Newsmax's Editorial Content Promotes An Advertiser Topic: Newsmax
Newsmax is pulling out all the stops to promote the new film "Son of God" -- and it couldn't possibly have nothing to do with the fact that the film is being advertised on Newsmax.
A Feb. 26 article by Melissa Clyne carries the hyperbolic headline "'Son of God' Set to Blow Away Box Office Projections."
Newsmax has also posted a Feb. 26 Reuters article featuring Anti-Defamation League National Director Abraham Foxman claiming that "Son of God" will be "the antidote to the poison that 'Passion of the Christ' became" due to claims of anti-Semitism and excessive violence.
Note the sponsor line "See the Son of God and Watch the Story of Jesus Come to Life in Theaters" at the top of both of those articles. The producers of "Son of God" has apparently bought that strip, which appears at the top of all Newsmax articles -- the link goes to a website promoting the film.
Whether it may or may not actually be the case, Newsmax has created the appearance that it has adjusted its news content to be complementary to its advertising.
Things You Won't Read At WND, Patrick Henry College Edition Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily is a good buddy of evangelical Christian, homeschooler-friendly Patrick Henry College -- it has served as aPRagent for the school, at least one child of WND editor Joseph Farah has attended the school, and founder Michael Farris always gets good press for his homeschooling activism.
Which is why you are extremely unlikely to read this story at WND, reported by the New Republic, of PHC's callous attitude toward female students who have been sexually assaulted:
Researchers estimate that one in five American women is sexually assaulted in college, and Patrick Henry College’s unique campus culture has not insulated the school from sexual violence. In fact, it puts female students, like Claire Spear, in a particular bind: How do you report sexual assault at a place where authorities seem skeptical that such a thing even exists?
[...]
When Claire told Dean Corbitt what had happened in John’s car that night, she says, “it felt like I was just talking to a brick wall.” The administration “basically told me that they couldn’t do anything because none of the details of my story could be proven.” It seemed to her that the school was far more concerned about her underage drinking than it was about an allegation of sexual assault. Corbitt forced Claire to call her mother to tell her she was in trouble for alcohol—and told Claire to be careful because she had put herself on the dean’s “radar.” Claire says PHC administrators never mentioned the possibility of involving the police. The administration was supposed to be a second parent, Claire says, but “they didn’t take me seriously.”
[...]
Claire was not the first female student to leave PHC disillusioned with the administration she had trusted to protect her. Other female students who say they reported sexual assault or harassment to the administration also left feeling that school officials blamed them instead of holding the accused male students accountable. The administration, they say, seemed much more concerned with protecting Patrick Henry’s pristine public image.
PHC officials denied the claims made in the article (though those same officials mostly refused to talk to the New Republic for the article), and Farris posted a response on his personal Facebook page (later deleted) in which he claimed there was "reliable evidence" that the reported sexual behavior was "consensual," that he is not a part of the Quiverfull movement (despite having 10 children), and that he has no role inoperating PHC despite the fact he's the school's founder and chancellor.
If WND bothers to report on this at all, it will be from the perspective of Farris and PHC defending itself against scurrilous accusations, and it certainly won't consider the possibility that the former students' stories are true.
Bozell vs. CPAC, Round 3 Topic: Media Research Center
It's that time of year again -- when Brent Bozell picks a fight with CPAC.
This year, Bozell has thrown such a fit at the idea that an atheist group was invited to have a booth at CPAC that he spread his displeasure acrossthe MRCempire:
“The invitation extended by the ACU, Al Cardenas and CPAC to American Atheists to have a booth is more than an attack on conservative principles. It is an attack on God Himself.
“American Atheists is an organization devoted to the hatred of God. How on earth could CPAC, or the ACU and its board of directors, and Al Cardenas condone such an atrocity?
“It makes absolutely no difference to me that CPAC and ACU have backed down and removed the booth. I am sick and tired of these games.
“I will continue to denounce CPAC, ACU and Cardenas. No conservative should have anything to do with this conference. If you do, you are giving oxygen to an organization destroying the conservative movement.”
A couple points here:
What does Bozell's ideological spat have to do with the MRC's declared mission of hunting out media bias?
We thought Bozell didn't believe in censorship -- he has repeatedlyaccusedthemedia of "censorship" for allegedly ignoring things that conformed to his right-wing agenda. Yet here he is, acting as a censor for CPAC. Hypocrisy much?
This is just the latest shenanigan Bozell has engaged in with CPAC:
In 2011, he and the MRC refused to take part in CPAC "because of the continued participation of the homosexual activist organization GOProud." He never bothered to announce this on his own network of websites, though -- he let WorldNetDaily have the scoop.
In 2012, he petulantly withdrew the MRC from CPAC because he wasn't granted a suficiently prominent speaking slot.
Bozell's tantrum paid off because he got his desired speaking slot the following year, which he used to expand his Heathering to the entire Republican Party.
As long as Bozell continues to use the MRC as a cudgel to advance his personal political agenda instead of a tool to help Republicans, this war will continue for some time to come.
WND Sets Up Harvard Student To Be Mocked For Her Looks Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily is apparently not afraid to mock a woman's looks, especially when it doesn't agree with what she has to say.
A Feb. 25 WND article by Joe Kovacs takes umbrage with Sandra Korn, a Harvard University student who wrote a column for the school newspaper arguing that the school not support research that runs counter to goals of "oppos[ing] racism, sexism, and heterosexism."
In a email promotion for the article, WND called Korn a "Harvard 'beauty'" -- with "beauty" in scare quotes -- and a "Harvard newspaper gal."
That's definitely denigrating language; we suspect that nobody at WND would call, say, Chelsea Schilling a "website gal."
Now that readers have been set up to ridicule Korn's looks, the article itself delivers with a large picture of Korn placed between the headline and the article:
Apparently, as far as WND is concerned, being a non-conservative is the same thing as being unattractive. Not exactly an enlightened view of women, is it?
Kovacs goes on to mislead readers about Korn's column, falsely claiming that she "insists Harvard stop guaranteeing students and professors the right to hold controversial views and conduct research putting liberalism in a negative light." In fact, the only time the word "liberal" appears in her column is when she's criticizing "the liberal obsession with 'academic freedom.'"
The rest of Kovacs' article is just dutiful stenography of Rush Limbaugh's musings on the subject, which appears to be his main job at WND.
MRC Is Still Portraying 'Philomena' As 'Anti-Catholic' Topic: Media Research Center
Scott Whitlock uses a Feb. 20 Media Research Center item to assert that the film "Philomena" is "anti-Catholic," with "harsh anti-Catholic plot points." He then comlains that the film "includes a scene where actor/writer Steve Coogan denounces the 'fucking Catholics.'"
As we pointed out when others at the MRC attacked the film, the woman whose real-life story served as a basis for the film has praised it, calling the film "a testament to good things, not an attack" and pointing out that "despite some of the troubles that befell me as a young girl, I have always maintained a very strong hold on my faith."
That's right -- the woman whose story the film is based on doesn't think the film is anti-Catholic. How can Whitlock claim that it is? Perhaps because he's being paid to do so; after all, he's just parroting the attacks of his boss, Brent Bozell.
Bozell and the MRC adhere to a strictly conservative interpretation of Catholicism that goes after critics and hides the fact that Bozell is on the board of two conservative Catholic groups.
WND's Loudon Whitewashes Limbaugh's Denigration of Sandra Fluke Topic: WorldNetDaily
Gina Loudon does a fine job of soft-pedaling Rush Limbaugh's three-day misognistic tirade against Sandra Fluke in a Feb. 22 WorldNetDaily article:
When talk radio king Rush Limbaugh commented on Sandra Fluke’s desire to have free birth control, many thought the days were numbered for the conservative icon, and his medium, talk radio.
Of course, Limbaugh did a lot more than "comment" on Fluke -- he hurled every disgusting insult at her he could think of.
And Loudon is lying when she claims that Fluke talked of her "desire to have free birth control." She did not discuss her personal life at all; according to NPR, she offered "a rousing lawyer-like defense of why failing to cover contraceptives is unfair to women."
But the article isn't about Fluke -- it's about how "Limbaugh remains the king of the hill in talk radio" and conservative opinion is growing. Since this is a right-wing fluff piece, Loudon won't tell you exactly how disgusting and denigrating Lmbaugh's "comments" about Fluke were.
CNS' Jeffrey Keeps Up His Electricity Freakout, Still Ignores Efficiency Topic: CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com editor in chief Terry Jeffrey is still freaking out about decreased electricity production in a Feb. 21 article:
Historically, in the United States, rising electricity prices have not been inevitable. In the first decades after World War II, the U.S. rapidly increased it electricity production, including on a per capita basis. Since 2007, the U.S. has decreased its electricity production, including on a per capita basis.
[...]
Over the last seven years, according to the EIA, the U.S. has actually decreased its total net electricity generation, although not in an unbroken downward line from year to year (generation did increase from 2009 to 2010 before going down again in 2011 and 2012).
The EIA has published historical data going back to 1949 on the nation’s annual total net electricity generation, which EIA measures in million kilowatthours.
In 1949, according to EIA, the U.S. produced 296,124.289 million KWH of electricity. By 1959, it produced 713,378.831—an increase of 417,254.542 million KWH or about 141 percent.
In 1969, the U.S. produced 1,445,458.056 million KWH—an increase of 732,079.225 or about 103 percent from 1959.
In 1979, the U.S. produced 2,250,665.025 million KWH—an increase of 805,206.969 or about 55.7 percent from 1969.
In 1989, the U.S. produced 2,967,146.087 million KWH—an increase of 716,481.062 or about 31.8 percent from 1979.
In 1999, the U.S. produced 3,694,809.810 million KWH—an increase of 727,663.723 or about 24.5 percent from 1989.
In 2009, the U.S. produced 3,950,330.927 million KWH--an increase of 255,521.117 or about 6.9 percent.
In 2007, according to EIA, the U.S. generated a net total of 4,156,744.724 million KWH of electricity, which, so far, is the historical peak. In 2012, the last year for which full data is available, the U.S. generated a net total of 4,047,765.26 million KWH. That represents a drop of 108,979.464 million KWH--or about 2.6 percent--in the nation’s electricity production since 2007.
As before, Jeffrey fails to acknowledge the primary reason why electricity production has dropped: Increased efficiency of appliances and electronics.
Instead, Jeffrey tries to blame the decline on "a decrease in the electricity produced by coal—which has not been replaced by a commensurate increase in the electricity produced by natural gas or the “renewable” sources of wind and solar" -- again, without acknowledging the fact that less demand for electricity has allowed for that reduction.
When “Amish Mafia” debuted on Dec. 12, 2012, the show following a group of Amish men who deal with wrongdoings and misdeeds in their community scored the highest ratings among men for any Discovery Channel launch in the network’s history, attracting more than 3 million viewers.
As the show enters its third season Tuesday night at 9 p.m., it ranks as the network’s third highest-rated program – consistently attracting 2.5 million viewers.
For one cast member, the show is more than a job and a paycheck. It’s a way of fostering understanding about his community among what he calls “the English” and also leveraging the show’s popularity to get the Amish more politically active nationally.
Merlin Miller has ventured to Washington in his traditional dress to meet with members of Congress and his unofficial “political adviser” – none other than WND’s founder, editor and chief executive officer, Joseph Farah, who will make an appearance in a future episode of the show this season.
“The reason I like being a part of the TV show is not to only show America how the Amish are, but to show that there are people, like me, who want to bring change to the Amish community,” Miller told WND-TV in a recent in-studio visit in which the producers also recorded an exchange between Miller and Farah.
That's right -- apparently, the only people WND can appeal to these days are people who don't have electricity and, thus, could not have done much reading of WND before selecting Farah as their "political adviser."
This means that the folks who are taking advice from Farah don't know about his history of deceit, from the nakedly partisan motivations of his birther crusade to the lies he publishes on a depressingly regular basis.
How can such a man serve as a "political adviser" to anyone and not lead them astray?
It cannot possibly end well -- which is par for the course for Farah, but would be a tragedy for the Amish.
At NewsBusters, Discriminating Against Gays Is 'Religious Freedom' Topic: NewsBusters
The boys at NewsBusters sure have a funny definition of freedom -- it involves denying others freedom. They'll support the proposed Arizona bill that would allow businesses to discriminate against gay people.
Ken Shepherd rants in a Feb. 21 post that it's inaccurate to portray the law as Jim Crow-style discrimination because Jim Crow was forced and this is merely voluntary:
The Daily Beast is at it again, portraying attempts by state legislators to protect religious freedom in the workplace as enshring "discrimination" at best and mimicking "Jim Crow" at worst.
[...]
And lastly, comparisons to Jim Crow are needlessly inflammatory and insulting to real victims of Jim Crow repression and violence. What's more, Jim Crow laws FORCED businesses -- and in some cases religious institutions -- to discriminate against patrons -- or, in the case of churches, worshiper -- whether or not the business owner wanted to discriminate or not.
In the Jim Crow South, a free market remedy to discrimination was impossible thanks to government requiring all business owners of all races to discriminate and/or segregate in some manner. By contrast, laws being considered in Kansas and Arizona would leave plenty of room for competitors to open their doors wides to all comers and pick up the business both of gay persons and straight individuals who would rather not patronize a business which refuses to work with gays and lesbians.
Again, there's a reasonable debate to be had about whether such a free-market remedy is "enough" to address the real or perceived injustice of the matter, but the fact remains that Jim Crow FORCED discrimination whereas laws being considered in statehouses in 2014 are about allowing business owners to make business decisions which obviously threaten their bottom line while adhering to their religious scruples.
You gotta love how Shepherd frames anti-gay discrimination as a "free-market remedy."
In a Feb. 23 post, Jeffrey Meyer criticized network newscasts for allegedly framing their stories on the proposed law "against the religious freedom argument," adding, "ABC and NBC seem perfectly content arguing on behalf of the bill’s opponents and jumped on the left’s “outrage” and “controversial” nature of the bill rather than adequately include the religious freedom side of the debate."
In a Feb. 24 post, Paul Bremmer also called the bill a "religious freedom bill" and got huffy because somebody on MSNBC called it discrimination when a real conservative "would have argued for the need to protect freedom of conscience for business owners with certain religious beliefs, even if, perhaps, questioning whether this law was the best mechanism for doing so."
Bremmer then took umbrage at MSNBC cutting away from that discussion to a Q&A with Michael Sam, a prospective NFL player who recently came out as gay: "It was another sign of an obsession with homosexuality from a network that doesn’t usually cover sports, much less the NFL combine."
WND's Flaherty Falsely Attacks Google's Motive For Not Supporting His Race-Baiting Topic: WorldNetDaily
Colin Flaherty gets his facts wrong at the very beginning of his Feb. 19 WorldNetDaily column:
Google doesn’t like stories about black mob violence. So it recently decided to stop sending its ads to accompany the WND stories about this largely secretive topic.
Actually, Google has determined what Flaherty refused to admit: His obssesion with "black mobs" has a lot more to do with race than it does with concern about crime, and it doesn't want to be involved in such a race-baiting endeavor.
Then, as if to prove how race-obsessed he is, Flaherty offers "a few suggestions to help Google in its quest for racial cleansing":
First, Google should block the results for anyone who enters the term “black mob violence” into its ubiquitous search engine.
There are lots of other phrases to block too: I use them in Google News Alerts to get a heads up on new episodes of racial mayhem.
Here’s a partial list of the phrases I follow like bread crumbs: Unruly teens, rambunctious teenagers, roving bands of youth, random attack, assault with no pattern, violence for no reason, large groups of people fighting, mob violence, bash mob, flash mob, black beach week, black expo, caught on camera, critical race theory, looting, Memorial Day assault, fireworks fight, teen violence, white privilege, and many, many more.
But by far, the most reliable indicator of racial violence comes from Google News Alerts about any story containing the phrase “large fight.”
Better block it.
There’s a lot of racial violence out there. So Google has a lot of work to do. I don’t like its chances.
There are too many videos, too many witnesses, too many victims, too many stories, too many people tired of being prisoner to this untruth to allow the epidemic of black mob violence to stay a secret any more.
Whether Google likes it. Or not.
Never mind that Flaherty has never proven an "epidemic of black mob violence" beyond his cherry-picked anecdotes taken out of context of the entirety of crime in the U.S. And never mind that Flaherty, not Google, is the one who's very concerned about "racial cleansing."
Flaherty is not the only WND writer to opine on the Google-WND battle, despite the fact that it has been solved by WND capitulating to Google and, in essence, admitting the race-baiting nature of Flaherty's reporting. A Feb. 21column by Willie Shields takes the same approach of falsely portraying Google's objections to Flaherty's race-baiting:
The smartest people in the world work at Google.
So if Google had a problem with the way WND and Colin Flaherty write about black mob violence, it should have taken one of its brainiacs about half a second to show they are wrong.
But they can’t. Because WND and Flaherty are not.
Instead Google is trying to inhibit these stories from being published by banning Google ads from them.
Nothing is keeping WND from publishing Flaherty's race-baiting -- Google has chosen not to be a part of it, and as we've noted, there are plenty of other ad delivery services that don't have a problem with race-baiting.
Shields is described as "a writer and radio talk show host in Wilmington, Del." Unmentioned by WND: Shields has been a guest on Flaherty's radio show, and Flaherty has cited Shields in a column at the right-wing American Thinker. So he's hardly an impartial observer.
MRC Still Half-Assedly Giving Graham Credit For Bozell's Columns Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center still can't get proper credit for Tim Graham right.
Since Graham was revealed as the ghostwriter of the syndicated columns of his boss, Brent Bozell, the MRC has been struggling to get its act together to properly credit Graham for his work. It still can't.
Bozell's Feb. 21 column gets a Graham credit at NewsBusters but not at CNSNews.com. At the main MRC website, Bozell's Feb. 18 column gets a Graham credit, but the slot it occupies on the website is still designated ror "Brent Bozell Columns," and earlier columns have not gotten a Graham credit.
It's not that difficult, guys. Why are you continuing to screw Graham out of his proper due?
Barack Obama is killing off freedom and liberty by signing one executive order after another without congressional approval. He routinely bypasses Congress and takes matters into his own collectivist hands, targeting our constitutional rights like a sniper targets its victim. Liberty and freedom is in Obama’s cross-hairs, and with the end of his second term approaching, he’s taking as much of our lawful privileges with him as possible, notwithstanding tightening his noose around our necks even more through unconstitutional actions and stifling regulations.
Last I checked, America is a free society and the rule of law aptly applies.
Because simply recovering from surgery that involved my hand, wrist and thumb, didn’t strike me as being all that challenging, I decided to add a case of the flu. And because even that didn’t seem to be daunting enough, I decided to throw caution to the wind and watch Obama’s State of the Union Address. Predictably, that just about did me in.
Much has been made of the supposed technology savvy of our Imperious Leader, Barack Hussein Obama, the man who famously refused to give up his beloved BlackBerry – effectively introducing an additional security liability to the office of president of the United States and necessitating the creation of a specially secured phone for His Majesty. At the time, Obama’s devotion to technology was cause for his media sycophants to laud his modernity. “Look, how adorable,” the pundits reported. “He’s so much less old-fashioned than the unhip white men who came before him.”
[...]
The constant social media reminders of the Obama’s superiority to you little people, Obama’s incessant hectoring in all media outlets whenever he wishes to harangue the American people into complying with his whims, the president’s blithe pronouncements online and in every media outlet that he will act without Congress and that he can do whatever he wants – these technologically pervasive cultural messages have a unified purpose. They exist to beat Americans into compliance with the notion that liberal opinion must never be questioned, and that to do so is to engage in marginal politics outside the “mainstream.” The never-ending onslaught of progressive brainwashing in almost all news and popular entertainment inoculates dictators like Glorious Leader Obama from the consequences for their tyranny.
That is why all major news outlets ignore Obama’s abuses of power. That is why they treat his many arrogant declarations as “jokes” or even “gaffes.” That is why the smoking gun in the IRS political-targeting scandal has not been front-page, prime-time news day after day since news of these impeachable offenses first came to light. Obama does whatever he wants – and nobody cares, because our televisions and our computers are forever telling us not to.
So intertwined is the socialist progressivism and evolution atheism of Obama with the neo-Leninism and Machiavellianism of Alinsky that it is impossible to separate the two either in theory and practice or in public policy and law, so much so that when Obama looks into a mirror the only reflection he sees is that of the nihilist radical Saul Alinsky.
The case for impeaching and removing President Obama grows stronger each week, as the president continues to violate the constitutional limits on his executive powers. His latest move in delaying the enforcement of yet another part of Obamacare should be article 20 in a bill of indictable offenses against the Constitution.
To this day, like-minded people keep sending me emails questioning Obama’s religion and his birthplace. Inasmuch as I have already declared that the only portion of the Constitution to which I object is its prohibition of the foreign-born to be president, I personally don’t really care about his background. Knowing he was a product of Chicago politics was more than enough for me. If the worst thing about Obama is that he’s an Arab, a Muslim or was born in Kenya, we’d all be a lot better off. Better an ex-Kenyan than an ex-community organizer. After all, nobody questions the religion or birthplace of Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Charles Schumer, Maxine Waters or Dick Durbin. The problem with them and with Obama is that they are devout left-wingers, which makes them all fascists at heart.
I’ve also detailed the similarities between the respective political rises to power of Barack Obama and Mohamed Morsi. This becomes particularly chilling when one considers the damage that continues to be done in Egypt by the Muslim Brotherhood since Morsi was driven from office. Considering the laxity of our federal law enforcement with regard to Islamists within our borders, the insinuation of Muslim Brotherhood operatives into our government and the known presence of foreign jihadis in America, could it be that the president has clandestinely created jihadi cells across country in order to “have his back” in the event that a move is made to remove him?
MRC Equivocates Away Ted Nugent's Attack on Obama Topic: Media Research Center
As we learned with Rush Limbaugh, if the Media Research Center ever concedes that something a prominent conservative says is offensive, it will do so only invoking supposedly similar statements by liberals.
And so it goes with Ted Nugent's sliming of President Obama as a "subhuman mongrel."
In a Feb. 18 NewsBusters post, Matt Hadro happily parroted Newt Gingrich's claim of "selective outrage" over Nugent, citing Bill Maher as an example. Yet Hadro is engaging in his own selective outrage since neither he nor any other MRC employee could be moved to mention Nugent's sliming of Obama before this.
Tim Graham made his equivocation clear in a Feb. 19 Newsbusters post: "NY Times Devotes Story to Texas Candidate Embracing Ted Nugent, Barely Noticed Obama Embracing Spike Lee." Graham has to go back to 2005 to find something offensive by Lee, despite the fact that this was seven years to before Obama "embraced" Lee. By contrast, Nugent's "subhuman mongrel" remark came a month before Texas gubernatorial candidate Greg Abbott invited Nugent to campaign with him.
Unlike Hadro and Graham (and unlike any MRC employee regarding Limbaugh's three-day tirade of misogyny against Sandra Fluke), Scott Whitlock does use a Feb. 20 MRC item to state that Nugent's remarks "both offensive and disrespectful." But like his colleagues , Whitlock equivocates anyway, using MSNBC host Chris Matthews' statement on Nugent that "you are known by the company you keep" to bring up old statements by other MSNBC hosts:
However, Matthews's "company" includes former colleague and frequent guest Martin Bashir. Bashir famously advocated for someone to defecate on Palin.
Ed Schultz trashed Laura Ingraham as a "slut." On February 18, the similarly tone deaf host complained about conservative vulgarities.
Matthews, Schultz and all the coarse hosts of MSNBC are hardly in a position to judge the company of conservatives. They are the very definition of not practicing what you preach.
And, of course, neither is Whitlock. His co-workers include Brent Bozell, who has committed all manner of offenses, not the least of which is calling Obama a "skinny ghetto crackhead": and Matt Philbin, who enthusiastically joined in Limbaugh's sliming of Fluke by calling her a "horizontal laborer" and a "Lincoln Tunnel Hitcher" and viciously insulted his critics.
WND's Garth Kant Finds Another Congressman To Slobber Over Topic: WorldNetDaily
Steve Stockman, it appears, is not the only congressman for which WorldNetDaily's Garth Kant is willing to serve as a public-relations agent.
A Feb. 20 WND article by Kant is full of fawning over Sen. Mike Lee, starting with a headline calling Lee a "1-man think tank":
Lee is one of the Three Musketeers of the new conservative movement in Washington, along with Sens. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and Rand Paul, R-Ky.
If Cruz and Paul are the faces of the new conservatives, particularly after each conducted memorable filibusters last year, Lee may be the behind-the-scenes architect who is particularly active away from the cameras, trying to spark a Reagan revolution for our times and a flowering of new creative energy in the GOP.
He might be called the GOP’s renaissance man because he so obviously relishes ideas on an impressive variety of issues, and is constantly working to come up with innovative and new conservative solutions for modern times.
That’s why he is promoting his own conservative reform agenda that he outlined in a major speech (posted on his website) as well as a conservative solution for poverty.
Needless to say, Kant doesn't challenge anything Lee says, nor does he even bother to talk to anyone else about him.
Kant better hurry and do another puff piece on Steve Stockman, lest he start to feel a little jealous of having to share Kant's adulation.
CNS' Jeffrey Undermines His Argument Against Raising Minimum Wage Topic: CNSNews.com
Terry Jeffrey writes in a Feb. 17 CNSNews.com article:
Sixty-four percent of Americans who earned the minimum wage or less in 2013 were 29 years old or younger, according to new data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and 63 percent worked in restaurants, bars or retail.
People 30 years or older equaled only about 36 percent of those who earned the minimum wage or less in 2013--and only 0.8 percent of the people employed in the United States.
[...]
Of the 75,948,000 who were paid an hourly wage in 2013, 3,300,000 earned at or below the minimum wage.
That means only about 4.4 percent (3,300,000) of hourly wage earners (75,948,000) earned the minimum wage or less in 2013--or only about 2.3 percent (3,300,000) of all U.S. employees (143,929,000).
Jeffrey thus takes the latest line of attack peddled by other minimum-wage-raise opponents like Fox News -- so few people minimum wage, so there's no need to raise it.
But as Media Matters' Eric Boehlert points out, that argument shoots down the normal conservative opposition to raising the minimum wage: "Because if hardly anyone makes minimum wage, than why the movement-wide opposition to changing it? If so few people earn minimum wage, why demagogue the issue and stand in the way of an increase?"
WorldNetDaily is a good buddy of evangelical Christian, homeschooler-friendly Patrick Henry College -- it has served 
It's that time of year again -- when Brent Bozell picks a fight with CPAC.
Scott Whitlock uses a Feb. 20 Media Research Center 
Gina Loudon does a fine job of soft-pedaling Rush Limbaugh's three-day misognistic tirade against Sandra Fluke in a Feb. 22 WorldNetDaily 
CNSNews.com editor in chief Terry Jeffrey is still freaking out about decreased electricity production in a Feb. 21 
WorldNetDaily is way excited about 
The boys at NewsBusters sure have a funny definition of freedom -- it involves denying others freedom. They'll support the proposed Arizona bill that would allow businesses to discriminate against gay people.
Colin Flaherty gets his facts wrong at the very beginning of his Feb. 19 WorldNetDaily 
The Media Research Center still can't get proper credit for Tim Graham right.
Barack Obama is killing off freedom and liberty by signing one executive order after another without congressional approval. He routinely bypasses Congress and takes matters into his own collectivist hands, targeting our constitutional rights like a sniper targets its victim. Liberty and freedom is in Obama’s cross-hairs, and with the end of his second term approaching, he’s taking as much of our lawful privileges with him as possible, notwithstanding tightening his noose around our necks even more through unconstitutional actions and stifling regulations.
As we learned with 
Steve Stockman
