Earlier today, Media Matters' Julie Millican wrote that "Jim Hoft must be in a competition with himself for the title of Dumbest Man on the Internet."
He has once again bested himself in this competition.
Proving yet again that he'll reprint anything that he thinks helps his espoused causes without doing even rudimentary fact-checking, this afternoon Hoft ran an article headlined "HEAVY WEAPONS Discovered in Cargo of Mavi Marmara," a ship that was part of a Palestinian aid flotilla raided by Israeli commandos en route to the Gaza strip. Hoft started the post with the line "What a complete shock," and stated as fact that the video he linked to "shows the heavy weapons discovered in the Mavi Marmara Gaza Flotilla ship."
Ready for the punchline?
The video in question was recorded more than a year ago, which is clearly evident in both the title slide of the video and the upload date (5/11/09) at the site Hoft links to. It took me all of two minutes to gather this information.
And what sort of fact-checking did Jim Hoft engage in before running with this clearly false story? Judging by the update he has since posted, his journalistic exploits began and ended when he opened his inbox:
This email that is making the rounds today is a HOAX
Nice work, Jim. Glad to know you're just as credible as the stuff that usually gets caught by my spam filter.
Of course, this would all be a lot funnier if Hoft was widely regarded among conservatives as the buffoon he is. Unfortunately, outlets like Fox News read from his website on-air.
As Media Matters noted, Glenn Beck spent his Thursday night reading The Red Network: A 'Who's Who' and Handbook of Radicalism for Patriots and liked it so much that he touted it on his radio show the next day. In just its first forty pages, the Beck-recommended book is filled with offensive passages, including one decrying "racial inter-mixture."
On Page 37, Dilling complains about "several colored men" being invited to a Methodist church dance, and supposedly being "forced upon the young white girls" as dance partners. She uses this to launch into an attack on "racial inter-mixture" as some kind of communist plot [emphasis added]:
The time was, when Methodism in its zeal for personal purity frowned upon dancing. Some Methodists nowadays who are little opposed to dancing even in a church were a bit surprised, however, when several colored men were introduced into circle dances at a dance given in the parish house of Tittle's church and were thus forced upon the young white girls as partners. An M. E. Guild member whose daughter attended this dance reported that when she phoned the assistant pastor about this he said that these colored men had been invited by Dr. Tittle himself (one of them being the son of a classmate of his at college), who felt that it was now time that the young people learned to mingle with other races. (God created separate races, but Communism insists upon racial inter-mixture and inter-marriage.)
The great American colored man, Booker T. Washington, voiced the sentiment of the best elements in both races when he said the races should be as separate and distinct as the fingers of a hand and as united for the service of all humanity. Why should either race wish to lose its distinctive characteristics? Neither the races nor the sexes can ever be equal. They will always be different and have distinctive functions to perform in life.
Preceding a passage we highlighted elsewhere, in which Dilling claimed that the "colored race" should not feel "persecuted" because whites have "in reality given the colored race far greater opportunities than their fellow negroes would give them in Africa today," Dilling calls both "un-Christianized" Africans and "pagan white men" "savages":
The colored people are a sincerely religious race. As long as they stayed in Africa un-Christianized, they remained, as did pagan white men, savages. Their pagan brothers in Africa today are savages, while in a comparatively few years, under the opportunities of the American government and the inspiration of Christianity, the American Negroes have acquired professions, property, banks, homes, and produced a rising class of refined, home loving people. This is far more remarkable than that many Negroes are still back-ward. The Reds play upon the Negroes' love of their own people and represent them as persecuted in order to inflame them against the very white people who have in reality given the colored race far greater opportunities than their fellow negroes would give them in Africa today. [Pages 36-37]
Both of these passages are in the first forty pages of the book. Media Matters' Simon Maloy pointed out several other offensive passages in The Red Network. Why did Beck read this and decide it was worthy of promotion?
What is it with conservatives and crowd estimates?
Perhaps the funniest/most illuminating example of the way the right wing noise machine functions came after the 9/12 protests, when the estimated crowd of less than 100,000 was turned into anywhere between a few hundred thousand and two million, depending on who you asked (and when you asked them).
Among the sources conservatives cited to inflate the crowd size were a non-existent ABC News report claiming "2 million" people, a repurposed quote about Obama's inauguration sourced to an imaginary person to label the crowd "the largest event held in Washington, D.C., ever," and a supposed "University of Indiana" "study" that was written by an undergrad whose methodology included subtracting "a hundred thousand or two" people for "old people being distracted by statues."
Like clockwork, another conservative-organized protest has spawned more comical crowd estimates, this time courtesy of Pam Geller. Geller, who once cited someone who "claims to have overheard DC police discussing crowd numbers" in order to estimate there were over 2 million people at the 9/12 protest, put up a post last night discussing the crowds at the protest of the supposed "911 Mega Mosque" in New York City.
Media figures have advanced a long line of inane historical analogies to attack the Obama administration, characterizing the Gulf oil spill -- and a wide range of other events -- as Obama's Katrina and searching for Obama's Watergate, Obama's 9-11, and Obama's Waterloo, among others.
Glenn Beck apologized for his attack on President Obama's daughter by stating that he hopes it represents his "bottom." But Beck's attack was hardly out of character, as he has frequently resorted to vicious personal attacks against his perceived enemies and their families.
I'm starting to wonder if Glenn Beck has no recall for the things he says on his radio and TV shows. It would explain segments like this on his radio show today, in which he claims that he has not said that the US is "mimicking" Nazi Germany:
As he indicated in the above clip, a mere hour after comparing America to Nazi-era Germany, Beck felt it necessary to clear up any confusion about his comparisons of American progressives to Nazis in Germany, saying that "anyone who thinks that they are mimicking Nazi Germany or whatever -- or they think that that's what I'm saying -- that's not what I'm saying at all."
Gee, Glenn, I wonder how people could have gotten that impression.
Glenn Beck is in the fear mongering business, and business is booming.
For the past year and a half, Beck has frequently warned his viewers about progressives' supposed penchant for resorting to violence. He spent pretty much the entire month of January doing this, culminating in a "documentary" linking progressives to some of history's greatest atrocities, enlightening his viewers to the supposed similarities between progressives and Hilter, Stalin and Mao. At the time, history professors labeled the film a "complete lie" that represented an "alternative universe" - which, of course, didn't stop Fox News from re-airing it in its entirety in March.
Jump ahead to earlier this week, when, during a discussion of how we are headed to "dangerous places," Beck suggested that the government might use anti-terror policies - including assassination -- to target Tea Partiers.
Well, Glenn Beck is apparently done hinting at the violence progressives are supposedly going to do to his viewers and listeners, and is now just outright saying it. Earlier today, Beck continued his recent fearmongering about the supposed "soft revolution" taking place in America (purportedly designed to silence voices like Beck's), and claimed that if the administration "can't get everyone to silence, that's when the arrests come, or that's when they start a hard revolution. That's when they start just shooting people."
This is absurd, outrageous, and potentially dangerous -- and maybe not even the most insane thing he's said in the past two weeks.
If you thought the conservative freak out over news that President Obama plans to attend a Memorial Day ceremony in his hometown of Chicago while Vice President Biden lays a wreath at Arlington National Cemetery couldn't get any stupider than Erick Erickson's claim that it shows Obama "really doesn't like the military," you were wrong.
Enter Fox & Friends.
This morning, Fox & Friends host Brian Kilmeade, historian (with a tenuous grasp on recent history) Richard Miller, National Review's Andrew McCarthy, and former Harry Reid aide Penny Lee discussed the "news" of Obama's Memorial Day plans, accompanied by chyrons featuring the text "Trampling On Tradition?", "Offensive To Soldiers?" and "Memorial Day Miss-Out?"
In order to "Trample on Tradition" as the chyron suggests, or "break tradition" as Kilmeade stated, Obama's decision to attend a ceremony in Chicago instead of Arlington would have to be unprecedented. It isn't.
Yesterday, serially dishonest and perpetually wrong conservative blogger Jim Hoft posted a short, out of context video clip of President Obama saying that Daniel Pearl's death "captured the world's imagination." Hoft endeavored to correct the president's "crazy sick" interpretation of Pearl's death by writing, "No Barack. It was horrifying."
This is an outrageous smear, as I pointed out yesterday:
Here's some context that Hoft -- who we last saw joining Sarah Palin's call for the media to do proper research -- leaves out: Obama was honoring Pearl by signing the Daniel Pearl Freedom of the Press Act when he made the comments in question. The people standing next to Obama in the video are Pearl's widow and son.
Obama's full remarks make clear that he was honoring Pearl (and not discussing how he was amused by the terrorists who killed Pearl, as Hoft insanely suggests). It is unfathomable that you could come away from reading these remarks with the impression that Obama was doing anything other than honoring Pearl
And even though Jim Hoft embarrasses himself on a daily basis, Fox News has deemed his latest absurd report worthy of promotion on Fox Nation's homepage: