Media Matters organized email campaign against Jennifer Rubin
Professor Jacobson reports on an organized campaign to get Jennifer Rubin fired from the Washington Post.
Former WaPo Ombudsman Patrick Pexton wrote an “Open Letter” to Jeff Bezos upon buying WaPo.
The letter is getting attention because Politico picked up on one piece of advice from Pexton to Bezos, Fire Jennifer Rubin:
“She doesn’t travel within a hundred miles of Post
standards [LOL - my add],” Pexton argues. “She parrots and peddles every
silly right-wing theory to come down the pike in transparent attempts
to get Web hits. Her analysis of the conservative movement, which is a
worthwhile and important beat that the Post should treat more seriously
on its national pages, is shallow and predictable. Her columns, at best,
are political pornography; they get a quick but sure rise out of the
right, but you feel bad afterward.” …
“[S]he is often wrong, and rarely acknowledges it,” Pexton writes
“She was oh-so-wrong about Mitt Romney, week after week writing
embarrassing flattery about his 2012 campaign, calling almost every move
he made brilliant, and guaranteeing that he would trounce Barack Obama.
When he lost, the next day she savaged him and his campaign with
treachery, saying he was the worst candidate with the worst staff, ever.
She was wrong about the Norway shootings being acts of al-Qaida. She
was wrong about Chuck Hagel being an anti-Semite. And does she
apologize? Nope.”
...
But the next portion of Pexton’s “advice” caught my eye and I think is more significant (emphasis mine):
“Rubin was the No. 1 source of complaint mail about any single Post staffer while I was ombudsman, and I’m leaving out the organized email campaigns against her by leftie groups like Media Matters,”
the former ombudsman concludes. “Thinking conservatives didn’t like
her, thinking moderates didn’t like her, government workers who knew her
arguments to be unfair didn’t like her. Dump her like a dull tome on
the Amazon Bargain Books page.”
That’s interesting. Media Matters and other leftie groups have organized email campaigns against Rubin?
Jennifer Rubin is one of the strongest pro-Israel voices in the mainstream media. The fact that the Left hates her so much shows that she's doing her job. Hopefully, Jeff Bezos has enough integrity to keep her.
For Media Matters, being anti-Israel only part of being anti-Christian?
Here's a report from the Christian Broadcast Network that shows that the very first paragraph of Media Matters' application for a US tax exemption set them up as an anti-Christian organization, and speculates that their Israel hatred may be tied in with that agenda.
Let's go to the videotape.
Hmmm. I think that the question of whether Media Matters main goal is to be anti-Israel or anti-Christian is really a question of whether the chicken or the egg came first. It could go both ways.
Ben Shapiro reports that the departure of MJ Rosenberg from Media Matters has done nothing to cure its anti-Semitism. Rosenberg was a symptom and not the problem itself (Hat Tip: Memeorandum).
Unfortunately, the problem doesn’t end with MJ Rosenberg.
Senior Fellow Eric Boehlert, one of the faces of the organization, has a dicey record when it comes to Israel and the Jews. On September 11, 2001, he wrote a piece for Salon.com defending American Muslims from the supposed anti-Muslim hysteria brewing. In that piece, he recounted a Muslim rally in Paterson, New Jersey:
"We won't rest until all the Jews are dead," said a burly young man. "Shame on America," said another bitter-faced youth. "For helping Israel to kill Palestinians," said a third.
In the wake of the WTC attacks, however, those brash sentiments were muted.
“We won’t rest until all the Jews are dead” is not a “brash sentiment.” It is openly genocidal anti-Semitism. But not to Eric Boehlert, apparently.
I used to wonder why Andrew Breitbart used to constantly attack Bohlert, while he rarely said a word about Rosenberg. I suspect that Ben Shapiro is in the process of explaining that mystery. What's worse, Media Matters clearly has the ear of the Obama administration.
Shapiro calls Rosenberg's dismissal a media ploy. I believe that he's right.
I am sure that none of you will be surprised to hear that the anti-Semitic Media Matters is connected to al-Jazeera, nor that the connection is the despicable, Jewish anti-Semite, MJ Rosenberg.
Representing Media Matters at the first Al-Jazeera “Unplugged” forum on social media at the Sheraton Hotel & Resort in Doha on May 22, 2010, Rosenberg explained that Khanfar invited him to the forum during a meeting in Washington earlier that year.
In his stunning speech at the forum, Rosenberg praised Al-Jazeera as a “mainstream network,” bashed Fox News, suggested that the U.S. government intentionally bombed an Al-Jazeera bureau and expressed unreserved joy that President Obama was treating Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu so poorly.
“Bush has been replaced by Obama,” Rosenberg said.
“Yes, I applaud too. Which means people from the United States government go on Al-Jazeera. This is very significant. Under the Bush administration, Al-Jazeera was boycotted by the United — it was worse than boycotted: As you well know, it was bombed by orders of the United States government.”
Rosenberg was presumably referring to either the U.S. bombing of Al-Jazeera’s Baghdad bureau in 2003, which killed one journalist, or the bombing of an Al-Jazeera office in Kabul in 2001. The U.S. government maintains both were accidental, not intentional.
While Rosenberg called Fox News “a very, very dangerous force in the United States” and Fox News host Sean Hannity “one of the biggest right wing liars on Fox News” during the speech, he praised Al-Jazeera as “mainstream” and “factual.”
“It just shows that everywhere in the world people are watching Al-Jazeera because people know it’s going to be — one, it’s factual,” he said.
“It has footage, it has pictures which we are essentially not allowed to see in the United States, that the networks don’t allow of what is going on in Iraq, what’s going on in Afghanistan.”
Bizarrely, Rosenberg also claimed the left-of-center New Republic magazine, which regularly defends President Obama, was “very much of a right wing, Jewish publication.”
In his speech, Rosenberg also praised Obama for treating Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu worse than any American president has ever treated an Israeli prime minister.
“When Netanyahu came to Washington, no president has ever treated an Israeli prime minister as coldly as Netanyahu was treated by Obama,” Rosenberg said, with obvious joy, to what was presumably a largely Arab audience.
“Suddenly Israel today is, even though it gets what it wants to a certain extent, Israel is treated as another country, a foreign country, which makes it no different than all the other foreign countries. That is what Obama is trying to do: take Israel away from being the 51st state and make it a foreign country like Lebanon or France or any normal foreign country.”
“He has done that,” Rosenberg added. “You know, he has sent the Arab world signals from day one of where his heart is.”
Indeed, Obama has from day one (and even before) sent the Arab world signals of where his heart is. So why is American Jewry not listening?
J Street Funder Bill Benter paying MJ Rosenberg's salary at Media Matters?
I'm sure that many of you remember Bill Benter, the mysterious, Hong Kong-based gambler who financed much of J Street's budget. Well, it seems that there's another US-based organization that has been the beneficiary of Benter's generosity: Media Matters. Specifically, Benter may have contributed money to keep Jewish anti-Semite MJ Rosenberg on the payroll (Benter wouldn't confirm that part).
“I have been a contributor to Media Matters for many years and am proud to support the important work that it does fighting for truth in media, working for more honest political discourse and promoting our shared progressive values,” Benter told TheDC in a statement.
A source told TheDC that Benter donated to Media Matters, at least in part, so the liberal organization could bring MJ Rosenberg on board as its foreign policy voice.
Rosenberg has become a lightning rod for questioning the loyalty of American supporters of Israel by calling them “Israel firsters,” and for taking other radical positions. Alan Dershowitz, the liberal Harvard Law School professor, has denounced him in a series of recent interviews and articles, saying that Rosenberg’s rhetoric and ideas are similar to what neo-Nazi and pro-Hezbollah websites offer.
According to tax documents obtained by TheDC, the Media Matters Action Network paid Rosenberg $129,568 in 2010, plus $4,505 in other compensation. That organization is one of Media Matters’ political arms. It is tax-exempt under section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code.
TheDC wasn’t able to independently confirm the source’s claim that Benter donated to Media Matters with the intent of endowing Rosenberg’s salary, and it appears that Benter contributed directly to the 501(c)(3) — not to its affiliated 501(c)(4) group.
When TheDC asked Benter’s intermediary, Matt Dorf of Rabinowitz/Dorf Communications, whether Benter was in any way involved in bringing Rosenberg on board, and whether Benter possibly solicited funds for Media Matters’ (c)(4) affiliate to help pay Rosenberg’s salary, Dorf said the latter question was “exactly the right question” and that he would ask Benter.
Dorf later replied that Benter would not be providing any further statement.
Read the whole thing. Gee, you think J Street and Media Matters could have the same sources of funding? What a shock that would be.
The ad above appears as a full-page ad in Thursday's New York Times, which was placed by the Emergency Committee for Israel (ECI). I have uploaded it to ScribD and those who would like a better look will find it embedded below.
ECI issued the following statement:
Today the Emergency Committee for Israel published a full-page ad in the New York Times asking readers to call the mainstream foundations and charities that are funding two prominent liberal organizations -- Center for American Progress and Media Matters -- that have recently come under fire for anti-Israel and borderline anti-Semitic rhetoric.
The ad can be viewed at this link: http://goo.gl/0d8Mn
For background on the story, please see the following articles in the Washington Post and Politico: http://goo.gl/aXBxd, http://goo.gl/IBRe5
For any questions or media inquiries, please contact ECI's executive director, Noah Pollak: noah@committeeforisrael.com, 202-600-6220.
For those wondering why so many Jewish Federations are named in the ad, please go here and here.
'Obama could be the Chamberlain of the 21st century'
In an interview on Media Matters' anti-Semitic attacks on Israel, Alan Dershowitz tells Newsmax that President Obama could be the Neville Chamberlain of the 21st century.
Last week, I reported that various Jewish Federations in the United States have given large donations to Media Matters for America, a group that is close to the Obama administration and largely populated by Jewish anti-Semites. Media Matters has gone around labeling various pro-Israel Jews 'Israel firsters,' which raises the spectre of dual loyalty and is considered an anti-Semitic slur by the Anti-Defamation League, the American Jewish Congress and the Simon Wiesenthal Center.
Adam Kredo went to some of the local Federations that were featured in the article and asked them to comment on why they are donating money to anti-Semites. Most of the Federations declined to comment, but the Combined Jewish Philanthropies of Boston, which made the largest donations ($362,500), did comment.
Of the five Jewish charities that have donated to Media Matters, the most prolific is the Combined Jewish Philanthropies of Greater Boston, which has given the group $362,500 since 2007.
CJP president Barry Shrage did not respond to multiple requests seeking comment. However, a statement on the organization’s website states that it is not directly responsible for the donations that were made to Media Matters through its funding arm.
“CJP is now—and has always been—one of Israel’s strongest supporters,” the statement said. “The grant in question was from a Donor Advised Fund, and not from CJP’s communal funding allocations.”
Donor-advised grants are primarily controlled by the funder.
“While owned and ultimately controlled by CJP, [donor advised funds] do not involve communal funds, but rather reflect the interests of those individual donors,” the statement said.
The CJP said that it does “reserve the right to reject a grant to organizations whose missions are in conflict with our own and we have done so on several occasions.”
Let's call a spade, a spade. A 'donor advised fund' is essentially a way to turn a donation that would otherwise not be tax deductible into a tax deductible donation. As I understand it, it's commonly used when someone wants to donate money to - for example - an overseas yeshiva that does not have a US corporation (a "501(c)(3)") set up, and typically the go-between will skim a little money off the top for its troubles. As I understand it, the IRS never intended for 'donor advised funds' to be used to make tax deductible political donations.
Second, nothing requires the Federations to accept 'donor advised funds.' And nothing requires the Federations (as they freely admitted) to donate money from a 'donor advised fund' to an organization that is anti-Semitic. I can guarantee you that if they were asked to donate to the Ku Klux Klan, they would say no. So why donate to the bigots at Media Matters?
Third, according to the list released by the Daily Caller, CJP is lying. Only the 2010 donation ($125,000) is listed as 'donor advised funds.' The bulk of the money in question ($37,500 in 2007 and $200,000 in 2008) is listed as 'social service' and 'social research,' respectively, whatever those two phrases mean.
If I were still living in Boston, I would hang up the phone when the Federation calls to ask for money. This is simply outrageous.
By the way, the Community Foundation of the United Jewish Federation of San Diego, which gave $100,000 in 2009 and $50,000 in 2010, lists the contributions as 'general assistance' and 'general support,' and not as 'donor advised funds.'
Perhaps Michael Steinhardt, who has been involved in real Jewish causes (he is one the founders and funders of Birthright) put it best.
“Sadly, Federations around the country are largely in the hands of secular liberals who have little sense of what’s actually Jewish, much less what’s pro-Israel,” said Michael Steinberg, a Maryland resident who stopped contributing to the Washington Federation for these reasons.
The MMFA attacks on American Jews are led by M.J. Rosenberg the former AIPAC employee, who served as editor of the Near East report but was forced out because AIPAC wanted the magazine to be more clearly aligned to their pro-Israel agenda.
Even before he was hired by Media Matters to blunt criticism of Obama’s Israel policies, Rosenberg regularly questioned the patriotism of American Jews who support Israel (calling them Israel firsters), claimed those same Jews (he calls them the Israel lobby) controls the media and America’s foreign policy.
Many Conservative bloggers including myself have been pointing out Rosenberg’s Antisemitism for years. But his constant attacks on the Jewish people did not receive attention from the mainstream media until December when Rabbi Abraham Cooper of the Simon Wiesenthal Center fought back. Rabbi Cooper spoke out against the Antisemitism of MMFA and that of Center for American Progress (run by Obama buddy John Podesta) who helped to form MMFA.
I have a better question: Why is Jewish federation money, which is supposed to be money raised by the local Jewish community for local Jewish communal organizations, and sometimes for Israel, being spent to fund Media Matters? For example, the Combined Jewish Philanthropies of Greater Boston, Inc., which is the local Jewish federation in the Boston area, gave $362,500(!) to Media Matters in 2007, 2008 and 2010. Is that in accordance with its charter? Is that something that a tax exempt charitable corporation is allowed to do? Is that something Mrs. Cohen from Newton expected her tzedaka (charity) money to be supporting?
The same goes for the San Diego federation, the Cleveland federation and the San Francisco federation (albeit each of those is on a smaller scale).
In answering a recent attack by Max Blumenthal, formerly of Media Matters for America (MMfA), Prof. Dershowitz said, “Let me tell you, Max Blumenthal and Media Matters will be singlehandedly responsible for (Obama) losing this election. They (the Democrats) cannot win the election and keep this affiliation with them.”
I agree with Prof. Dershowitz, though obviously I think there are many, many more reasons why President Obama should lose this election (trillions, if you consider his latest budget proposal).
This just shows that Americans of all political stripes are awakened to the dangers of unethical journalists and media organizations that deceive their audiences and use bullying tactics to unfairly target political opponents.
I sure hope Palin's right, because I don't see Obama throwing them under the bus so quickly.
If you had any doubts that MJ Rosenberg is a Jewish anti-Semite, this video should dispel them.
Let's go to the videotape. I'll have more after the video.
Notice the continual references to the 'Israel Lobby.' Rosenberg is the initiator of the term 'Israel firsters' - a term which implies dual loyalty by any American who supports Israel.
Joel Pollak adds:
Supporters of CAP and MMfA accuse critics of trying to shut down debate on Israel–ironically, while celebrating the removal of one of their critics, Josh Block, from the listserv of the Truman National Security Project.
Block, a Democrat, had been quoted in the Politico article describing some of CAP’s views as “borderline anti-Semitic stuff.” His removal was described by the Truman Project as punishment for a “personal attack”–when, in fact, his comments were not personal at all in nature, and have been substantiated and supported by mainstream American Jewish organizations.
Regardless, both CAP and MMfA are, as Politico points out, “[t]wo of the Democratic Party’s core institutions,” providing policy ideas, media talking points, and support staff to push the left’s agenda in Washington.
Until recently, the anti-Israel views espoused by CAP and MMfA were on the far-radical fringe of American political debate. As CAP and MMfA have grown in importance, however, their anti-Israel agendas have become more prominent within the Obama administration and the Democratic Party as a whole, leading to a rift that has already had electoral consequences.
Unless Democrats act to contain the damage, the controversy over charges of antisemitism at CAP and MMfA could affect debates–and votes–in the crucial campaign of 2012.
Read the whole thing. I'm not sure the Democrats care about accusations of anti-Semitism. They certainly won't stop American Jews from voting for them.
But of course: Media Matters blames 'Israel Lobby' for Egyptian uprising
The insufferable MJ Rosenberg has written a piece for Media Matters blaming the 'Israel Lobby' for what's going on in Egypt (Hat Tip: Legal Insurrection, who has more comments).
If one needs additional proof that the "pro-Israel" lobby and the policies it dictates to US policymakers are bad for both the U.S. and Israel, look no further than what is happening in Egypt.
The regime that the Israeli government and its U.S. lobby have depended upon to enforce the status quo is going down. It is not clear when, but it's going to be soon, much sooner than anyone ever anticipated. And you can be sure that any democratic government that takes Mubarak's place is not going to play the role of America's (let alone Israel's) enforcer in the Middle East.
Hopefully, the Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty will survive — thousands of lives on both sides have been saved by President Carter's Camp David Treaty — but there are no guarantees. Far from it.
Of course, no one would even be worried about the peace treaty if the Israelis had agreed to implement the critical second part of the Camp David Accords.
That was the part that would have ended the occupation. But the Israelis chose to ignore it and the lobby and the ever-faithful Congress blocked Carter's efforts to push it through.
The 'second part' Rosenberg is promoting is the part about 'Palestinian' autonomy (not a 'state' - it never said that), and that failed to be implemented because the 'Palestinians' had no interest in it. They're interested in destroying the Jewish state.
I am an Orthodox Jew - some would even call me 'ultra-Orthodox.' Born in Boston, I was a corporate and securities attorney in New York City for seven years before making aliya to Israel in 1991 (I don't look it but I really am that old :-). I have been happily married to the same woman for thirty-five years, and we have eight children (bli ayin hara) ranging in age from 13 to 33 years and nine grandchildren. Four of our children are married! Before I started blogging I was a heavy contributor on a number of email lists and ran an email list called the Matzav from 2000-2004. You can contact me at: IsraelMatzav at gmail dot com
