Cult Watch
See other Cult Watch Articles
Title: Politifact Calls Out Michelle Malkin for Dishonest Anti-Obama Smear
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://littlegreenfootballs.com/art ... for_Dishonest_Anti-Obama_Smear
Published: Jan 13, 2011
Author: Charles Johnson
Post Date: 2011-01-13 22:22:19 by Skip Intro
Keywords: None
Views: 3625
Comments: 8
Wingnut queen bee Michelle Malkin gets a nice big FALSE rating from PolitiFact.com for doing what she’s done many times before — concocting an outrageous outrage out of thin air. And this might be the cheapest and ugliest one yet. Malkin tried to claim that the White House orchestrated a “branded” political event out of the Arizona mass murder: Did the White House ‘brand’ the Arizona memorial service with a logo and slogan? The University of Arizona memorial service for the victims of the Tucson, Ariz. shootings was called “Together We Thrive.” But Michele Malkin claimed the slogan was cooked up by the White House In an opinion piece about the Jan. 12, 2011, memorial event, Malkin, a conservative pundit, accused the White House of “branding” the memorial service with the slogan, complete with its own logo. Malkin noted that all 13,000 people who attended the “Together We Thrive” event were given blue and white T-shirts with the logo. “Can’t the Democrat political stage managers give it a break just once?” Malkin wrote in her column. … But officials at the University of Arizona said the White House had nothing to do with the name or the logo. “The name of the event and the logo for the event were done entirely by the university,” said Johnny Cruz, a spokesman for the University of Arizona. “Branding of the event was not done in consultation with the White House, or any elected officials or political organization.” The T-shirts were also the university’s doing, Cruz said. “That was the university’s idea,” he said. “We wanted to give people something to remember, to symbolize the community spirit.” … And “Together We Thrive” was conceived by a University of Arizona student, he said. But to Malkin, of course, this is evidence of a conspiracy between the White House and the University of Arizona… and that’s what they would say, isn’t it, those commies?
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Skip Intro (#0)
Pot, meet kettle. By Matthew Vadum | June 03, 2009 | 09:03 Matthew Vadum's picture Why is the fact-checking operation PolitiFact.com carrying water for the radical left-wing activist group ACORN and attacking Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) for trying to warn the public about the group? A project of the St. Petersburg Times, the website's "Truth-O-Meter" purports to check and rate "the accuracy of statements by candidates, elected officials, political parties, interest groups, pundits, talk show hosts." After PolitiFact writers research a statement, it then receives one of six ratings on a continuum of truthfulness: True, Mostly True, Half True, Barely True, False and Pants on Fire. It turns out that those who serve the Truth-O-Meter often have strange ideas about what constitutes truth. A case in point is how PolitiFact handled Rep. Bachmann's recent claim that the much investigated activist group ACORN was eligible for up to $8.5 billion in federal funding this year. Like everything having to do with ACORN, it's very complicated. Reporter Robert Farley sets the tone for the piece in his first paragraph, writing that "Bachmann's latest outrage focuses on an old nemesis: ACORN." As blogger Bryan White points out at Sublime Bloviations: The first sentence is an attack on Bachmann. The statement implies that she is guilty of serial outrage, though PolitiFact has only previously rated two of her statements. And regardless of how many were rated, the opening statement is an editorial judgment with no place in an objective news story. Farley conveniently offers a sinister motive to explain Bachmann's anti-ACORN activities. ACORN has a "complex corporate structure," but "[t]he ACORN that Republicans love to hate gets involved in political activity like voter registration." Farley quotes from Bachmann's website which reposted an article by Kevin Mooney of the Washington Examiner: At least $53 million in federal funds have gone to ACORN activists since 1994, and the controversial group could get up to $8.5 billion more tax dollars despite being under investigation for voter registration fraud in a dozen states. Farley incorrectly identifies the statement as coming from a Bachmann press release and then systematically dissects the lawmaker's claim. Eventually he declares the assertion "absurd" and "irresponsibly misleading on several levels" as the Truth-O-Meter officially pronounces the claim "False." But is it? Not at all. As Farley acknowledged, I am the original source for the $8.5 billion figure that was reported by the Washington Examiner. I covered the complexities of housing finance on Capitol Hill for nearly seven years as a reporter in the Washington bureau of the venerable Wall Street daily, the Bond Buyer. Here's how I came up with the amount. The $800 billion-plus stimulus bill that President Obama signed into law Feb. 17 contains $2 billion in funds for housing redevelopment and $1 billion for Community Development Block Grants (CDBG). Separately, the proposed $47.5 billion fiscal 2010 budget for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development provides $1 billion for an affordable housing trust fund and $4.5 billion in CDBG funds. There is no legal impediment of which I am aware that would prevent ACORN taking in the whole $3 billion sum from the stimulus package, which has already been enacted. There is also no bar to ACORN taking in the entire $5.5 billion from the HUD budget, which is pending before Congress. In other words, ACORN is indeed eligible for the whole $8.5 billion, as Bachmann said. The congresswoman said much the same thing on the May 18 edition on CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight. Debating ACORN ally House Financial Services Committee chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.), Bachmann, a former tax litigation attorney, chose her words carefully. She said she was worried about the fact that ACORN and other political advocacy organizations would "have access potentially to $8.5 billion" in federal funds: Well, what I am concerned about is the eligibility criteria of organizations who have access to government grants. ACORN has received approximately $53 million since the early 1990s. Now, between the stimulus and the budget that was passed by President Obama, they have access potentially to $8.5 billion. She again stressed the issue of eligibility during the broadcast, saying "we are talking about potential of access to ACORN or other similarly situated groups of $8.5 billion in grants." Bachmann never said ACORN alone was going to receive $8.5 billion, but Farley then proceeds as if she had, writing a news article that depicts something quite different from what actually transpired. Farley states correctly that CDBG is an old program created in the 1970s. "To the extent ACORN has been eligible for CDBG money for decades, it is available to ACORN now." Misinterpreting the evidence before him, he opines that "ACORN isn't eligible for CDBG funding. At least not for the controversial voter registration efforts that Republican leaders claim are a willful effort to forward the group's liberal agenda." "We checked, and there is no money in the stimulus package or the budget for voter registration programs," Farley writes. "So if ACORN Housing was to apply for and receive CDBG money, it would be for a very specific project. And legally, it could not be transferred to other ACORN affiliates to perform political activities like voter registration." But ACORN has somehow managed to get its hands on CDBG funds, according to House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio). In a letter to President Bush Oct. 22, he wrote that his staff had determined that "ACORN has received more than $31 million in direct funding from the federal government since 1998, and has likely received substantially more indirectly through states and localities that receive federal block grants." ACORN is notorious for its huge financial transfers from one affiliate in the network to another. "ACORN is constantly shifting funding," he quoted me saying. "The problem is that ACORN transfers vast sums of money around in its network all the time. We don't know whether the money would be spent on voter registration or other activities." And of course, even though neither Bachmann nor I actually said ACORN Housing was necessarily going to be the protagonist in this publicly funded drama, Farley keeps pounding away. He accepts at face value a dubious statement by ACORN executive director Steven Kest that ACORN won't apply for or receive a large chunk of the federal money in the stimulus package or HUD budget. Farley cites an Employment Policies Institute report that states that ACORN Housing "has paid more than $5 million in fees or grants to other ACORN entities." He notes that the report does not claim "that federal tax dollars were shifted into ACORN voter registration efforts." For the record, after Farley interviewed me I followed up with more research. Some hours later I emailed him a list of suspicious transactions that ACORN Housing disclosed in its tax returns from 1997 through 2006. For that period alone, I identified more than $4 million in unusual transfers to other ACORN affiliates. The largest individual transaction was a $947,609 grant in Tax Year 2004 to the American Institute for Social Justice, an ACORN affiliate. The institute has taken in money for voter drives from foundations such as the Wallace Global Fund. According to its own website, the institute trains community organizers "to build and mobilize a constituency for change needed to transform poor communities" And ACORN Housing discloses in its tax returns that it received more than $18 million in federal money from 1997 through 2006. Given the constant, well-documented shifting of funds within the nebulous ACORN network, how can Farley say with a straight face after his superficial examination of the facts that he knows for certain that federal tax dollars were not shifted into the ACORN network's voter registration efforts? No one involved in the ACORN mess seems able to explain why ACORN Housing and other ACORN affiliates that are not supposed to be involved in elections routinely send money to ACORN affiliates such as the institute whose sole purpose is to organize and participate in the electoral process. This is not to say that I don't understand Farley's desire to show his readers that in all likelihood ACORN won't get $8.5 billion from Uncle Sam this year. That's legitimate journalism. But instead of making that straightforward point, he chose instead to attack Congresswoman Bachmann, a favorite target of the left, and to try to depict her as a shameless liar. That's reprehensible. A more honest ruling by PolitiFact might have taken this form: "True, ACORN is eligible for $8.5 billion in federal funding but based on the evidence we don't think ACORN will get anything close to that amount from the federal government this year." But that's not what Farley wrote. Should anyone really be surprised that PolitiFact, part of the St. Petersburg Times, would have a liberal bias? On Oct. 24, PolitiFact gave then-vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin's statement that Obama would "experiment with socialism" a "Pants on Fire" ruling. Last month it praised President Obama's selection of radical jurist Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court because she was someone with a "powerful intellect who demonstrates compassion and a common touch." On Sept. 14, an editorial attacked Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign. "McCain's straight talk has become a toxic mix of lies and double-speak," it said. A left-wing slant seems embedded in the paper's DNA. Former St. Petersburg Times publisher, Nelson Poynter, was in the newsroom in 1963 when President John F. Kennedy was assassinated. Poynter was dejected when the news flash came in reporting that aspected Marxist, Lee Harvey Oswald, had been detained in connection with the shooting. "Oh, no," Poynter said. "I was hoping it would be a right-winger." Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-vadum/2009/06/03/biased-politifact-com-covers-acorn-attacks-michele-bachmann#ixzz1AybwBpj3
In the end, the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. ... The heresy of heresies was common sense. http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=16281&Disp=9#C9 Inescapable conclusion? Socialists are unable to accept reality. I.e., they're INSANE.
Malkin, a conservative There. Much better.
“Commonsense Conservatives & lovers of America: "Don't Retreat, Instead - RELOAD!" Pls see my Facebook page.” - Sarah Palin
LOL!! Liberal slugs babbling incoherently again. What, in hell, is an "outrageous outrage".
I'll bet they didn't. It was just spontaneous. Why would the university consult with the POTUS? They are bigger than the POTUS, aren't they?
LOL! "Liberalism" is a terminal mental disease. "HYPOCRISY thy name is libTURD."
Living in mouth breather's empty noggins 24/7/365 totally rent free!
Hey Dog! I have some time off here lately and I have been trying my best to help the socialist slugs find some self respect but they do not seem to be interested. Stay warm.
Hey Bro! Yer pissing into the prevailing winds doing that with these libTURD losers. Just wear your raingear. Not your good set of course. HELL YEAH! Got my Toyo BURNING since before Christmas!! Gotta love that technology! Back at ya Bro! It's almost springtime. Kinda. ;^)
Living in mouth breather's empty noggins 24/7/365 totally rent free!
Where did the university come up with the spare cash to be buying,printing,and giving away more than 13,000 "free" logo t-shirts? How were they involved in what happened in any manner,other than as a prop for Barry Soetoro? I bet even a VERY slight surface check on the people who claim to have came up with the idea would show they are connected to the Dim Party.
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
Politifact Calls Out Michelle Malkin for Dishonest Anti-Obama Smear
Biased PolitiFact.com Covers for ACORN, Attacks Michele Bachmann
-- George Orwell, 1984 --
ME: THERE IS NO MORE MONEY.
GO65: There will be no more money when the U.S. dollar has no value, until that time we can keep printing more.
#2. To: All (#0)
Malkin, a conservative pundit
pundit crackpot.
#3. To: Skip Intro (#0)
— concocting an outrageous outrage
#4. To: Skip Intro (#0)
But officials at the University of Arizona said the White House had nothing to do with the name or the logo.
#5. To: eskimo (#3)
#6. To: Mad Dog (#5)
#7. To: eskimo (#6)
#8. To: Skip Intro (#0)
The T-shirts were also the university’s doing, Cruz said. “That was the university’s idea,” he said. “We wanted to give people something to remember, to symbolize the community spirit.” …
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]