The Media Research Center has been showing the love to former CBS correspondent Sharyl Attkisson for her anti-Obama reporting and general move to the right (which the MRC denies). Now Attkisson is showing some love right back.

A Dec. 13 NewsBusters post by Scott Whitlock highlights an interview Attkisson conducted with Rush Limbaugh's newsletter (her latest connection to right-wingers, which is more evidence of Attkisson's rightward shift, yet unremarked upon by Whitlock):

Regarding the selection of liberal vs. conservative watchdogs as sources, Attkisson noted, "In fact, I've never heard reporters treat the conservative media watchdogs as if they're providing neutral information that should be paid attention to. Only the liberal side."

Neither Whitlock nor Attkisson will admit it, but that's likely because conservative media watchdogs like the MRC have proven themselves incapable of providing neutral information. As we've documented, the MRC's so-called "research" is so skewed and narrowly tailored to produce only results that reinforce its "liberal media" narrative that it simply can't be trusted.

By comparison, Media Matters (the liberal media watchdog to which Attkisson is surely referring) committed the offense of discrediting her shoddy reporting. Despite attacking Media Matters as partisan and inaccurate, Attkisson has never disproven the factual nature of what Media Matters has written about Attkisson's work.

Of course, Whitlock doesn't mention any of that either, chossing instead to rehash Attkisson's dubious claim of her computers being hacked.

Posted by Terry K. at 8:16 PM EST

Share This Post

Permalink

For a guy who runs a so-called "news" organization, CNSNews.com editor in chief Terry Jeffrey has a serious disdain for facts.

He proves it again in a Dec. 9 CNS article:

For example, the bill prohibits Obama from spending a penny to carry out regulations that would effectively prohibit incandescent light bulbs in the United States.

A statement by the House Approprations Committee says that the bill includes a "provision prohibiting funding for the Administration’s onerous 'light bulb' standard, which prevents incandescent bulbs from being manufactured or sold, despite a continued public desire for these products.”

An "explanatory statement" posted on "Bills to be Considered on the House Floor" says: "The agreement includes a provision regarding prohibiting funds to implement or enforce higher efficiency light bulb standards."

Congress apparently is not worried that Obama will veto the bill and shut down the federal government in order to continue his administration's policy on incandescent light bulbs.

But Obama did not create or sign the policy  that mandated more efficient light bulbs. As the San Jose Mercury News details:

The 60- and 40-watt light bulbs that have been used in America for more than a century are being phased out as of Jan. 1, as part of a federal law banning their production in favor of more energy friendly bulbs like halogen or fluorescent.

Production of the 100- and 75-watt incandescent light bulbs stopped last year.

A lot of people seem to think this is President Obama's fault.

[...]

But unless they're joking, they are mistaken. President George W. Bush actually initiated the ban when he signed the Energy Independence and Security Act in 2007. 

The Washington Post gave Mitt Romney three Pinnochios for falsely claiming that  the light bulb efficiency standards were Obama's doing.

Also, contrary to Jeffrey's assertion, the new efficiency standards doesn't actually ban incandescent bulbs. As Popular Mechanics details, no particular type of bulb was banned, but standard incandescent bulbs are so inefficient -- converting only 5 to 10 percent of the electricity it consumes into light -- that they will need to be upgraded or replaced by other forms in order to meet the standard.

Jeffrey doesn't explain why he thinks such energy-wasting bulbs should remain in production.

Posted by Terry K. at 2:30 PM EST

Share This Post

Permalink

WorldNetDaily editor Joseph Farah wants to oust John Boehner as House speaker, and he wants you to send him money in a futile effort to do it.

In his Dec. 15 column, Farah touts the "hundreds of emails demanding to know how to dump the one I call 'Barack Obama’s No. 1 enabler.'" The column then becomes a sales pitch:

Of course, the only way to effectuate the unseating of Boehner is to convince the majority of House Republicans that it is not only the right thing to do, but also in their own best interests. I really believe we can do that.

The only problem we’ve had in the past is the direct communication between the people and the lawmakers.

Yes, they have phones, but the lines get jammed, and there really is no methodology for calculating the calls that come in, the ones that go unanswered and translating them into numbers every member can appreciate and evaluate.

Yes, there are fax machines, but there are limitations there, too. They run out of paper. The faxes end up in the garbage. The speaker himself has the power to prohibit any collation, meaningful reports and tabulation. And, most importantly, no members ever see what the avalanche of paper looks like during the entirety of the campaign.

Yes, there is mail, but there are more problems than you know with it. All mail needs to go through a screening process outside the Capitol. It causes long delays. And how difficult is it to send a letter to all 246 Republican members of the House? How expensive and time-consuming would that be?

My plan doesn’t involve any of those traditional lobbying methods. It’s been tried before with amazing results. It reaches all those who need to get it in hard copy form with guaranteed delivery to their individual offices, personalized to them and by the sender. It’s cheap, effective and sends a powerful message that cannot be ignored. It’s even been tested.

One such campaign by WND resulted in 9.5 million letters delivered to members of Congress – the historic “pink slip” campaign.

The message all members receive in the letters is succinct, persuasive, professional, civil. And they are delivered by Federal Express, if you can believe it, for maximum impact.

AND WHEN YOU SEND ONE, YOU SEND IT TO EVERY REPUBLICAN MEMBER OF THE HOUSE – INCLUDING JOHN BOEHNER!

That’s 246 different letters, with different names and addresses and different destinations all for the one price of $29.95 – and they’re sent by Fed Ex! Try to top that. It’s just not something individuals could ever do.

[...]

For WND’s part, we do all the heavy lifting. We buy the paper. We print the letters. We pay for delivery. We measure results. We gather and chronicle responses and feedback from members. We work the media. We organize the press conferences. We spearhead the campaign on your behalf.

Your only obligation is participating by paying a nominal amount that covers our mailing and handling expenses.

Just compare the price and time commitment of an individual participating in this campaign versus a do-it-yourself effort or one of the old-fashioned fax or phone campaigns. There’s simply no comparison in price, time commitment and, most importantly, effectiveness.

As we've documented, WND has made some serious coin from its readers off previous letter campaigns, and there is no evidence that they work. Even Farah won't claim that; he claims only that "this approach prompts members to talk about the boxes of letters that are coming into their offices each day" -- again, something that doesn't translate into anything productive, let alone achieving the goal of the campaign.

Once again, Farah is turning politics into yet another opportunity to fleece his readers. How cynical and money-grubbing can he be?

Posted by Terry K. at 10:54 AM EST

Share This Post

Permalink

The Media Research Center's Tim Graham has been in the right-wing media outrage business for so long, it seems he's incapable of recognizing fair journalism for what it is instead of through his jaundiced partisan lens.

In a Dec. 13 NewsBusters post, Graham expresses surprise that "liberal papers" the Washington Post and the New York Times would pan the new film "Exodus: Gods and Kings" by criticizing the decision to have God portrayed by a "terrifying" child. His headline: "Even Liberal Papers Pan Bratty Pre-Teen God In New Moses Movie 'Exodus: Gods and Kings.'"

Graham seems to forget that genuine movie reviewers employed by legitimate news outlets generally try to review films based on their merits, not according to their rigid personal belief system.

We saw the latter at work earlier this year when the MRC's Katie Yoder attacked the film "Obvious Child" fior being a romantic comedy centered around abortion -- a film Yoder proudly proclaimed she never watched before trashing it.

Apparently, Graham favors Yoder's approach and would rather people write about films based on what they read on the Internet about them and spare themselves the effort of actually seeing it before offering an opinion.

Indeed, Graham provided no evidence that he has seen "Exodus." Are we surprised? Nope.

Posted by Terry K. at 7:16 PM EST

Share This Post

Permalink

WorldNetDaily's Aaron Klein, it seems, is still counting on his sources to be as stupid as he thinks they are. He writes in a Dec. 9 WND article:

While the White House has dismissed as “unfounded” reports the Obama administration is contemplating sanctions on Israel, the Palestinian Authority told WND it is already receiving signals the U.S. president may not support Israel at the United Nations and in the international community.

A senior PA negotiator, speaking on condition his name be withheld, said that despite the Obama administration’s public protestations, the U.S. made no private protests recently over a Palestinian plan to seek recognition of a state at the United Nations and in international bodies.

The Palestinian claim contrasts with media reports last month that Secretary of State John Kerry called PA President Mahmoud Abbas to warn him the U.S. would sanction the Palestinians if they continue their attempt to seek unilateral recognition in international organizations.

“There have been no talks of any real U.S. sanctions on the Palestinian Authority for unilateral recognition,” said the PA negotiator.

In addition to his old tactic of citing an untraceable anonymous source to attack the Obama administration, Klein is invoking another old tactic: using a political enemy as a proxy in his anti-Obama agenda.

Remember, Klein is a sympathizer of the extremist right-wing movement in Israel founded by Meir Kahane, which among other things calls for the expulsion of all Arabs from israel. The U.S. considers the movement, which has been known under such names as Kach and Kahane Chai, to be a terrorist organization.

Klein is not a neutral reporter, and there's no reason for Palestinians to trust him, given his record of using Palestinians to further his personal anti-Palestinian agenda.

Again, Klein seems to be counting on Palestinians being ignorant of his agenda. That seems like a dangerous game to play, even for a committed activist like Klein.

Posted by Terry K. at 1:07 PM EST

Share This Post

Permalink

James Morrison snarkily writes in a Dec. 11 Newsmax article:

While many public school students complain about lunchtime mush that meets White House calorie guidelines, President Barack Obama's daughters are dining on gourmet meals at a posh private school in Washington.

School kids have been moaning about tasteless fare local governments adopt to comply with first lady Michelle Obama’s war on the waistline and posting photos of the mystery meals online.

The Sidwell Friends School, the $36,000-a-year private academy attended by Malia and Sasha Obama, also posts its menus on the Internet.

The Daily Caller discovered that Sidwell students eat well.

Thursday’s lunch included: potato sausage soup, firecracker slaw, California chef’s salad, all natural Jamaican jerk chicken wings, sweet potato black-bean bake, sauteed local greens, gemelli alfredo, and slice pineapple.

Morrison's reference to "gourmet meals at a posh private school" got further emphasis in the headline, which screamed "Obama's Daughters Enjoy Gourmet Lunches at Posh School."

Posted by Terry K. at 11:16 PM EST

Updated: Sunday, December 14, 2014 11:17 PM EST

Share This Post

Permalink

A few months back, we reported on WorldNetDaily's then-upcoming book by Operation Rescue's Troy Newman and Cheryl Sullenger, which claims to be a "practical manual" that teaches people "what you can do to help close your local abortion clinic and make America abortion free."

A little over two months after its release, the book appears to be a flop. At this writing, Amazon.com ranks the book at No. 360,486 in sales -- an abysmal showing for a book out for less than three months.

Perhaps people didn't want to read a book by authors with anti-abortion violence in their pasts. In 1988, Sullenger was sentenced to three years in prison for conspiring to bomb a California abortion clinic, and Scott Roeder -- who murdered Kansas abortion doctor George Tiller in 2009 -- had contacted Sullenger and Operation Rescue several times seeking information about court hearings involving Tiller, and Sullenger's phone number was found on a note inside Roeder's car when he was arrested. Roeder has also claimed he ate lunch with Newman and Sullenger several years before he murdered Tiller.

Further, Ms. Magazine reported Roederʼs claim that Newman said it “wouldnʼt upset” him if Tiller were murdered, as well as Roeder's claim that he was an active and regular participant in Operation Rescue events with "donation receipts, event T-shirts and a signed copy of Newman’s 2001 book, Their Blood Cries Out, to prove it."

While Newman has denounced violence and Sullenger claims regret for her role in the bombing plot and insists that she "has openly denounced violence as a means to stop abortion," the fact remains their organization is linked to the Tiller murder and Sullenger remains a convicted felon.

In their book, Newman ahd Sullenger throw Roeder under the bus, calling him "creepy" and a "quiet loner" and claiming that Sullenger "was uncomfortable with him for reasons she couldn't quite pinpoint" and promotes Operation Rescue's statement on Tiller's death as "carefully worded and tasteful." They failed to explain the full extent of their contacts with Roeder. Newman also complains that "the abortion crowd never lets [Sullenger] forget this admitted mistake she made decades ago."

Perhaps such dishonesty about their actions and their links to Roeder's murder of Tiller are the main reason why Newman and Sullenger's book has tanked.

P.S. WND actually hired a lawyer (surprisingly, not Larry Klayman) to send us a cease-and-desist order for reporting accurately on Sullenger and Operation Rescue. We declined WND's request on numerous grounds, among them that it was objecting to alleged behavior WND itself regularly engages in on its own website. We have heard nothing from WND's lawyer since.

Posted by Terry K. at 9:37 PM EST

Share This Post

Permalink

The headline on a Dec. 11 Media Research Center item by Scott Whitlock blared, "ABC, NBC Skip Poll Finding Massive Support for the Second Amendment." But the poll is dubious and didn't indicate "massive" support.

As Whitlock goes on to note, the Pew Research poll in question found that 52 percent of Americans support "gun rights," while 46 percent support "gun control." Two points over 50 percent is hardly an indicator of "massive" support.

Whitlock also fails to mention the issues with the poll itself, presumably because it fits the MRC's pro-gun narrative. As Media Matters pointed out, the poll's choice between "gun rights" and "gun control" ridiculously oversimplifies the national debate over guns, as if the two were mutually exclusive.

Whitlock also didn't mention that even the conservative Washington Times article about the poll upon which he based his item quotes "gun control supporters" pointing out that specific measures such as expansion of background checks have much wider public support than Pew's "gun rights" question -- around 90 percent. Wonder why he wouldn't report all the relevant facts?

Posted by Terry K. at 11:40 PM EST

Share This Post

Permalink

The common thread behind the organized chaos unleashed on innocent people is the incitement by liberal black leaders.

Black-on-black crime is being perpetrated on the souls of black Americans, from the president on down. The crime is committed every time the black leadership deliberately stokes the anger of black people.

Anger consumes and kills the soul.

Black leaders say “black lives matter,” yet they’re teaching black youth to hate, showing that black lives don’t really matter. Misguided hate drives blacks to hurt and kill; and it destroys the hater, too.

When Barack Obama supports the lie that cops routinely mistreat “communities of color,” that encourages blacks to hate – thereby damaging their souls.

-- Jesse Lee Peterson, Dec. 7 WorldNetDaily column

America has made great strides in becoming a color-blind society. Let’s be clear: If it were not for white Americans, Mr. Obama would not be our president.

Even further strides toward the Promised Land could be made if the president would ban race hustler Al Sharpton from the White House. Sharpton’s past is an ugly one as it pertains to racial issues, and the president surely knows this.

There is no justification to give Sharpton any credibility unless Mr. Obama’s goal is to fracture race relations, which have taken a serious nosedive since he was elected.

If the facts were important to Obama and his gun-running attorney general, they would focus their efforts on reducing the violence that plagues our inner cities, which is overwhelmingly black-on-black crime. At just 13 percent of the population, blacks commit 50 percent of all murders.

-- Ted Nugent, Dec. 10 WND column

Obama biographer David Mendell tells the reader that Obama “won” a full scholarship to Occidental, but as a bench-warming, B-minus student in his fancy Honolulu prep school Obama had to know what he had done to “win” it.

The bias continued in college. Biographer David Remnick tells us that Obama was an “unspectacular” student in his two years at Columbia and at every stop before that going back to grade school.

A Northwestern University prof who wrote a letter of reference for Obama reinforces the point, telling Remnick, “I don’t think [Obama] did too well in college.” As to Obama’s LSAT scores, Jimmy Hoffa’s body will be unearthed before those are.

[...]

Bottom line: Had Obama’s father come from Kentucky not Kenya and been named O’Hara not Obama, there would been no Harvard Law Review, no Harvard, no Columbia, no Occidental and, Lord knows, no presidency.

-- Jack Cashill, Dec. 10 WND column

If one subscribes to Obama’s origins narrative (wherein he was sired by a Kenyan named Barack Obama), the president has no heritage linking him to black Americans, their history, or their struggles.

-- Erik Rush, Dec. 10 WND column

To my way of thinking, Barack Obama is the single biggest sinner in America. I don’t believe that anything he says or does is in the best interests of our nation. Instead, everything comes down to partisan politics with this schmuck, whether it’s attacking the police, refusing to green-light the Keystone pipeline or trashing the Constitution. On top of everything else, he sets a bad example for young people by being a hypocrite and a serial liar.

When George Bush doubled the national debt to roughly $10 trillion, Sen. Obama said it was unpatriotic, and, frankly, I agreed with him. However, over the past six years, Obama has encouraged it to soar an additional $8 trillion. On the traitor meter, that makes him a combination of Benedict Arnold, Tokyo Rose and Alger Hiss.

-- Burt Prelutsky, Dec. 11 WND column

The situation of the United States today reminds me of the period during the 9/11 terrorist attack, between the moment when each tower was struck and the moment of its breathtaking collapse (about 2 hours, as I recall).

Obama’s two terms are like those hours. This analogy suggests that sometime in the next two years we have reason to expect the breathtaking implosion of what’s left of the American way of life. The collapse has already begun.

-- Alan Keyes, Dec. 11 WND column

Posted by Terry K. at 12:32 PM EST

Share This Post

Permalink

NewsBusters' Dave Pierre is a big fan of the Catholic Church quietly paying clergy accused of sexual abuse to go away quietly as "fast and economical," never mind that such payments conveniently excluded any sort of accountability or justice.

Paying the victims who accused them, well, that's another story.

In a Nov. 27 NewsBusters post, Pierre proclaimed his distress at Boston Cardinal Seán O'Malley appearing on "60 Minutes" to talk about the church's sex abuse crisis:

While the media has showered O'Malley with praise for his management of sex abuse cases, we have actually been troubled with the way he has handled cases in Boston by paying sizable sums to settle questionable claims.

In the spring of 2012, O'Malley's archdiocese paid out large settlements related to accusations of abuse against two priests. However, as we carefully chronicled at the time, there is substantial reason to believe that the payments were not justified.

Both accused priests were long ago dead, neither man had even a hint of impropriety when they were alive, and these were the only claims ever made against them. The archdiocese's payoffs understandably infuriated the friends and families of both tarnished priests.

Pierre's "careful chronicling," it should be noted, lacks any evidence that the abuse didn't occur; he merely rants about "unproven allegations against previously unblemished priests who are now deceased and unable to defend themselves" and insists "our priests deserve much better than this" and wails about what "the families, friends, and colleagues of these accused men now must endure."

By contract, Pierre shows little concern for what the victim deserves and must endure. Instead, he baselessly besmirches them by baselessly suggesting they were only out to scam the church of money.

Pierre then moves on to attack Cardinal O'Malley for something completely unrelated, supposedly excessive "salaries for lay leadership in the Archdiocese of Boston." He concludes: "So the lesson here is that if a Church official is willing to criticize the Church over the topic of sex abuse, the media will fête him as a media darling no matter what he has actually done as a Church official."

The other lesson, it appears, is that Pierre will attack anyone who admits there has been a longstanding problem of abuse in the Catholic Church, and anyone who does so -- even victims -- must be thrown under the bus to save the church.

Posted by Terry K. at 10:57 PM EST

Share This Post

Permalink

Michael Brown writes in a Dec. 10 WorldNetDaily column:

Two weeks ago, I wrote a column entitled, “Is Michelle Duggar guilty of ‘LGBTQ fear-mongering’?” In response, Camille Beredjick, posted an article on the Friendly Atheist website entitled, “To Michelle Duggar, Michael Brown, and the rest: Stop attacking trans women.”

What is noteworthy about her article is not the presence of complete falsehoods (sadly, another common tactic among gay activists), such as the accusation that conservative Christians like Michelle Duggar and I “equate transgender identity with being a sexual predator” and that we suggest “that gay rights activists want immunity for people who do commit acts of sexual harassment” – to repeat, these are totally false allegations – but rather her defense of the indefensible.

In my article, I referenced “Colleen” Francis, a biological male who is now legally female and who surprised female high school students who went into a sauna at a jointly used college swimming pool, not expecting to see Francis sitting there naked with “her male genitalia” exposed.

In defense of Francis, who is attracted to women, not men, Beredjick argued that the case had been misreported, acknowledging that “the nugget of truth to the story: two teens did claim to see Colleen Francis nude while in the Evergreen College sauna.”

The problem, according to a report cited by Beredjick, is that the sauna was “generally off limits to swim team members,” so, according to Beredjick, this is really the fault of the girls.

Talk about defending the indefensible.

Actually, in his Nov. 26 WND column, Brown did, in fact, equate being transgender to be a sexual predator by stating that "male heterosexual predators could easily take advantage of this law. Why wouldn’t they?" He added:

If they know that the law allows for men who identify as transgender to use the ladies room, why wouldn’t they take advantage of it? Why wouldn’t they dress up as women to be around women and girls in this private setting?

Don’t sexual perverts do perverted things? Don’t sexual predators do whatever they can to prey on the innocent? And are the gay activists guaranteeing us that there are no men who now identify as transgender women who are sexual predators?

Perhaps Brown might want to explain how discussing transgendered people in the same breath as sexual predators is not equating the two. 

Beredjick's statement that Brown "suggests that gay rights activists want immunity for people who do commit acts of sexual harassment. that Brown's obsession with attacking anyone who defends transgenders by playing the sexual predator card. So, yeah, that appears to be true as well. Again, Brown might want to trying proving the falsehoods he alleges instead of merely insisting they are false.

Brown was also accurately accused to misrepresenting the Francis case. Here's what he wrote in his Nov. 26 column:

Third, there’s already a case in Olympia, Washington, where a man who is legally a woman but still has male genitalia shocked teenaged girls who found him sitting naked with his legs open in the girls sauna. (The police report stated that “she” was exposing “her male genitalia.”)

The girls, who are in high school, share a pool with a local college where the individual in question, whose name is now “Colleen” and who is about 45 years old, is taking classes. But since the school has a policy of no discrimination based on gender identity, there was absolutely nothing that could be done to stop “Colleen” from doing this again.

As Transadvocate pointed out, which Brown failed to note in his biased account of the case:

The sauna area was off limits to the two teens.

Unless one specifically tries to see inside the sauna, you can’t view the people inside the sauna.

Colleen Francis AND her cisgender female friend were using the sauna together. They were sitting there talking.

At no point did Francis act to expose herself to children

At no point was Francis walking around nude in the area where children were.

Brown doesn't contest Beredjick's charge that he misrepresented the Francis case -- perhaps because he knows she's right. But neither does he attempt to correct the record, which tells us that his misrepresentation was deliberate and designed to boost his anti-gay activism. 

Brown's insistence of maliciously misrepresenting transgender issues for maximum outrage, while declaring that he's right simply because he says he is, shows that he doesn't care about the facts.

But given that his publisher, Joseph Farah, openly admits he publishes minsinformation at WND, Brown must certainly know he'll never be held accountable for his deceit (in this life, anyway).

Posted by Terry K. at 8:33 PM EST

Updated: Friday, December 12, 2014 8:38 PM EST

Share This Post

Permalink

In their newest column, Tim Graham and Brent Bozell lament that "the left" likes to believe that "the victim" in a rape accusation is the female accuser, going on to lament the treatment of their favorite alleged rape victim:

This is not the way these "watchdogs" handled Juanita Broaddrick's charge of rape against President Clinton in 1999. Even after NBC's Lisa Myers nailed down particulars establishing that Clinton and Broaddrick were in the same hotel on the same day in 1978, with witnesses who vouchsafed her tortured condition, the networks all but ignored the accuser and her story.

Bozell and Graham don't mention that there was a good reason for the media to discount Broaddrick's story: She changed it.

Prior to flipping in 1998, Broaddrick had repeatedly insisted that Clinton didn't rape her; she even said so under oath. It was not until she gave into the Clinton-haters -- and, more crucially, received a promise of immunity from independent counsel Kenneth Starr that she wouldn't be prosecuted for perjury -- that she changed her story.

Bozell and Graham don't mention that Broaddrick is a documented liar -- she either lied then or she's lying now.We don't recall the two ever telling that to their readers; indeed, a quick search of the MRC website mentions nothing about Broaddrick's contradictory claims or the immunity deal she received from Starr.

As we've also noted, there's enough evidence of the Broaddrick accusations being motivated by partisan politics and personal spite to cast further doubt on them. Indeed, according to Joe Conason's "The Hunting of the President," that's exactly what happened.

But Broaddrick made a sensational accusation against the hated Clinton, and that was good enough for the MRC.

Perhaps Bozell and Graham should have found a better example to use when it comes to the debating the veracity of rape allegations.

Posted by Terry K. at 6:06 PM EST

Updated: Thursday, December 11, 2014 6:13 PM EST

Share This Post

Permalink

Last year, we caught WorldNetDaily's Aaron Klein pushing the demonstrable lie that Saul Alinsky "dedicated" his book "Rules for Radicals" to Lucifer (in fact, the book is dedicated to "Irene," with an "over-the-shoulder acknowlegement" to Lucifer for being "the first rebel"), as well as baselessly speculating that Obama "channeled Saul Alinsky" by referring to "the world as it is" and "the world as it should be."

Apparently facts don't matter to Klein, because he does the exact same thing again in a  Dec. 9 WND article:

Michelle Obama went on to quote her husband’s speech to the “community meeting” in which Barack Obama paraphrased Alinsky.

She said: “As he talked to the residents in that community center, he talked about two concepts. He talked about ‘the world as it is’ and ‘the world as it should be.’ And I talked about this throughout the entire campaign. What he said, that all too often, is that we accept the distance between those two ideas.”

In his defining work, “Rules for Radicals,” which he dedicated to “the first rebel,” Lucifer, Alinsky used those words to lay out his main agenda. He asserted radical change must be brought about by working within a system instead of attacking it from the outside.

“It is necessary to begin where the world is if we are going to change it to what we think it should be. That means working in the system,” wrote Alinsky.

Klein's reporting of demonstrable falsehoods and  his portrayal of speculation as fact is just another reason why nobody believes WND.

Posted by Terry K. at 12:42 PM EST

Share This Post

Permalink

Michael Chapman fawningly writes in a Dec. 8 CNSNews.com article:

Scholar, best selling author, and talk radio host Rabbi Daniel Lapin said the rioting and looting in Ferguson, Mo., over the non-indictment of the police officer who shot Michael Brown were the result of the “dark pathology of liberalism” and, in its “delight in destruction,” echoed the “Kristallnacht in Germany.”

"When the liberal project, when the dark pathology of liberalism -- not so much a doctrine as a sick and twisted pathology -- manages to strip Judeo-Christian belief out of American society, congratulations guys, welcome to Ferguson, you succeeded,” said Rabbi Lapin on the Dec. 3 Glenn Beck Program.

[...]

Daniel Lapin is an Orthodox Jewish rabbi who emigrated to the United States and became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 1973.  He hosts the Rabbi Daniel Lapin Show on San Francisco’s KSFO radio station, and is the author numerous books, including America’s Real War, Buried Treasure: Hidden Wisdom from the Hebrew Language, and Business Secrets From the Bible.

Missing from Chapman's overlong recitation of Lapin's CV: figure in the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal.

Convicted felon Abramoff has reportedly credited Lapin with introducing him to then-House Republican leader Tom DeLay. Abramoff also made use of Lapin's organization, Toward Tradition (on whose board Abramoff also sat), in moving money around to further his lobbying efforts. Toward Tradition also hired the wife of a DeLay aide who later pleaded guilty to conspiring to corrupt public officials; the aide said that his wife was paid in exchange for his official actions. 

Lapin and Abramoff also reportedly discussed creating an award at Toward Tradition that Abramoff could claim he received (Lapin later insisted his end of the discussion was tongue-in-cheek).

Since Chapman doesn't mention Lapin's scandal-tarred record, we also aren't treated to an explanation of why such a man has the moral authority to lecture others.

Posted by Terry K. at 9:02 PM EST

Share This Post

Permalink