Melinda Gates is the ideal philanthropist in the eyes of the liberals at Time magazine – after all, she and her husband Bill Gates became Time’s Persons of the Year...about the same time they gave Time money for a health summit. Anyhow, Melinda was recently honored with the “Ten Questions” interview with Belinda Luscombe in Time’s December 1 and 8 issue.
They promoted “The philanthropist on the importance of contraceptives, her daughters and her growing optimism.” The contraceptive talk turned to....vagina mints? Then Mrs. Gates lied to (or at best, misled) Time about her foundation's support for abortion advocates.
How so? Gates said that her foundation "only funds contraceptives. We do not do the abortion piece." Graham's evidence:
That’s simply not true. While they declared this June that they would no longer fund abortion advocacy, Josh Craddock at Live Action News noted the Gates Foundation is a major funder of Planned Parenthood and other international abortion advocates -- to the tune of about $117 million over the last five years. The Gates Foundation explicitly states it's funding "Global Policy & Advocacy."
Actually, Graham appears to be the liar. Funding Planned Parenthood does not equal "funding abortion" -- after all, only 13 percent of its revenue comes from abortion.
The source for Graham's baseless accusation, Live Action, is notorious for its deceptive entrapment videos designed to smear Planned Parenthood, and Live action founder Lila Rose has repeatedly stated her intent to destroy the group. So it's hardly an objective source of information.
Beyond citing the highly biased and dubious extremist group Live Action, Graham provides no evidence whatsoever that any Gates money is funding abortion "advocacy," let alone actual abortions.
Don't expect Graham to apologize for his false accusation -- as long as he can link Gates with abortion, however fraudulently, that's good enough for him.
NEW ARTICLE: Aaron Klein's Benghazi Fiasco Topic: WorldNetDaily
The WorldNetDaily reporter capped a rough year by trying to ride the right-wing Benghazi bandwagon with his new book. Even the Republican-led House committee looking into the attack shot down his claims. Read more >>
NewsBusters Complains GOP Staff Is Being Held Accountable For Her Words Topic: NewsBusters
Melissa Mullins whines in a Nov. 30 NewsBusters post:
This past Thanksgiving weekend, with all the stories going on in the country today, one seems to have topped the list: an unknown GOP staffer decided to voice her negative opinion about the Obama daughters after they were pictured during the White House turkey pardon ceremony…on her Facebook page. Yep. That’s the story.
You could imagine the backlash Lauten got from the online world – and a few “reputable” news organizations. (Start with The Huffington Post.) Apparently, there are even Malia and Sasha partisans that were calling for Lauten to be fired from her job. Really? What if we were to go around inspecting every Democratic communications director for whichever Democrat they work for – are their personal Facebook posts fair game too?
Well, actually, if Mullins had checked the NewsBusters archive, you'd find that it does, in fact, highlight the content of people's and organzations' Facebook pages. And Mullins might want to check her own writing as well: A Nov. 25 post by her highlights a comment Fox News' Geraldo Rivera made on his Facebook page.
So let's not pretend that a publicly accessible Facebook feed is suddenly off limits because the person writing it is a Republcan.
Mullins then lamely tries to equivocate by invoking criticism of the children of Republican presidents:
For those who insist presidential or vice presidential children (or those of potential candidates) are off limits and should oblige by those wishes – does that mean it’s still ok to give them a free pass when they are older or being trotted out for show and tell to help with a candidacy?
In addition to what the Bush twins endured when it came to criticism from the media, who can forget the Palin kids (here, here, here, and here…just to name a few)? Of course, both parties have had their share of mudslinging when it comes to criticizing children of politicians, but more often than not it’s those with an “R” after their name (or like this post proves – any association with the Republican Party) that are often forced into publicly apologizing.
Mullins omits the critical difference that when the Bush twins "endured ... criticism from the media," they were over 18, and one of the things they were criticized for was engaging in criminal behavior -- namely, Jenna Bush attempted to use a fake ID to buy a drink at a bar. By contrast, the Obama daughters -- age 13 and 15 -- did little more than act like bored teenagers, which last we checked isn't criminal behavior.
Mullins also referenced criticism aimed at Chelsea Clinton, but she ignored the most vile example: Rush Limbaugh calling a teenaged Chelsea the White House dog. Not only did NewsBusters not criticize it, the late Noel Sheppard tried to pretend it didn't really happen. As we noted at the time, Sheppard was engaging in lame misdirection when he should have been demanding that Limbaugh release the video of the segment from his 1990s TV show so we can judge for ourselves.
It seems Mullins' real anger is that a Republican was being held accountable for what she wrote.
WND's Farah Pushes Right-Wing Fantasy About Thanksgiving Topic: WorldNetDaily
Joseph Farah dedicated his Nov. 26 WorldNetDaily column to pushing the idea that the Pilgrims originally failed because they were socialists:
Before leaving Europe the Pilgrims entered into a contract, dated July 1, 1620, that would have all profits of their “trade, traffic, trucking, working, fishing, or any other means of any person or persons, remain in the common stock until division.”
In other words, the settlement at Plymouth Bay was the first New World experiment in communism – long before Karl Marx supposedly invented it.
To say that social experiment was a total failure would be an understatement. The first winter spelled death and disease and hunger for the colony because the Pilgrims had arrived too late in the season to plant crops and build adequate shelters. Half of them died. The following spring, however, they planted and hunted and fished to get by – just barely. They did invite some of the friendly Indians to join them in their first “Thanksgiving” celebration. But they were not thanking the Indians. They were thanking God for pulling them through.
As William Bradford wrote in his journal: “And thus they found the Lord to be with them in all their ways, and to bless their outgoings and incomings, for which let His holy name have the praise forever, to all posterity.”
Nevertheless, Bradford remained troubled by the colony’s inability to prosper. He found the answer by studying the Bible and revisiting the notion of private property and incentivized hard work.
In other words, the introduction of the idea of private property saved the Pilgrims and made their experiment successful.
To coin a phrase, that’s how “the Pilgrims progressed.”
As can be expected from an inveterate liar like Farah, this is a load of hooey. The New York Times talked to actual historians to get the facts:
Historians say that the settlers in Plymouth, and their supporters in England, did indeed agree to hold their property in common — William Bradford, the governor, referred to it in his writings as the “common course.” But the plan was in the interest of realizing a profit sooner, and was only intended for the short term; historians say the Pilgrims were more like shareholders in an early corporation than subjects of socialism.
“It was directed ultimately to private profit,” said Richard Pickering, a historian of early America and the deputy director of Plimoth Plantation, a museum devoted to keeping the Pilgrims’ story alive.
The arrangement did not produce famine. If it had, Bradford would not have declared the three days of sport and feasting in 1621 that became known as the first Thanksgiving. “The celebration would never have happened if the harvest was going to be less than enough to get them by,” Mr. Pickering said. “They would have saved it and rationed it to get by.”
Bradford did get rid of the common course — but it was in 1623, after the first Thanksgiving, and not because the system wasn’t working. The Pilgrims just didn’t like it. In the accounts of colonists, Mr. Pickering said, “there was griping and groaning.”
“Bachelors didn’t want to feed the wives of married men, and women don’t want to do the laundry of the bachelors,” he said.
The real reason agriculture became more profitable over the years, Mr. Pickering said, is that the Pilgrims were getting better at farming crops like corn that had been unknown to them in England.
The Times notes that the version of history Farah is peddling has become gospel among right-wingers despite its lack of accuracy. But then, Farah's WND continues to sell David Barton's book about Thomas Jefferson despite the fact that it was pulled from the market by its publisher due to numerous factual inaccuracies.
CNS' Jeffrey Can't Stop Obsessively Counting Obama's Words Topic: CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com's weird obsession with certain words President Obama says (or doesn't say) continues in a Nov. 27 article by editor in chief Terry Jeffrey:
Leaving aside passages in which he quoted a Chicago pub owner and a letter from a citizen from Georgia, President Barack Obama used the first person singular—including the pronouns “I” and “me” and the adjective “my”—91 times in a speech he delivered in Chicago Tuesday to explain his unilateral action on immigration.
But as often as Obama used “I,” “me” and “my” in Chicago this week, it was no match for the speech he delivered in Austin, Texas, on July 10, when he used the first person singular 199 times.
Obama’s speech, according to the White House transcript, was approximately 4,200 words and lasted 33 minutes. That means that on average Obama used the first person singular every 46 words—or every 22 seconds.
President Abraham Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address, in which he presented his understanding of the moral significance of the Civil War, was only 696 words long. In that speech, Lincoln used the first person singular once.
As we noted the last time Jeffrey went on a pedantic word-counting expedition (and irrelevantly compared Obama's words to Lincoln's), one analysis found “Obama has distinguished himself as the lowest I-word user of any of the modern presidents.” Needless to say, Jeffrey doesn't mention that.
Palestinian Media Follows WND's Lead In Portraying Killers As Victims Topic: WorldNetDaily
Bob Unruh writes in a Nov. 25 WorldNetDaily article:
Much like the pugnacious little boy who comes home from school to complain that “little Johnny” hit him in the fist with Johnny’s nose, the Palestinian media is misrepresenting “murderers of rabbis” as “victims” of Israeli attacks.
Palestinian Media Watch, a research institute that monitors Palestinian Authority media, documented Tuesday a recent Palestinian TV report.
The Palestinian news reader said: “The latest reaction to [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu’s policy and means was the death of two Palestinians as martyrs from occupation police fire in West Jerusalem.”
Palestinian Media Watch, or PMW, noted the TV report did not mention the fact that the two were terrorists who murdered four rabbis and a police officer in a synagogue.
Funny, we remember when WND did the exact same thing.
Back in 2005, an AWOL Israeli soldier named Eden Natan Zada opened fire on a bus, killing four Arabs and wounding a dozen; Zada was then killed by a mob before he could reload. WND reporter Aaron Klein reported that Zada was "murdered" by a "mob of Palestinians," but at no point did he state that Zada's victims were murdered. Klein probably thinks Zada was a martyr.
It appears that the Palestinian media is merely taking their reporting cues from WND. Not that Unruh, Klein or anyone else at WND would ever tell its readers that, of course.
At NewsBusters, Racially Charged Cartoon Is Legitimate 'Conservative Opinion' Topic: NewsBusters
In a Nov. 25 NewsBusters post, Laura Flint endorses a racially charged cartoon by criticizing the fact that it was denounced as racist:
The liberal thought police have struck again. On Friday, November 21, one day after Obama announced amnesty for five million illegal immigrants, the Indianapolis Star posted a cartoon by Gary Varvel that depicted an American family gathering around the table for Thanksgiving. As the nonplussed father presents the turkey, three people appear to be climbing in the window, and he states, “Thanks to the president’s immigration order, we’ll be having extra guests this Thanksgiving,”
It did not take long for the virulent cry of racism to be heard by Indystar.com. Within one day, executive editor Jeff Taylor published an article admitting the newspaper’s error in featuring the cartoon and removed it from the website altogether.
While Taylor ends his letter by stating that it is “important to encourage a vigorous public debate on issues of this magnitude…with respectful discourse,” the actions of his newspaper have made it clear that no conservative opinion can be viewed as a form of legitimate “discourse.”
So depicting stereotypical Mexicans as people who break into people's houses and steal their food is legitimate "conservative opinion"? No wonder conservatives have trouble being taken seriously on immigration.
Last week, when “Fox & Friends” highlighted my column, “Neutering religious holidays,” liberals came out of the woodwork trying to defend the president’s record. So I decided to do a little research and see just how spiritual his past Thanksgiving Addresses were and compare them to our founding president, George Washington.
In 2013, President Obama’s Thanksgiving Address didn’t give a single mention of the pilgrims, their Christian devotion or thanks to God. He did, however, share his gratitude for the Native Americans and their “generosity during that first Thanksgiving.” He gave a litany of “We give thanks,” but none of them included faith.
In 2012, Obama again didn’t make a single reference to the Pilgrims, their faith, their God, his God or any thanks to God in any form.
For five years, the president has flunked Thanksgiving Day remembrance and proclamation. Will he do so again in 2014?
Friends, what am I missing? If it were up to President Obama and his liberal minions across this land, Thanksgiving would turn into nothing more than a day of gratitude for things like his Affordable Care Act. We can’t allow that to happen.
Barack Obama does it again. You’d have to be a complete dunce or liberal/progressive/Democrat/socialist/communist partisan not to see it.
The man never misses an opportunity to diminish the United States, or to align himself with foreigners.
His administration is littered with such presidential positions and statements. He has damaged our relations with traditional allies and cemented his alliances, specific or otherwise, with philosophies diametrically opposed to the Judeo/Christian foundation of Western Civilization.
Shortly before Barack Obama’s announced his decision to follow Hitler’s logic of executive power to sweep aside America’s immigration laws, Sen. Ted Cruz said Obama’s action would be bring on “constitutional crisis,” a “moment of testing.” He declared his hope that “we will see Republicans in Congress stand up and side with the people against the lawless president.” Cruz is supposed to be one of the principled voices of the GOP. Yet in the face of Obama’s criminal actions, he spoke of his “hope” that Congress would act so that “the president does not become an unaccountable monarch.” Thus timidly he speaks, instead of demanding that his colleagues in Congress join him in leading the American people in constitutional battle to call Obama to account and expose him for what he is: a failed, deceitful demagogue, repudiated even by many of those who were once taken in by his lies.
Why does Obama arrogantly defy the people of the United States? Because he a “dumb idol,” a figurehead fabricated by the power of an elitist clique bent on hijacking America’s destiny to restore the age-old regime of oligarchic tyranny. However, the more critical question now is: Why do the leaders of the GOP, though recently empowered by the political will of the people, continue to dance politely with Obama, instead of rousing their supporters in defense of the Constitution by beginning the process of impeachment, which it provides for such a time as this?
Today, our country, now in steep decline, is not so fortunate as to have a civil rights leader like King. Rather, sitting atop our corrupt government is a bigoted anti-white socialist, who it has become clear not only despises Caucasians, but also Christians and Jews of all stripes. He is a black Muslim in the subtler mold of Louis Farrakhan and Malcolm X – only repackaged and warmed over to have duped enough Americans to have voted him into the presidency in 2008 and 2012. This destructive and evil man, Barack Hussein Obama, is more dangerous than Farrakhan or X; he is the nominal leader of the free world, an ironic position given that his view of governance is hardly one that fights for and preserves freedom, but instead through words and deed seeks to snuff out liberty for nearly everyone whose skin color and inherent Muslim faith does not match his own.
Look at the excuses given to Islamic terrorism as though their violent hate has some rational and excusable basis, even when beheading American citizens.
Look at the situation when the president makes his own laws so that the rights and benefits of American citizens are stolen and given to illegal aliens who essentially are stealing our birthright as Americans.
The leader in this is Barack Obama, the president now feeling his power. He doesn’t have to worry about midterm elections or his own re-election campaigning.
The truth is, he’s a loose cannon. He doesn’t care about any of that nor of his own party. Whether it approves of him or not, he’s feeling his oats.
Obama believes he’s above all that, and he’s essentially stated that he’ll do whatever he believes is the “right” thing for this country – essentially, he’ll do what he wants and the rest of us be damned.
Earlier this month, CNS managing editor Michael Chapman played up a claim by Catholics in Kenya that a tetanus vaccine being used in Kenya by the World Health Organization and the UNICEF was laced with a hormone that causes miscarriages and infertility. As a good right-wing Catholic, Chapman made sure to bury WHO's and UNICEF's denial of problems with the vaccine.
Well, never mind.
Chapman performed a holiday weekend news dump by waiting until the day before Thanksgiving to publish an article noting that the Catholic vaccine conspiracy was a fraud:
Tests ordered by the Kenyan Catholic bishops in October to find out if a tetanus vaccine provided by the World Health Organization contained a birth-control hormone -- allegedly used in a “disguised population control program” -- were false positive, and the bishops were “acting in good faith on the evidence presented to them” at the time, said Matercare International in a statement on Nov. 21.
While the tests of the vaccine the Bishops had done at four separate laboratories were marred and showed false positive results for the infertility hormone, Matercare Internaitonal also said “the best solution is for the Kenyan authorities to communicate directly with the WHO in Geneva to offer support and encouragement to expeditiously test samples supervised by both parties in independent, reputable and competent laboratories.”
Chapman does not note whether Catholic officials in Kenya have apologized to WHO and UNICEF for falsely impugning them and their tetanus vaccine, nor did he bother to find out if one was offered.
Instead, Chapman lets someone from the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists portray the Catholic bishops in Kenya who forwarded the conspiracy as the victim, blaming WHO and UNICEF for "unnecessary controversy" and declaring that "If WHO or the Kenyan government had treated the Bishops question with the respect due to mutual health care stakeholders, it is doubtful that the Bishops would have resorted to testing which proved to be invalid."
Given that basic medical care isn't exactly in the bailiwick of the Catholic Church, it's difficult to see where the bishops should have been treated as "stakeholders."
The Daily Beast chronicles the rise and fall of Talk Radio Network as a powerhouse of right-wing radio. The article cites ConWebWatchresearch in noting the links between TRN founder (and accused cult leader) Roy Masters and WorldNetDaily, such as WND being intially housed at Masters' Tall Timber Ranch and WND managing editor David Kupelian being a former editor of a Masters-operated magazine.
We're still waiting for WND officials to explain their relationship with Masters.
MRC's Graham Censors The Facts About Sharyl Attkisson's Shoddy Reporting Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's campaign of propping up Sharyl Attkisson continues in a Nov. 21 NewsBusters post by Tim Graham, in which he highlights how "former CBS reporter Sharyl Attkisson told Glenn Beck about the latest document release forced by Judicial Watch, which demonstrates Obama's Department of Justice was working to squash Attkisson's reporting on the Obama administration."
Graham omits the reason why the Obama administration would complain about Attkisson's reporting: it's inaccurate. Media Matters notes that the Attkisson report the Obama administration singled out is, in fact, wrong. Nevertheless, Attkisson repeats the false claim in her new book.
Graham also grumbles that the Obama administration allegedly worked with a reporter to criticize Republican Rep. Darrell Issa's investigation into Fast anmd Furious: "This is how journalism works. Reporters accept large chunks of information from friendly sources, in this case in writing an article against Issa." Graham didn't mention that Attkisson, the object of his adoration, does the same thing -- only in this case, her "friendly source" is Issa. Indeed, much of Attkisson's anti-Obama reporting depends on leaks from Issa's committee, and she repeatedly praises him in her book.
Graham also notes Attkisson talking about "the attempt to manipulate her work computer" -- omitting, of course, that the only solid evidence she has presented so far of this indicates her computer was suffering from a stuck backspace key.
If we were the MRC, we might say that Graham is censoring the facts from his readers.
Obama's 'Cloward-Piven-Ebola Strategy,' According To Joseph Farah Topic: WorldNetDaily
Somebody might want to let Joseph Farah know that there isn't an active case of Ebola in the United States right now.
Farah devoted his Nov. 23 WorldNetDaily column to "trying to figure out why Barack Obama appears to be doing everything in his power to spread the Ebola virus." It's all about the Cloward-Piven strategy, apparently:
The Cloward-Piven Strategy is mainstream leftist ideology. It’s the Rosetta stone for understanding what progressives do and why they do it. It seems to make no sense on the surface to non-leftist ideologues. It seems like irrationality, stupidity or even insanity. But it’s not. It’s pure evil from the pit of hell.
It’s the kind of thinking that led to the gas chambers. It’s the kind of thinking that led to the gulags. It’s the kind of thinking that led to the guillotines.
Let’s recall that Obama first set out to kill the flawed but greatest health-care system the world had ever known. He lied repeatedly about what he was doing. He misrepresented his intentions and his goals. Once he got what he wanted and people could see it didn’t work the way they thought it would work, he told them they just didn’t understand. He told them it was their imaginations that they were losing their health-care insurance, paying more for medical services and being denied treatment.
You see, if you follow the Cloward-Piven Strategy, your goal was never to provide better and more affordable health care. It was to destroy the system and replace it with complete government control.
Here, for instance, is what Obama said about his Ebola strategy. Just read between the lines: “But let’s keep in mind that as we speak, there are children on the streets dying of this disease, thousands of them. And so obviously my first job is to make sure that we’re taking care of the American people, but we have a larger role than that. We also have an obligation to make sure that those (African) children and their families are safe as well because ultimately the best thing we can do for our public health is also to extend the kind of empathy, compassion and effort so that folks in those countries as well can be rid of this disease” (emphasis added).
Do you understand what’s going on here now?
Does this help?
Are things beginning to make more sense to you now?
The moral of the story is simple: Never underestimate the evil motives of the satanic death cult euphemistically called “progressivism.” It’s not about progress. It’s about regression: It’s about making the state (read: “them”) the ultimate arbiter of right and wrong. We all know where that leads, though it’s awfully hard to believe it’s happening again – here!
We understand that Farah is an inveterate liar with a severe case of Obama derangement who will cynically evoke memories of Nazis and gulags to score cheap political points. And he will accuse Obama of spreading Ebola in the U.S. even though there are no active cases of it.
Yes, Newsmax TV Show On JFK Assassination Was A Discredited Conspiracy Theory Topic: Newsmax
Remember that big "I Killed JFK" conspiracy theory special on Newsmax TV? Yeah, we didn't watch it either. But someone else did, and it turned out to be exactly what we predicted.
According to Inquisitr, the Newsmax show featured the confession of James Files, who says he was the man on the grassy knoll. Inquisitr notes Files' credibility problems, adding that "whether you believe James Files’ story depends largely on whether you trust Newsmax as a news source, and many people don’t believe a word of it."
As we previously noted, promoting a shady character in a JFK conspiracy theory is probably not the best way to position Newsmax TV as a credible news source.
The 'Californication' of Gina Loudon Topic: WorldNetDaily
Gina Loudon begins her Nov. 23 WorldNetDaily column by asserting, "It’s official. I am Californicated. I swore it would never happen to me, but it has." In it, she complains about supposedly excessive regulation found in the state where she resides and whines that her "individual liberties" are being infringed. Indeed, she's feeling very oppressed, asking at one point, "Why can’t I enjoy a cocktail in the passenger seat in the privacy of my own car, with my husband driving?"
But Loudon is silent about one very literal source of "Californication" that comes from her own family.
Earlier this year, it was revealed that Loudon's 18-year-old daughter was in a relationship with a 57-year-old actor. In a weird attempt at damage control, Loudon devoted a column to it, lamenting that the media was trying to "exploit sensationally" her daughter's relationpship while trying to do the same thing herself by, in part, accompanying her column with a sultry-looking image of herself and her daughter.
That, not burdensome regulation, is what most people think of when they hear the term "Californication" (not to mention that TV show and that Red Hot Chili Peppers album). Loudon's sad attempt to redefine the word -- especially given her own family history -- is a failure.
MRC Unhappy Obama's Immigration Action Is Accurately Described Topic: Media Research Center
Kyle Drennen uses a Nov. 21 Media Research Center item to express his unhappiness that NBC's Andrea Mitchell accurately described Obama's action on immigration:
On her 12 p.m. ET hour MSNBC show on Friday, host Andrea Mitchell asserted that President Obama's executive order blocking deportation of millions of illegal immigrants was somehow "not amnesty": "...what this is not, as the President said, this is not amnesty. People have to apply, the applications won't be taken until the spring. There's a window where Republicans could act. So it's not what people are describing, the critics."
Even Meet the Press moderator Chuck Todd couldn't quite swallow that spin: "It is a temporary amnesty as far as these people are concerned." Mitchell countered: "Well, it's a relaxation on deportations." Todd observed: "But obviously the definition of amnesty's been perverted so much in different ways." Mitchell declared: "It's not amnesty in the sense that you get citizenship and the past is forgiven." Todd agreed: "That's right."
Despite his unhappiness with Mitchell for pointing out that Obama's immigration action is "not amnesty," Drennen never explains why it purportedly is -- which must mean that Mitchell is correct.
As we'vedocumented, MRC writers love to ignore the actual definition of "amnesty" to use the word to describe any action that might be beneficial toward illegal immigrants.