CNS' Hunter Continues Her Obsession With LGBT-Related Federal Spending Topic: CNSNews.com
Hey, look, CNSNews.com deputy managing editor Melanie Hunter has found yet another example of LGBT-related federal spending she has deemed wasteful:
The National Institutes of Health has awarded $228,425 to the Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia (translated it means Cayetano Heredia University), a private university in Lima, Peru, to study syphilis among gay men in that country.
This makes 10 articles Hunter has written since December on supposedly wasteful LGBT-related spending, versus two articles on non-LGBT spending during that same time period.
Hunter has yet to publicly explain her disproportionate focus on LGBT-related spending or whether she has found any such spending she doesn't consider to be a waste of money.
WND's Loudon Plays Armchair Psychologist Again, Diagnoses Obama As Screwed Up Topic: WorldNetDaily
Last year, WorldNetDaily columist Gina Loudon took to her armchair to invent a diagnosis of President Obama as going insane, then defended her armchair psychology by touting her invented "policology" and declaring that mental health professionals as she claims to be don't "surrender our First Amendment rights when we go to graduate school. If the leader of the free world is acting erratically, I would think it would be incumbent upon those who know the signs of instability the best to call out what they see, before something crazy happens, like the release of five terrorists in the exchange for a defector, or something!"
Well, Loudon is once again asserting her First Amendment right to baselessly speculate about Obama's mental state. In her March 8 WND column, Loudon insists that Obama growing up without his biological father made him into less than a real American, or something:
President Obama is affected by “father loss,” as we call it in my field, because his father left him as a baby and he longed his entire life for his return, and approval (“Dreams from My Father”). Even the very title of his book, “Dreams from My Father,” tells a story of a child damaged and forever impacted by a father who rejected him. Obama openly discusses his drive to continue his dead father’s legacy in his book.
Psychoanalysts have long studied the impact typical of boys in Obama’s situation. One analyst contends that a boy whose father has died forms a grandiose idea of him and strongly calls upon himself to replace the parent who has been thus idealized. But other theorists recognize that the rejection of the father while he was alive, coupled with the subsequent death and idealization of his image, evokes a powerful insecurity and emotional reconciliation that can continue through the lifespan of the child, and even stunt his emotional development. The child in that scenario can end up spending most of his life in a pattern of trying to reconcile that rejection throughout their lives, even long after the death of the father.
Obama’s protective attitude toward Islam, the faith of his father before he became an atheist, as well as his lack of a clear “American first” strategy of Reagan or Bush in international conflicts, is a logical extension of his father’s anti-colonialist Third World view of the U.S. This leaves Obama like a boat without a rudder, because he has found himself the leader of the very country his father hated. That is a huge internal conflict: How do you simultaneously love a country enough to govern it, while still hoping to win the love, even posthumously, of a father you need?
Benjamin Netanyahu, on the other hand, is a total stud because he had a father who loved him:
Netanyahu cares very little about who likes him. He is secure in his own strategy and leadership since he had a strong and loving father. Netanyahu is motivated by his own security, confidence and a sense of justice. Obama is motivated by his own insecurity, a lack of confidence and a need for approval. Thus, Netanyahu easily makes decisions based on conviction and leads decisively. Obama distrusts his own instincts, feels insecure about his ability to make good decisions and reacts often by overreacting.
For example, in Netanyahu’s speech last week that Obama boycotted, he said, “The days when the Jewish people remained passive in the face of genocidal enemies, those days are over.” Congress erupted in applause. Then he continued, “We are no longer scattered among the nations, powerless to defend ourselves. We restored our sovereignty in our ancient home. And the soldiers who defend our home have boundless courage. For the first time in 100 generations, we, the Jewish people, can defend ourselves.”
We have a president who, by legacy, holds conflicted loyalty to the country he leads. By contrast, Netanyahu, like Jews born anywhere in the world, is fighting for the very land of his fathers going back thousands of years – land the Bible holds was actually given to them by God himself. Netanyahu betrays by losing the land, and Obama betrays by protecting it. Such a divide may be impossible to bridge. The reality is that by almost any account, freedom loses if Israel is threatened.
As we all know, WND editor Joseph Farah is proud of his columnists that make stuff up.
CNS' Jeffrey Forgets Who Was President When Most Gitmo Detainees Who Returned To Terrorism Were Released Topic: CNSNews.com
In a March 7 CNSNews.com article, CNS editor-in-chief Terry Jeffrey writes about how "The Director of National Intelligence released a report this week indicating that the United States has 'confirmed' that 116 detainees "transferred" out of the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, subsequently reengaged in terrorist or insurgent activities." Jeffrey then tries to blame President Obama for this, noting that "Two days after he first took office in 2009, President Obama issued an executive order calling for Guantanamo to be closed. That order also called for officials to review what should be done with each individual transferred from the prison."
But it's not until the 23rd paragraph of his article that Jeffrey admits (grudging, in parentheses) that the recidivism rate for detainees released under Obama is lower than it used to be:
(The percentage of Guantanamo detainees released after President Obama's executive order who have been confirmed to have returned to terrorist or insurgent activity has been less thus far--5.2 percent--than it has been for detainees released before the executive order, which is 17.9 percent.)
Jeffrey curiously doesn't mention who was president before Obama and, thus, the president with the higher recidivism rate: Republican George W. Bush. In fact, Bush's name appears nowhere in Jeffrey's article, even though he repeatedly names Obama and publishes Republican criticism of Obama's Gitmo release policy.
Jeffrey doesn't seem to want to let inconvenient facts interfere with his politically motivated attack on Obama disguised as "news."
WND's Farah Obsessively Speculates Whether Obama Will Leave Office In 2017 Topic: WorldNetDaily
President Obama is living rent-free inside Joseph Farah's head.
That's been true for years. of course -- how else could he use his WorldNetDaily to perpetuate false birther conspiracies? -- but it has become especially apparent over the past week, in which Farah has written not one, not two, but three columns devoted to speculating whether Obama will voluntarily leave office when his term ends in January 2017.
Farah kicked off his baseless frenzy of speculation in his March 5 WND column, declaring that Obama "respects neither the law nor the American tradition of peaceful changes of power" and, thus, might refuse to leave the White House when his term ends. Farah huffed; "Again, do I think Obama will leave office in January 2017? Yes I do. But, with a track record like this – and, actually much worse – should we simply take it for granted?"
Farah followed up in his March 8 column, upset that Right Wing Watch highlighted his earlier column but proud that his buddy Rush Limbaugh enthustiastically endorsed his speculation. He continued to rant:
There’s simply no organized opposition to Obama’s illegal, criminal actions and behavior. He’s getting away with all of it. There are no serious repercussions. No political price. No major media opposition. Few judicial rulings that worry him. Not one political, religious or social institution that is holding him accountable – least of all the Republican Party.
A handful of vocal critics on the Internet and talk radio point out his violations of the law, American tradition, the concept of constitutionally limited government with a system of checks and balance, not to mention decency and basic morality. But there is no operating political mechanism to stop him from doing anything and everything he wants to do.
Yet Farah wasn't done speculating. His March 10 column invented an excuse why Obama would want to stay -- free vacations:
How many vacations have you taken in the last six years?
Have you taken six?
I doubt most Americans have been able to do that. For families, it might be even tougher.
Do you know how many Barack Obama has taken?
That’s right. That’s more than six vacations per year – all expenses paid by you the taxpayer. And these are not your routine week-at-the-beach excursions. These would almost all be vacations of a lifetime for even very wealthy Americans. He and the first family, God love them, are living it up on your dime.
No doubt Obama will be in a position to make lots of money after the presidency, whenever he decides to end it. But it’s hard to imagine him enjoying six all-expense-paid vacations every year at his venue of choice. Not too many people live that kind of life – even with the “endowments” recent past presidents often get from their oil baron friends in the Middle East.
Do you think Obama’s about to give that up and move out of the White House to make room for Hillary Clinton?
I don’t know. The more I think about it, the less convinced I am.
Farah seems to have overlooked the fact that as of the same point in their presidencies, George W. Bush had taken more than three times as many vacation days as Obama has. Yet we don't recall Farah ever complaining about the amount of vacation time Bush took.
Yep, Obama's living rent-free in Farah's head. And it must kill Farah to know that -- after all, he destroyed what little journalistic reputation WND had with his obsessive drive to personally destroy the president.
Yet after all this time and the destruction of his own reputation, Farah just can't evict the president from his head. Sad, isn't it?
CNS' Starr Apparently Thinks Researchers Use Rats Off The Street Topic: CNSNews.com
A March 6 CNSNews.com article by Penny Starr is about a biotech firm that "transplants organs from aborted babies into lab rats with the goal of growing them for use in patients who need organ transplants." But look at the photo accompanying Starr's article:
Yes, that's a picture of street rats rummaging through a garbage bag. Apparently Starr thinks those are the kind of rats researchers use.
Actually, laboratory rats are notably different from wild street rats, if Wikipedia is to be believed; scientists have bred many strains or "lines" of rats specifically for experimentation.
So, no, Ms. Starr, rats in the street are not running wild with organs from aborted babies on them, however much you and other anti-abortion activists believe in your heart that is true.
Also, note that CNS is once again misusing Associated Press content by sticking this completely unrelated photo on this story. CNS has a habit of rewriting AP headlines to make them more biased.
WND's Klein Serves As Netanyahu Press Aide, Censors His Campaign Problems Topic: WorldNetDaily
Aaron Klein is continuing his unpaid role (near as we can tell) as a public-relations agent for Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu's re-election campaign in a March 9 WorldNetDaily article:
In an interview with Hebrew media over the weekend that received no English-language news media attention, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warned of what he called a foreign-funded election plot to mobilize Israeli Arab voters in a bid to replace him at next week’s polls.
WND exposed the purported scheme last month in an article documenting a State Department-financed nonprofit based in Israel is currently engaged in a major effort to get young Arab citizens to the voting booths in the upcoming Israeli elections.
Israeli election trends have long demonstrated that Arab citizen’s vote overwhelmingly for left-wing and Arab parties. Any increase in the Arab vote would clearly come at the expense of the Likud Party and other right-wing parties.
Can't have Israeli citizens exercise their voting rights if they're voting for the wrong candidate, can we?
Klein goes on to repeat his claim that an anti-Netanyahu campaign "a consulting firm whose senior leadership is comprised mostly of former top staffers for President Obama’s 2012 re-election campaign," ignoring the fact that American conservative political strategists have been routinely hired by Netanyahu's campaign.
While Klein does his biased duty in protecting Netanyahu, he has shown no interest this far in reporting the problems Netanyahu and his party are having in this campaign. As Bloomberg reports:
Powerful former Mossad director Meir Dagan said that Netanyahu's conduct of the conflict with the Palestinians would lead Israel to being either a binational or an apartheid state.
A Likud campaign commercial showing "people in a self-help group, all there due to Netanyahu's policies" included supposedly lazy workers and a Hamas terrorist. Bloomberg noted: "In a country with deep socialist roots, the nasty portrayal of lazy workers was edgy enough. But depicting a Hamas terrorist in the same group as laborers went way too far."
A leaked document allegedly indicating that Netanyahu had agreed in principle to return to the 1967 lines in a deal with the Palestinians, something he has said publicly he would never do.
And if Klein has anything to do with it, he will never report on negative developments for Netanyahu unless he can somehow put a positive spin on it.
Once again the specter of race has reared it ugly head displaying five undeniable truths: 1) blacks love to be victims; 2) whites, regardless of their intentions or motivations, will always be accused of harboring deep-seated prejudice toward blacks; 3) only blacks, Hispanics, homosexuals and Muslims are permitted to be proud of what they are; 4) whites do not enjoy freedom of speech unless it is politically correct and liberal; and 5) numbers 1 through 4 are always true.
Massie forgets another undeniable truth: Black conservatives like him have special privilege to say things would be considered racist if said by a white person, but he has not demanded similar treatment.
CNS Portrays Extremist Pastors As 'Conservative Black Leaders' Topic: CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com is devoting another article to its homophobic obsession with the cherry-picked, out-of-context reference President Obama made to gays during last weekend's speech in Selma, Alabama. In it, Lauretta Brown obtains reaction from what she claims are "conservative black leaders" to the reference, giving no indication she provided the correct and complete context of the statement to them.
So who are these "conservative black leaders" that Brown thinks are worthy of perpetuating this manufactured controversy?
-- Jesse Lee Peterson is a Sean Hannity-backed pastor and WorldNetDaily columnist who has issues with women. He's also a rabid Obama-hater who once claimed that the president is "committed to spreading evil."
In his comments to CNS, Peterson went even farther off the Obama-hating rails by likening Obama to a Ku Klux Klan leader. No, really:
Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson of BOND (The Brotherhood Organization of a New Destiny) was similarly critical of the president’s speech.
“There was no hope in that rally,” Peterson said. “Just think about this: 50 years later we have a black president in the United States of America. This country has done more than any other country to make amends for slavery in this country and yet there was no appreciation of that. There was no praise of America, thanking America for what it had done. It was as though it was still 1955.”
“It was disgusting, it was evil, it was wrong,” said Peterson.
“That rally was a klan’s rally, was no different than the KKK, it was a hate rally, a hateful rally,” said Peterson.
The third "leader" Brown quoted, C.L. Bryant, has complained that Obama isn't a real black American and his election is a "slap in the face" to those who are.
These are who Brown and CNS consider "conservative black leaders." Actual conservative black leaders should be insulted.
WND's Geller Flings Poo At Jon Stewart Topic: WorldNetDaily
Pamela Geller's March 8 WorldNetDaily column is ostensibly about how hw poo emoticon somehow reflects liberal society. But then Geller goes on a poo-flinging tirade of her own against Jon Stewart:
Sharing their disdain for America is Jon Stewart, to whom they should have given the “Most Disgusting Jew on the Planet Award.” No contest. After Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s ground-breaking speech to Congress last week, Stewart scoffed at the many standing ovations Netanyahu received as the “longest bl-wjob a Jewish man has ever received.”
This vicious traitor, smug and self-righteous, has long been working for the other side under the guise of comedy. Vile. Jon Stewart defines self-loathing Jew. But that’s not enough. He means to take us down with him.
He is leaving Comedy Central, thankfully. But don’t get too happy; they’ll turn the show over to another leftist radical. When does Dennis Miller or someone like that get an HBO or Comedy Central gig? The cultural landscape is under siege by these killers.
MRC's Graham Twists Evidence To Perpetuate 'Liberal Media' Conspiracy Topic: Media Research Center
Here's the genius of the Media Research Center's anti-media agenda: Any evidence that disproves their claims of "liberal bias" can be portrayed as evidence of bias.
On March 8, the MRC's Tim Graham helped feed right-wing speculation that the New York Times deliberately cropped former President George W. Bush and his wife out of a photo of a march in Selma, Alabama.
This manufactured outrage was enough for Times public editor Margaret Sullivan to investigate. Her finding: The Times itself never cropped the photo; the photographer stated that in the photo he took, "Bush is super-overexposed because he was in the sun and Obama and the others are in the shade" and that the photo is a bad photo technically.
How did Graham respond to this reasoned investigation? By reframing it as more evidence of the conspiracy:
The paper didn’t alter a photograph. But the Bushes were “cropped” out – metaphorically. Their presence didn’t have “impact.”
Obviously, conservatives disagree there’s “no evidence of politics” here. Announcing the photo the Times used “has impact” is code for “makes Obama look good on a notable day in U.S. racial history.”
By contrast, consider the Times on January 12, 2015. They had two large color photos with “impact” on the front page from the unity march after the Charlie Hedbo murders by Islamists. Obviously, there was no Obama in that picture to “crop” out. But the front-page news account by Liz Alderman never used the name “Obama” and waited to mention Attorney General Eric Holder being in Paris until paragraph eight.
In fact, a review of front pages from that Monday through Friday showed no focus on Obama on the Times front page that week. This story ended up on page A-12: “White House Acknowledges Error in Not Sending a Top Official to March in Paris.”
Everything the Times decides is “news” seems very carefully reviewed for its “impact” on Obama.
See? Lack of proof of any actual cropping becomes proof of "metaphorical" cropping. Any evidence that disproves Graham's conspiracy can be twisted to mean the opposite.
Even if the Times had run that bad photo with the Bushes in it, Graham would have, in all likelihood, complained that the Times ran a poor image of the Bushes to make them look bad.
The Times just can't win -- which, presumably, is the way Graham and the MRC like it.
Molotov Mitchell Is Jacked That Obama Dies In New Movie Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily's Molotov Mitchell is already on record as advocating the "abolition of homosexuality." Now he's on record cheering the abolition of President Obama.
Mitchell's March 3 WND video is a review of the new film "Kinsgman: The Secret Service." He's especially giddy that Obama dies in the film, proudly proclaiming that the film is "the first Hollywood film to kill Barack Obama, on-screen no less."
You can hear the joy in Mitchell's voice as he describes how in the film, Obama's head "pop[s] like a pinata to the triumphant sounds of 'Ode to Joy.'" Ol' Molotov serves up his own low-res version of said head-popping:
Mitchell then intones: "He tries to kill America, and dies for it."
Mitchell concludes by delcaring that "other than 'The Interview,' this is the only film this year where you get to see a real-life dictator's head blow up."
Mitchell's unabashed fervor for Obama's fake death could easily translate to fervor for his actual death. Something tells me ol' Molotov should be expecting a visit from the nice fellows at the Secret Service pretty soon.
Since this is stenography and not reporting, there's no attempt to fact-check anything Levin says -- apparently, if he says it, it's axoimatically true.
There's also no mention of the fact that CNS' parent, the Media Research Center, has a business deal with Levin in which they cross-promote each other. It's also not disclosed whether all these fawning Levin posts are part of that promotion deal.
WND Misleads About Proposed Armor-Piercing Ammo Ban Topic: WorldNetDaily
As could be expected from WorldNetDaily, its reporting on a proposed federal ban of one type of armor-piercing ammuntion is filled with misinformation.
A Feb. 16 WND article by Leo Hohmann contradicts itself by lamenting the proposed ban of the "so-called 'armor-piercing'" rounds, then admits a couple paragraphs later that "it was a given that rounds from any high-powered hunting rifle could penetrate the soft armor worn by officers," including the "green tip" M855 round proposed to be banned because of the existence of newly created handguns that can fire such rounds.
Hohmann also quotes the National Rifle Association attacking the proposed ban because "the M855 ball should have never been classified as “armor piercing” to begin with." But he doesn't mention that the NRA itself has banned the use of the M855 round at some of its own shooting ranges.
In a March 3 article, Cheryl Chumley writes that the M855 round is "popular among AR-15 enthusiasts and sporting types – especially among big game hunters, who like the powerful 'armor-piercing' capability of the shot." She didn't mention that big-game animals do not typically wear armor.
In a March 4 WND article, Hohmann characterized the M855 round as "the ammunition for the popular AR-15 rifle." In fact, 168 other types of ammo that can be used in the rifles would remain legal.
Hohmann also try to downplay the bullet's lethality by repeating claims that no police officer "has been taken down by a criminal using an AR-15 handgun." But Hohmann does not offer a sporting justification for the AR-15 handgun.
Look for WND to keep the controversy -- and the misinformation -- alive.
CNS Obsesses Over Single Line Referencing Gays In Obama's Selma Speech Topic: CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com's story on President Obama's speech in Selma, Alabama, for the 50th anniversary of the famous civil rights march there isn't even a story, really -- it's just a lazy, unbylined copy-and-paste of a few paragraphs of the speech from the White House website, plucked out of context from the much longer speech.
Why did CNS do this? Because Obama said something CNS didn't like: he failed to denigrate gays. Or, as the completely context-free headline screams, "Obama: 'We’re The Gay Americans Whose Blood Ran in the Streets of San Francisco’."
So offended was CNS that it put this out-of-context speech excerpt and its even more out-of-context headline as the lead story of its website today, accompanied with a picture of an arrogant-looking Obama (because that's the impression of him CNS wants its readers to have).
CNS is has been ramping up its anti-gay agenda in recent months, and this article shows how it's happening.
WND's Farah Remains A Birther Dead-Ender Topic: WorldNetDaily
In a March 6 WorldNetDaily column in which he claims tofind great meaning that "President Barack Obama" can be anagrammed into “an Arab-backed imposter” (which seems to contradict his longtime assertion that he doesn't recognize Obama as his president), Joseph Farah writes this:
Just for the record, WND has been making the case that Obama is and always has been an “imposter.” He’s simply not constitutionally eligible for the presidency. But he not only fooled America once, he fooled us twice. You know what they say about that. Shame on us.
Farah doesn't explain what reasoning he uses to come to the conclusion that Obama is "simply not constitutionally eligible for the presidency." He may be using his own website, which has steadfastly refused to report how WND's birther conspiracies have been repeatedly discredited.
At the risk of boring ourselves to death since we already did this about four years ago, let's look at the evidence that destroys Farah's claim, shall we?
As WND itself has conceded, the constitutional requirement that the president be a "natural born citizen" has never been explicitly defined by any federal court. Birthers have repeatedly invoked Emmerich de Vattel "The Law of Nations" as a defense of the idea that the Founders intended for "natural born" to mean born of two parents who are citizens, but that interpretation relies on translations that came after the Constitution was ratified.
Birthers (like WND's Aaron Klein) have also cited the 1874 Supreme Court case Minor v. Happersett as defining "natural born citizen." But that decision involved a woman who was suing for the right to vote, not presidential eligibility; the woman's status as a "natural born citizen" was not the issue; and the court ruling discusses only two types of citizens, "natural born" and "naturalized." The more direct precedent is the 1898 Wong Kim Ark case, in which the Supreme Court ruled that a child born in America was a U.S. citizen.
Others claim that a 2008 Senate resolution declaring John McCain to be a "natural born" citizen, in Klein's words, "seems to define the term as one who is born to two U.S. citizens." The Senate may have done so regarding McCain's citizenship, but it also did not establish two citizen parents as the only possible way to be defined as a "natural born" citizen.
The birther conspiracy that Obama's long-form birth certificate is a forgery has also been discredited. The purported "modifications" birthers claim exist in the PDF scan of the birth certificate released by the White House have been easily reproduced through scanning the document into a Xerox scanner.
Further, as former Cold Case Posse member Brian Reilly revealed, the state of Hawaii's verification of Obama's birth certificate showing him to be born in Hawaii should have effective ended the witch hunt, had posse chief Mike Zullo not disregarded it.
So, yeah, Farah is lying about Obama once again. Why are we notsurprised?
(P.S. We've contacted Farah to obtain the evidence he's using to back up his claim that Obama's not eligible to be president. We'll update this post if he responds.)