From an October 8 Washington Times article:
The Washington Times reported erroneously Wednesday that the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which is part of Homeland Security, awarded the nearly $1 million grant to ACORN in spite of a clear signal from Congress that it intended to cut off funding to the group.
UPDATED: And FYI, this admission by the Times is not in connection with the erroneous "racist" ACORN reporting of Joseph Curl, which Media Matters has highlighted. That remains a separate matter entirely, and the Times still refuses to correct the errors in those articles.
Earlier, Eric took on that ridiculous second-degree guilt-by-association Politico foolishness -- the article that pretended it was newsworthy that of the $750,000,000 Barack Obama raised, $15,000 of it (0.002 percent) came from 6 of the 500 or so people who have signed a petition supporting Roman Polanski.
That's quite obviously not news.
What is news is that yesterday, 30 members of the United States Senate -- all Republicans, all men -- voted against an amendment that would prohibit defense contracts for companies that refuse to allow sexual assault victim a day in court:
Jamie Leigh Jones was a 20-year-old young woman working her fourth day on the job in Baghdad for contractor Halliburton/KBR in 2005, when she says she was drugged and gang-raped by seven U.S contractors and held captive by two KBR guards in a shipping container. But more than four years after the alleged crimes occurred, Jones is still waiting for her day in court because when she signed her employment contract, she lost her rights to a jury trial and, instead, was forced into having her claims decided through secret, binding arbitration.
Today, the Senate listened to her story before approving an amendment by a vote of 68-30 that would prohibit "the Defense Department from contracting with companies that require employees to resolve sexual assault allegations and other claims through arbitration."
That's news. That's 30 members of the United States Senate voting to keep women like Jamie Leigh Jones from being able to sue their employers when they've been raped or assaulted on the job.
But Politico won't tell you who those 30 Senators are. No, they're too busy scouring petitions to see if they can find a director who gave Barack Obama two grand and who doesn't think Roman Polanski should be jailed.
Hey, you have to have priorities.
But Howard Kurtz says the WashTimes is far more fair and balanced these days!
Whatever. The fact is the Times' Joseph Curl on Monday fabricated news. He made stuff up and the Times published it as news. Not once but twice. Media Matters documented the clear fabrication and the Times, to date, still has not corrected the bogus reporting, let alone apologized for it.
Behold conservative "journalism," where nobody--and I mean nobody--is restricted by facts. Instead, 'reporting,' is whatever story you want to tell on any given day. (Nice work if you can get it, right?)
Curl on Monday went to hear ACORN CEO Bertha Lewis speak at the National Press Club and while he was there, Curl heard Lewis say something that no other reporter in the room heard; he heard Lewis lash out at ACORN critics by calling them "racist." Reporters for CNN, and Reuters and the Wall Street Journal and Politico were all at the same Press Club event, but only Curl heard Lewis call her foes "racist."
So Curl typed it up in two different dispatches as news. Again and again he claimed that Lewis had played the race card. Of course, Curl never actually quoted Lewis saying anything about critics being "racist." (How could he quote her when Lewis never said it?) Yet over and over Curl simply concocted news. He weaved his fictitious, GOP-friendly tale, and spread an incendiary lie through the pages of the WashTimes. And when confronted with the truth--when the Times was called out for sending a 'reporter' to a news event and then letting that reporter come back to the newsroom and make shit up--the Moonie daily didn't do a thing to fix the problem.
Think about it. Under editor John Solomon's leadership, it's now okay for the Times to dispatch reporters around town and have them manufacture allegations. To literally invent quotes from public figures. The Times is fine with that. And when the lies are called out, Times editors will sit on their hands and not fix the egregious errors.
That's not journalism. It's propaganda and the Times is a proud practitioner.
Behold the wonder of Politico. This beaut comes courtesy of Kenneth Vogel:
Roman Polanski backers Gave $34K To Barack Obama, DNC
Movie industry types calling for the release of director Roman Polanski last year gave $34,000 to Obama's presidential campaign and the Democratic Party, FEC records show.
BTW, it turns out that movie mogul Harvey Weinstein is responsible for the biggest chunk of that $34,000. And oh yeah, Weinstein didn't directly give the Obama campaign one dime last year. So if you're keeping score at home and the "Barack Obama" reference caught your attention in the headline, in truth, Politico is suggesting that Polanski "backers" gave Obama $15,000 last year.
And Obama's campaign raised how much money for its White House run? Approximately $750 million. So, although Politico doesn't bother to spell it out, it's suggesting that Polanski "backers" were responsible for less than .002% of the Obama campaign's White House run.
And any of this is news because...why? Is Politico suggesting Obama and Democrats are somehow tied to the private causes of their donors? That Obama and Democrats need to return the money? That they're supporting Polanski? Is Politico suggesting anything of substance?
As a moderator of discussion on the blog www.exposeobama.com, Floyd has observed the discussion of impeachment is mushrooming amongst conservative activists.
Impeachment is no more or less than the recall of an elected official who isn't up to the job. Obama deserves recall much more than Gov. Gray Davis, and he was replaced by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in a special recall election Oct. 7, 2003, in California.
America is a monument to the triumph of freedom. When Barack Obama thinks about freedom, he sees a world in which some people, due to personal initiative and good fortune, will do better than others. In that regard, he is right. But Barack Obama sees that as unfair. Where you see freedom, liberty and the opportunity for any American to be all that he or she can be, Obama sees greed and bigotry.
Like so many on the far-left before him, going all the way back to Karl Marx, he believes that it's his mission to promote "equality of outcome" over "equality of opportunity." This worldview makes Barack Hussein Obama a very dangerous man, and a threat to your personal liberty.
Worldview explains why he has gobbled-up major banks and why the government now controls more and more of our money. And if you wake up one day to discover you're broke, don't be surprised. Barack Hussein Obama is Bernie Madoff with the political power of the presidency at his disposal.
Worldview explains why Obama intends to take away your freedom to choose your own doctor and your own treatment. Wherever government controls health care, bureaucrats decide who gets treatments, transplants, dialysis and costly medication.
The groundswell of calls for the impeachment of Barack Hussein Obama is growing.
In the column, WND promoted its "Exclusive!" "IMPEACH Obama Magnetic Bumper Sticker" with the promotional text, "Let the world know your solution to tyranny and socialism in America with the magnetic bumper sticker: 'IMPEACH OBAMA!'"
WND also has an online poll asking readers, "FIRED WITH ENTHUSIASM: What do you think of the call to impeach President Obama?" From the poll's top 5 responses:
In a column published at Townhall and the Media Research Center's CNSNews.com, director of cultural affairs for the right-wing Liberty Counsel (and anti-gay activist) Matt Barber smears the Gay Lesbian Straight Education Network, claiming that GLSEN members "promote sexual anarchy and tacitly work to normalize the criminal practice of pederasty." Barber goes on to assert: "GLSEN's primary purpose is to push dangerous and even deadly homosexual and cross-dressing behaviors in our government schools on children as young as five."
Barber also cites an outdated study to further attack gays:
Multiple studies have established, for instance, that homosexual conduct, especially among males, is considerably more hazardous to one's health than a lifetime of chain smoking.
One such study -- conducted by pro-"gay" researchers in Canada -- was published in the International Journal of Epidemiology (IJE) in 1997.
While the medical consensus is that smoking knocks from two to 10 years off an individual's life expectancy, the IJE study found that homosexual conduct shortens the lifespan of "gays" by an astounding "8 to 20 years" - more than twice that of smoking.
Barber doesn't mention that this study is irrelevant to gay behavior today. The study examined data "obtained for a large Canadian urban centre from 1987 to 1992," and the life expectancy differential was specifically attributed to deaths "due to HIV/AIDS." But the first antiretroviral drug to treat HIV was not introduced until 1987 and was only partly effective and, thus, arguably had no significant effect on mortality rates during the time period of the study. It was not until the mid-1990s -- well outside the window of the study -- that more effective treatments became available.
Claiming that mortality rates among gays 20 years ago, when there were no effective HIV drugs, are reflective of gay behavior today is misleading and deceptive. But Barber seems to hate gays more than he respects the truth.
Dole's speech, as is usually the case, wandered over various subjects -- presidential humor, his own career, Social Security reform, and Monica Lewinski, who was Dole's neighbor for a time in the Watergate complex in the 1990s.
"If I'd had little wiretap there, I could've been president," Dole said, adding: "I never had..... a conversation with that lady."
Now, here's what's interesting about that: Bob Dole knows that during the 1996 campaign, the Washington Post spiked an article about Bob Dole having an affair. And shortly after the Post spiked that article -- an article Dole aides considered a "mortal threat" to his campaign -- Bob Dole was running around the country, accusing the media of being biased against him and in favor of Clinton.
Given that Dole knew the Post had just spiked a story about his own affair, it's hard to believe he actually thought the media was biased against him. He was just doing what conservatives do: Reflexively and dishonestly attack the media.
The fact that Dole now says that he'd have won in 1996 if he had evidence of Clinton's affair further illustrates how insincere his criticism of the media was. After all, you have to be pretty sure the media is on your side to think that if only you had evidence of your opponent's affair, you'd have won -- all while knowing that the media covered up your own affair.
Goldberg's in classic apologist mode today in USA Today, as he waves away anyone on the left or right who has a problem with Beck. Goldberg's exercise is particular dishonest because Goldberg never--ever!--spells out what Beck has done and said this year that would upset both liberals and serious conservatives.
That's the golden rule of apologists: never let readers know why your guy is under attack. And Goldberg knows his role well. Rather than directly quote a single controversial thing Beck has said this year, or explain why conservative David Brooks labeled Beck a "loon" this weekend, Goldberg simply paints Beck as a "goofy" "populist." (How dumb does Goldberg think readers are? Very, very dumb.)
Goldberg is especially sure to stay away from the "racist" controversy. You remember, when Beck made national headlines and kicked off a advertising boycott that, to date, has cost his show nearly 80 advertisers, when he called Obama a "racist" who had a hatred of white people and white culture?
If you gonna talk about Beck, that's pretty much the defining even of 2009 for him. But in Goldberg's loving hands, the "racist" slur never took place, which means Goldberg doesn't have to defend it. Again. You'll recall, when Beck first called out the President of the United States as a "racist," Goldberg rushed to Beck's side and insisted the hate host had nothing to apologize for. Goldberg claimed that if Beck thought it was true that Obama hated white people, than he ought to say it on national TV.
That's the intellectual level Goldberg plays on. I guess that's why he's such a Glenn Beck fan.
UPDATED: No joke, Goldberg argues that Beck is just like Jon Stewart. Ugh, Jonah, we get it, you want to be invited back on Glenn's show. Can you stop with the fawning already?
Remember when right-wingers like Glenn Beck went nuts about Barack Obama telling schoolchildren to work hard and get an education, claiming he was "indoctrinating" them and suggesting he was trying to create a modern-day Hitler Youth? Remember how that criticism came despite the fact that Republican presidents like George H.W. Bush spoke to schoolchildren?
Washington Post reporter Michael Fletcher thinks that's an example of hypocrisy by Democrats:
Downtown DC: I'm appalled at the reports of some Republicans cheering that "Obama lost" when Chicago wasn't chosen by the IOC. I'm tempted to ask, "Why do you hate America?" Can you put this incident in perspective -- have Democrats been this petty and vindictive; is this part of a coarsening of public life lately?
Michael A. Fletcher: Hard to compare the level of pettiness, but I remember learning during the flap over President Obama's address to school children that Democrats in Congress had put President George H.W. Bush through the ringer for making a similar address to students. So it goes both ways. I think that both sides in the political debate look for every opportunity to criticize the other side, and that's what you saw with Obama's Olympic pitch. I can imagine that if he decided not to go to Copenhagen and Chicago had lost out, he'd be criticized for that. As you point out, that is the tone of our politics these days.
In 1991, Democrats criticized President George H. W. Bush for using taxpayer money to produce a speech to schoolchildren, arguing that it was an improper use of public funds for political purposes. Asked whether the footage would make a good campaign commercial, White House press secretary Marlin Fitzwater acknowledged "We certainly would use any tape of the president, doing anything, anywhere in the world at any time if it was to his political benefit," lending some support to the Democrats' claims.
In 2009, Conservatives attacked Barack Obama for speaking to schoolchildren, claiming he was "indoctrinating" them and making comparisons to Nazi Germany.
Those two criticisms are not remotely similar. I happen to think the criticism from Democrats in 1999 was petty (and the GAO ultimately concluded the expenditure was not inappropriate.) But it was nothing like the vile and disgusting comments from Glenn Beck and his allies a few weeks ago. It's like comparing apples and giraffes.
To look at those two events and conclude, as Michael Fletcher does, that they are comparable -- and to suggest it is the Democrats who are hypocritical and insincere in their actions -- is bizarre and indefensible.
On October 7, The Politico published an "Ideas" piece by Rep. John Linder (R-GA) that compared President Obama's administration to "Hitler's Germany and Mussolini's Italy." From Linder's Politico piece:
Progressivism and its progeny all believed in the fairness and wisdom of decisions made by the state - often at the expense of the individual, who, it was believed, made selfish decisions. All demanded that the state have an increased role in raising children. Adolf Hitler scoffed at those who remained opposed to him, saying he already had control of their children.
All believed in the minimum wage, state control of private property for the public good, unionization and environmentalism. And they believed in eugenics to purify the gene pool.
It is now fair to wonder whether we are returning to a belief that only a powerful central government can fix all of our problems. Victor Davis Hanson wrote in the National Review that President Barack Obama is governing as though the United States were a university and he its president. Governing by czars fits that example. A diversity czar, environment czar, pay czar, science czar, manufacturing czar and, of course, health czar could deal with the "whole" of an issue rather than looking at it piece by piece. This is not unlike the women's studies, black studies, diversity studies, environmental studies and other obsequious studies in most academic settings.
And with the Obama administration, just as in Hitler's Germany and Mussolini's Italy and Wilson's America, the leaders of major corporations are falling in line. Whether it is climate change, executive pay, automobile manufacturing or bank buying, CEOs step right up and wait for the tax benefits to surely follow their pandering. And the CEOs stood mute while bondholders saw their investments given to the unions.
The principal sin in politics is overreaching. Americans have in the past repeatedly voted for freedom and the supremacy of the individual over the state. It will happen again.