A July 11 Newsmax article is promoting Judicial Watch head Tom Fitton's attacks on the Department of Justice:
On Wednesday, Judicial Watch revealed it had obtained documents showing that a little-known Department of Justice unit, the Community Relations Service, was sent to Sanford, Florida, after the Martin shooting to help organize and manage protests against Zimmerman.
Fitton, author of the bestselling book "The Corruption Chronicles," said the documents show the "racial extremism" of the Justice Department and the Obama administration in handling the Zimmerman case.
"The Justice Department's CRS people were down there aiding and abetting the individuals [who protested]" Fitton told Malzberg.
In fact, what the CRS did was engage in community mediation to make sure the rallies were peaceful. Fitton offers no evidence that the CRS actively organized any rallies.
Newsmax privileged Fitton's dubious attacks again in a July 14 article by Todd Beamon:
Then, a secretive branch of the Justice Department was sent to Sanford to help organize rallies, Fitton noted. One event was headlined by the Rev. Al Sharpton, who called for Zimmerman’s arrest and prosecution.
Justice documents obtained by Judicial Watch revealed those activities of the department’s Community Relations Service in March and April of 2012.
And only after the protests and social media outrage alleging racial profiling and discrimination did Florida Gov. Rick Scott appoint a special prosecutor, who brought the charges against Zimmerman six weeks after the shooting.
“Surprise, surprise,” Fitton told Newsmax. “There’s a poor prosecution that results from a process that was kind of distorted almost immediately.”
Notice how the CRS moved from "little-known" to "secretive" in three days' time. No explanation is provided for such descriptions of the CRS.
Farah's Thin-Skinned Response to Rachel Maddow Topic: WorldNetDaily
In case you were wondering, WorldNetDaily editor Joseph Farah still can't handle criticism.
A July 13 WND article by Joe Kovacs highlights how MSNBC host Rachel Maddow called Farah's WND "your home for the most-trusted reference material on how President Obama is a gay Muslim murderer and obviously foreign," and that the Republican Party is "spotlighting the most ambitious Republican federal officeholders in the nation alongside the nation’s leading proponents of the theory that our country’s first black president could not possibly be American, he must be secretly foreign, his presidency is illegitimate and it’s a giant conspiracy."
Farah's petulant response:
“If you want to get an idea of how the state-run press will look in Maddow’s Stalinist dream world, you can get a pretty good idea just by watching her show. She smears people with fallacious accusations, offers no opportunity for another point of view, is afraid to invite her targets on to mix it up with her and relies on name-calling and personal attacks rather than anything remotely connected to facts. But at least she called me handsome. I guess some facts are undeniable – especially if you’re going to use a picture.”
Notice that Farah never states what, exactly, is "fallacious" and not "remotely connected to facts" in what Maddow said -- perhaps because he knows Maddow is telling the truth. He merely issues a personal attack of the kind he supposedly opposes by baselessly claiming that Maddow favors a "Stalinist dream world."
Accusing someone of telling lies and then refusing to detail what those supposed lies are is the language of a demagogue. It seems Farah is the one who really wants a "Stalinist dream world."
Is The MRC Really Getting The Money From Bozell's Book? Topic: Media Research Center
The promotion page for Brent Bozell's new anti-media book, "Collusion," on the Media Research Center website declares, "All proceeds go to the Media Research Center—you not only get a great book, but you also support a great cause!"
But is that really true? The copyright page of the book (available online via Amazon) states that the copyright for "Collusion" belongs to Bozell, not the MRC:
That means the money from the book actually goes to Bozell, not the MRC. And, apparently, Bozell's co-author, Tim Graham, isn't getting anything, as only Bozell is listed as the copyright holder.
Bozell may ultimately give the book's proceeds to the MRC, but the easiest way to guarantee that is to make the MRC the copyright holder. As such, there is no publicly known, legally binding guarantee that the MRC will get the book's proceeds or that Bozell's proceeds will be officially accounted for.
That may be for the best, since what we've seen of the book so far indicates it's nothing but the same old anti-media bashing Bozell, Graham and the MRC have been doing for decades.
WND Perpetuates Myths About Homeschooling Case Topic: WorldNetDaily
Bob Unruh uses a July 2 WorldNetDaily article to shill for the Romeike family, a German family that has sought asylum in the United States by claiming persecution in Germany for wanting to homeschool their children, which is illegal there.
Unruh uncritically repeats the claim that "The Romeikes withdrew their children from German schools over teachings on sex, violence and other issues that conflicted with their Christian faith." But public schools are not the only option the Romeikes have -- according to the New York Times, the Romeikes have also rejected private and religious schools in Germany, claming that they were "just as bad or even worse" than public schools. The Romeikes could have also chosen to work toward creating a school in Germany that more closely aligns with their claimed "Christian faith," but they apparently chose not to.
Unruh also uncritically repeats an assertion by homeschooling activist Michael Farris regarding the Department of Justice's agreeing with German officials that banning homeschooling does not equal persecution that "I’m glad Obama wasn’t in charge in 1620." Neither Farris nor Unruh mentioned that the initial granting of temporary asylum to the Romeikes also took place under the Obama administration.
(WND's numerous conflicts of interest on the issue are not mentioned, among them being that Unruh homeschools his own children and at least one child of WND editor Joseph Farah has atteneded the Farris-founded Patrick Henry College, which caters to homeschooled evangelical Christians.)
Unruh then goes Godwin on the issue -- as WND is prone to do -- claiming that "The problem is that a Nazi-era law in Germany in 1938, under the leadership of Adolf Hitler, eliminated exemptions that would provide an open door for homeschoolers under the nation’s compulsory education laws." In fact, compulory schooling has been a tradition for a good 200 years.
CNS Treats Snide Attack On Napolitano As 'News' Topic: CNSNews.com
We already know that CNSNews.com treats late-nightjokes as "news." Now it considers random comments from right-wing talking heads as "news" as well.
A July 12 CNS article by Elizabeth Harrington begins:
Political commentator Charles Krauthammer said the record of outgoing Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano was that "the underwear didn't explode."
Yeah, that's the whole point of Harrington's article -- to highlight Krauthammer's snide insult. Harrington didn't explain what made an insult from a right-wing talking head worthy of being presented as "news."
It seems that WND is trying to become more like WorldNetDaily, where Joe Kovacs regularlydevotesarticles to Rush Limbaugh's opining.
WND's Flaherty Race-Baits on Zimmerman Case, Because Why Wouldn't He Topic: WorldNetDaily
Colin Flaherty writes in a July 11 WorldNetDaily column:
I owe a whole lot of people an apology. A real big one.
Soon after I first started writing about black mob violence two years for WND and other places, I started seeing comments about Obama.
A whole lot of people thought he was personally behind efforts to gin up the epidemic of black mob violence I was writing about – and the local and national media ignored.
I kind of brushed it off. No, I did worse than that: I mentally placed all these comments into my “black helicopter international banker kook” file.
The president of the United States personally encouraging racial violence? That struck me as crazy.
Now this week, thanks to the heroes over at Judicial Watch, we learn that the federal government of the United States has been sending community organizers to Florida to ratchet up the pressure to indict and convict George Zimmerman.
The Department of Justice people called themselves “peacekeepers.” As in: No justice, no peace.
I keep reading the documents, and I can scarce believe what I am seeing. The president of the United States is sending people to foment racial violence in Florida.
As usual, Flaherty is too busy race-baiting to get his facts straight. There is no evidence whatsoever that Obama "fomented racial violence in Florida" -- representatives of the DOJ mediated to make sure rallies were peaceful. But Slate's David Weigel points out that race-baiters are trying to twist this intervention into the DOJ's Community Relations Service encouraging the rallies:
If you think the government should materialize when some racial controversy starts boiling, you have no problem with the CRS. But if you think Obama and Holder are habitual race-baiters, the CRS’s Sanford adventure fits into a pattern. Instead of nailing the New Black Panthers, Obama’s saying, “If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon,” and Holder’s calling America “a nation of cowards on race.” That’s why they went after Zimmerman. That’s why you can’t trust the Obama regime.
But who cares about facts when there's race-baiting to do? Thus, Flaherty race-baits on:
Obama’s secretive peacekeepers failed in their stated mission. In “White Girl Bleed a Lot: The return of racial violence and how the media ignore it,” I documented more than a dozen cases of black mob violence connected to Trayvon Martin in the run up to the indictment of George Zimmerman.
Today, all over the country, police departments are on alert for the violence that could follow Zimmerman’s acquittal.
Like Winston Smith, we are now supposed to believe something that is transparently not true. They had nothing to do with the black resentment and animosity and violence connected to this case. And others.
Just like Flaherty wants us to believe that his obsession over "black mob violence" has nothing to do with his own obvious anti-black resentment and animosity.
Noel Sheppard Gets A Taste Of His Snark, Doesn't Like It Topic: NewsBusters
A July 12 NewsBusters post by Matthew Sheffield is devoted to New York Times reporter John Schwartz tweeting a snarky remark regarding the upcoming wedding of the son of NewsBusters associate editor Noel Sheppard. Sheffield called the tweet "a petty and pathetic attempt at humor" and suggested Schwartz was motivated by bitterness because he has a gay son (about whom he devoted a book to, and Sheppard had previously mocked Schwartz's self-promotion of the book). Sheffield ultimately huffs, "Whatever his motivations were for making it, John Schwartz’s tasteless joke is a disgrace. There’s no doubt at all that the guy is a left-wing jerk."
It should be noted that Sheffield is defending a man who may very easily be described as a right-wing jerk.
Sheppard has a long history of attacking reporters for telling the truth about conservtaives -- even as he tells lies about his ideological enemies -- and he clings to global warming denialism and denigrates anyone who thinks differently even though the vast majority.
And Sheppard is hardly immune from dishing out the snark Sheffield is complaining he was victimized by. Just last month, for example, Sheppard portrayed commentator Eleanor Clift as coming from a long line of morons. And who can forget this failed attempt at Twitter humor:
Sheffield's post has been updated to note that Schwartz has apologized. No such apology has been seen from Sheppard regarding his offensive and insensitive remarks.
We're not condoning Schwartz's original remark; we're just pointing out that Sheppard can dish it out but apparently can't take it.
Bradlee Dean Still Raising Money For Dead Lawsuit Topic: WorldNetDaily
Bradlee Dean's July 11 WorldNetDaily column is your garden-variety rant, this time focusing on the media: "But do they have a right to dispense half-truths, fabricated stories, or outright lies? Of course not!"
Apparently, Dean considers himself exempt from being held accountable for telling lies -- he's told a bunch, and he has shown no interest whatsoever in apologizing or setting the record straight.
More interesting, though, is the end of his column, which states:
Think the IRS scandal is bad? You should see what MSNBC and Rachel Maddow did to Bradlee Dean. Help in his lawsuit against them. Stand for America and get your free gift.
The text links to a page on Dean's You Can Run But You Cannot Hide International website, in which Dean solicits donations for "help with his lawsuit Bradlee Dean vs. Rachel Maddow. Protect him and conservative leaders everywhere from the slander and lies spewed out by the leftist media."
Unmentioned at either place is the fact that Dean's lawsuit against Maddow is essentially dead.
As we've detailed, Dean and his failed lawyer, Larry Klayman, wanted to move the lawsuit to a different venue specifically to deprive Maddow of the anti-SLAPP defense; a judge ordered that in exchange, Dean must pay Maddow's lawyers $24,000 to pay for a new defense in the new venue. As far as we know, Dean and Klayman have thus far refused to make the payment, meaning that unless Dean chooses to pay up and pursue the lawsuit in its current venue -- which he said he has already spent more than $77,000 on -- that lawsuit is de facto dismissed. (Dean and Klayman did appeal the judge's ruling in an insult-laden filing that is seemingly designed to fail.)
By the standards Dean is suing Maddow for defamation, President Obama can sue Dean over the numerous malicious lies he's told. But it seems that Dean would prefer not to be judged by his own standards.
MRC Dishonestly Fearmongers About HPV Vaccine Topic: Media Research Center
Remember back in April, when the Media Research Center criticized the mainstreaming of anti-vaccine activists while ignoring its own attacks on Gardasil and other vaccines for HPV (human papilloma virus, which tends to cause cervical cancer)? Well, the hypocrisy contines.
A July 10 MRC Culture & Media Institute item by Katie Yoder complains that news reports were giving Gardasil credit for a dramatic drop on HPV infections among teenage girls while ignoring its supposed "dangerous side effects."
But as we documented when WorldNetDaily was attacking Gardasil, anti-HPV vaccines are considered safe -- no less than the Centers for Disease Control agrees -- and the serious side effects Yoder warns about are extremely rare.
Yoder cites the Washington Times to claim that "the Department of Health and Human Services’ National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program recently lost almost $6 million in response to 49 victims’ complaints claims against HPV vaccines. Between 2010 and 2011, there were 26 deaths reported in correlation with Gardasil in addition to seizures, paralysis, blindness, pancreatitis, speech problems, short term memory loss and Guillain-Barré Syndrome – all this according to the FDA’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System."
First, as even the most basic researcher knows, correlation does not equal causation, so the "26 deaths reported in correlation with Gardasil" Yoder cites does not mean they were caused by Gardasil.
Second, it was not an Washington Times article Yoder was quoting but, rather, an article by Dr. Peter Lind at a separate site, Washington Times Communities, where "individual contributors are responsible for their content, which is not edited by The Washington Times." Lind -- the kind of anti-vaccine activist the MRC otherwise criticizes -- is citing the right-wing Judicial Watch, which is opposed to Gardasil apparently because it opposes everything remotely linked to the Obama administration.
If Yoder is going to attack Gardasil's supposed severe side effects, she should also tell the truth about the agenda behind its critics.
WND Touts Birther Radio Host And His Discredited Guest Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily is a little too excited to have an obscure radio host return to the airwaves.
A July 10 WND article informed us that "Popular radio talk-show host Peter Boyles returned to the airwaves on Denver’s KNUS Monday and immediately took up where he left off." Surprisingly, WND actually reported negative information about Boyles, conceding that he "lost his program on Clear Channel’s KHOW after a violent confrontation with his own producer for which he accepted responsibility."
But that's not the reason WND cares about Boyles. The Denver Post has noted that Boyles has been hailed as "probably the leading birther talk-show host in America." Which brings us to the main reason WND is touting Boyles' return.
Remember that part about Boyles having "took up where he left off"? That he did, WND reported, with "a discussion about Barack Obama’s disputed origins with “Dreams from My Real Father” director Joel Gilbert." WND goes on to inform us that "Boyles and Gilbert discussed a number of subjects, including Gilbert’s documentary “Dreams from My Real Father,” which alleges that President Obama’s real father is none other than Communist Party USA activist Frank Marshall Davis."
MRC Attacks Obama for Naming Fundraisers As Abmassadors, Ignores That Bush Did The Same Thing Topic: Media Research Center
Scott Whitlock huffs in a July 11 Media Research Center item:
In 2013, Barack Obama has nominated 11 ambassadors who were also huge donors to his presidential campaigns. Yet, NBC, CBS and ABC have skipped the failure of a president who vowed to "change the way Washington works" when it comes to money.
But Whitlock not only offers no evidence that Obama ever specifically promised never to appoint campaign donors as ambassadors, he fails to note -- as the Washington Times article he cites did -- that this is standard practice for presidents, including Obama's Republican predecessor:
The practice of rewarding campaign supporters with cushy or powerful government posts isn’t new. George W. Bush appointed fundraising “pioneers” to ambassadorships, and many of Mr. Obama’s other predecessors have embraced the practice.
Oddly, Whitlock's colleague at the MRC's sister operation did concede that fact. While Patrick Goodenough makes a similar complaint as Whitlock in a July 10 CNS article, he does admit that "giving ambassadorships to political appointees has been a common practice for presidents of both parties in recent decades," and that the percentage of political ambassadorial appointees under Obama is only slightly higher than that of both George W. Bush and George H.W. Bush.
Why didn't Whitlock report that when another MRC division did? He wouldn't have had an item otherwise -- after all, there's no news in Obama doing the exact same thing previous presidents have.
WND's Erik Rush: Only Liberals Demand Proof That Obama Killed A Bunch Of People Topic: WorldNetDaily
Erik Rush begins his July 10 WorldNetDaily column this way:
I know it’s typical for those on the political left to demand peer-reviewed studies, videotape and signed affidavits proving the assertions some of us make concerning the machinations of the Obama administration and socialist encroachment at large, but we all are aware by now that this is a diversion. It’s also a good indicator that we’re correct in said assertions. Like the left’s tendency for projection, wherein they accuse the opposition of that in which they are themselves engaged, it’s a fairly transparent ruse.
Then, having established the premise that he doesn't need any stinkin' proof for what he's about to say, finally brings to his main WND gig some of that weapons-grade Obama derangment he's been parceling out to other far-right websites by detailing all the people Obama has supposedly murdered.
Oh, yes, he goes there:
There is an entire true crime novel in the case of the Trinity United Church murders, two gay men known to Obama who were killed execution-style in 2007 at a time when charges of homosexuality and drug use were being leveled at the candidate. Years later, as reported in WND, an entire network of closeted professional gay black men at the Chicago church was exposed.
Ancillary to the question of Obama’s eligibility, there was the case of Leiutenant Quarles Harris Jr. (not a military officer; he just had a weird name), a hustler who was also killed execution-style on April 18, 2008, during an investigation into the theft of the passport records of candidate Obama, Sen. John McCain and Sen. Hillary Clinton. John Brennan, who became Obama’s counterterrorism adviser and later CIA chief, was also implicated in this case (of the passport records, not the murder).
On Aug. 6, 2012, Jennifer Gallagher, a 46-year-old nurse, drowned mysteriously while vacationing with her family in Iowa. Gallagher had been on the team that attended to victims of the July 20 Aurora, Colo., theater shooting. She was also among staffers who met with President Obama during his highly publicized visit of the shooting victims. Several inconsistencies came to light in the theater shooting accounts and aspects of the subsequent investigation; one can’t help but wonder if Gallagher came by information on the night of the shooting that wound up being detrimental to her health.
Then, of course, we have the off-the-chart suspicious death of journalist Michael Hastings on June 18 in a car wreck worthy of any action film. The circumstances surrounding the incident are right out of a political thriller and have all the hallmarks of a staged accident. Hastings was the individual whose reporting brought down the career of Gen. Stanley McChrystal; reportedly under government surveillance, he was also said to be working on a story involving domestic government spying at the time of his death.
So there we have it. There are more than a few other suspicious deaths that some attribute to Obama, from his dog trainer to Andrew Breitbart. I have asserted that the attack on the Libyan mission on Sept. 11, 2012, had its genesis in Obama’s need to “erase” either the administration’s illegal operations in Libya or Ambassador Christopher Stevens himself.
Along the way, Rush insists he's not making "wild accusations" -- "they’re not accusations at all; they’re theories" -- and he cites non-American Christopher Monckton as some kind of authority of Obama's birth certificate (clearly neither Rush nor Monckton -- nor anyone else at WND, for that matter -- have read John Woodman's book on the subject).
Whether or not the president had a hand in any or all of these may never be known for certain, even if his treason someday becomes common knowledge. What chills the blood in this time of domestic spying, drones, data mining centers and FEMA camps is the possibility that there are those working among us who might actually be willing to kill for this treacherous mobster.
I’m not naïve; I know that heads of state have been involved in political assassination, black ops and all manner of questionable acts since there have been nations, but until recently, America has at least tried to hold the moral high ground. Such concepts have ceased to exist in this White House, wherein the “Chicago Way,” Marxist ruthlessness and autocracy rule the day.
And remember, Rush doesn't believe he has to prove any of this -- proof is for liberals, after all.
CNS: Spending Money to Educate About HIV Is A Waste Topic: CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com is keeping up its insistence that any money spent on gay-related issues is a waste.
Ryan Kierman complains in a July 2 CNS article that "The National Institutes of Health is spending $375,087 on a grant that will target Spanish-language ads at gay “foreign-born” men to persuade them to use condoms and get tested for HIV." Kierman went on to ask the lead reserarcher on the project "if the ad campaign would specifically be targeting illegal aliens," as if that was a bad thing.
This is the latest LGBT-related expenditure to be featurecd on CNS' "Waste Watch" page:
CNS has yet to identify any LGBT-related federal spending that it does not consider to be a "waste."
NewsBusters Turns a Blind Eye To Limbaugh's Admission of Fox's Bias Topic: NewsBusters
Matthew Sheffield -- who is not the cutting-edge new-media thinker he wants people to think he is -- is apparently not going to concede the existence of right-wing media bias, even while he's quoting Rush Limbaugh admitting it.
In a July 9 NewsBusters post, Sheffield meticulously documents how Limbaugh "officially clarified" that he did not tell a caller to stop watching Fox News. He documents further:
After addressing that bit of misinformation, Limbaugh spoke further about an experience he had had on the cable channel's Fox and Friends morning show where he had wanted to talk about immigration and the future of the Republican Party but was told by producers that the show was not interested in the topic. Despite pushing back against that refusal (for which Limbaugh imputed no motive), he insisted that he was still a fan of the only non-left national television operation in the country.
"Fox and I, we're on the same team. Even Obama has said the only opposition he's got left is me and Fox," Limbaugh argued. "But see, these people in the media, they can't stand it. They can't stand that there's even two voices of opposition to Obama and liberalism, so now they're seeking to drive a wedge here, and they're trying to create these stories that I, El Rushbo, am urging people not to watch Fox."
Even though he directly quoted Limbaugh clearly admitting that he and Fox are "on the same team" and "two voices of opposition to Obama and liberalism," Sheffield did not comment on it, conceding only that Fox is "non-left" -- which, in truth, makes it right-wing.
Admitting that, however, would undermine the "liberal bias" narrative of his employer, so that won't be happening anytime soon.