last week is not even a breath of what he will do if he is re-elected without a Congress that will hold him in check. What he did will pale in comparison to the things he will feel empowered to do. He and his wife will drop the thinly veiled pretense of public servant and reveal themselves as the hardcore Marxist-Leninists and redistributionists they are. The Constitution will mean nothing to them. They will openly disdain and abuse it even more freely. She will vacation and spend like the taxpayer welfare queen she aspires to be, and he will drop all pretense of working with Congress.
This is an ugly question and many of us sensitive souls recoil from it, but doctors, first responders and historians often recoil from what their professions push their faces into. And aren’t we columnists supposed to be like “caddies” to historians, providing the world the “first draft” of history?
C’mon, now, caddies. Push the weeds aside with a five-iron and reveal the answer to this: “How did a country like America ever get saddled with a president like Obama?”
If you’re expecting a Niagara of negatives here – “This president is the worst, the most incompetent, the most dangerous” – please move along. I’m a “paramedic” for this one, not an anti-Obama partisan expressing dismay at this “worst,” least competent, most dangerous etc. We owe history a non-emotional answer; how did we wind up with Obama?
Everyone, including those on Obama’s side of the aisle, knows exactly how the N.Y. Times was fed those various items intended to make Obama look like a combination of Alexander, the philosopher king, and Gen. George “Old Blood and Guts” Patton. As I see it, he either placed a phone call, had Eric Holder run an errand or hand-delivered the self-aggrandizing information himself.
My question remains: How is it they dare to prosecute Julian Assange and Pfc. Bradley Manning over the classified documents posted on Wikileaks, but not the various Fifth Columnists at the New York Times? So far as I can see, the biggest differences between the two entities are that the Times, unlike Wikileaks, is in the tank for Obama and publishes a better crossword puzzle.
As I wrote yesterday, Maraniss, like all other mainstream biographers, tells us not a single word about the life of Obama’s mother, Ann Dunham, in the six months leading up to Obama’s birth.
In discussing the birth itself, Maraniss reports that Obama was born at 7:24 in the evening of Aug. 4, 1961 at Kapi’olani Hospital. As reference, he cites “State of Hawaii Certificate of Live Birth,” presumably the one posted online in April 2011.
Although his book is otherwise exquisitely detailed, Maraniss adds not a single shred of information regarding the circumstances of Obama’s birth. The reader has no idea how Ann got to the hospital, who accompanied her, how difficult was the labor, how big was the baby, who took her home, or where she went when she left the hospital.
Barack Hussein Obama’s recent plaintive mewling about the Romney campaign’s criticism would seem, at first glance, to highlight Obama’s brittle hypocrisy. Glorious Leader Obama and his gunrunning minions have never tired of violating tradition and decorum when blaming previous administrations for Obama’s failures, nor when apologizing for the United States abroad. No less a political genius than the increasingly haggard Janeane Garofalo has proclaimed that it is “appropriate” to criticize George W. Bush, whereas mere mortals must only rarely (one presumes) disagree with King Barack.
Speak ill of Obama’s policies and he’ll unleash hordes of attack-watching, dot-gov-flagging, truth-teaming leftists to “get in your face” and shout down your opinion (when they’re not simply phoning in your heresy to the newest White House hotline-for-heresy). The same people who thought it hilarious when someone hurled a shoe at Dubya consider it the height of offense to interrupt King Obama when he is busy lying to reporters. The same man who has repeatedly insulted and threatened the United States Supreme Court for daring to disagree with him cannot abide a single lawmaker shouting “You lie” when he is, well, lying. One must never speak out, even to one’s fellow proles, in opposition to His Political Highness.
Whether you’re a veteran political operative, a sometimes armchair political pundit, or someone only now waking to the nightmarish Obama reality, “The Great Destroyer” provides a cerebral meal both full of substance and easy to digest. Its comprehensive format provides answers to the crucial questions the liberal media and DNC aren’t willing to ask or answer.
It’s the most comprehensive breakdown I’ve yet found of President Obama’s sickening abuses of power (and believe me, I’ve been looking).
The bottom line is this. Obama’s unconstitutional amnesty-by-fiat has exposed and confirmed for millions of voters the true character of the Obama administration: It is lawless.
Obama is also gambling that all Hispanic voters share his enthusiasm for Hugo Chavez’s dictatorial style of leadership. That may prove to be the other major miscalculation behind this cynical election-year ploy.
I’ll ask once more: Is it a coincidence that the [Boy Scouts of America] National Board Member James Turley came out swinging against the century-old policy to ban gays from leadership and that he has such close affiliations with the pro-gay Obama administration?
How does the adage go?
If two people think so much alike, you can bet that one person isn’t thinking.
Or maybe a more fitting adage here might be: You scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours.
MRC's Graham Mocks Study Showing Media Bias Agaist Women Topic: NewsBusters
Apparently, as far as the Media Research Center is concerned, the only media bias that could possibly exist is "liberal media bias."
Tim Graham uses a June 26 NewsBusters post to mock as "feminist" a study noting that the majority of people quoted in the media about abortion, birth control and Planned Parenthood are men. Graham adds:
The notion that abortion or birth control should be defined as “women’s issues” strangely ignores that women can’t get pregnant or feel the need to use contraceptives without having intercourse with men. It also ignores that roughly half of the aborted babies are boys.
But as even Graham notes, the male-female split isn't anywhere close to half-and-half: Men were the sources of 81 percent of the quotes in abortion stories, 75 percent of birth-control stories, and 67 percent of stories on Planned Parenthood.
Still, Graham went on to snark: "It didn’t matter if the men were radical feminists, only that they were male."
Of course, these kind of counting analyses are a staple of MRC's so-called media research -- for instance, a May 30 "media reality check" making the shocking discovery that liberal MSNBC host Ed Schultz had on numerous "union activists, liberal journalists and Wisconsin state Democrats" to criticize "conservative Republican" Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker.
If this "feminist" analysis is illegitimate, as Graham suggests, so is much of the MRC's work.
WND's Mercer: Bullied Woman Is A 'Fearful Fatty' Topic: WorldNetDaily
Ilana Mercer writes inher July 28 WorldNetDaily column:
The new “poster child” for a bully victim in America is, wait for it, not a helpless small child, robbed of lunch money by the schoolyard ruffian, but an adult entrusted with supervising them.
The Internet watched 68-year-old Karen Klein, who was charged with “monitoring” bused children in the town of Greece, N.Y., dissolve in tears to the taunts of her 13-year-old charges.
Klein’s failure to fend off the feral children was captured on YouTube by her tormentors, students at the Athena Middle School in suburban Rochester.
To the sight of a feeble adult who occupies two seats on the vehicle she’s supposed to supervise, too fat to budge and too powerless to perform the task for which she is being paid – the Internet erupted in cheers.
Klein was quickly catapulted to fame for her, yes, courage. “God bless, you are my hero,” effused a woman with the handle “Marykate” in an online post.
Charitably put, Klein has not advanced adulthood in infantile America.
[...]
In defense of the wolverines who preyed on Klein, how is an adult such as herself to command their respect? From whom are these fiends, out on a wilding spree, expected to learn a lesson? From Supervisor Klein, who was not adult enough to holler for help? Klein lacked the wherewithal to ask the bus driver to stop the bus and set the kids straight, then and there.
Or, perhaps the bus drive is another fearful fatty who was unable to dislodge herself from her seat. Perhaps the two live in fear of potential lawsuits, lodged by the parents who sire these good-for-nothing seventh graders.
Mercer goes on to rant about "natural order,"which she proposed to restore through "old-fashioned discipline" and, of course, ending public education:
Better still: Drain the septic tank that is our federalized education system, and with it the auxiliary personnel that infest the schools and feed off a dwindling tax base.
CNS' Penny Starr Unhappy Gays Aren't Being Linked to HIV Topic: CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com's Penny Starr really wants to make sure you know that gays are filthy and disease-ridden. Last year, for example, she complained that Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius did not mention gays in a speech she gave about HIV infections.
Starr keeps up that concern trolling in a June 27 article:
President Barack Obama issued a statement on Wednesday marking National HIV Testing Day that includes praise for better access to testing because of the Affordable Care Act but does not include facts about the disease and those who are at highest risk of contracting it.
[...]
The president did not, however, cite the statistics from Health and Human Services’ Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that show while “gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men (MSM) represent 2 percent of the U.S. population” in 2009 “MSM accounted for 61 percent of new HIV infections.”
Apparently, as far as Starr is concerned, all gays are good for is being filthy and disease-ridden. But her CNS bosses don't mind, because that's all part of the Media Research Center's anti-gay agenda.
WorldNetDaily freelancer Stewart Stogel is a tad unhappy that we described him as a right-wing hack. He writes us:
This is Stewart Stogel regarding a post on me and my confrontations with the US/UN mission in NYC.
Don't let the facts stand in your way.
You challenged the fact that I claim to be a "veteran" UN correspondent.
The records will show I first arrived at the UN in 1980 accredited to ABC News.
I left later that year and returned to college.
I returned in 1986 and have been continuously accredited since.
I am in the top ten reporters in the UN press corps in terms of time served.
Your crap about me being a right wing flak is bullshit.
If so, why did I enjoy strong personal relationships with the missions of Iran, Syria, Russia, Iraq and Cuba?
I also enjoy excellent relations with the Israelis, Brits, French among others.
I am a flak for nobody.
You should also be aware that I am the reporter WHO FIRST REPORTED that US troops would not find any WMD in IRAQ when Baghdad in 2003. Read the story on Time.com.
So, I don't enjoy reading such NONSENSE on your penny ante website.
I DEFY YOU TO POST THIS UNEDITED
STEWART STOGEL
Actually, we accused WND, not Stogel, of lying. Stogel may have a history of reporting on the U.N., but only recently did he affiliate himself with WND, which nevertheless described Stogel as its "veteran U.N. reporter."
As for Stogel's protest of our calling him a right-wing hack: Past performance does not seem to be an indicator of current behavior. His affiliation with WND is incontrovertible evidence of right-wing hackdom, as is his fawning over insane Obama-hater James David Manning. If Stogel is such a great reporter, why is he reduced to writing about the U.N. for WND, which has vowed to destroy the U.N.?
And as WND's Les Kinsolving more than adequately proves, a long tenure on a beat does not necessarily equal competence or lack of hack work.
Stogel later sent us a link to his Time article on WMDs in Iraq, adding: "your BS about me being a right wing hack? You idiots...I WAS THE FIRST TO REPORT THE MOST IMPORTANT STORY OF THE GULF WAR! GARBAGE LIKE YOURS SHOULD BE THROWN OFF THE INTERNET."
This, again, begs the question: Why is someone who got the scoop on THE MOST IMPORTANT STORY OF THE GULF WAR! for Time magazine writing for WorldNetDaily only a few years removed from said scoop?
To put it more simply: If Stogel is not a hack, why is he writing for a hack website?
But Stogel wasn't done with us yet. A litle later, he sent us another email:
this is stewart stogel..you wrote a libelous blog about me why not contact me and get your facts straight are you afraid? your facts are so wrong it is outrageous
Stogel seems not to know the difference between libel and constitutionally protected opinion. If there was no difference, Larry Klayman would be in prison right now.
And then, a little bit later:
your name should be Crap-el your research or lack of makes legitmate journalists who existed long before you arrived on the scene vomit...without the Internet you would be nothing
Because insulting someone's name like a second-grader is always a good way to make a reasonable argument.
Such thin-skinned ranting tells us that Stogel will fit in quitewell at WND.
MRC Mad That It's Pointed Out Right-Wingers Say 'Totally Insane' Things Topic: Media Research Center
Clay Waters dedicated a June 28 MRC TimesWatch post to whining that that a "smug" Ben Smith of Buzzfeed.com appeared on a New York Times web video, in which he was "mocking those 'not very bright' conservatives for saying 'totally insane...wildly over-the-top things' such as claiming 'America was doomed' or that they were 'prepared to go to war against radical liberalism.'"
Waters was careful to mention that some of those conservatives saying "totally insane...wildly over-the-top things" are his MRC co-workers. Like Dan Gainor, who was raging that Chief Justice John Roberts was a "power mad psychopath" and a "lying scumbag." Or his boss, Brent Bozell, who ranted that that Roberts is "a traitor to his philosophy," whatever that means.
But that would have required telling the truth, which the MRC does not want when it involves the truth being told about conservatives.
But far worse is the actual decision and how it makes Obama look. He didn't win healthcare for the people. He won a giant new tax. Don't take my word for it. Just ask the Supreme Court. How appropriate. Barack Obama will now go down in the history books as the Great Taxer-in-Chief.
His signature victory was just ruled a tax bill by the Supreme Court, not a health or commerce bill. Americans hate taxes. They throw big taxers out of office. Heck, we fought an entire revolution over tiny taxes on tea!
Obama just became "the King of Taxes" with his smashing tax victory. He will go down in history as the greatest taxer ever in the White House for his signature tax victory. Get it? Obama and the word "taxes" are forever tied together. He isn't Barack Hussein Obama anymore. He is Barack Taxes Obama.
Well, our current president has proven himself the all-time Grand Wizard of the Shell Game.
While his persistent promises of "no new taxes" ring in our ears, while his insistence that the dreaded, unwanted mandate would not impose new taxes on those who chose not to comply — his own attorneys argued successfully that it could be ruled on by the Supreme Court as a Congress-imposed tax.
And no matter how he tries to convince us otherwise — he's slicker all the time in his convincing speech — this Obamacare is a massive new tax on every American!
Although a clear majority of citizens, especially seniors, adamantly opposed the healthcare takeover, Speaker Pelosi urged "let's pass the bill, and then we'll find out what's in it."
And we sure are.
We now find that this takeover of one sixth of the nation's economy will cost initially at least twice what the president said it would, almost $1.7 trillion . . . and that's just the start. And who's going to pay for all that? Guess who — every taxpaying American, that's who. Whether they even get any of the Obamacare or not.
The headline for Scott Whitlock's June 27 NewsBusters post reads, "Cocky Journalists Declared ObamaCare Would Be Upheld, Maybe by a 8-1 Vote." As the URL indicates, Whitlock started out by referring to "Cocky, Condescending Journalists," but the middle word mysteriously disappeared somewhere along the line.
Anyway, Whitlock is rather upset that "journalists over the past few months have dismissed and derided the concept that the President's signature legislation could be declared unconstitutional." But the first three examples Whitlock cites aren't from journalists:
CNN's Jeffrey Toobin is a legal analyst, not a journalist.
Even Whitlock admits that Linda Greenhouse is an "ex-New York Times Supreme Court reporter." He curiously fails to mention, however, what Greenhouse does now: she's a journalist in residence at Yale Law School, not a working journalist.
Andrew Cohen is a legal analyst and legal editor for CBS Radio News, not a working journalist.
Whilock names only one person who's anywhere close to being a working journalist, NPR's Nina Totenberg.
Whitlock huffily concludes: "If the Supreme Court strikes down all or part of Obamacare, Thursday, will these journalists admit they weren't quite the constitutional experts they claimed to be?"
Since the vast majority of Obamacare was upheld as constitutional, will Whitlock admit that these "journalists" kinda knew what they were talking about after all?
WorldNetDaily devotes yet another article to whining that White House press secretary Jay Carney is ignoring poor widdle Les Kinsolving and his stupid questions:
Several questions about how the White House will respond should the U.S. House, as many expect, hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress weren’t answered at today’s White House news briefing.
Press Secretary Jay Carney allowed CBS and Fox News to ask seven questions each, NBC to ask five and CNN and Bloomberg to ask four each, but he did not recognize Les Kinsolving, WND’s correspondent at the White House.
Kinsolving had wanted to ask about an assertion by Cornell law professor Josh Cafetz that “if the House holds Holder in contempt, it can send its sergeant-at-arms to arrest him, and hold him until his contempt is purged.”
Kinsolving also wanted to ask whether Obama would enlist the FBI or the armed forces “to protect the attorney general.” In addition, he wanted to know whether Obama would expect Congress to impeach Holder or cut funding for the Department of Justice should the standoff continue.
As we've repeatedlydetailed, Kinsolving is a hack reporter who has not earned the respect he demands from an administration he clearly despises. WND gives no reason why Carney should take questions from a "news" organization that is single-mindedly obsessed with destroying the Obama presidency and has no interest in telling the truth about Obama.
MRC Freaks Out Over Health Care Ruling Topic: Media Research Center
The Supreme Court's ruling that health care reform is, for all practical purposes, constitutional has prompted employees of the Media Research Center to go into freakout mode.
The chief freak is the Dan Gainor, MRC's T. Boone Pickens Fellow and resident right-wing apparatchik, who kicks things off by calling Chief Justice John Roberts a "power mad psychopath":
Gainor followed that up by melodramatically declaring, "Since I won't ever accept this ruling or pay the tax, looks like jail is in my future."
Other MRC employees joined in the collective right-wing gnashing of teeth and rending of garments. Matt Hadro groused, "Anyone else feel sick right now like they did when ObamaCare passed and Obama was elected POTUS?
And Matt Philbin whined, "Another step in the decent from exceptionalism. Welcome to the 'shining mediocrity on a hill.'"
Meanwhile, the employer of all these people, Brent Bozell, put on the hat of his right-wing activism group, For America -- or so the Daily Caller portrays it -- to rant that Roberts is "a traitor to his philosophy," adding that this demonstrates that conservatives "need a good three man margin on the court. They can’t be satisfied with a majority, because you just can’t trust them."
WND Beats Dead Horse of Kagan Recusal on Health Care Reform Topic: WorldNetDaily
Even as the Supreme Court was on the verge of announcing its decision on the constitutionality of health care reform, one ConWeb outlet was still trying to beat the dead horse of trying to get Elena Kagan to recuse from deliberating on it. Surprisingly, it's not CNSNews.com.
In a June 25 WorldNetDailiy article, Unruh uncritically repeated a claim from right-wing legal group Judicial Watch that "A huge cloud looms over the coming U.S. Supreme Court decision on Barack Obama’s health-care law" because "Elena Kagan served in the Obama administration when the law advanced through Congress and now is on the Supreme Court bench sitting in judgment of it."
Unruh writes:
Email exchanges previously made public reveal that during Kagan’s time as solicitor general, her office helped develop a strategy to defend Obamacare legally.
Ordinary judicial ethics would mandate that if she participated in such discussions, she should not later sit in judgment of the law, Judicial Watch has argued.
In fact, as we've detailed, it has been made clear that Kagan appointed others to develop that strategy and she was walled off from those deliberations.
As with CNS' Terry Jeffrey, Unruh was silent about Justice Clarence Thomas' apparent conflict of interest -- his wife is a right-wing activist who founded a group that has attacked health care reform -- that would also theoretically demand recusal.
MRC Can't Stop Playing Down Anti-Mormonism Among Conservatives Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center has long been selectively oblivious to right-wing criticism of Mitt Romney's Mormon religion. In April, for instance, Matt Philbin wrote that "the only ones who believe Romney’s religion worth discussion are liberal reporters themselves" -- conveniently ignoring the numerousevangelicals who raised questions about Romney's Mormonism during the Republican presidential primary.
One of those critics was Robert Jeffress, a prominent evangelical pastor and a supporter of Romney rival Rick Perry. The MRC did its best to ignore Jeffress' anti-Mormon remarks, even blaming the media for reporting them, as in a October 2011 NewsBusters post by Scott Whitlock. In another October 2011 post, Brad Wilmouth tried to spin it away by parroting a Fox News claim that "self-identified Republican voters are substantially more willing to accept a Mormon President compared to Democrats."
(The MRC has been trying to divert attention from Jeffress for years. In a 2007 post, Ken Shepherd whined that an "anti-Mitt Romney sermon" by Jeffress was reported in a newsapaper "a full 18 days" after the remarks were made, laughably insisting that any controversy in evangelical circles about Romney's religion "might be rather dormant" and blaming the media for "pushing a storyline to influence the presidential election.")
The MRC is at it again. In a June 27 NewsBusters post, Jeffrey Meyer complains that MSNBC's Martin Bashir is "painting Republicans as anti-Mormom bigots who are terrified of their own presumptive presidential nominee's faith." Meyer insisted that "Bashir doesn’t know that anti-Mormonism is more common among Democrats not Republicans" and quoted Southern Baptist leader Richard Land expressed, “most evangelicals already know what Mormonism believes and most of them are prepared to vote for Mitt Romney in a general election against Barack Obama in spite of his Mormonism.”
Not only is Meyer completely silent about Jeffress (who has since grudgingly endorsed Romney), it turns out that another Southern Baptist official, Todd Akin, has said that it would be easier for Christians to vote for Newt Gingrich -- who's on his third marriage and has committed adultery -- than Romney.
This is just another example of the MRC not wanting the truth to be told about something that makes conservatives look bad.
NEW ARTICLE -- Out There, Exhibit 56: Ellis Washington's Imaginary Socrates Topic: WorldNetDaily
The WorldNetDaily columnist loves to present skewed so-called "dialectics" in which he plays the great Greek philosopher as a judgmental, ad hominem-throwing right-wing nutjob -- not unlike Washington himself. Read more >>
