Newsmax Falsely Claims Obama Trying to 'Suppress Military Vote' Topic: Newsmax
An August 3 Newsmax article by Todd Beamon on a lawsuit the Obama administration filed in Ohio carrles the headline "Obama Campaign Sues in Bid to Suppress Military Vote." In the article, Beamon uncritically allows critics of lawsuit to suggest that the Obama campaign's motive is to suppress the military vote while also noting that "The military vote has traditionally gone Republican."
In fact, there is no evidence that the lawsuit was done in order to "suppress" the military vote. As Media Matters points out, the goal of the lawsuit is to permit civilian voters in Ohio the same extended early-voting period granted to military voters.
In April of 1933, the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (Nazi Party) in Germany began a nationwide boycott of Jewish businesses; this occurred shortly after Adolf Hitler became chancellor of that nation. The official program of discrimination was the first of many measures with which most Americans of my generation are familiar, and which ended with the Holocaust.
In keeping with the uncannily Orwellian tack American liberals have taken, the war on Christianity that has been in progress for decades (in earnest for the last several years) was denied with such vigor that even some conservative pundits questioned its existence. Lately, however, outrageously discriminatory, blatantly hypocritical campaigns against individuals and businesses professing Christian values have been initiated by those on the left. These have made it obvious to all but the profoundly dull that a war on Christianity is indeed in progress.
Efforts on the part of militant homosexual activists and the hard left to demonize Chick-fil-A, the Atlanta-based fast-food chain, are the most recent of this type.
Rush goes on to call Cher a "fag hag," justifying it with an endnote:
*”Fag hag” is a term gay men have used for decades to describe glamorous women who enjoy associating with gay men. Use of the phrase is not intended to constitute an ad hominem attack.
'The Most Important Press Conference Ever Held at Any Time in U.S. History' Topic: Accuracy in Media
Accuracy in Media published a August 1 article by James Simpson lauding the anti-Obama hate-fest hosted by AIM's Cliff Kincaid. The headline on this is -- we are not making this up -- "The Most Important Press Conference Ever Held at Any Time in U.S. History."
Simpson even tries to defend his ludicrous hyperbole:
On Thursday, July 19th, Cliff Kincaid of America’s Survival held a critical National Press Club event: The Vetting: Obama, Radical Islam and the Soros Connection. At this pivotal time, we face a national election that may well determine the fate of our great country. And as America goes, so goes the world.
Thus, it is not an exaggeration to describe this as the most important press conference in U.S. history, because it explicitly details, with new facts and more evidence than ever presented in one place at one time, from extensive, highly credible sources, the dangerously extremist nature of President Obama and the true goals of his virulently anti-American, radical leftist administration. It further reveals how a huge network of U.S.and foreign communist and hard left organizations connected to this President has colluded with radical Islam for decades to oversee the destruction of their mutual enemy: America. Overshadowing all is the malevolent Soros network, and the billions he and others like him are devoting to facilitate this goal.
This information simply must reach the electorate before November.
Media Matters' Oliver Willis serves up a more realistic view of Kincaid's hate-fest and the fringe far-right figures involved inpeddling their anti-Obama conspiracy theories.
Willis also points out that Kincaid's conference received "generous financial support from foundations associated with Richard M. Scaife." That's right -- while Scaife may have kissed and made up with Bill Clinton, he's still funding right-wing conspriacy theorists as he did in the 1990s.
As it so happens, Scaife has also funded AIM to the tune of millions of dollars over the years.
Simpson isn't done with his conspiracy-mongering stenography, though: he concludes by writing, "Look for Part II, upcoming in a few days."
WND Falsely Frames Fox Anchor's Remarks on the Bible Topic: WorldNetDaily
An August 2 WorldNetDaily article misleadingly claims that "Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly today suggested on her 'America Live' program that the Bible prohibits blacks and whites from getting married." This is followed by supposed Bible expert Joseph Farah insisting that "there is nothing in the Bible to suggest marital unions between whites and blacks is sinful."
But WND is falsely framing Kelly's remarks. In fact, she was pointing out that others have used the Bible to argue against interracial marriage, as WND's quoting of Kelly's remarks makes clear:
In an interview with Robert Jeffress, one of the organizers of the Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day, Kelly said:
“This country has a long history of discrimination against certain groups. Eventually we wind up getting it right. Right? Against women, against blacks, the civil rights movement and so on. And in justifying that discrimination when it was in place, some folks turn to the Bible and turn to their religious beliefs and said we have to have slavery because it’s in the Bible. Women have to be second-class citizens because that’s in the Bible. Blacks and whites can’t get married because that’s in the Bible. That wound up in a case. A judge wrote that in an opinion, which the Supreme Court ultimately struck that down, saying that’s not right, judge, because of the equal rights clause. What’s the difference with gay marriage?”
While Jeffress answered the question, he did not address the premise: The Bible nowhere suggests blacks and whites cannot get married.
Kelly simply didn't say what WND and Farah suggest she said. Farah refuses to concede Kelly's accurate point that people have used the Bible to argue in favor of slavery and banning interracial marriage. Farah also doesn't provide any evidence to support his interpretation of the Bible as the only possible one or for why his interpretation should be trusted.
Further, Farah's Bible interpretation is irrelevant to the issue. Kelly never claimed the Bible views she forwarded as her own, let alone a correct interpretation. The "premise" is not about what the Bible actually says about interracial marriage; it's about whether others have used the Bible to make that argument, which is indisputably true.
Anyone surprised that WND is engaging in such dishonest tactic? We're not, either.
Yesterday, WND posted a story involving Fox News “America Live” anchor Megyn Kelly that incorrectly attributed to her the view that the Bible prohibits mix-race marriage.
On further examination, it’s clear that Ms. Kelly wasn’t representing such views as being her own, but was summarizing the views of others – including a Virginia judge – who in the past have cited the Bible in their attempts to justify slavery, the subjugation of women and the prohibition of interracial marriage.
WND sincerely apologizes to Ms. Kelly and has deleted the article from our archives. We also thank the many readers who took the time to point out the problems with the article.
MRC's Hadro Keeps Up the Freak-Out About Gays on CNN Topic: NewsBusters
The Media Research Center's Matt Hadro has long been obsessed with the supposed problem of gays appearing on CNN. He keeps up the freakout in an August 1 NewsBusters post, in which he declares CNN "the network that encourages gay activists and promotes the gay agenda." Hadro doesn't explain what "gay agenda" he's referring to.
Ironically, Hadro uses this post to attack CNN anchor Kyra Phillips for not talking about gay marriage -- and, more to the point, rehashing right-wing talking points that gay marriage isn't important during an interview with an anti-gay minister. Hadro also noted a post by Tim Graham earlier in the day that had attacked CNN for having as a guest a 10-year-old "who's the toast of New York liberals and The New York Times (pardon the redundancy) for wanting to give a speech in his class in favor of 'marriage equality.'"
Hadro then laide out his anti-gay list of particulars:
Gay activists fighting the Boy Scouts' ban on openly-gay scouts and den leaders received encouragement and downright sappy interviews from CNN.
CNN hailed openly-gay Congressman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) as a gay "pioneer" while badgering social conservative Tony Perkins over why homosexuals "bother" him "so much."
CNN compared nominating a gay activist to a state's judiciary with desegregation.
CNN has boosted gay rights activists in their fight to win public favor on "marriage equality."
Anchor Don Lemon compared Mitt Romney defending traditional marriage to former Governor George Wallace pushing for segregation.
Shortly after President Obama announced his support for same-sex marriage, CNN's guests favoring gay marriage outnumbered those opposed five to one. The network continued its brazenly pro-gay coverage into the evening.
Allowing "pro-gay" points of view on a news network does not necessarily make CNN "pro-gay." Complaining about it, though, certainly makes Hadro anti-gay.
NEW ARTICLE: WorldNetDaily's Birther Blackout Topic: WorldNetDaily
WND doesn't want its readers to know about any evidence that contradicts its increasingly discredited conspiracies about President Obama's "eligibility." Read more >>
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.
MRC Still Pretending There's No Right-Wing Anti-Mormonism Topic: Media Research Center
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.
WND's Kinsolving Badgers WH Press Secretary About Polygamy Topic: WorldNetDaily
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.
MRC Makes Excuses for Foul-Mouthed Romney Adviser Topic: Media Research Center
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
WND's Farah Lies About Obama For Second Time This Week Topic: WorldNetDaily
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.
Kessler Keeps Up the Romney-Fluffing Topic: Newsmax
Ronald Kessler is keeping up his sycophanticfluffing 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.
WND's Klein Grants Anonymity to Murderous Syrian Regime Topic: WorldNetDaily
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.
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."
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."
WND Delcares It Has A Right to YouTube's Property Topic: WorldNetDaily
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.