CNS Pushes False Claims About Navy Yard Shootings Topic: CNSNews.com
Matt Vespa writes in a Sept. 17 CNSNews.com blog post:
The Navy Yard shooting brings up the legitimate issue of carrying - and using - firearms on military installations.
Back in 1993, the Clinton administration virtually declared military establishments "gun-free zones." As a result, the policy banned "military personnel from carrying their own personal firearms and mandates that 'a credible and specific threat against [Department of the Army] personnel [exist] in that region" before military personnel 'may be authorized to carry firearms for personal protection."
In fact, Clinton had nothing to do with the policy Vespa cites. It was enacted by the Defense Department as the result of a directive issued under the George H.W. Bush administration. And if that policy really made the Navy Yard a virtual "gun-free zone," why were the first people Aaron Alexis assaulted armed security personnel?
Vespa also uncritically repeats a claim from dubious researcher John Lott that "every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns." In fact, Mother Jones' database of mass shootings cites not a single case of a mass shooter choosing a target specifically because it was a gun-free zone, and Mayors Against Illegal Guns states that less than one-fourth of mass shootings occurred in public spaces that were so-called "gun-free zones."
Vespa's post was later updated to concede that gun regulations on military bases began under the first President Bush and that "There are two mass public shootings that have occurred in places that allowed concealed carry."
The correction laughably includes "We apologize for this omission." Don't believe it -- they are only apologizing for getting caught forwarding false claims, which could have avoided entirely had Vespa bothered to do actual research instead of repeating NRA-friendly talking points.
Michael Reagan Screws Up Median Household Income Attack Topic: Newsmax
Michael Reagan writes in a Sept. 18 Newsmax column:
When my father was president in 1989 the median household income was $51,681. In 2012 — 23 years later and five years into the current Age of Obama — the median household income is $51,017, which is $664 less.
But that figure understates the magnitude of the Obama administration’s economic failure. When we account for inflation during those 23 years the disparity is shocking. Using the handy calculator at westegg.com, we find that simply allowing for inflation, with no economic growth, the median household income would have to be $94,234 to equal what Americans were earning under my father, the man Schultz slanders as “Mr. Trickle-Down Economics.”
Looking at the numbers another way, the Obama median household income would only have the buying power of $27,612 in 1989 and that’s almost half of the Reagan economy total.
That would be concerning -- if any of it were true.
Reagan took his $51,681 figure from a newly released Census Bureau report. The chart it comes from states at the top that the income figures are in "2012 CPI-U-RS adjusted dollars." And the very first footnote in the report elaborates:
All income values are adjusted to reflect 2012 dollars. The adjustment is based on percentage changes in prices between 2012 and earlier years and is computed by dividing the annual average Consumer Price Index Research Series (CPI-U-RS) for 2012 by the annual average for earlier years.
In other words, Reagan adjusted a number that was already adjusted for inflation.
And as Media Matters points out, Reagan completely ignored the the fact that the 2012 number is a reversal of the recession-driven downward trend.
Because we don't trust Newsmax or Reagan to make an honest correction or apology, here's a screenshot of Reagan's botched column for posterity:
WND's Race-Baiters Weigh In on Navy Yard Shooting Topic: WorldNetDaily
A single comment by a friend of Navy Yard shooter Aaron Alexis that he allegedly "felt a lot of discrimination and racism with white people especially" was all WorldNetDaily needed to bring out its chief race-baiters to comment:
Colin Flaherty, who has documented hundreds of cases of black-on-white violence in recent years in his book “White Girl Bleed A Lot: The Return of Racial Violence to America and How the Media Ignore It,” said it’s not surprising that a facet such as antipathy over race would be overlooked or played down.
“Many people may remember Salon magazine’s famous pronouncement: ‘Let’s hope the Boston Marathon bomber is a white American,’” he said, “Strange how anyone in the reporting business would hope for anything except getting the story straight.”
Flaherty said regarding the Naval Yard shooting that “this kind of ‘hope’ turned a white officer on duty with a weapon into gun-toting suspect wearing camos, as was reported.”
“The press cannot help it: They constantly misreport or ignore anything to do with race and violence,” he said.
Investigative reporter and author Jack Cashill, whose book “If I Had a Son” tackles the broader implications of the Trayvon Martin case in Florida, said the evidence suggests whatever problems Alexis had “were aggravated by the message that the Democratic-media complex has been steadily pumping out, namely that a black American can never expect justice.”
Cashill pointed out that racial tension has only increased under the first black president.
Cashill seems not to think that this racial tension has been caused in part by people who are unhappy about a black president.
Cashill elaborated further in a Sept. 18 WND column:
Although there are as many reasons for the decline in those numbers as there are for the decline in Alexis’ mental health, one fact seems undeniable: The media have continued to drum into the head of African-Americans the pervasiveness of racism in America, Obama’s election notwithstanding.
Indeed, by repeatedly interpreting criticism of Obama as racially based, the media have aggravated the tension between blacks and non-blacks.
WND's Meaningless Secret Source on Syria Topic: Western Journalism Center
A Sept. 17 WorldNetDaily article by Michael Maloof touts how a secret, anonymous "U.S. military source" claims that "there was no intelligence reporting on the Syrian government firing the artillery armed with poison gas."
Well, so what? Maloof has given us no reason to trust his anonymous source. He doesn't even bother to try to build up hissource's credibility by calling him "trusted" or "highly placed," as WND is wont to do.
This appears to be just another attempt by WND to further its anti-Americanagenda by siding with Bashir al-Assad and Russia on the question of Syria. Maloof previously accepted at face value a Russian report blaming Syrian rebels for the chemical weapon attack, failing to mention that Russia is an ally of Assad and the Syrian government, as well as analysis from a former intelligence official who has been chattering for years about the existence of a secret tape of Michelle Obama saying "whitey."
Do Maloof and WND hate President Obama so much that they will side with an enemy of the United States in order to destroy him? It appears so.
CNS Pushes Myth That Congress Exempted Itself From Obamacare Topic: CNSNews.com
Jeffrey Meyer writes in a Sept. 17 CNSNews.com blog post:
Members of Congress love to remind their constituents that they are just like us because they like beer, music and greasy food. Thankfully, the folks at Bankrupting America, a project of the organization Public Notice, have exposed the congressional myth in a new online ad titled "Inconvenient."
In a short thirty-second animated ad, consisting of nothing more than stick figures, Public Notice mocks how members of Congress have exempted themselves from the burdens of ObamaCare while pretending to be just like their constituents.
"After realizing how much the new health care law would cost them, Congress pushed for special rules protecting themselves from higher prices yet leaving average Americans without any similar help," the ad proclaims before ending with the on-air graphic "Congress: They're just like you. Unless it's inconvenient."
In fact, Congress did not exempt itself. FactCheck.org explains:
Congress isn’t “exempt” from the law. It wasn’t exempt back in 2010, when we first debunked such a claim; nor were lawmakers exempt in May when the bogus bit surfaced again. Three months later, they’re still not exempt. In fact, as we’ve said before, lawmakers and their staffs face additional requirements that other Americans don’t. And the “special subsidy” to which Pittenger refers is simply a premium contribution that his employer, the federal government, has long made to the health insurance policies of its workers.
Our readers may recall that before this provision was created, there were claims circulating that Congress was “exempt” from the law. This twisted reading of the legislation was based on the fact that originally Congress, like other Americans with work-based insurance or Americans on Medicare and Medicaid, wouldn’t be eligible for the exchanges. In other words, Congress was supposedly “exempt” when members couldn’t participate in the exchanges, and now that they are required to do so, they’re still somehow “exempt” from the law. Neither of these convoluted claims is true.
But it's good right-wing politics for Meyer to perpetuate this falsehood, so don't expect a correction anytime soon.
WND-Touted College Lecturer Says WND-Friendly Crazy Things Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily tried to make an enticing plug for a lecture in a Sept. 12 article:
Where to start on the subject of sex and politics?
“Monkey Business” and former Colorado Sen. Gary Hart?
The blue dress and Bill Clinton?
Weiner, Spitzer or Filner?
So many cases, but they mostly were men misbehaving.
On Friday, Patrick Henry College’s annual Faith and Reason Lecture will feature Stephen Baskerville, professor of government at PHC, who will talk about the sexual revolution’s impact on modern politics.
Further down in the article, though, one got the idea where Baskerville's lecture would really go, which seemed to stray far afield from the stated topic:
He noted one issue in which “draconian punishments” have been handed out – “the system of unilateral and involuntary divorce, government’s purpose-built mechanism for dismembering families, seizing control over the private lives of innocent people and their children, summarily confiscating property,and criminalizing the embodiments of the hated ‘patriarchy’: fathers.”
“Parents sucked into the divorce machinery against their will and through literally ‘no-fault’ of their own, constitute the canary in the mineshaft,” he said.
“Their criminalization by the sexual militants who run the divorce industry is the model for what will be inflicted on the rest of us when the sexual militants achieve their control over other bureaucratic gendarmeries. For the divorce machinery is the model for a whole series of new ‘gender’ crimes – many of which no one has ever heard of before and no one really understands,” he said.
And that, in fact, is pretty much where Baskerville's lecture went. Right Wing Watch listened to it so we don't have to:
A mandatory lecture given to the students of the Christian conservative Patrick Henry College on Friday offered apologies for rape, domestic violence and child abuse, and blamed American mass incarceration on feminists’ insistance on prosecuting sexual violence.
Patrick Henry professor Stephen Baskerville, a so-called “men’s rights” advocate, delivered the college’s annual “Faith and Reason” lecture, Libby Anne reported at Patheos. Baskerville started off with his thesis that feminists and Islamists are working together to push Christians out of public life, sort of like the alliance between Hitler and Stalin:
Elsewhere in the lecture, Baskerville rails against gay rights and no-fault divorce, concluding that marriage equality “can end nowhere but in prison and in death.”
Remember, Patrick Henry College is a school catering to homeschooled evangelicals, and WND editor Joseph Farah has sent at least one child there. This is the sort of thing Farah permits his children to "learn," which may explain why WND is the way it is.
When Warren Buffett proposed higher taxes on millionaires in 2011, the media gushed and fawned giving him and his views airtime as if Elvis Presley returned from the dead.
Will they be as fascinating by the Oracle of Omaha stating that ObamaCare should be scrapped?
Sheppard cited an obscure website called Money Morning that "recently" interviewed Buffett, then added:
It seems a metaphysical certitude that if Buffett in this MM interview said ObamaCare will save people a great deal of money and should be implemented exactly as is, the media would be all over it. But the Oracle of Omaha saying it should be scrapped?
Seems highly-unlikely this will get much attention outside of the conservative media.
Well, we did stay tuned, and a conservative website did take note of Buffett's statement -- but not in the way Sheppard would like.
The Washington Examiner -- recently demoted from a daily newspaper to a right-wing opinion site -- found that Buffett's remarks date from 2010, before the Affordable Care Act was approved, not anytime "recently." And a Buffett spokesperson has denied that Buffett made the statements as quoted in Morning Money.
That means yet another correction for Sheppard was in order. The top of his post now reads:
Executive editor's note: Due to an error made by a secondary source, the piece below incorrectly claimed that Warren Buffett had called for the repeal of Obamacare in 2013. The interview which was cited actually took place in 2010. We regret the error.
How much of Sheppard's reckless blogging will NewsBusters continue to tolerate?
Noel Sheppard: Will Media Portray Robber Who Wore Obama Mask As A Racist? Topic: NewsBusters
Noel Sheppard really did write this in a Sept. 11 NewsBusters post:
When a rodeo clown wore an Obama mask last month, the liberal media behaved as if he had committed a lynching.
Will they act the same way when they hear about the man that robbed a bank in New Hampshire Wednesday wearing a - wait for it! - Obama mask?
According to CBS's Boston affiliate, "[A] man wearing a President Barack Obama mask, a suit coat, tie and jeans, robbed a Bank of America Wednesday morning."
Shortly after the incident, police arrested John Griffin, 52, of Newport, N.H.
Griffin most-assuredly has to be a racist, right?
And this is likely going be covered by race-baiting so-called "news" outlets across the fruited plain?
Well, no. The robber was using an odd choice for a disguise (not that it didn't keep him from getting arrested), while the rodeo clown not only inserted politics into a nonpolitical event, he was holding Obama up for ridicule in a way that could be considered extremely demeaning and, yes, racially inflammatory. Spectators at the rodeo seemed to think so. There was also a voice over the loudspeaker at the rodeo saying, "We're going to stomp Obama now," which seems to severely undercut much of the purported humor value from the stunt.
In other words, it's another dumb blog post from Sheppard. But we're used to that.
Coming Soon To A Remainder Bin Near You: Aaron Klein's Book Topic: WorldNetDaily
Remember when WorldNetDaily editor Joseph Farah was telling Buzzfeed about how Aaron Klein's WND-published Obama-bashing pro-impeachment book had attracted such attention from booksellers that they "place[d] large orders before the public weighed in" and that the book has presold 100,000 copies? The reality is turning out to be a much different story than Farah's propaganda.
Cliff Kincaid's Favorite Dictators Topic: Accuracy in Media
Cliff Kincaid has a new favorite dictator, and it's Syria's Bashir Al-Assad, credulously quoting everything he says and insisting that President Obama is the one with the credibility problem:
In his interview with Charlie Rose, Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad said there was “not a single shred of evidence” that his regime used chemical weapons. During his Tuesday night speech to the nation, Obama offered none. As the Associated Press noted, “President Barack Obama voiced his conviction Tuesday night that Syrian President Bashar Assad was to blame for deadly chemical attacks against civilians, but again he offered no proof.”
Assad said the Obama Administration “doesn’t have” the evidence. “If they had it, they would have presented it to you as media from the first day,” he said.
Obama also said on Tuesday that “The Assad regime has now admitted that it has these weapons, and even said they’d join the Chemical Weapons Convention, which prohibits their use.” The implication was that Obama’s threats forced the Syrians to make that admission.
In fact, Syria admitted having these weapons over a year ago, and pledged not to use them in the civil war. Syria’s then-Foreign Ministry spokesman, Jihad Makdissi, told reporters, “Any stock of WMD or unconventional weapons that the Syrian Army possesses will never, never be used against the Syrian people or civilians during this crisis, under any circumstances.”
Kincaid also quotes "Former CIA officer Larry Johnson" as claiming that “My friends in the CIA are still around and they are now warning me that both the United States and the United Kingdom know that Bashar Assad is not responsible for the incident on 21 August that killed and maimed Syrian civilians." But then, Johnson also claimed he had a Michelle Obama "whitey tape."
Kincaid followed that up with a column the next day bashing Obama for purportedly arming Syrian rebel "terrorists." Gut Kincaid made no mention of his stealth dictator crush, Assad ally Vladimir Putin of Russia. And Kincaid is certainly not going to mention how horrible he used to think Putin was.
Obama Derangement Syndrome Watch, Larry Klayman Edition Topic: WorldNetDaily
On Sept. 11, 2013, a dangerous and viral strain of Muslims invaded Washington, D.C., to march and declare victory over Christians and Jews and to otherwise thumb their noses at everyone who does not believe in allah. While only 30 or so had the “courage” to actually appear on the streets of D.C., having been surrounded by a horde of “Rolling Thunder” Harley Davidson motorcycle riders, and despite the fact that the Muslims secured a permit and the motorcyclists were denied one by Barack Hussein Obama’s National Park Service, let us take a lesson from our Islamic “friends.” It is time that we Christians, Jews, people of faith and all true patriots say enough is enough and ourselves, in a very real way, “Occupy Washington” to cleanse the nation of the half-Muslim, anti-white, socialist fraud in the White House before the nation goes under for the final count.
Having done little to nothing about the growing list of “phony” Obama scandals, ranging from Benghazi-gate, to IRS-gate, to Navy SEAL Team VI-gate, to Fast and Furious-gate, to NSA-gate, to name just a few, it is clear that our elected representatives do not have the will or courage to remove the mullah-in-chief from office.
I therefore call upon all American patriots, once we obtain this conviction, which we will shortly, to converge on Washington. Millions should stand in front of the White House and other national treasures and demand that Barack Hussein Obama leave. If the Egyptians can do this with regard to another radical Muslim, former president Mohamed Morsi of the Muslim Brotherhood, then can’t we Americans do it with Obama?
And, when we do converge on and “Occupy Washington” in the millions on a date to be announced for the week before Thanksgiving, the people may think about chanting: “Mr. President (to use the term loosely), put the Quran down, get up off your knees and come out with your hands up!”
The power of the people will then be heard without firing one proverbial shot. This fraudster, who stole the presidency and has done so much harm, will finally know that his time has come to leave his perverted, Islamic concept of Mecca, our nation’s hallowed capital.
I do not advocate violence, but it is time we show Obama that we mean business. He would be well advised to ride off into his Islamic sunset, link up with 72 virgins and party on at his expense – not ours!
Just look at the judges, state and federal, who have had the chance to effectively remove Obama over his lack of eligibility to be president, as he is not a natural born citizen. From Florida, to Alabama, to Georgia, to California, lower court judges have fudged the law to squirm out of having to actually rule on not only his “phony” birth certificate but also his lack of having two American-born citizen parents as required by our Constitution.
If Klayman were a more competent lawyer (which he isn't), he would know that the Constitution at no point defines the meaning of the "natural born citizen" requirement for the presidency. Thus, he cannot say that having "two American-born citizen parents" is a requirement.
Tim Graham's LGBT Freakout Du Jour Topic: NewsBusters
Freaking about about gays and transgenders is what the Media Research Center does. And few MRC employees do that better than Tim Graham.
In a Sept. 13 NewsBusters post, Graham complains about an upcoming TV series about a transgendered teen: "Unsurprisingly in today’s era of LGBT propaganda on television, the star of the show 'may be the most well-adjusted' character on the show."
The next day, Graham whined about a New York art exhibit on "A Queer History of Fashion" and how it got money from the state: "Here’s more government-subsidized liberalism, for the museum of the Fashion Institute of Technology."
You might remember that the MRC played this same gambit about a gay-themed art exhibit at the Smithsonian, complaining that tax money went toward it when they were really complaining that gays were the subject of an art exhibit in the first place.
In Newark, Del., Monday night, police dispersed more than 3,000 rowdy teenagers who were just blowing off some steam at a “Shmacked Tour” party event.
Everyone was white. There might have been a few Asians here and there. But white was the color of this crime.
But the point of Flaherty's article is to mock his critics for his race-baiting obsession:
News of the white riot should provide some comfort to pundits at MSNBC and other liberal outlets. They insist that WND’s coverage of black mob violence – also documented in “White Girl Bleed a Lot: The return of racial violence to America and how the media ignore it” – is distorted because the news site and book ignore racial violence from white people.
Even the most devoted denier of black mob violence has to admit white mob mayhem is harder to find. Even so, contrasted with many of the more than 500 examples of black mob violence in WND and White Girl Bleed a Lot, this “riot” is something of a disappointment:
No fractured skulls.
No Apple picking.
No panicked calls to 911.
No bricks through storefronts.
No bottles thrown at cops.
No kick downs.
No bloody faces.
No broken jaws.
No one in the hospital.
No locks in socks.
No permanent brain damage.
No racist threats.
No beating old people.
No kicking pregnant women.
No baseball bats in the face.
No pushing people into moving cars on a busy street.
No toddler taunting.
Just one measly car fire. And a couple of people jumped on cars.
There was some public urination. And a few guys dropped their drawers, displaying their tighty whities. Other than that, a few parents wondered what videos of their children acting stupidly were doing up on the Internet.
You call that a riot?
Flaherty clearly ignores riots when his agenda warrants. Otherwise, he would've told us about an incident in Huntington, Beach, Calif., earlier this year when a crowd at a surfing competition went wild. Much of the crowd appeared to be white.
Flaherty has a more dishonest take on bashing his critics in a Sept. 14 WND op-ed:
Two things caused me to write about black mob violence: One, I saw a ton of black mob violence and black-on-white crime happening all over the country. When Thomas Sowell wrote about “White Girl Bleed a Lot,” he said the problem was far worse than what he thought.
That was a year ago. Today, I know the problem is far worse than I thought it was when The Great Doctor Sowell wrote that column.
The second thing that caused me to write the book and articles is even crazier than the black mob violence. It is the people who ignore, condone, excuse and even deny it is happening. The deniers are the truly crazy ones.
Once I started paying attention, I noticed black mob violence was happening all over the country in cities big and small – in places where you might expect it, like Baltimore and Philadelphia and Washington, D.C. But also places like Minneapolis, Indianapolis, Seattle, Portland, Greensboro, Peoria.
Places that if you did not live there, you would never know or even suspect it was happening. And even lots of people who live in these places did not know because their local media did not tell them.
Multiply that episode and denial by 500 – many on video – and that is what “White Girl Bleed a Lot” is about, and why so many deniers are receiving books as Christmas presents.
Of course, if "black mob violence" is all you're looking for, that's all you're gonna find, even if you have to goose the numbers by including dogs and white people.
But the really dishonest thing Flaherty has done is promote his body count without any context. Over what period of time did those 500 incidents take place? What relation do they have to overall crime rates? Flaherty never says.
That's why people see Flaherty's obsession for what it is -- race-baiting, pure and simple. And that's another reason why nobody believes WND.