When A Preacher Assaults Our President Topic: WorldNetDaily
How often does Bradlee Dean have to run to the confessional to ask forgiveness from the God he purports to be preaching on behalf of? A lot, we're guessing, given all the hatred and bile in his heart.
Another example of that pops up in his Oct. 4 WorldNetDaily column, headlined "When a president assaults our military," where Dean spews the following chunk of Obama derangement:
Since Obama took his oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, he has not only battered the Constitution, but has assaulted America’s armed forces who love America and her laws so much that they lay down their lives to defend her freedoms.
How does Obama repay them? He cuts their funding, does nothing when hundreds of thousands of our veterans are still awaiting medical benefits, ignores the wishes of the military branches who desired to keep Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell in place, sues states such as Ohio to block military votes, complains about taking pictures with our soldiers and calls the killing of four Americans in Libya (two of them former Navy SEALs) a “bump in the road.”
Obama did not say that the deaths of Americans in Libya were a "bump in the road."
That's four lies in a single paragraph. That's not an accident -- that's deliberate mendacity. That calls for more than forgiveness from God -- it calls for a printed correction and sincere apology on the pages of WND. We can't imagine that his God would tell him to tell easily debunked lies in public -- such a God would not deserve worship (Unless God was telling Dean to do so in order to humble him, in which case that would be totally cool).
Does Dean have the moral character to admit and correct his errors? It appears not -- after all, he has as his attorney Larry Klayman, a failed lawyer who has effectively admitted in court to "inappropriate behavior" with his children.
Something tells us that Dean is not the paragon of moral virtue he claims to be. If he lies so blatantly and unashamedly in public, what does he do in private?
CNS Reporter Ignores Facts on Pa. Voter ID Law Topic: CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com reporter Pete Winn uses an Oct. 4 CNS blog post -- even though the tone and structure are barely different from the "news" articles he writes -- to make a big deal out of Viviette Applewhite, the 93-year-old woman who is the lead plaintiff in the fight against Pennsylvania's voter ID law, got her state ID.
Winn notes that "she got her ID just one day after Pennsylvania Judge Robert Simpson initially upheld Pennsylvania's voter ID law – the same law that Simpson put on hold Tuesday," and he quotes only pro-voter ID conservatives to push the idea that the Pennsylvania law can't possibly be that onerous if Appelwhite got one.Meanwhile, Winn sneeringly referred to "the liberal lawyers of the ACLU" and claimed he tried to contact them for his "story."
But Winn largely ignores the fact that Applewhite has been trying to get such a state ID for years without success and that it was only after she became a plaintiff in the ACLU lawsuit that she did. The Associated Press reported that "she’d been rejected for years because she lacked appropriate documentation to receive the card."
Winn goes on to quote one conservative activist questioning the ACLU's claim that there are “thousands of Ms. Applewhites out there” who still don’t have ID, writing that "credible estimates place the number of people in Pennsylvania who may have difficulty getting a picture ID in the 'hundreds, not thousands.'" Winn does not identify these supposedly "credible estimates."
Meanwhile, one study estimates that 14.4 percent of eligible voters in Pennsylvania lack a valid form of photo identification under the new law.
Of course, Winn would ignored these very same facts had his blog post been a "news" story.
WND's Farah Upset That You Can't Hurl Anti-Gay Slurs in Public Topic: WorldNetDaily
It's hard out there for a gay-basher, as WorldNetDaily editor Joseph Farah has discovered.
In his Oct. 2 column, Farah is shocked -- shocked! -- to discover that hurling anti-gay slurs in public is no longer a great American tradition (even as he hurls a few more anti-gay slurs along the way):
Are Mom and apple pie next?
Those may be the next targets of the homosexual fascists – who are like the anti-American poofy sect of the Taliban.
It’s not enough to institute speech codes in colleges and universities. It’s not enough to chill free speech in the media. It’s not enough to shamelessly parade their sexuality in front of America’s children on the streets, in schools and on television.
Now the crude, vulgar, name-calling, arrogant pink-shirt gestapo is going after baseball and other American sports.
What? Farah's mom spewed anti-gay slurs too?
What set Farah off this time was that baseball player Yunel Escobar was busted for writing the Spanish phrase "tu ere maricon" -- which roughly translates to "you are a faggot" -- on his eye black. Farah was upset that Escobar had to pay a fine and undergo "sensitivity counseling." He continues his rant about the "gay gestapo":
Major League Baseball is falling right in line with this kind of “political correctness.” The National Football League and college football are going even further – banning all eye-black messages. Why? Well, it started when Tim Tebow used Bible verse messages on his eye black.
Blue Jays pitcher Varlos Villanueva learned an interesting lesson from Escobar’s experience, too: “He has to step up, especially how things are nowadays. You just have to watch what you say, or what you express out there.”
And that’s supposed to be a good thing in American society?
Should non-homosexual Americans be fined, suspended and humiliated for a remark that wouldn’t draw a second glance in most homosexual bathhouses?
WND has a long history of pushing an anti-gay agenda, and it employs the rabidly anti-gay Molotov Mitchell, who has endorsed the "kill the gays" law in Uganda and laughably pretends to be the "best friend" of gays.
In an Oct. 5 NewsBusters post, Mark Finkelstein approvingly quotes CNBC's Rick Santelli casting doubt on newly released unemployment numbers, adding: "The Obama campaign is sure to jump on the news today--but Santelli has put a big question mark over the validity of the data."
Finkelstein and Santelli are buying into the right-wingconspiracy theory that the Obama administration somehow tinkered with unemployment data in order to make it look good before the November election. In fact, actual experts agree that the numbers have not been manipulated.
WND's Unruh Dishonestly Writes About Obama's Executive Orders Topic: WorldNetDaily
The rank dishonesty of Bob Unruh's Oct. 6 WorldNetDaily article begins with the headline: "'Stroke of the pen. Law of the land. Kinda cool': Obama's executive orders more and more dispensing with Congress."
Now, you would think that this was said about Obama's executive orders, or even said by Obama himself. Wrong -- as Unruh eventually gets around to noting in the 17th paragraph of his article, the quote has nothing whatsoever to do with Obama -- it was reportedly said by Clinton presidential aide Paul Begala in 1998.
Then there's Unruh's scaremongering opening:
Barack Obama has used executive orders to seal presidential records; create a faith council, an economic council, and a domestic policy council, a council on women and girls and dozens more; study bioethics, change pay grades, set up a team of governors to synchronize state and federal military operations in the U.S.; improve regulatory review; create a jobs council; set up immunity for Bosnia, revoke some earlier orders and talk about finances. GASP!
And he’s used them to talk about fiscal responsibility, ensure abortions through Obamacare; review Guantanamo Bay operations; promote diversity; amend court-martial procedures; launch a national women action plan, talk about Syria, talk about North Korea, encourage efficient government, target transnational crime groups, promote efficient spending and many, many more. WHEW!
Now critics are saying that if it looks like he’s trying to run the country single-handedly, their perceptions aren’t far off.
Take the first part of that first paragraph: "Barack Obama has used executive orders to seal presidential records." In fact, the very first executive order Obama signed opened access to presidential records, by reversing an executive order issued under the Bush administration (and dating about to the Reagan presidency) that allowed heirs or designees to a deceased president to claim executive privilege to block release of documents. The new executive order limits such assertions of executive privilege to living former presidents.
The ostensible purpose of Unruh's article was to respond to a chain email claiming "Obama has issued 923 executive orders in three and a half years." He had to admit that the figure was false, but he was even dishonest about that.
First off, Unruh couldn't even come right out and state it was false, instead writing, "Experts told WND that while Obama’s pace is above some other presidents, the figure of more than 900 is unrealistic." Unruh uses only "unrealistic" and "debunked" -- but never the word "false" -- describe the claim.
Even the statement that "Obama’s pace is above some other presidents" is dishonest; his statistics show that Obama's yearly pace is below every single president since FDR, except for George W. Bush. Unruh then tried to discount that by claiming that they were "dealing with different circumstances."
From there, Unruh dropped a reference to " the far left-leaning FactCheck" without proving the claim, plugged Aaron Klein's "new hot-selling" anti-Obama book, and for no apparent reason threw in the video for an anti-Obama song by Ray Stevens.
It's hard to believe that Unruh once worked for the Associated Press, since this article -- not to mention much of his work for WND -- violates pretty much every journalistic principle he would have learned there.
MRC Gives Republican's Bogus 'Fact-Check' A Pass Topic: Media Research Center
In an Oct. 4 MRC item, Kyle Drennen was annoyed that NBC's David Gregory pointed out to Rpmney adviser Ed Gillespie that "the math simply doesn't add up" in Mitt Romney's tax cut plan. Drennen then declared that "Gillespie fact-checked Gregory's supposed fact-check" by claiming that "six studies now that have analyzed what Governor Romney has proposed in terms of lowering tax rates and expanding the base."
But Drennen did not fact-check Gillespie's "six studies" claim -- which appears to be bogus. It's an apparent embellishment of a previous Romney claim that "five studies" back up Romney's claim abuot his tax plan. But as PolitiFact discovered:
Romney is using the word "studies" generously. Two items on his list are newspaper editorials that can be analytical but are rarely treated as independent research. One article comes from a campaign adviser, a connection that generally suggests a less than independent assessment. That leaves just two reports out Romney’s five.
Gillespie was merely spouting campaign rhetoric, which Drennen presented as a "fact-check." Not exactly telling the truth, is he?
WND Still Smearing Public School Supporters As Nazis Topic: WorldNetDaily
Back in 2007, we wrote about how WorldNetDaily's Bob Unruh likes to smear supporters of public education as Nazis. He's still at it.
In an Oct. 4 WND article on a German homeschooling family who were allegedly ordered to "turn over custody of their four children to the state because their homeschooling practices fail to meet the government’s demand for 'integration'" -- we have no idea of the veracity of this article because Unruh talks only to homeschooling activists and makes no effort whatsoever to contact German officials for their side of the story -- Unruh revives his Godwin-baiting, portraying German officials as Nazis:
Germany has a long history of persecuting homeschoolers, dating back to the era of Adolf Hitler, who claimed children for the state.
In 1937, Hitler said: “The youth of today is ever the people of tomorrow. For this reason we have set before ourselves the task of inoculating our youth with the spirit of this community of the people at a very early age, at an age when human beings are still unperverted and therefore unspoiled. This Reich stands, and it is building itself up for the future, upon its youth. And this new Reich will give its youth to no one, but will itself take youth and give to youth its own education and its own upbringing.”
What does this have to do with anything? Nothing. It's just disgusting sleaze that Unruh and WND thinks passes for journalism.
Also, the headline of the story -- "State takes custody of children over socialization" -- is deliberately generically written to falsely suggest that the events in the article were happening in the United States. That's another bit of WND dishonesty.
Sure, I’m a birther, because nobody has yet seen Barack Obama’s actual birth certificate. But this isn’t about the president’s place of birth or parentage. It’s about his Americanism.
So, what if we had an American president, raised from infancy through the formative years to recognize that our country’s virtues far outweigh its flaws? What if we had a president who was instructed during his adolescence and collegiate years about the genius and fortitude of our nation’s founders?
What if we had a president who revered the Constitution as a living document, not because he could stretch it to fit his wants, but because of its rigidity in the exaltation of freedom?
Barack Obama has no ability to run on a platform of “what I’ve accomplished during my tenure” as nearly every area that measures a successful administration has been met with incompetence, futility and abject failure. Yet his message of “Free” stuff seems to be carrying him to the promise land of four more years. I hope for our country’s sake I’m mistaken – for if I’m not, America as we have known her will now and forevermore be a thing of the past.
As a prelude to next week’s column on this passionately faithful pro-abortion president, I am revisiting a fervent petition that was made to Obama three days after he was inaugurated. In my article for the Human Life Review, I wrote about Luke Robinson, a black pastor confronting the first black president, who said at the 2009 March for Life in Washington, D.C.:
“Please, Mr. President, be that agent of change that can commute the sentence of over 1,400 African-American children and over 3,000 children from other ethnic groups sentenced to die every day in this country by abortion. … At the conclusion of your term in office, may it never be said that you presided over the largest slaughter of innocent children in the history of the country.”
Yet Obama increasingly supports and encourages the abortion-created corpses of innocent black children.
Remember those video scenes of the overweight Japanese warrior in a 15th-century robe solemnly walking up to a rather thick log sitting there with each end on a hip-high rock? After bowing to the shrine, the Japanese warrior, with one bare-handed karate chop, cut the log cleanly in half. You were glad the log was not you.
This time the log is you, and me, and all who want regime change in America. I suspect the Obama team is out to do to our end-of-campaign will exactly what that Japanese warrior did to that log. It’s only my suspicion, but I’m the world’s foremost authority on what I suspect!
The truth is that Obama has accomplished a great deal. That’s why he keeps insisting that his plan has “worked.” And he’s right because, in reality, everything works.
Communism works, if your purpose is to enslave people. Stealing works, if all you care about is money. Lying works, if you don’t care about your personal integrity. Literally anything, no matter how monstrously immoral, will work, depending on the outcome you’re after and how you define the term work. So the question should never be whether or not something works, but whether it accomplishes things we deem to be desirable.
That being the case, anyone who understands that the Duplicitous Despot’s objective from the outset has been to fundamentally transform the United States of America into a Third World Marxist country would have to admit that his strategy has worked very well. So Barack Obama means it when he says, with a straight face, that his plan has “worked.” But what he doesn’t say is that for most Americans it has worked only to the detriment of their freedom and financial well-being.
At age 51, Barack Obama is certainly too young to have been a 1960s student militant, but he was mentored by a coterie of bona fide revolutionaries, including communist organizer Frank Marshall Davis and Weather Underground leader Bill Ayers. Then, of course, there is Obama’s black separatist minister for 20 years, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who, by the way, gets a generous shout-out in the revisited Obama speech. After Wright’s animus toward the USA became common knowledge – for example, his notorious “God damn America” sermon – Obama famously cut official ties with Wright, but that just seems like window dressing. It all is.
A radical left message lives and beats at the heart of the Obama administration. It makes me wonder: Will these chickens ever come home to roost?
Obama didn’t just lose a debate. He demonstrated that he is incapable of running a small business, let alone the largest bureaucracy on planet earth.
And why are we just seeing this now?
Because, as has been pointed out over and over by many others, Obama was never vetted as a candidate, never screened for constitutional eligibility – and, as we now see – never challenged with any tough questions or criticisms of his policies over the last four years by the establishment press he may as well own.
Regardless of the outcome of the election – even if he loses – Obama will have 80 days from Nov. 6, 2012, to Jan. 19, 2013, to fulfill his treacherous promise to Russian President Vladimir Putin, who is still an active KGB communist agent, to deliver America’s allies like Israel, Poland and the Czech Republic to Russia on a silver platter.
Let all Americans of good will work assiduously to save our country from socialism before Nov. 6, before Obama steals a second term. If he does, it will become like Putin’s Russia – America’s last “election.”
WND's Flaherty Drags Obama Into His Race-Baiting Topic: WorldNetDaily
Colin Flaherty tries to drag President Obama in to his race-baiting rhetoric in an Oct. 3 WorldNetDaily column:
And now for a few words from our commander in chief:
“And most of the ministers here know that those riots didn’t erupt overnight; there had been a ‘quiet riot’ building up in Los Angeles and across this country for years.
“If you had gone to any street corner in Chicago or Baton Rouge or Hampton – you would have found the same young men and women without hope, without miracles and without a sense of destiny other than life on the edge – the edge of the law, the edge of the economy, the edge of family structures and communities.”
Thank you, Mr. President.
You may recognize these words as part of the newly re-discovered video of a speech Barack Obama made to black ministers in 2007. They sure answer a lot of questions.
But President Obama is one of the few to look racial violence right in the eye and tell us what it is all about, without flinching: Blacks are angry because racist white people are holding them back.
Way to put words in Obama's mouth there, eh, Colin? Obama said nothing about "racist white people" -- in fact, Obama specifically said he did not "excuse the violence of bashing in a man’s head or destroying someone’s store and their life’s work. That kind of violence is inexcusable and self-defeating."
Funny that Flaherty didn't tell his readers about that.That would have contradicted his message that all black people are violent thugs, and Flaherty can't have that.
Indeed, Flaherty quickly pivots to keeping up his black-people-are-scary obsession, purporting to repeat tweets from "black people promising violence if the election does not turn out they way they want it." He concluded: "No matter if you want to explain it, or justify it, or prepare for it, promises of even more racial violence are good to know."
Flaherty, for his part, is promising to keep up his WND-endorsed race-baiting. That's good to know too.
CNS Won't Report Good News About Economy Topic: CNSNews.com
How in the tank for Mitt Romney is Terry Jeffrey and his CNSNews.com? Jeffrey's website won't report that the unemployment rate went down last month because it might make President Obama look good.
Instead, Jeffrey wrote two stories cherry-picking obscure statistsics. The first carried the headline "Unemployment Rate Plummets to 4.3%--For Government Workers." Jeffrey doesn't mention that the public sector has decreased by more than 580,000 since 2009, or that the ratio of government employment to the general population is at its lowest point in nearly 30 years.
Jeffrey's other article makes a big deal about how there are "there are now 1,035,000 fewer construction jobs in the United States than there were in January 2009, when Obama was inaugurated." It's not until the final paragraph that he mentions that "Construction jobs in the United States started declining before Obama entered office, having peaked at 7,726,000 in April 2006."
Neither article mentions that the overall unemployment rate decreased from 8.2 percent to 7.8 percent.
Such biased reporting is blatant electioneering for Romney. How does that square with the nonprofit status of CNS' parent, the Media Research Center?
WND Wants to Scare You Into Voting for Romney Topic: WorldNetDaily
Remember how Joseph Farah wants you to believe that his WorldNetDaily is merely a "watchdog on government" and isn't trying to "shape the news"? Yeah, not so much.
The latest issue of WND's Whistleblower magaine, meanwhile, rejects both approaches for some good ol' fearmongering. As described in in an Oct. 1 WND article:
Gun and ammo sales are through the roof, as is the popularity of post-apocalyptic TV shows like “The Walking Dead” and “Revolution.” Foreclosures, debt, the “misery index” and suicide rates are also way up, while employment, consumer confidence, median family income and optimism about the kind of country today’s children will inherit are way, way down.
Against this turbulent backdrop, America – her people more polarized than at any time since the Civil War – faces the most staggeringly consequential election in generations.
In a very special pre-election issue, October’s Whistleblower magazine provides a stunning “crystal ball” look at the future of America should Obama win reelection. It is titled, “THE TIPPING POINT: Life in America under 4 more years of Barack Obama’s leadership.”
Here are some of the wild speculation the magazine engages in:
“Obama’s 2nd-term dream is America’s nightmare” by Aaron Klein, who takes readers on a tour of Obama’s upcoming policies, as revealed by the think tanks that created his first-term agenda
2nd-term plan: “Disarm border agents” (Protect illegal aliens in multitude of ways, grant amnesty, convert into voters)
2nd-term plan: “Take control of ‘every industry’” (Government’s ‘success’ with automaker bailouts to be replicated throughout economy)
2nd-term plan: “Institute ‘Marxist’ jobs plan” (Government-mandated ‘living wage’ could ‘crash and burn’ entire economy)
2nd-term plan: “Morph Obamacare into hardcore socialized medicine” (Single-payer system is waiting in the wings)
2nd-term plan: “Gut military and transform soldiers into social workers” (New focus on ‘global warming,’ ‘injustice,’ poverty, bolstering the U.N.)
“Burn down the suburbs?” by Stanley Kurtz, who documents the shocking truth that Obama is actually trying abolish America’s suburbs
“Obama is bringing about ‘nightmare scenario’” by Troy Anderson, in which Dinesh D’Souza, the author and filmmaker who made “2016,” says America is becoming vulnerable to both financial collapse and nuclear attack
Shocking, maybe. Truth? Probably not. But when has WND ever cared about the truth?
MRC's Bozell Is Still A Coward, And A Liar Too Topic: Media Research Center
One almost has to admire Brent Bozell's ability to lie so nakedly.
In his weekly appearance on Sean Hannity's Fox News how, Hannity played a two-year-old tape of liberal radio host Ed Schultz calling conservative host Laura Ingraham a "talk slut," then asked Bozell, "Would a conservative survive that?" Bozell responded, "No, they'd be fired."
Not only does Bozell know that's not true, he put the Media Research Center's full support toward conservative host after he did the same exact thing.
As we've detailed, when Rush Limbaugh went on a three-day tirade of misogyny against Sandra Fluke, calling her a "slut" and a "prostitute" among many other things. Bozell refused to publicly denounce Limbaugh for saying those words -- after all, the MRC gave Limbaugh its inaugural "William F. Buckley, Jr. Award for Media Excellence" in 2007. The only outrage Bozell could work up was to tepidly declare, "Let’s all agree Limbaugh crossed a line."
When it seemed Limbaugh might get fired for his misogynistic attack, Bozell tried to make sure he wasn't by launching an "I Stand With Rush" website, where he declared that "I stand with Rush Limbaugh and appreciate the massive contribution that he has made to the conservative movement and our nation over the last 25 years." (Oddly, that website disappeared about a week after it was launched.)
When presented with an opportunity to evenly apply his professed moral standards on a nonpartisan basis, Bozell refused. Instead, he defended the man who spoke the very same words he found offensive when they came out of the mouth of a liberal.
Molotov Mitchell Laughably Claims He's The 'Best Friend' of Gays Topic: WorldNetDaily
Molotov Mitchell is still trying to spin away his hatred of gays.
Reading a letter from a critic who reminded him of his tacit endorsement of a proposed anti-gay law Uganda that permitted the execution of people for committing homosexual acts, Molotov responded in an Oct. 2 WND video:
Fact: Molotov Mitchell has never called for the execution of "the gay" in Uganda. Years ago, in an episode of "For the Record," I defended Ugandans' right to make their own laws concerning homosexuality. In the video, I referenced Uganda's cultural and historical sensitivity, and applauded their willingness to stand up to the mounting pressure of European political correctness. And as a Ron Paul, freedom-loving conservative, I thought and still think that white people in America should stop trying to control black people's lives in Africa. If Ugandans wants to ban homosexuality, as a white American, frankly it is none of my business.
And for taking that radical libertarian position, liberals still sling mud at me, calling me a hatemonger, a Nazi, a guy who wants to kill all "the gay." These people clearly have no idea what a real Nazi or a real hatemonger looks like.
He then dismissed his critics as "limp-wristed American liberals," concluding, "I may not want to hold hands with you, but I'm one of the best friends you've got."
Let's go back and look at what Mitchell actually said in that 2009 video. As we noted at the time, Mitchell justified the proposed Uganda law by claiming that "our founding fathers also made homosexuality a capital offense" adding that "don't think that our founding fathers wouldn't support this legislation all the way." Mitchell falsely claimed that Ugandans "don't want to kill the homosexuals" -- even though the proposed law at that time would have permitted exactly that. Mitchell also declared that "If gay Ugandans don't like the law, they are more than free to leave," ignoring the fact that the law also could be applied to Ugandans living outside the country, even in countries where homosexuality is legal.
Would Molotov be so vociferously defending Uganda's "right to make their own laws" and their "cultural and historical sensitivity" if it involved a law that permitted killing Christians? Doubtful. And if Molotov wanted to back up his statement that "white people in America should stop trying to control black people's lives in Africa," shouldn't he be criticizing people like white Americans like Scott Lively, who reportedly played a role in inspiring the law?
Ol' Molotov 's history shows that he believes that the execution of gays is perfectly acceptable to him. He's a self-proclaimed "zealot" -- even has the word tattooed on his arm -- and has stated that he favors the "abolition of homosexuality."
Molotov's claim that he is the gays' "best friend" rings as hollow as his "some of my best friends are gay" video that he produced in response to his original defense of Uganda's proposed law. Anyone who so eagerly invokes anti-gay smears as "limp-wristed" is no friend of gays -- or anyone, really.
CNS Bats Cleanup For Romney After the Debate Topic: CNSNews.com
CNS is moving beyond merely promoting right-wing talking points as "news" and becoming a full-fledged media arm of Mitt Romney's campaign. Several CNS articles published after the debate served to reinforce Romney's talking points, attack President Obama, and even elucidate on issues it felt Romney didn't sufficiently cover during the debate.
During Wednesday night’s presidential debate, when Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney explained why wanted to repeal and replace Obamacare, he cited four reasons, including because it is “expensive,” it “cuts $716 billion” from Medicare, it includes an “unelected board” that could determine what kind of medical treatments people get, and it “killed jobs.”
He did not mention as one of the reasons he would like to repeal Obamacare the fact that if mandates that all Americans must purchase health insurance, a mandate that conservatives have argued is unconstitutional and that only survived a Supreme Court challenge earlier this year when Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the liberals on the court and said the government had the authority to order people to buy things as long as it did so under the Constitution’s General Welfare Clause not the Commerce Clause.
Yes, pointing out that Romney failed to mention the individual mandate is the entire point of Lucas' article. He did concede, however, that an individual mandate exists in the health care plan Romney spearheaded as Massachusetts, though he fails to mention that the individual mandate had longtime support from Republicans before it was opposed by them in the wake of Obama's health care plan embracing it.
Then, Melanie Hunter claimed that Romney "corrected the president" on his claim that Romney supports a plan that calls for a $5 trillion tax cut. In fact, Romney made no correction; he simply denied that he has such a plan. But Romney arguably does -- the Tax Policy Center interpreted that Romney's call for a 20 percent tax rate reduction and other tax cuts he has called for add up to about $5 trillion over 10 years. Hunter fails to mention the TPC report; instead, she documents all the instances in which Romney countered Obama on the $5 trillion tax cut claim.
An article by Susan Jones dismissed Obama's claim that companies can "a [tax] break for shipping jobs overseas" because "the full story" is that it refers to a tax deduction for business moving expenses that doesn't discriminate on where the business moves to. Jones quoted a senator criticizing a bill that would disqualify business operations moved overseas for the tax break.
Another article by Lucas essentially calls Obama a liar for claiming that Americans can keep their health insurance under Obamacare because "the law’s regulations on contraception, sterilization, and abortion-inducing drugs may compel some people to change their health insurance plans or drop them entirely." Of course, any such insurance change is not a mandate of Obamacare, it's a personal decision.
And Christopher Goins attacked Obama for claiming that Social Security is "structurally sound" because "Social Security’s Board of Trustees said in their 2012 annual report that the program faced $8.6 trillion in 'unfunded obligations.'"
How does CNS' blatant shilling for Romney square with the 501(c)3 tax-exempt status of its parent organization, the Media Research Center? Perhaps CNS editor in chief Terry Jeffrey can explain that to his readers.
WND Follows Our Lead on Savage's Replacement Topic: WorldNetDaily
Weirdly, we seem to be driving WorldNetDaily's "news" coverage of late.
As we've noted, the posting of our article on Jerome Corsi's bottom-feeding at Huffington Post appears to have inspired WND to post Corsi's latest sleazy attack on President Obama. Now, our blog post on WND having taken sides with Michael Savage against his former syndicator and longtime WND collaborator Talk Radio Network appears to have brought a response.
Some hours after our blog post went live, a WND article went up noting exactly what we had -- that TRN replaced Savage's radio slot with Jerry Doyle. WND didn't mention any of TRN's veiled attacks on Savage in its announcement of Doyle, such as its portrayal of Doyle as a program local affiliates "can sell locally with pride" and that "Jerry shows up 5 days a week, 3 full hours a day because his work ethic is second to none."
The WND article, however, went on to promote his inaugural Internet-only talk while he negotiates a new radio contract, which is "available through his website." The article didn't mention that WND hosts Savage's website.