Promoting Donald Trump's presidential ambitions and failing miserably at trying to stage a Republican presidential debate with him apparently isn't enough for Newsmax. The latest issue of Newsmax's magazine is devoted to slobbering over Trump:

Billionaire Donald Trump has put his celebrity status and business power behind Mitt Romney — and with his undeniable appeal among independent voters, a Newsmax magazine special report finds that he may prove to be a political kingmaker come this November.

Newsmax magazine's report — "The Trump Effect" — has just been released and reveals Donald Trump's pivotal role in the GOP primary and how he is working behind the scenes to engineer a victory for Mitt Romney.

"The Trump Effect" is a powerful political tale written by Edward Klein, former editor-in-chief of The New York Times magazine and author of best-selling books including his latest, "The Amateur: Barack Obama in the White House."

The Newsmax magazine report features Klein's exclusive interview with Trump, and provides an in-depth look at The Donald's vast financial empire — including real estate, golf courses, restaurants, TV productions, books, even menswear and home furnishings.

It also reveals the surprising results of a Newsmax poll that provides a unique picture of the "Trump voters" — independent voters in key swing states who listen to Donald Trump. And it offers readers an eye-opening personal look at Trump, including "A Day in the Life of The Donald" and "10 Things You Always Wanted to Know About Trump."

Trump also shares the four policy reforms the game-changing mogul most wants to see from President Romney!

Yes, the same Ed Klein who engaged in factually suspicious Obama-bashing in a new book wrote this Trump-fest. As we've previously noted, Klein is a buddy of Newsmax's Ronald Kessler, who led Newsmax's presidential Trump-fluffing.

Posted by Terry K. at 1:47 PM EDT

Share This Post

Permalink

A July 30 Media Research Center Culture & Media Institute article by Paul Wilson tries to draw a parallel between anti-Catholicism against John Kennedy in the 1960 presidential election and anti-Mormonism against Mitt Romney. While "major media outlets defended Kennedy against demagogues who attacked his religion," the opposite is supposedly true regarding Romney: "Fifty years later, the major news media have aided and abetted religious attacks on the faith of the presumptive Republican presidential candidate, and have even joined in making those attacks."

As his MRC colleagues have before, Wilson plays up alleged anti-Mormonism in the so-called "liberal media" while ignoring it on his own side.

Wilson engages in a bit of selective quoting as well, noting at one point that "On April 9, Salon’s Alex Pareene fretted: “everyone who has ever made a 'magic underwear' joke will be declared an intolerant liberal bigot.” In fact, Pareene was predicting the very thing Wilson is doing: that right-wingers like him will denounce any and every criticism of Mormonism as religious bigotry:

Mitt Romney, as you may have heard, is a Mormon. Because Romney will be the first Mormon major presidential nominee in American history, and because Mormonism is still exotic and strange to many Americans, his religion will be an issue. So the people who would like Mitt Romney to be the next president have to work to make certain arguments about Mormonism seem illegitimate. This process has already begun, basically, but by the end of it, everyone who has ever made a “magic underwear” joke will be declared an intolerant liberal bigot.

[...]

There is obviously plenty of actual anti-Mormon prejudice in the nation, from intolerant liberals and conservative Christians (the conservative Christians, in my experience, tend to have much wackier and more bizarre beliefs about what Mormons do and believe). There are things some people feel comfortable saying about Mormons that they would not feel comfortable saying about Jews. But that rule goes the other way, too: If it’d be kosher to say it about Muslims or Hindus or whatever, it’s not stepping out of bounds to say it about Mormons.

But admitting right-wing anti-Mormonism is inconvenient for Wilson and the MRC's agenda.

Posted by Terry K. at 10:32 AM EDT

Share This Post

Permalink

WorldNetDaily's Les Kinsolving felt the need to pester White House press secretary Jay Carney about polygamy:

White House press secretary Jay Carney is having nothing to do with questions about polygamy, even though as president, Barack Obama has done more to advance the cause of alternative sexual lifestyles in the United States than any other president.

His Department of Justice has decided not to defend the Defense of Marriage Act, which currently is the law of the land. Obama has declared special days and events to recognize alternative sexual lifestyles. He’s appointed probably more individuals choosing those lifestyles to public office than any other president. He’s allowed homosexuals to serve openly in the U.S. military. And the list goes on.

But at today’s daily news briefing at the White House, Carney simply skipped over a question from Les Kinsolving, WND’s correspondent at the White House, about polygamy.

Kinsolving is also a raging homophobe, so perhaps he's not the most objective person to ask such a question.

Posted by Terry K. at 1:59 AM EDT

Share This Post

Permalink

As an all-but-official extension of the Romney campaign, the Media Research Center's job is to run interference on any Romney gaffe and to get out the talking points that it's always the media's fault for reporting it, not Romney's for committing it. We saw that again when a Romney campaign spokesman told reporters trying to ask Romney questions to "kiss my ass."

The official MRC storyline on this? It's wasn't the Romney spokesman being offensive, it was the media.

A July 31 NewsBusters post by Kyle Drennen blamed "bad behavior by reporters," not the adviser, for the incident.

Matt Hadro also flipped the blame, complaining that "CNN excused reporters for shouting questions that could have passed for heckling outside a sacred site in Poland, but ripped a Mitt Romney aide for responding by cursing at them." Hadro went on to lament that CNN's "slanted story made it seem that the press was simply up to business as usual, when the Romney aide's outburst was not unprovoked."

Scott Whitlock followed up by claiming it was "Democratic talking points" that the Romney aide was to blame for any of this.

What happened to the MRC that normally despises vulgarity? After all, these were the same folks who censored the word "ass" at one time. It's OK to be vulgar if you're a Republican, apparently.

All three of these writers are MRC employees. They have their marching orders, and they're getting paid to follow them -- even if it means

Posted by Terry K. at 2:50 PM EDT

Share This Post

Permalink

WorldNetDaily's Joseph Farah has demonstrated long ago he cares nothing about the truth, so it's no surprise that for the second time in a week, he's telling easily disproven lies about President Obama.

At the end of his July 31 column, in which he accuses Obama of having "mocked" the Bible  -- in fact, Obama simply pointed out the undisputed fact that people interpret it differently and that in an exclusively Christian society it would be difficult to agree on "whose Christianity" to teach -- Farah asserts, "No one has seen Obama attend a church service or attend a Bible study since he got to the White House."

Again, Farah is simply lying through his teeth. Here's Obama going to church in January 2010.

And September 2010.

And March 2012.

And April 2012.

In short: The vast majority of the American public has seen Obama go to church. The fact that Farah missed this tells us all we need to know about WND's newsgathering capabilities.

Has Farah simply stopped caring about whether he publishes actual facts and has instead become a storehouse for anti-Obama propaganda? It appears so.

Posted by Terry K. at 1:47 PM EDT

Share This Post

Permalink

Ronald Kessler is keeping up his sycophantic fluffing of Mitt Romney in a pair of recent Newsmax articles.

In a July 25 column, Kessler took President Obama's "you didn't build that" comments out of context, claimed Obama "attack[ed] the very essence of what makes America great," and added that "Mitt Romney aptly said the president wants Americans to be 'ashamed of success.'"

In his July 30 column, Kessler even more blatantly shilled for Romney:

To those who understand how the economy works, that makes perfect sense. Instead of taking more money from Americans through taxation, Republicans would let people keep more of their own money so they can build companies and buy goods that lead to more jobs.

Mitt Romney has been laying out a vision that would make that growth possible. Romney would stop President Obama’s practice of bashing businesses and Wall Street, cut regulatory burdens that make it difficult for companies to operate, reduce government employment by 10 percent through attrition, approve the Keystone pipeline project, get rid of the crushing burden of Obamacare, and keep tax cuts in place.

Indeed, Romney has said that simply his election would signal to businesses that they can feel confident to expand and take risks.

Kessler will be serving up more of this sycophancy as the election nears.

Posted by Terry K. at 10:36 AM EDT

Updated: Wednesday, August 1, 2012 11:55 AM EDT

Share This Post

Permalink

Aaron Klein keeps up his coziness to the regime of Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad with a new twist -- giving it the privilege of anonymity.

In a July 31 WorldNetDaily article, Klein cited "a senior Syrian official" to claim that "Russian intelligence has information that U.S. troops are in Turkey near the country’s border with Syria."

You know the funny thing about this? Klein can't verify it. He even admits that his anoymous official's claim "could not be immediately verified." Klein provided no evidence of why anyone should trust his source or his reporting in general, let alone why he felt the need to protect a murderous regime by hiding behind anonymity.

After claiming that "it is not the first time the American military has been accused of aiding the insurgency targeting Bashar al-Assad’s regime" -- in which he cites even more anonymous sources -- Klein adds:  "Any aid to the rebels is highly controversial."

Apparently, aiding a murderous regime -- which Klein is essentially doing by cozying up to them to the point where he feels comfortable granting them anonymity --  isn't "highly controversial" as far as Klein is concerned.

Posted by Terry K. at 12:47 AM EDT

Share This Post

Permalink

Ober at NewsBusters, the Media Research Center continues its hypocritical ripping from context President Obama's "you didn't build that" remarks.

A July 26 post by Tim Graham was upset that NPR "devoted time to putting Obama’s "you didn’t build that" outburst "in context.'" Yeah, we wouldn't want accurate reporting, would we?

Graham then goes on to play the "context doesn't really matter" card that;s a sub-theme at NewsBusters: "Honestly, NPR thinks this long clip helps Obama? Who is President Obama to attack someone else for thinking they’re so smart? Obama thought he was smart while he was making these damaging remarks."

Matthew Balan was similarly upset.

Brent Bozell used his July 26 appearance on Fox News' "Hannity" to denounce news outlets for committing the offense of putting Obama's words in their proper context. He whined that "ABC, NBC, and CBS ignored it for four days," ignoring the fact that it's not a controversial comment -- and therefore not newsworthy -- when put in context.

Bozell added: "And how did they cover it? Damage control for Barack Obama. Spin, spin, spin." Spin is exactly what Bozell is doing on behalf of the Romney campaign.

And in  July 29 post, Noel Sheppard insisted the Dana Loesch "school[ed] her fellow panelists on ABC's "This Week" by defying reality and insisting that Obama's remarks weren't taken out of context.

Uh, guys? Repeating right-wing talking points is not "media research."

Posted by Terry K. at 2:22 PM EDT

Updated: Sunday, August 19, 2012 3:13 PM EDT

Share This Post

Permalink

WorldNetDaily uses a July 30 article to whine that YouTube won't give it the exact channel name it wants. Of course, being WND, this is framed as a conspiracy:

“Like any other company, we rely on and depend upon the use of our trademark name for recognition and visibility,” said Farah. “Many businesses, especially content companies, register their company name as a user or channel name in YouTube. In this way, the channel name is used to identify the company in connection with their services provided by social media websites and search engines. By blocking control of the WND channel name, Google/YouTube is preventing WND from using it in the ordinary course of business and depriving the company of the ability to create a social media outlet that can help build visibility online. Google/YouTube is creating the impression that WND has no interest in providing services offered in conjunction with WND on this popular social media site.”

Farah says when you couple these two separate acts – the denial of WND’s application into Google/YouTube’s “Content Verification Program” and the company’s refusal to turn over control of the YouTube channel WND – it seems to represent a pattern of intentional unfair business practices by “the 700-pound gorilla on the Internet.”

“Are these decisions based on some ideological bias at Google?” wonders Farah. “Are they based on criticism I have personally directed at Google? Are they based on deliberate efforts to thwart our business efforts? I don’t know for sure. But after working quietly and tirelessly with Google on these issues over a period of four months, without any success, I believe it’s time to go public with what could eventually and needlessly wind up as a matter of litigation.”

It actually goes beyone mere paranoia: WND insists it has a right to the WND channel name, declaring it "WND’s rightful YouTube channel" and claiming the previous user of that name had "registered it illegitimately." Of course, WND never explains who the previous holder of that name was, so it could not possibly know whether it was "illegitimately" registered.

Still, WND's Joseph Farah goes on to whine: “I can’t believe Google would treat the BBC this way. I can’t imagine Google would treat the AP this way. I can’t imagine Google would treat YouTube leader VEVO this way. Why is Google/YouTube so obstinate when it comes to WND?”

So WND is claiming it has the right to someone else's private property. And we thought Joseph Farah hated socialism.

Posted by Terry K. at 1:11 PM EDT

Updated: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 1:12 PM EDT

Share This Post

Permalink

Tim Graham begins a July 28 NewsBusters post this way:

South Carolina’s largest newspaper has a new anti-Republican scoop: “Gov. Nikki Haley’s 14-year-old daughter is working in the State House gift shop, raising questions about nepotism that the governor’s office declines to answer.” The daughter, Rena Haley,  is working about 20 hours a week at $8 an hour.

So it's "anti-Republican" to point out the fact that a politician appears to be engaging in nepotism?

It's just another example of how -- contrary to its "Tell the Truth!" mantra -- the MRC just hates it when the truth is told about Republicans.

Posted by Terry K. at 10:54 AM EDT

Share This Post

Permalink

Colin Flaherty has the solution for dealing with all the scary black people he's been fearmongering about: Be prepared to kill them. From his latest WorldNetDaily article:

Jeremy Schenkel felt safe – right up to the moment he came face to face with one of the dozens of violent black mobs that terrorized Philadelphia last summer.

Schenkel survived the ensuing assault with no major broken bones. A few minutes later, the mob’s next victim was not so fortunate: They left him beaten, bloody and unconscious.

Roger McBride and Lulu Campbell did not want to depend on luck. They used a gun. It may have saved their lives. It certainly kept them from harm.

They are just two of the more than 100,000 people who last year defended themselves with guns when luck was not enough.

Once again, Flaherty portrays blacks only as mob-prone thugs who are out to rob and/or kill you.

Flaherty also adds this:

No one knows how often guns are used for self defense. The Cato Institute says anywhere from 100,000 to one million times a year. But of course, the work of author John Lott is the best place to go for more of this kind of information.

In fact, Lott's research methods are suspect, and he has pushed discredited claims.

Posted by Terry K. at 9:32 AM EDT

Share This Post

Permalink

Brent Bozell uses his July 25 column to fret about the "character assassination of conservatives," as allegedly exemplified by ABC's Brian Ross erroneously suggesting that Aurora shooter James Holmes was a member of the tea party.

Well, Bozell does know a thing or two about character assassination -- after all, he's the guy who called President Obama a "skinny ghetto crackhead."

Posted by Terry K. at 2:59 PM EDT

Share This Post

Permalink

Let's pick apart the lies in Joseph Farah's July 27 WorldNetDaily column:

During his 2008 campaign for the presidency, Barack Obama took off an American flag pin he had been wearing on his lapel.

The act was a metaphor for his utter contempt for everything American. But too many Americans didn’t get the message and voted him into office anyway.

As we get down to the final months of the 2012 election campaign, I think it’s a good time to revisit that telling episode of political history.

You can watch a quick local news account of it on YouTube.

Notice Obama took off the pin in a bid to “change political fashion” and because he didn’t like the way it was used to represent patriotism in America.

But the American flag is not a fashion statement.

It is a representation of a unique experiment in liberty and self-government in the history of the world. And I suggest to you that’s the real reason Obama was uncomfortable wearing it. Remember, he admitted his goal was to “fundamentally change America.” Unfortunately, that’s one promise he has kept.

You will notice that Obama has not worn that flag pin since that day he made a show of removing it.

First: Obama did not "make a show" of removing it during the 2008 campaign -- a reporter noticed he wasn't wearing one and asked him about it.

Second: Obama never said he was trying to "change political fashion" -- that line came from an anchor in the TV news report Farah links to back up his claim.

Third: Farah is simply lying when he claims that "Obama has not worn that flag pin since that day." How do we know? Look at the picture of Obama in the "Death Blow" cover of WorldNetWeekly currently residing at the right-hand corner of WND's website. What is it that Obama has on his lapel?

Why, it's a flag pin.Unless Farah can prove that this photo was taken before the above-referenced incident, this means Farah's own website has proven him a liar.

Also, check out this image, taken just three days ago at the signing of a bill authorizing $70 million to Israel:

So why is Farah engaged in peddling these easily discredited lies? Becuase he wants you to send him some money:

One great way to remind ourselves and others how important it is to ensure Obama doesn’t get another four years in office is to start wearing the same symbol he disdained in 2008 – and ever since.

That’s why I have ordered thousands of American flag lapel pins – just like the one Obama discarded – and am making them available to real Americans across the land to wear proudly leading up to Election Day in November.

Unlike Obama, I think it is an excellent, inexpensive and powerful way to demonstrate one’s patriotism. In the hopes of popularizing this campaign, the WND Superstore is making available at low cost and high volume these pins – made in America, by the way.

It’s a small act of defiance. It’s a small gesture. It’s a way to remind yourself all those with whom you come into contact in the coming months that Obama must go.

We must not get fooled again.

Obama may be embarrassed to wear it. He may think it is contrived. He may think it is inappropriate. He may think it is petty and silly. He may think the American flag is not worth saluting. He may not see it as a unifying symbol for all Americans.

But if you do, here’s your chance to start a little movement – to make a little statement.

Let Obama and the rest of America know you still think the U.S. flag is a very good symbol of patriotism.

I did my best to find quality die-struck jewelry pieces at very competitive prices so we could take advantage of this unique moment in American history and recapture the spirit of patriotism Obama wars with.

Wear it proudly and make a statement for America this election year.

Buy them in quantities to disseminate to your friends and family members.

How shameless. How craven. But that's what Joseph Farah is.

Posted by Terry K. at 2:11 PM EDT

Share This Post

Permalink

Only in Cliff Kincaid's world is it an offense for Obama-haters to be insufficiently hateful.

In a July 26 Accuracy in Media article, Kincaid complains that Dinesh D'Souza's new Obama-bashing film -- based on his discredited book claiming that President Obama is driven by anti-colonialism -- doesn't focus enough on Obama being a commie:

The new conservative film, “Obama’s America: 2016,” offers a lot of good information but muddies the waters as Americans, during this critical election year, look outside the major media for information about their President.

Instead of educating people about the communist influence over Barack Obama, an unprecedented and shocking development for an American president, filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza claims that “anti-colonialism,” a philosophy exploited by communists, is behind his beliefs and policies.

The critical fact about the cause of anti-colonialism, ignored in the film, is that it was a tactic of the international communist movement, which attempted to create the Soviet Union’s own colonial empire.

This omission is strange, since D’Souza’s film touts his work for President Ronald Reagan, who fought the communists in Hollywood and confronted the Soviet “evil empire,” leading to the collapse of the system and the independence of countries formerly under its control.

Kincaid also complains that "D’Souza doesn’t credit Trevor Loudon, who has his own patriotic reasons for alerting the American people to the foreign influence over Obama, for his research into the “Frank” controversy." But Loudon is a foreigner, living in New Zealand, so the "patriotism" Kincaid claims for him is suspect.

Posted by Terry K. at 8:54 AM EDT

Share This Post

Permalink