Newsmax Promotes Trump's Presidential Ambitions -- Again Topic: Newsmax
Sandy Fitzgerald writes in a Jan. 24 Newsmax article:
Real estate mogul Donald Trump insists he could have defeated President Barack Obama in 2012, and regrets that he didn't run for office.
"I was leading in every poll...I regret that I didn't stay in," Trump told The Des Moines Register on Friday, a night before he was to speak on Saturday's Iowa Freedom Summit, an event attracting numerous GOP presidential hopefuls.
"I would've won the race against (President Barack) Obama," Trump continued. "He would've been easy. Hillary [Clinton] is tougher to beat than Obama, but Hillary is very beatable."
Fitzgerald neglected to mention that the main driving force behind egging on Trump's presidential ambitions in the 2012 election cycle was Newsmax.
We've documented how former Newsmax reporter Ronald Kessler -- a longtime Trump suck-up -- used Newsmax to tout the idea of Trump running for president, even proclaiming that his Trump-pumping secured Trump a speaking slot at the 2011 CPAC conservative confab.
Newsmax CEO Christopher Ruddy is a Trump buddy as well, having partied with him and once declaring, "In my book, Trump’s a giant. He’s a 'big picture' visionary."
Kessler may be gone, but it looks like Trump can count on Newsmax to promote his latest round of teasing a run for president.
WND Plugs Profitable Anti-Boehner Campaign In Middle Of Boehner Highlighing Anti-Boehner Profiteers Topic: WorldNetDaily
In another entry from the "you can't make this stuff up" department, here's a Jan. 24 WorldNetDaily article:
Why is House Speaker John Boehner the target of so much criticism from conservatives?
He’ll tell the nation on “60 Minutes” Sunday his critics on the right are turning him into a “human piñata” so they can profit off their attacks.
“The issue with the tea party isn’t one of strategy,” he says. “It’s not one of different vision. It’s a disagreement over tactics, from time to time. Frankly, a lot is being driven by national groups here in Washington who have raised money and just beating the dickens out of me. It works. They raise money, put it in their pocket and pay themselves big salaries.”
And then, there's the very next paragraph, in bold italic type:
Agree with Boehner? Then don’t support “Dump Boehner Now” campaign. It allows you to reach every single Republican House member with hard copy letters with FedEx delivery guaranteed. So far, 575,000 have been delivered in two months.
That's right -- WND is promoting its anti-Boehner campaign, which generates a tidy profit for WND, in the middle of an article about Boehner complaining about political operatives profiting on anti-Boehner sentiment.
That's either monumental self-unawareness or monumental chutzpah. We're not sure which.
CNSNews.com, it appears, just doesn't care about journalism anymore, increasingly dedicating itself to being a right-wing propaganda outlet.
The headline of a Jan. 21 CNS article by Penny Starr reads, "Planned Parenthood’s Cecile Richards: ‘We Proudly…Provide Abortions’." But Starr actually quotes Richards in the second paragraph of her article as saying, "We proudly provide safe and legal abortion."
Not only did CNS improperly pluralize "abortion," it put ellipses in the wrong place for its dishonest removal of "safe and legal."
Starr is an anti-abortion crusader, and her bias shows in her article by irrelevantly noting Richards' salary as Planned Parenthood president. By contrast, we can't recall any CNS article that disclosed the compensation package of its boss, Brent Bozell.
WND's Unruh Tries To Keep The Birther Flame Alive Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily's Bob Unruh is a dishonest reporter, so it should be no surprise that he's a birther as well.
Unruh pours on the birther prose in a Jan. 24 WND article:
Barack Obama has been focusing more and more, including in his 2015 State of the Union Tuesday, on what pundits describe as legacy issues.
He may envision a legacy 20 or 30 years after his White House tenure of a Web-oriented, Washington-centric health care system that efficiently dispatches what system managers believe people need for health care – a quick abortion, dietary rules or a painkiller for a terminal disease.
In that future, he may hope, as a result of his executive amnesty, for a new Hispanic majority that routinely gives the Democratic Party power as the GOP fades into oblivion.
He may even visualize little plaques on community college campuses across the 50 states noting that Americans are attending for free in exchange for mandatory public service, because of the work of President Barack Obama.
But it’s doubtful he’s rejoicing in the fact that it was his presidency that raised the issue of constitutional eligibility to headlines, courts and congressional debate, and possibly even a ruling from the Supreme Court.
The issue arose even as he ran for president the first time. It surged on his election, was on fire after his inauguration and has been in the courts ever since.
Of course, the only reason the question of Obama's "eligibility" has been repeatedly in the courts is because birthers -- and their enablers at WND -- refuse to acknowledge the existence of evidence that discredits them.
Unruh's article is in the service of promoting the latest birther lawsuit; this one seeks to impose a duty upon the state of California to verify the eligibility of presidential candidates despite the fact neither state nor federal law mandates such a duty.
Unruh notes that one of the plaintiffs, John Dummett, "was a write-in candidate for president of the United States on the California election ballot," but doesn't explain how a write-in candidate can have standing to sue over a ballot issue, especially one who apparently did no campaigning for his so-called presidential run in 2012 if his Facebook page is any indication. Indeed, it seems Dummett is only claiming to be a presidential candidate for the sole purpose of trying to establish standing to sue over Obama's "eligibility."
The lawsuit -- which in this case is actually an appeal seeking to overturn a lower court's dismissal of the lawsuit -- makes this laughably false statement:
However, this Petition does not ask this Court to determine the eligibility of any particular individual to serve as President of the United States. Neither does it ask this Court to define the phrase “natural born citizen.” Article VI of the U.S. Constitution already requires that both “the Members of the several State Legislatures,” and “all executive ... Officers [of the] several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution.” All this Petition asks this Court to do is to ensure that, in fulfilling that oath by exercising their constitutional duty to determine the matter of selection of electors, these state legislators and state officers give meaning to the eligibility requirements for the office of President.
Of course, the entire goal of lawsuits like this is to specifically target Obama. Given that the lawyers in this case are noted birthers like William Olson and Herb Titus, it's even more laughable.
Speaking of laughable, here's how unruh summarized the California court's dismissal of the Dummett lawsuit: "But the California judges shrugged, more or less said 'So what?' and dismissed the case." At no point does Unruh quote what the court actually said, apparently decided what the court "more or less said" is accurate enough for WND.
Even though its birther obession ruined what little journalistic credibility WND had, it apparently is unable to stop pursuing it.
CNS Doesn't Want To Talk About Rape And Abortion Topic: CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com was eager to report that House Republicans scuttled a proposed bill to outlaw abortions after the 20th week of pregnancy. It was much less eager to tell readers why.
A Jan. 22 CNS article by Melanie Hunter highlighted how "Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the pro-life group Susan B. Anthony List, said Thursday she was 'disappointed' that the Republican-controlled House delayed a vote on the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act." Another article by Hunter the same day detailed how "Family Research Council President Tony Perkins on Thursday said despite the House delaying debate on the late-term abortion bill Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, GOP House leadership has not abandoned the 'pro-life effort.'"
Interestingly, neither of those articles saw fit to explain to readers why the vote on the "Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act" was scuttled: Female Republican House members objected to a provision that allowed an rape exception only if that rape was reported to law enforcement.
Later CNS articles mentioned the reason the bill was scuttled, but really didn't want to talk about it much further. A Jan. 22 article by Susan Jones noted that "a few Republicans objected" to the rape provision, then huffed, "Expanding the bill's exemption to cover all claims of rape would allow more abortions." But none of the people Jones quoted in her article expanded on the issue of the rape provision.
A Jan. 23 article by Lauretta Brown reported on "A crowd of pro-life millennials" who gathered outside the office of one of the House Republicans who objected to the rape provision, Rep. Renee Ellmers, "to express their anger with her for delaying and attempting to dilute the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act." Brown noted that the "pro-life millennials" were "angered" by the scuttling of the vote, but strangely, she did not ask any of those protesting "pro-life millennials" thought of the rape provision.
Why doesn't CNS want to get into the meat of the rape provision, even though it's at the center of the controversy over the anti-abortion bill, so much so that even normally pro-life Republicans find it objectionable? Perhaps it's following Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham's advice to conservative to keep from letting such controversies over definitions "become the issue." But by censoring the issue, CNS can only make sure it becomes an issue.
Wait, doesn't CNS pledge to "fairly present all legitimate sides of a story"? Yes, but it's hard to do that by pretending that one prominent side of a certain issue doesn't actually exist.
No first lady in history has behaved as this one has – and it is a certainty that no other first lady would have even entertained the idea of behaving in the uncouth ways she has.
The late Jackie Kennedy, Rosalind Carter, or Laura Bush would never have been caught rolling around on the floor of a late-night television stage. They are justifiably held to a higher standard than that, but the Obama woman is expected to behave commonly and discourteously. She is expected to be angry and contumacious because, after all, she is a descendant of slaves. She has been mistreated by evil whites her entire life – at least, that is, if we are to believe her narrative.
It is the same with Obama. He has been soundly criticized at every turn and justifiably so. George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter were viciously criticized for their policies. But is there anyone who would argue that they would have been permitted to finish their terms if they had been involved in an illegal gun-running operation that led to the murders of innocent Americans and hundreds of innocent Mexicans? Would any American president before Obama have been permitted to knowingly and openly lie about his abominable health-care bill with impunity?
Simply put, Obama was not about to pass up the NFL’s most watchable weekend – all four of my teams won, by the way – to march for a cause he does not believe in.
From his emergence on the national scene in 2004, Obama has been all about suppressing speech. As the titular head of the various progressive sub-cults – black, Hispanic, environmental, feminist, socialist, gay, and (bizarrely) Muslim – he has either endorsed or ignored any number of assaults on speech by his subalterns.
Historically, Obama’s progressive shock troops have contented themselves with hectoring and humiliating those who say something askance.
I have previously addressed in this space the fact that while it is being done rather quietly, Obama has been furiously importing Muslims into the U.S. – no doubt in order to reach that elusive percentage point of no return I mentioned earlier, whereupon ongoing Muslim-fomented civil unrest becomes inevitable.
The proof of Obama’s dedication to Islamist ascendency – some of which has been criminal in nature – is overwhelming, yet it is being widely denied and conveniently avoided, like the fundamental threat of Islam itself. The press ignores it, Congress is far too corrupt to address it, and in the meantime, we are treated to such classics as Senate Intelligence Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein stating that there are Islamist terror cells inside the United States, but there’s “no credible defined threat” to America.
America knows Barack Hussein Obama (Barry Soetoro) and Nancy Pelosi are wicked and corrupt. They are without a doubt constitutionally ignorant and blind to America’s enemies, because they are America’s enemies.
America knows the bad, but does she know the good, the bad and the righteous?
“We may have different takes on the events of Ferguson and New York,” said Barack Obama in his absurdly disingenuous State of the Union speech Tuesday night.
What Obama did not say is why we have “different takes” on Ferguson, namely because he and his allies in the media have done everything in their power to sell black America a false narrative of gratuitous victimization.
How many times is it worth reiterating that the president of the United States – an individual who attained that office by criminal artifice and systematic deception, by the way – has committed serial treason and is being shielded from the consequences of his actions by corrupt and compromised elected officials? There is a major push on worldwide toward advancing the designs of militant Muslims, minimizing the danger they represent and demonizing all who attempt to realistically frame the argument – and it has all been catalyzed by the individual in the White House. The wholesale failure of Obama’s supposed political opponents to publicly call him out on his crimes is as much of a crime as his own.
The foregoing considered, I trust I will be forgiven for not getting too wrapped up in the tone and content of this week’s State of the Union address.
President Obama delivered his sixth State of the Union message to a Congress that is now completely controlled by Republicans. In case you missed it, here is a brief synopsis:
“I fixed the economy (wages are stagnant and the work participation rate is a paltry 62.8 percent, the lowest since 1978), so it’s time to let the good times roll. I’m giving away free ice cream, and we’ll make the rich pay for it. Now, who wants free ice cream?”
Before you grab your dish and line up for a scoop, let me warn you. You may not get the flavor you want or need, and in the end, it will cost you more than you ever thought you would pay.
After all is said and done, my words at the World War II Memorial that rainy and cold day in October 2013, now ring truer than ever. And, those MSNBC commentators who tried to use these words to take down the tea party and our allies, now should eat crow. But they won’t, since these leftist pro-Muslim media allies of Obama share his vision for our nation – one that is socialist, anti-Judeo-Christian and which in one manner shape or form advances their so-called progressive revolution.
And our culture is surely rotten to the core when the president of the United States can openly defy the Constitution and make laws by administrative edict the same way barbarian societies have done for thousands of years – all to the applause of our media and educational elites.
CNS Back To Its Old Gotcha Game Topic: CNSNews.com
It's been a while since CNSNews.com hurled a "gotcha" question at members of Congress - apparently taking in the lesson learned when Barney Frank decided he didn't want to play and turned the tables on a hapless CNS reporter.
Apparently, the sting of the reverse gotcha has faded enough that CNS is back in the gotcha business, hurling a certain loaded question at Democratic members of Congress being ambushed by CNS reporters. See if you can detect a pattern:
WND Still Hiding Anti-Abortion Activist's Violent Past Topic: WorldNetDaily
We've highlighted how WorldNetDaily has hidden the fact that Cheryl Sullenger, the Operation Rescue official who co-wrote the WND-published book "Abortion Free," served a prison sentence in the 1980s for plotting to bomb an abortion clinic. WND is continuing to hide this fact, even as it invokes Sullenger to promote her failure of a book.
An unbylined Jan. 19 WND article tries to play up the idea that abortion clinics are inherently unsafe:
Lakisha Wilson traveled to the Preterm Abortion Clinic in Cleveland on March 21, 2014, to end her unborn child’s life.
But she ended up losing far more than her unwanted baby.
Wilson’s abortion provider did not properly monitor the 22-year-old after the procedure, and Wilson eventually stopped breathing. She was rushed to a nearby hospital, where she was put on life support and pronounced dead seven days later.
Wilson was just one of many African-American women who have been victimized by abortions that went horribly wrong. African-Americans may comprise only 13.2 percent of the total U.S. population, but black women receive 29.7 percent of all abortions in the country.
“When abortions go wrong, it is more likely that women of color are the ones who end up on slabs in the morgue,” wrote Cheryl Sullenger, a senior policy analyst for Operation Rescue. “In the past five years, four out of five abortion-related maternal deaths documented by Operation Rescue have involved Black or Hispanic women.”
Of course, Sullenger wasn't too concerned with human life when she was plotting to blow up an abortion clinic. (She now claims regret for her role in the bombing plot.) And neither she nor WND mention that the mortality rate of childbirth is much higher than it is for abortion.
WND also uncritically repeats Sullenger's factually challenged assertion that "79 percent of all Planned Parenthood abortion clinics are located within walking distance of black or Hispanic neighborhoods." In fact, according to FactCheck.org, only 9 percent of abortion clinics in the U.S. are in neighborhoods in which 50 percent or more of the residents are black.
But facts don't matter when there's a right-wing agenda to promote. Right, Cheryl Sullenger and WND?
CNS Promotes Huckabee on Beyonce, Ignores His Hypocrisy Topic: CNSNews.com
Melanie Hunter is full of Huck-love in a Jan. 20 CNSNews.com article:
Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee told MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” on Tuesday that he has “nothing” against Beyonce, despite criticizing the president and first lady for allowing their daughters to listen to her lyrics, which he called “obnoxious and toxic mental poison” in his new book.
In a chapter called, “The Culture of Crude,” Huckabee talks about Beyonce and her husband Jay Z’s performance of her song, “Drunk in Love” on the 2013 Grammy Awards.
“The song contains words and imagery so graphic that they would never make it through the editing process of this book. … But the onstage gyrations, bare flesh, and (most of) the lyrics did make it onto CBS, again during the smoldering remnants of what used to be the ‘family hour,’” Huckabee wrote.
“You could not repeat the lyrics,” Huckabee told MSNBC’s Scarborough.
In his book, Huckabee wondered why President Barack Obama and first lady Michelle Obama would let Sasha and Malia listen to “that trash.”
“I’ve generally admired the parenting instincts of the First Couple, so it’s hard for me to believe they’ve actually listened to those lyrics,” Huckabee wrote.
Curiously, Hunter didn't mention that a few days earlier, "The Daily Show" exposed Huckabee's hypocrisy on the issue of allegedly raunchy song lyrics by airing a video of Huckabee playing bass behind Ted Nugent singing the lascivious "Cat Scratch Fever."
This probably would have been news at CNS if Huckabee had been a Democrat. But he's a Republican, and his presidential prospects must be protected.
WND's Unruh Hides Klayman's Latest Fit of Incompetent Lawyering Topic: WorldNetDaily
It takes a special kind of journalistic hack to bury or completely censor a central fact in order to promote the latest cause of two of WorldNetDaily's favorite right-wingers. Fortunately for Joe Arpaio and Larry Klayman, WND reporter bob Unruh is that special kind of journalistic hack.
In a Jan. 14 article, Unruh finds big news in a tiny procedural ruling:
A federal appeals court has ordered an expedited schedule for a case brought by Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio against President Obama over his amnesty program that is being implemented even as the case progresses.
The order released Wednesday by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said the brief for the appellants is due Jan. 29, and the government’s brief in defense of amnesty will be due March 2.
“Due to the expedited nature of this case, the court will not entertain dispositive motions. The parties should therefore address in their briefs any arguments otherwise properly raised in such motions,” said the order.
Now, the fact that this Klayman-filed case is in an appeals court means that there was a ruling on the case in another court sometime earlier. But curiously, the only reference to that earlier court's ruling is Unruh noting in passing in the 10th paragraph of his article that "Klayman said the request to accelerate the case was submitted because the lower court made a mistake in dismissing it."
That's right -- a federal district court threw out Klayman and Arpaio's lawsuit just a day after Klayman made his arguments. During his arguments, Klayman demonstrated more of the incompetent and grandstanding lawyering he's well known for, according to Politico:
Judge Beryl Howell allowed conservative legal activist Larry Klayman to present more than an hour’s worth of arguments against the effort at a hearing in Washington on Monday, but her quizzical looks and pointed retorts left little doubt that the legal gadfly’s effort will come up short, at least in her courtroom.
At one point, Howell even dismissed Klayman’s arguments as suffering from a “logical fallacy,” since the key immigration policy changes Obama announced last month haven’t kicked in yet
At one point, Klayman’s comments earned a rebuke from the judge. “Let’s not play to the gallery, here,” she warned.
The conservative gadfly predicted the case would be heading to the Supreme Court, which he said could make Howell famous.
“In this room, I think you are the most famous person, Mr. Klayman,” the judge replied.
Unruh took his know-nothing attitude toward the adverse federal court ruling in a Jan. 20 article promoting how Arpaio and Klayman "recently submitted comments to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas in Brownsville asking to be allowed to file a friend-of-the-court brief in a case brought by dozens of states against Obama over the same issue," adding that "Arpaio alleges he suffers direct economic harm from the defendants’ executive action amnesty for citizens belonging to a foreign country."
This time, Unruh made no mention whatsoever that Arpaio and Klayman's federal lawsuit was dismissed, or that the judge's skepticism of their claim that Arpaio has been directely harmed is one reason why. As Howell stated her ruling throwing out the lawsuit:
The plaintiff attempts to rely upon the doctrine of competitor standing to avoid the strict limitations imposed on cases where the source of the plaintiff’s harm is the independent actions of third parties. Yet, the cases on which the plaintiff relies ... do not support the plaintiff’s standing argument in this case.
Second, and relatedly, the programs challenged by the plaintiff do not regulate the plaintiff directly; rather, they regulate federal immigration officials. As the Supreme Court has made clear, “[w]hen . . . a plaintiff’s asserted injury arises from the government’s allegedly unlawful regulation (or lack of regulation) of someone else, much more is needed” to confer standing.
[T]he plaintiff cannot demonstrate irreparable harm since the plaintiff waited two years to challenge the DACA program and because any harm to the plaintiff is likely to occur regardless of the challenged policies.
It appears that rather than report the full truth, Unruh has instead chosen to hide the fact that the person whose lawsuit he's promoting is a rather incompetent lawyer.
Newsmax TV Laughably Claims It Cares About 'Free Expression' Topic: Newsmax
Newsmax is trying to make hay out of a minor controversy involving its TV channel, as described in a Jan. 20 article by Jim Meyers:
A former senior White House aide to President Obama became furious after he noticed Newsmax TV airing on a United Airlines flight.
Bill Burton, who served as Obama’s deputy White House press secretary, was apparently outraged when he saw Newsmax TV yesterday on the plane’s video screens, and quickly tweeted:
"Hey there, @united. Why on earth is newsmax tv the default channel running on all of your screens when boarding your planes."
Burton apparently doesn’t have much use for the liberal ideals of free expression or allowing for an open exchange of ideas and opinions – at least when it comes to Newsmax TV.
The tweets of Burton and United have now gone viral, and some United customers are not happy about the airline’s quick cave-in to P.C. browbeating.
But Newsmax TV appears to care about "free expression" and an "open exchange of ideas and opinions" only when those ideas and opinions conform to its conservative ideology. Newsmax's archive of articles derived from Newsmax TV content shows it's almost entirely dominated by right-wing opinion from right-wing commentators.
For example, Newsmax TV's panel following Presdient Obama's State of the Union address featured only conservatives: Newsmax reporter John Gizzi, columnist John Fund and serial health care misleader Betsy McCaughey. Needless to say, all three bashed the president and his policies.
Where's the non-right-wing commentary that should be a key part of the "open exchange of ideas and opinions" Newsmax TV claims to offer? We're not seeing it.
WND's Corsi Inadertently Shows Bias And Craziness Of AIM's Benghazi Kangaroo Court Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily's Jerome Corsi thinks he's doing Accuracy in Media's "Citizens' Commission on Benghazi" a favor by reporting its findings, but instead he's unintentionally demonstrating how biased and delusional it is.
Corsi writes in a Jan. 18 WND article of "exclusive interviews conducted with 11 of the 17 members of the commission," in which they claim that the congresional investigation has been "compromised" and that Rep. Trey Gowdy, the Republican House member in charge of the Benghazi investigation, "has been warned away from the final conclusion or he’s been threatened."
What Corsi won't tell you, however, is that -- as we'vedocumented, the "Citizens' Commission on Benghazi" is a kangaroo court stacked with birthers, Obama-haters and conspiracy theorists who could not possibly be trusted to investigate the issue objectively. Of course, as a birther, Obama-hater and conspiracy theorist himself, Corsi simply saw like-minded people instead.
Corsi goes on to quote one CCB member as fretting that Gowdy's next hearing on Benghazi " likely will be closed and classified." But the CCB has demonstrated no transparency whatsoever in its proceedings. It has held no public hearings, and its interim report states conclusions without detailing how it reached them. Its sources, when mentioned at all, were typically anonymous, such as the "American citizen source trusted by the CCB."
A day later, Corsi wrote another article on the CCB, touting its crazy conclusion -- again, lacking any on-the-record support -- that "The Obama White House and the State Department under the management of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton 'changed sides in the war on terror' in 2011." Corsi laughably tried to distance the commission members from the commission itself by claiming that they were "speaking for themselves, not for the commission."
It wasn't his goal, but Corsi spent these two articles demonstrating why how utterly fringe the "Citizens' Commission on Benghazi" is and why it cannot be believed.
NewsBusters Complains 'Nightly Show' Debut On MLK Holiday Is 'Obsessing About Race' Topic: NewsBusters
Jeffrey Meyer had the unenviable task (from a right-wing standpoint) of reviewing the debut episode of "The Nightly Show," Comedy Central's new program starring Larry Wilmore. So we have the only black host currently on late-night TV, with a show debuting on the Martin Luther King holiday, so naturally Wilmore would focus on racial issues.
What do you think Meyer took away from the show? The headline of his Jan. 20 post reveals the answer: "Larry Wilmore Debuts New Comedy Central Show By Obsessing Over Race."
Meyer didn't make a comparison to fill out his definition of obsessive coverage -- after all, NewsBusters has been obsessing about Benghazi much more than Wilmore did in his debut show.
WND Reporter Perpetuates Lies About Firing of Atlanta Police Chief Topic: WorldNetDaily
Leo Hohmann follows in the footsteps of fellow WorldNetDaily reporter Bob Unruh by uncritially promoting right-wing falsehoods regarding the firing of Atlanta police chief Kelvin Cochran.
In a Jan. 19 WND article, Hohmann asserts that Cochran was fired because he "dared to violate the sensitivities of the LGBT community" and that Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed "simply didn’t like the book that his fire chief authored":
Cochran got caught in the filter, fired by Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed because he wrote a book for Christian men that presented the case for traditional morals. Just one page in the book discussed homosexuality, describing it as one of many sexual sins. That was enough to get him fired, despite his many accolades both locally and nationally as a distinguished fire chief.
In a sign of his bias, Hohmann made no effort to talk to anyone who supports Cochran's firing -- he talks only to opponents, and he uncritically quotes their claims. Hohmann notes that some in the media "have reported the firing of Cochran is good," but he can't be bothered to directly cite any instance of this. Curiously, Hohmann doesn't even quote directly the offfending passages from Cochran's book, in which he equated homosexuality to bestiality and pedophila.
Hohmann also makes no mention whatsoever of the Atlanta city investigation that found Cochran was not fired for the content of his book but, rather, for failing to obtain proper permission from the city to self-publish it and for insubordination.
Hohmann bizarrely brings up another case of purported persection of "people who are visited by police for using certain words online or voicing criticisms considered off limits":
Brandon Raub was perhaps the most high-profile case.
Raub, a 26-year-old former Marine, found himself detained against his will for a week in 2012 after making a Facebook post that questioned the government’s official explanation of the 9/11 attacks. Federal, state and local authorities worked in tandem to scoop Raub up and place him in a mental institution. They had no arrest warrant and no search warrant.
Of course, the rest of us remember Raub as someone who also posted a series of disturbing words on Facebook, includingh rap lyrics that can seen as threatening. Needless to say, Hohmann quotes none of Raub actually posted; that tells you that they so undermine his case that Hohmann can't quote what they say.
Hohmann also doesn't mention that Raub was arrested after a report of a 17-year-old performing oral sex on him (the charges were later dropped).
The fact that Hohmann must hide so much of the truth in order to peddle his biased agenda is just another reason why nobody believes WND.
CNS Reporter, Managing Editor Pretend Fox News Apology Over 'No-Go Zones' Doesn't Exist Topic: CNSNews.com
Apparently, because the Media Research Center hasn't acknowledged that Fox News has apologized for and retracted a claim that there are numerous "no-go" zones in Europe where non-Muslims are forbidden to enter -- even stating that there is "no credible information" to support that they exist -- it didn't actually happen.
How else to explain Penny Starr's Jan. 19 CNSNews.com blog post uncritically repeating claims by Republican Gov. Bobby Jindal that those "no-go zones" exist?
Starr made no mention of Fox's apology over the "no-go zones" claim. Instead, she plays up a Daily Mail article Jindal referenced. But as the Guardian noted, the article did not give specific religious groups or towns.
Interestingly, unlike Starr, the Daily Mail reported Jindal's remarks while also noting Fox News' apology for making the same claims.
Starr promoted her article on Twitter by claiming, "Gov. Bobby Jindal tells the truth and the liberal news media is aghast." She did not identify what part of Jindal's comments were "the truth."
But Starr is not alone in her determination to wipe Fox News' apology from the right-wing memory. CNS managing editor Michael W. Chapman repeatedlypromoted the Daily Mailstory on his Twitter account; his account makes no mention of the Fox News apology.