As for Mr. Obama, who is on record as having spoken of “my Muslim faith,” he must redeem his failing “presidency” by making it quite clear that he is not a terrorist sympathizer. He is, of course, entitled to his “Muslim faith,” for your nation was born of a desire to replace the Catholic and then Protestant intolerance of Europe with a more open-minded approach to other people’s faith.
Yet a true leader has to get his priorities right. And Mr. Obama’s whining about the non-threat of global warming and his culpable silence on the fact that people who call themselves Muslims are responsible for nearly all terrorist acts around the world are no longer acceptable.
For while one may tolerate another’s religion, if that “religion” increasingly seems to be the wellspring of terrorism, and if that “religion’s” leaders say and do nothing to deter the terrorists, and if that “religion’s” adherents, such as Mr. Obama, are also sullenly silent, then perhaps, after all, it is Islam itself that should no longer be tolerated.
Perhaps Mr. Obama and others who share his Muslim faith should be debarred from holding any public office on grounds of a grievous and life-threatening conflict of interest. To be silent in the face of Islamic terror is to be a sympathizer with that terror.
-- Christopher Monckton, Nov. 15 WorldNetDaily column
Barack Obama was also profound in another of his statements: “This is a heartbreaking situation and obviously those of us here in the United States know what it’s like.”
Yeah, Barack, it is ‘heartbreaking” – a word you use for just about every lamentable situation you feel compelled to comment on.
But there is something missing.
Just as when the Russian Plane exploded killing all on board – men, women and children – Obama said not a word of condolence for that loss of life.
Now, he’s done the same thing: not a word of sympathy for the dead and wounded, even though they include several American citizens.
But then, Obama is a citizen of the world – nay, the universe. He needs not be concerned with just one country, even though it’s the one that has given him the bully pulpit.
Americans are trembling in rage and disbelief as they watch this dangerously narcissistic commander in chief show no passion for defending the United States but gush with emotion over the prospect of dumping 10,000 Syrian refugees in our land without proper security screening. We see photos of him with Russian thug President Vladimir Putin and think to ourselves, “I hope Putin will talk some sense into him about ISIS.”
What a surreal time we are living in. What an age of presidential denial. God help us.
If you could go ahead with a plan to make America as vulnerable and unsafe as possible, you couldn’t do it better than Barack Obama. The unbelievable madness continues with this administration, and when you think it can’t get any worse, it does.
Please, God, send us a leader. Someone who can see clearly what needs to be done and has the brains, guts and courage to do it.
I suppose I should not be in shock, but I am. Did you hear the president Monday, condescendingly lecturing us about our “values” and how we should not have a “litmus test” against Muslims?
Mr. President, how about no “litmus test” against Christians? Your administration drives believers out of business, fining them, threatening them and forces them to embrace institutionized sodomy, all the while trampling the First Amendment. But let’s put that issue aside for a moment.
OK, President Obama, we get your “no litmus test for Muslims” policy, but how about at least a thorough vetting process to ferret out radical Islamists? A litmus test for those who want to blow up our planes, to burn our homes, to behead our people, to rape our wives, to sell our children into slavery – Is THAT too much to ask?
I have never beat the “Obama’s a Muslim” drum, and I won’t now. But the evidence is overwhelming that he cares little for authentic Christians, while doing everything he can to affirm Islam and to coddle Muslims – violent or peaceful.
We are now at STAGE THREE.
In STAGE ONE, we were all in shock at the things Obama did, thinking, “He is merely inept. Surely this must be incompetence. No competent person would do this.” So we thought.
STAGE TWO was “This is more serious than ineptness. He is devious. This is part of his Saul Alinsky training coming out. He is smart. But this is intentional. He is not interested in merely ‘fundamentally changing’ America. He is set on perverting her.”
But now we have entered STAGE THREE. This one is much more serious. Commentators on TV are now using the term “delusional” as they describe his indescribable and atrocious response to the horrors of Paris from the G20 meetings in Turkey.
Amazingly, Mr. Obama wants to import a couple of hundred thousand Muslims over the next coming years. Only a dopey, liberal stooge would try and convince us that all these immigrants are peace-loving Muslims who will respect our Constitution and assimilate quickly into our society and culture.
-- Ted Nugent, Nov. 18 WND column
Politicians are now calling ISIS “a creation of Obama” and claiming that this president, through his actions, is benefiting ISIS.
After the Paris attacks, what did America hear from this treasonous President Barack Hussein Obama (his Muslim name)? (Luke 3:19) America heard a dictator who was angry and agitated with those who were comparing ISIS to the Muslims.
Well, Barack, like it or not, the created “terror” group ISIS (a global political battering ram to create chaos and upend nations only to consolidate power for the United Nations) is Muslim; and Muslims are ISIS.
The bottom line, dear and fellow patriots: If the Republicans do not act and fail to institute meaningful impeachment and conviction proceedings to legally remove the Muslim sympathizer in the White House before it is too late, then We the People should demand that those responsible, Republican House and Senate leaders themselves be impeached and convicted.
The nation simply cannot afford another year and a half of Obama and the Muslim terrorists he allows to run loose worldwide. If this state of affairs continues, September 11 will look in retrospect like a warm-up act, and by the time of the 2016 presidential elections next November, there may be little left of our beloved nation when it comes to our national security!
I believe God wants Christians to pray a very specific prayer: Pray for the conversion of Barack Obama out of Islam. Just that. Nothing more. Try that this Sunday. It should liven up your church service.
Last week, I asked if it isn’t time to raise the “I” word in relation to Barack Obama. “Impeach” is the word, but the reality is that with this Congress, it will not happen.
But as the week progressed, other words were raised about Obama. One was “retire” – step down because of his confusing, contradictory and, too often, just plain questionable decisions. Remember, this is the man who said he would “lead from behind.” I studied logic – what does that mean?
As the week progressed, more and more Americans wonder whether Barack Obama really has the best interests of the United States “first” on his list of things to do. He is supposed to be the leader of the free world, but it’s clear that’s virtually the last thing on his mind.
MRC: How Dare Anyone Say Nice Things About Ted Koppel! Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center has decided that merely saying nice things about retired ABC newsman Ted Koppel is "liberal media bias." In the past week, it has devoted not one but two posts to the idea.
Jeffrey Meyer whines in a Nov. 19 NewsBusters post:
On Wednesday night’s Daily Show, host Trevor Noah gushed over veteran liberal ABC reporter Ted Koppel, proclaiming that there isn’t “anybody in the news who can arguably say they have had a more accomplished career than you have had.”
The liberal Comedy Central host proclaimed that the name Ted Koppel “is synonymous with great journalism, and not just great TV personality but great journalism” and despite Koppel’s push back, Noah insisted “I'm very honest to say that. I'm very honest to say that.”
After Noah finished sucking up to Koppel he wondered if “there's still journalism in the news or is it personality driven?” and the ABC veteran eagerly returned the favor by praising the role liberal comedians like Trevor Noah have in supposedly acting as journalists by mixing news and humor:
When Koppel appeared on Stephen Colbert's CBS show a few days later, Meyer was once again on it:
On Monday's Late Show, liberal comedian Stephen Colbert heaped praise on liberal journalist Ted Koppel, who hosted ABC’s Nightline for 29 years, and called him “one of the most respected journalists of our time.”
Colbert provided a fawning introduction of Koppel and touted how he “won eight Peabody awards, 11 Overseas Press Club awards 42 Emmys, you’ve been managing editor of the Discovery Channel, and news analyst for BBC America, a commentator right now on NPR.”
Rather than ask Koppel about the embarrassing decline of Nightline, the CBS comedian instead sympathetically asked “[a]s someone who is been in journalism for a long time, what do you think of the state of today's journalism? How is it doing? And please give your answer in the form of a list of 17 casts that look like world leaders.”
After Koppel explained that journalism is “so fragmented now, we have so much journalism” competing for “a tiny fragment of the audience” the veteran ABC reporter eagerly cheered how people like Colbert “end up doing more serious studies of serious subjects in a funny way than news people.”
Meyer offered no evidence that "Nightline" is suffering an "embarrassing decline." But he did make sure to brand Koppel and everyone involved in saying nice things about him as "liberal." So much for labeling bias.
At WND, Threatening Violence Is 'Free-Thinking' Topic: WorldNetDaily
Bob Unruh writes in a Nov. 18 WorldNetDaily article:
Someone doesn’t like your social-media postings criticizing the government.
So, big deal, you respond.
But then he calls authorities, and, suddenly, the Secret Service and FBI are on your doorstep. You’re declared to have mental problems, and you’re handcuffed and locked up, against your will, for a week for a psychological evaluation.
That’s the story of decorated Marine Brandon Raub, whose appeal of his case has been refused by the U.S. Supreme Court, leaving in place the precedent of how his case was handled.
“This case was about more than one Marine’s right to not be targeted for speaking out against the government,” said John W. Whitehead, president of the Rutherford Institute, which represented Raub in his fight over his 2012 detention.
Actually, that's not Raub's story -- and Unruh is hiding the truth. There's a reason Unruh doesn't quote from Raub's "social-media postings criticizing the government," after all.
As we've previously detailed, one of the things Raub posted on Facebook -- amid his rantings that the U.S. government was complicit in the 9/11 attacks -- was a lyric from a rap song, "Sharpen my axe; I'm here to sever heads," and a declaration that "WE MUST TAKE OUR REPUBLIC BACK."
The occasion of Unruh's article was the Supreme Court's refusal to take up Raub's case, but Unruh doesn't clearly explain what the case is about since, as per his history and in defiance of WND editor Joseph Farah's rarely demonstrated insistence that WND reporters are "required to seek out multiple sources and contrary viewpoints in news articles," he is only interested in telling one side of the story and serving as stenographer for Raub's lawyer's at the right-wing Rutherford Institute. As Law 360 details, Raub was appealing previous court rulings that his rights weren't violated in the detention following the posting of his violent words. Law 360 also notes that another thing Raub posted was "This is revenge. Know that before you die," which along with his other statements appear to run counter to attorney John Whitehead's insistence that Raub "never threatened violence."
Law 360 also recited the side of Raub's story Unruh doesn't want you to know -- starting with the fact that it was Raub's fellow Marines, not an anonymous "someone" who "doesn’t like [his] social-media postings criticizing the government" as Unruh claims, who alerted authorites about Raub:
In the summer of 2012, several Marine veterans who had served with Raub in Iraq contacted the FBI after he posted a series of increasingly ominous messages on Facebook, according to the opinion.
FBI and local law enforcement officials visited Raub at his home in Chesterfield County in Virginia, where they observed that his demeanor varied wildly over the course of their questioning, going from completely calm to extremely emotional, according to the opinion.
While Raub didn’t threaten violence, he didn’t answer when asked if he intended to, according to the opinion.
He also quizzed the FBI agents about government conspiracy theories, such as Raub’s believe that the government fired a missile into the Pentagon on 9/11.
After half an hour, the officials decided to call Campbell, who recommended that Raub be detained for an evaluation after they told him about the Facebook posts and their conversation with Raub.
Campbell interviewed Raub in jail, where he observed that Raub was distracted and had difficulty answering questions. Along with Raub’s belief that he was destined to lead a coming revolution, Campbell concluded that he might be paranoid and delusional, and asked a judge for a temporary detention order.
At the hospital, a psychologist examined Raub and agreed that he showed symptoms of psychosis, according to the opinion. Hospital staff then petitioned the state court for an order of involuntary admission for treatment.
At first, Raub was ordered to stay in the hospital for 30 days, but then after three days, the court released him, saying that the petition didn’t have any factual allegations.
Unruh also makes sure not to mention one more spot of trouble Raub found himself in: In July 2014, Raub was arrested on charges of indecent liberties with a child and contributing to the delinquency of a minor. Investigators said Raub and his brother gave alcohol to two teenage girls. Later, Raub was accused of exposing himself to one of them and attempting to have her touch him inappropriately. Those charges were later dropped after it was ruled that Raub was not in a "custodial or supervisory relationship" at the time one of the teenage girls performed oral sex on him.
But the most amazing part of Ubnruh's deceitful article is the headline: "Supremes hang free-thinking Marine out to dry."
That's right -- threatening violence is just "free-thinking" at WND.
Also, Raub hasn't been hung out to dry -- he's been free since he was three-day detention two years ago.
Bozell & Graham Whine About 'Christian Terrorism' Claims, Ignore Pastor Who Called For Execution of Gays Topic: Media Research Center
In their Nov. 20 column, Tim Graham and Brent Bozell rant that "what is wholly unacceptable is any attempt to drag Christianity into a moral-equivalency game with radical Islam." They continue:
Then there are the feminists who love to make comparisons of Christianity and radical Islam by implying that Christians should be defined as abortion-clinic personnel killers. Late-term abortionist George Tiller was shot at his Lutheran church in 2009, and then you have to go back to Dr. Barnett Slepian being shot in his own home in 1998. How many tens of thousands have perished at the hands of Islamic radicals during that time frame?
Christians immediately condemned the killing of abortionists, evil as they are, as immoral.
But Bozell (and, presumably, Graham as his ghostwriter) didn't condemn Tiller's death with any hint of enthusiasm -- it was more of a defensive move. In a June 2009 column just after Tiller's murder, Bozell complained that Keith Olbermann called Tiller's murder an "assassination," adding: "Olbermann insisted that the mere act of denouncing Tiller as killer of babies - as if he were instead removing tumors - is an invitation to terrorism and murder."
Bozell cited "an avalanche of press releases from pro-life groups denouncing the killing," but he omitted anti-abortion leader Randall Terry -- whose activism the MRC has promoted over the years -- expressing apparant joy over Tiller's murder, saying that "I believe George Tiller was one of the most evil men on the planet; every bit as vile as the Nazi war criminals who were hunted down, tried, and sentenced after they participated in the 'legal' murder of the Jews that fell into their hands."
Yet Bozell aped Terry's rhetoric, declaring: "George Tiller was a monster who personally murdered 60,000 babies. May God have mercy on his soul." Bozell can't denounce Terry because he sounds exactly like him.
Later, one of Bozell's employees sought to justify Tiller's murder by complaining that "reporters do nothing to help their audience understand why this man was targeted," albeit buried in blather about how "loss of human life is a tragedy."
In short, Bozell and Graham may or may not approve of the method of Tiller's death, but they are certainly gleeful about the results.
There was a more recent example of Christian terrorism Graham and Bozell could have denounced in their column: Iowa pastor Kevin Swanson declaring that gays should be executed. He made this claim at a conference attended by three Republican presidential candidates.
But the entire MRC organization, from Bozell on down, has remained silent about Swanson's anti-gay rant and what it means for the three GOP candidates who were introduced to the stage by Swanson (one of whom, Bobby Jindal, has since exited the race).
Shouldn't Bozell and Graham have addressed this by now, instead of enforcing a code of silence and letting it fester for more than two weeks -- presumably because MRC favorite Ted Cruz is one of the candidates who took part?
It seems that Bozell and Graham can't condemn all Christian terrorism, it shouldn't be complaining about the subject being brought up.
WND Can't Decide Whether Muslims In U.S. Must Be Tracked Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily can't quite decide what to do with the Muslims. Should they be tracked like Nazis, or not?
On Nov. 20, WND published an article by Douglas Ernst serving as stenographer for Rush Limbaugh's ranting that anyone is dare accusing Donald trump of wanting to track Muslims in America:
Rush Limbaugh blasted the “Drive-by media” on Friday for spreading an orchestrated hit-piece on Donald Trump by a “little know-nothing reporter.”
The Associated Pres, BBC, Rolling Stone, the Washington Post and a host of other media outlets ran with a Nov. 19 story first reported by Yahoo News national correspondent and Business Insider senior political correspondent Hunter Walker. The reporter wanted to know if a Trump administration would favor “special identification” for American Muslims as part of a terror-monitoring program.
What do YOU think? Sound off on media coverage of Donald Trump!
We’re going to have to – we’re going to have to look at a lot of things very closely,” Trump said. “We’re going to have to look at the mosques. We’re going to have to look very, very carefully.”
Media then took Trump’s decision to ignore allusions to Nazi Germany as de facto support for tyrannical policies.
Then, the same day, WND published an article by Leo Hohmann upset that Muslims in America weren't being tracked Nazi-style:
A Syrian refugee recently resettled in Louisiana has gone missing, and state officials were surprised to find out that federal Homeland Security agents do not track the whereabouts of foreign refugees out of respect for their “constitutional rights.”
The refugee was resettled in the Baton Rouge area in June by Catholic Charities, a subcontractor that resettles thousands of refugees in the U.S. every year for the federal government and United Nations. The Catholic group, along with others with Lutheran, Episcopal, evangelical and Jewish affiliations, gets paid by the head with taxpayer money for every refugee they bring to the U.S.
But when this particular Syrian refugee turned up missing about a week ago, the Louisiana State Police confirmed he was headed to Washington, D.C., to unite with family, WBRZ TV in Baton Rouge reported.
Once in Washington, the refugee was apparently supposed to “check in” with authorities there, according to state officials. But he never did.
There is nothing illegal about this because the State Department, which oversees the program, does not require any sort of monitoring or tracking of refugees.
In fact, the refugee was never "missing" -- the Louisiana State Police said that the refugee "was relocated through official channels to the Washington D.C. area."
This being WND, Hohmann's article has not been updated or corrected to reflect the fact that the refugee was never "missing" -- or that it conflicts with WND's purported horror that Trump is being accused of wanting to track Muslims in the U.S.
MRC's Graham Cynically Suggests He's Really Sincere About His Anti-Media Quest Topic: Media Research Center
Tim Graham begins his Nov. 16 NewsBusters post with a complaint: "Can prominent liberal journalists ever get their brain around the idea that conservatives are sincere and not cynical when they protest liberal media bias?"
The answer to that question, if Graham wants to hear it, is that he and the MRC behave so cynically in promoting their anti-media narrative that there's no reason to believe they're sincere about it.
The most recent example: its treatement of allegations of bias in the Republican presidential debates. As we documented, when Donald Trump complained about liberal bias in the debate hosted by Fox News -- where MRC chief Brent Bozell has a weekly segment on Sean Hannity's show -- the MRC said and did nothing; similarly, Bozell couldn't say enough good things about a debate hosted by Fox Business while making an appearance on Fox Business.
But for CNBC's debate, the MRC cooked up a bogus "study" about how purportedly biased the questions were, and Bozell creepily declared that hearing Republican candidates complain about liberal media bias was "better than sex." Does that sound like someone who's sincere about protesting "liberal media bias"?
Other recent examples of the MRC's cynical attitude include:
Attacking liberals who are critical of Catholics, but giving conservatives like Ann Coulter who do the same a free pass.
Of course, the most concrete evidence comes from Bozell himself, who told Rush Limbaugh that his main goal is not to correct "bias" but to discredit the media -- and that the only thing Bozell has offered as a replacement for that discredited media is his even more biased and discredited "news" outlet, CNSNews.com.
If Bozell was really sincere about "liberal media bias," he'd be trying to repair things. He'd be working with liberal groups also concerned with media bias, like Media Matters, to address the issue. Instead, no MRC official has ever appeared in public or on TV with any Media Matters official. And as I know from my years working for Media Matters, it's not because anyone at Media Matters ever declined an invitation to do so.
No matter how much they try to deny it, Bozell, Graham and the MRC are working the refs (as Eric Alterman has put it) with the goal of knocking the refs out of the game.
That's not sincerity; that's cynicism, a desire to push the narrative, no matter how hackneyed, in order to keep the money train rolling.
Graham -- whose question about sincerity vs. cynicism was driven by New York Times editor Dean Baquet calling out Ben Carson for following the MRC's template in complaining about media bias -- displayed his own cynicism in pushing his view, huffing about "how the Clintons and their assorted 'correcting' organizations hammered the Times into submission on their story reporting [Hillary] was under criminal investigation on her e-mails. The Clintons are never cynical when they complain!"
Even though Graham is suggesting the motives of Bozell and himself are pure as the driven snow, he cynically bashes anyone who disagrees with him as pawns of the Clintons. (The MRC boys are rather obsessed with the Clintons.)
Also, the Times story claiming that Hillary Clinton "was under criminal investigation on her e-mails" was, in fact, false. Why shouldn't she request a correction? And why is the MRC so upset that she did so?
Claiming that someone has no right to correct false information in the media because you personally don't like them is the height of cynicism. And Graham is too cynical to recognize it.
NEW ARTICLE: The Debate Double Standard at the MRC Topic: Media Research Center
When Donald Trump complained about biased debate questions from Fox News, the Media Research Center said nothing. But CNBC asks questions of GOP candidates that weren't right-wing-friendly, and it goes ballistic. Read more >>
Scaife's Pittsburgh Papers Lay Off Workers, Align With Newsmax Topic: Newsmax
Earlier, we highlighted how the Washington Times is adjusting to life without a deep-pocketed right-wing benefactor to cover literally billions of dollars in losses. Now, another right-wing newspaper heretofore protected from the free market is making a similar adjustment.
Trib Total Media, which operates the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review and other media holdings of right-wing financier Richard Mellon Scaife -- who died last year -- announced last week that it was laying off 153 people and will combine its three Pittsburgh-area properties into a single newspaper. It also claims that if two other papers can't be sold, they will be shut down, eliminating another 91 jobs.
As bad as that situation is, it could have been even worse. The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (the Tribune-Review's competitor) reports that according to the Scaife estate's inheritance tax report, Scaife loaned the Tribune-Review $147 million, which the estate considers to be uncollectible, which would have the side effect of lowering the value of the estate for tax purposes.
And that's just what's documented by the estate in promissory notes. It's possible that Scaife may have given the paper even more money off the books.
The layoff announcement also contains this interesting tidbit:
We have taken steps over the past several months to build out our digital presence. First, through Mr. Scaife’s estate, our new affiliate, 535 Media, LLC, has acquired 40 percent of the stock of Newsmax Media which is a proven national leader in digital news. We also plan to launch a joint venture with Newsmax, through our affiliate, in early 2016 that will allow us to add to our digital offerings and to expand our national reach.
The Tribune-Review announcement doesn't state how a money-losing organization such as itself could afford to buy 40 percent of Newsmax. The Pittsburgh Business Times makes the connection clearer: That piece of Newsmax is what Scaife owned, and Trib Total Media was bequeathed those shares in Scaife's will.
The Business times also quoted Trib Total Media president and CEO Jennifer Bertetto describing how Newsmax will help its online offerings: one plan is a website that will serve as "a local and national news source targeted to baby boomers that will have a local marketplace aspect and we plan to monetize it through various email marketing concepts that NewsMax has really mastered." Given that Newsmax's "email marketing concepts" tend to center around dubious fianancial schemes and even more dubious health schemes, that may not be the best approach.
Newsmax is affected by Scaife's will in another way: The Post-Gazette writes that Newsmax CEO Christopher Ruddy was awarded $250,000 in the will.
All the cost-cutting demonstrates that Trib Total Media has to try to be a profitable business, even with having $147 million in debt apparently written off. Newsmax, as far as we know, does make money, and the question going forward will be how much the money-making parts of Trib Total Media, like that 40 percent share of Newsmax, will tolerate the money-losing parts.
Politico Hires A Republican Operative -- And MRC's Bozell Still Isn't Happy Topic: Media Research Center
Right-wingers' insistence that Politico is a part of the "liberal media" has never had a basis in reality -- after all, it had a strategy to gain traction after its founding by doing stories the Drudge Report would promote.
Politico has taken it a step further by hiring an actual Republican operative, Brad Dayspring, as its VP of communications. He has an unambiguous partisan pedigree, serving as a top aide to former top Republican Eric Cantor and an adviser to Republican Gov. Scott Walker, as well as work with the National Republican Senatorial Committee.
You'd think such a clear step to the right as Politico's hire of Dayspring demonstrates would make Media Research Center chief Brent Bozell happy -- after all, a media with a right-wing bias is what he is spending millions of dollars a year to create. But it doesn't.
Why? The Republican isn't far enough to the right for him.
A Heathering-laden Nov. 20 MRC press release complains that Dayspring is a "beltway establishment Republican operative" with "a history of antagonizing conservatives, both on the national and grassroots level, smearing them on countless occasions." Bozell himself whines:
“Personnel is policy. Brad Dayspring has made his name by running to left-wing outlets to slime and disparage the Tea Party and grassroots conservatives. Some in the media and some in the GOP establishment have expressed enthusiasm for Politico’s hiring of a Republican. That does nothing for conservatives but that's not what is most important here. What matters is that Dayspring not only holds conservatives in utter contempt but has a rich history of ugly, dishonest behavior against them. Dayspring is an unethical anti-conservative hitman for hire. And Politico hired him. It speaks volumes about Politico, none of it good."
But Bozell and the MRC are oddly short on particulars in its evidence against Dayspring. Here's what it cites:
At the NRSC, Dayspring repeatedly attacked Dr. Milton Wolf (challenger to Sen. Pat Roberts) with hit pieces filled with half-truths and smears.
Dayspring attacked Sen. Thad Cochran’s primary challenger Chris McDaniel with a “dishonest, dishonorable, and disreputable campaign” that focused more in disparaging the Republican challenger than building up Cochran or attacking the Democrat.
To back up the allegations regarding Wolf -- the press release links to a Breitbart article that claims Dayspring "spread harsh stories about Wolf all over the place in the media," but only offers as proof links to an article about Wolf's "interest in sharing medical X-rays on the Internet" which does not mention Dayspring (and which resulted in an investigation by the medical licensing board in Kansas), and a Dayspring tweet promoting that article. That's hardly proof of anything.
Bozell and the MRC also don't mention Wolf's extremist views that include likening President Obama to both Hitler and Mussolini, or that it might be one major reason why the NRSC, where Dayspring was employed at the time, would choose Roberts as its preferred candidate.
The quote that Dayspring's campaign against McDaniel for the NRSC-backed Cochran was "dishonest, dishonorable, and disreputable" comes from a RedState article that calls Cochran "profoundly senile, corrupt, and adulterous," which apparently is not a dishonest, dishonorable, and disreputable thing to do.
Again, Bozell and the MRC ignore negative information regarding their preferred candidate -- notably, that the campaign was dominated by an incident in which a McDaniel supporter and three others were arrested for illegally shooting video of Cochran's infirm wife in a nursing home.
However, a more likely explanation of Bozell's hostility toward Dayspring is noted elsewhere in the RedState article, which complains that Dayspring "accused Mark Levin and the Senate Conservative[s] Fund of pay-to-play purchases of Levin’s book." While RedState claims this is a "lie," the link it supplies on the controversy (from Politico, ironically) doesn't debunk the pay-to-play charge, but simply quotes Levin denying it, while also noting that the Senate Conservatives Fund spent a whopping $427,000 on copies of a Levin book to give to donors.
It appears that Bozell is letting his personal grudge against Dayspring drive the MRC's agenda, refusing to acknowledge that a media organization hiring a partisan Republican is a victory for him. Not only is it very unprofessional behavior, it's self-defeating.
Thursday, congressional Republicans held their long advertised hearing on the Benghazi scandal, calling as a witness none other than the “Wicked Witch of the Left,” Hillary Clinton. Fresh off of her presidential debate performance ironically held in “Sin City,” Las Vegas, Hillary, looking a bit worn, was confronted with questions about why newly released emails showed that she knew that the attack on the U.S. mission was the result of terrorists linked to al-Qaida, but instead lied to the families of the victims as well as the American public, blaming the attack on a video critical of the Prophet Muhammad.
This case, more than the hapless efforts of congressional establishment Republicans, could seal the fate of the Wicked Witch of the Left, much like the house that fell on the original evil witch in “The Wizard of Oz.” Hopefully, with God’s grace and divine justice, Hillary will soon be wearing a pair of red shoes in federal prison, and the nation and the world will be rid of this modern-day evil witch once and for all.
I’ve met liars worse than Hillary. I’ve known liars who never told the truth, including one famous hometown boy who told the truth once but he thought he was lying. But I don’t think I’ve ever met a liar as comfortable as Hillary.
At this point it doesn’t look like anything can stop the Clintons from returning to the White House. If none of our best interrogators can get anything to stick, no one can. She snookered them into holding the hearing in public so that she could pull out the sympathy card, firmly holding her head high as they “bullied” her. I’m sure she had months with an acting coach to pull that off.
Her nomination and eventual presidency has been a set up from the get-go. Anyone who doesn’t see it has to be blind, and the sad thing is that it doesn’t look like anything can be done about it. The fix has been in for years, and that’s why the Democratic Party has no viable candidate running except her. Jim Webb knows it, Chaffee knows it (both of whom have dropped out of the race), even Bernie Sanders knows that he is just there as a sham candidate. The media will continue its fake reporting, gushing over how wonderfully presidential she is and pretending that this is an actual election. As such, it’s obvious that there is nothing to stop this inevitable victory except an act of God.
Hillary Clinton’s performance art before Congress last week did not impress anyone who was not already inclined to slavishly adore her. While not quite as combative as her infamous “What difference, at this point, does it make?” testimony just a few months after the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on the U.S. diplomatic installation in Benghazi, Clinton’s most recent appearance was every bit as brazen, obfuscating and deceitful.
It is difficult to believe that the federal prosecutors and FBI agents investigating Clinton will not recommend that she be indicted. Inexplicably, she seems to have forgotten that they were monitoring what she said under oath to the Benghazi committee. By lying under oath, and by misleading Congress, she gave that team additional areas to investigate and on which to recommend indictments.
When those recommendations are made known, no ballot will bear her name.
Hillary’s political life has been a myriad of legal entanglements and behavior that at the very least border on treason and at the worst demands she be charged, found guilty and sentenced to prison for the maximum amount of time allowable under the law.
Hillary wants to be president, but she has proven herself incapable of restraint from alleged criminal behavior, going back to her time in Arkansas. She is a bitter harridan who has subverted justice and due process. I would also argue that she in concert with Obama suborned perjury in the aftermath of Benghazi.
Palin, Of All People, Blows Up A Key MRC 'Liberal Bias' Talking Point Topic: Media Research Center
Since the 2008 election, the Media Research Center has held as a cornerstone of "liberal bias" Katie Couric's 2008 interview with Sarah Palin, in which she could not give a coherent answer to Couric's simple question about what newspapers and magazines she read:
Tim Graham asserted that it "was designed as a 'gotcha' question to underline Palin's lack of worldly sophistication."
Brent Baker declared that the question was designed to show how "Palin is an ill-informed dolt."
A 2008 MRC report whined that media focus on Palin's inability to answer the question "left the impression that Palin was unable to identify any news sources because she isn’t interested in current events – an implausible supposition to make about an accomplished politician."
Lachlan Markay grumbled that the interview was "perhaps the left's favorite Palin-basing talking point."
Kyle Drennen sneered that Couric receiving an award for the interview was yet another testament to liberals celebrating liberal."
The MRC gave a platform to Palin fanboy John Ziegler, who dismissed the Couric interview as "bogus."Ziegler was also permitted to claim that Palin's "non-answer" to the question "has been totally misunderstood and misrepresented."
Graham also laughably suggested that Couric was "holding the microphone like a baseball bat" during the interview.
Noel Sheppard claimed that Couric was an "arrogant moderator doing his or her best to make the former Alaska governor look foolish" and insisted that the interview was a "hit job." Sheppard also grumbled: "So because Palin didn't answer that idiotic question by Katie Couric two years ago, morons in the media believe she doesn't read" and touted how Palin finally got around to answering the question some time later in Ziegler's fanboy documentary.
Well, toss all that out the window.
In an interview last week, Palin conceded that Couric's question on which publications she read was "a fair question" and that "I had a crappy answer" to it.
Unsurprisingly, the MRC has not posted this interview anywhere on its network of websites. They don't want to blow up one of their key talking points, after all.
So, let’s take stock: abandonment by his father, early Muslim training, toxic teen influences, hardcore Marxist indoctrination and Alinsky training, drug abuse (“Choom Gang”), association with criminals (Tony Rezko) and terrorists (William Ayers), racist religious affiliation (Jeremiah Wright), extreme political ambition and probable mental illness/disorder. Quite a cocktail that forms the current U.S. president’s worldview and sensibilities.
The question is not whether Obama is delusional or not – that is undeniable. The question is, in what frame of reference is he delusional – the narrow one Krauthammer cites, regarding Obama’s denial that radical Islam poses an existential threat to America and the world? Or the wider context of the rest of life? For when we widen our scope, we are forced to acknowledge that Obama gravitates toward evil and delusion not just with regard to the jihad threat, but in virtually every area: He wants to force 15-year-old girls to shower naked with boys who delusionally believe they’re girls. He intentionally allows our nation to be overrun with illegal aliens and legal “refugees” from cultures that hate America (today’s headline says of the Syrian refugees already in the U.S., 2,098 are Muslims and 53 are Christians). He annually releases tens of thousands of convicted criminal illegal aliens – we’re talking murderers, rapists and drug dealers – back onto American streets. He’s a radical proponent of what can only be called infanticide, the “aborting” of fully formed, full-term healthy human babies.
In every area, Obama demonstrates an unfortunate affinity for that which normal people would describe as destructive, corrupt, evil.
Whether this is because Obama is evil at his core, or whether there’s a decent person locked up inside but who has been traumatized and brainwashed – a Manchurian president, programmed not by exotic far-off communist brainwashers, but by a nonstop sequence of corrupting influences throughout his life – is not ours to know.
Ultimately, the question is largely academic. Whatever the ultimate explanation of Obama’s delusional presidency, he demonstrates at every turn a remarkable attraction for that which is destructive and corrupting to human life, that is, “evil.” And he is dragging America – and increasingly the world – through hell in search of it, which he somehow, however inexplicably, sees as good.
The list of potentially devastating and catastrophic threats seems almost endless when you start enumerating them.
In considering all of them, however, I came to an alarming conclusion.
The No. 1 threat to America’s national security has a name. It’s a person. It’s the de facto president of the United States at least until Jan. 20, 2017 – more than a year from now. The No. 1 enemy of this great experiment in self-governance and limited government under the rule of law and through the will of the people is none other than the man in the White House – Barack Obama.
I don’t make this assertion lightly.
I make it on the weighing of the evidence before us.
Would ISIS have a chance to spread its virus of death and mayhem throughout the free world without Obama’s incubation?
Experience more of Joseph Farah’s no-nonsense truth-telling in his books, audio and video products, featured in the WND Superstore
Could he do more to encourage radical Islam’s goals of imposing fear and asserting control through his policies of forced importation of tens of thousands, perhaps even hundreds of thousands, of so-called “refugees” from the Middle East into the U.S. without screening against the kinds of people who attacked Paris last week?
When he accuses Republicans of spreading “fear and panic” by questioning the wisdom of this dictatorial plan imposed on an unwilling republic and sovereign states isn’t he actually and deliberately doing what he accuses his political opponents of doing?
Could I be right that America’s No. 1 national security threat is not named ISIS, not named Putin, not named al-Qaida or China or economic calamity but rather Barack Hussein Obama?
MRC Tries To Distract From New Film About Catholic Priest Sex Scandals Topic: Media Research Center
With the release of the film "Spotlight," about how the Boston Globe broke the story of systemic sexual abuse of children by Catholic priests, the Media Research Center is trying to do what it always does when the subject pops up in the media: spin and change the subject.
The Catholic League's Bill Donohue -- who likes to falsely claim that the abusive priests were all gay -- takes a crack in a Nov. 6 NewsBusters post, complaining:
The media are pushing Spotlight, the movie that opens on Friday about the Boston Globe team that exposed priestly sexual abuse in the Boston Archdiocese prior to 2002. But there is little interest in this issue when non-Catholics are implicated in such crimes. As recent cases show, many courts around the nation evince disparate treatment as well.
Donohue then selectively recounts random, isolated cases of abuse from across the country. For instance:
In May 2014, Michael Travis, an assistant softball coach at a Nebraska high school was arrested for sexually assaulting two softball players. Two more alleged victims came forward in December. This past August, he cut a deal with prosecutors. He pleaded guilty to simple assault, and was told he would not have to register as a sex offender or spend a day in jail. It received little media coverage.
Actually, the case in question happened in Iowa, not Nebraska. Donohue doesn't mention that the plea deal was approved by the alleged victims because it would force Travis to surrender his teaching and coaching licenses and agree to never teach or coach again, or that some of the charges against Travis had to be thrown out because they took place before a law specifically outlawing the alleged behavior was enacted.
Donohue goes on to whine: "If any of these accused men had been a priest, both the media and the courts would have acted differently. This is not even debatable." But Donohue delierately omits the reason why the Catholic abuse cases were especially newsworthy, not just in Boston but in other dioceses as well: they were widespread, and church officials spent decades covering them up. Donohue cannot say that about any of the isolated cases he cites as a distraction.
(On the other hand, kudos to the MRC for disclosing at the top of Donohue's post that MRC chief Brent Bozell is a member of the Catholic League's board of advisers, which it didn't do until we started pointing it out.)
Then, in a Nov. 15 post, MRC official Tim Graham sneers that the film "claims to be an accurate representation of the Boston Globe's Pulitzer Prize-winning crusade in 2001 and 2002 against clerical sex abuse in the Catholic Church," then goes into distraction mode by also falsely playing the blame-the-gays card:
Surely, it's a true story that there were monsters disguised as men of God that abused children. But it's also true that there are contrary facts that this reporter-boosting movie excluded, like the gay-activist priests that the Globe promoted in its pages -- until it turned out their gay liberation was unleashed on children.
The headline of Graham's post reads, "WashPost Critic: Heroic Liberal Reporter Movie Like 'Watching Porn'." But Graham gets this wrong too: As the excerpt he uses makes very clear, the Washington Post critic is actually quoting someone else saying that.
Graham's manufactured freakout over that statement is odd, since he apparently wasn't offended by his boss, Brent Bozell, creepily called Republican ranting about media bias "better than sex."
WND Doctor Still Pushing Discredited Filthy-Illegals Smear Topic: WorldNetDaily
Elizibeth Lee Vliet, former director of the right-wing Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, has long hurled screeds warning against disease-ridden illegal immigrants, usually containing misleading or false information, and WorldNetDaily has given her that platform.
Vliet strikes again in a Nov. 11 WND column cheering on Donald Trump's fearmongering about illegal immigrants:
Donald Trump is right about this: Illegal immigration is one of the most serious threats to national security, American sovereignty and economic stability.
Even Trump, however, has not yet addressed the even more serious medical dangers of illegal immigration for Americans.
Invisible travelers coming across the border with the people: bacteria like tuberculosis (TB), viruses such as EVD-68 that killed so many U.S. children in 2014, Ebola, West Nile, dengue fever, parasites and fungal illnesses.
Delays in access to medical services for Americans with longer waits to see doctors, especially for Medicaid patients.
Long waits in emergency rooms jammed with illegals waiting for care at U.S. taxpayer expense.
The vastly higher costs for states to cover Medicaid services designed to provide medical care for low-income American citizens, but now expanded to serve those here illegally as well.
Given that we've already documented that the enterovirus EVD-68 outbreak of last year was not caused by illegal immigrants, it's likely she's overstating the rest of this as well. Indeed, nobody is bringing Ebola across the Mexican border.
Vliet goes on to rant about how "TB in the U.S. is mostly an “imported” disease brought by people coming from countries where it is widespread, unlike the U.S.," making sure to emphasize that "foreign-born people" are primarily spreading it. in fact, there is no epidemic of tuberculosis -- or any of the other communicable diseases Vliet rants about -- on the southern border.
It's important to remember that Vliet and the AAPS have no interesting in truth or accuracy when issuing their anti-immigrant screeds. Remember that back in 2003, an AAPS journal article (which purports to be peer-reviewed) asserted that leprosy cases in the U.S. -- a complete lie. To our knowledge, the AAPS has never issued a correction of the article, and the original aricle is still available at the AAPS website.
Because she insists on putting fearmongering over facts, there's simply no reason to believe anything Vliet says on medical issues.
At The MRC, Reporting The News Is A 'Liberal Outburst' Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center is so terrible as a group of media analysts, it seems that it largely has to find "liberal media bias" where it doesn't exist.
Example: Geoffrey Dickens' Nov. 14 attack on CBS' Nancy Cordes in advance of her co-hosting a Democratic presidential debate. His title: "CBS Debate Co-Moderator Nancy Cordes’ Worst Liberal Outbursts." Let's take a look at what he claims is a "liberal outburst":
-- "Cordes Shocked GOPers Criticize 'Undisputed Front-Runner' Hillary Clinton": Actually, all Cordes is doing is doing a debate preview in which she notes that Republicans targeted Hillary at their last debate. She expressed no shock whatsoever about this in the video clip accompanying the item.
Vox.com pointed out the game the MRC is playing here: "The conservative media watchdog site Newsbusters has convinced itself that this banal recap she did of the fourth GOP debate exhibits liberal media bias, so be on the lookout for post-debate complaints about her questioning almost regardless of what she actually says."
-- "Carly Fiorina Is Just as Neanderthal as the Men": Cordes notes that Fiorina claims that Hillary won't be able to play the "gender card" against her if she gets the Repubican nomination, then adds taht "many so-called women’s issues ... Fiorina’s views are identical to the men she shared the stage with last night." Cordes did not use the word "Neanderthal"; Dickens is putting words into her mouth.
-- "How is Next House Speaker Going to Deal with 'Knucklehead' Conservatives?" Cordes is not calling House conservatives in her question to outgoing House Speaker John Boehner; he's noting that Boehner himself called them that. That isn't "liberal bias."
-- "Preparing to Blame Conservatives for Any Lack of Progress." This is a question from Cordes to Boehner after the 2014 election, in which she notes that some conservatives "don’t think you’re conservative enough." Given that there has, in fact, been little progress in Congress due in no small part to conservative refusal to compromise, and that Boehner quit as House speaker in part because he was under attack by conservatives who didn't think he was "conservative enough," Cordes seems rather prescient here.
-- "Fretting Obama Will Lose a Vital Critic from the Left." Dickens provides no evidence of "fretting"; Cordes is simply pointing out in this 2011 quote -- yes, Dickens apparently had to go back that far to find a suitable "liberal outburst" -- that Anthony Weiner, who had just gotten caught in personal scandal that would force him to resign his House seat, is a liberal who wasn't afraid to criticize Obama. Again, that's not "liberal bias."
Most of what Cordes is quoted doing here is reporting the news. That Dickens and the MRC thinks these are "liberal outbursts" says much more about the MRC's highly distorted vision of what reporting is.