WND's Farah Keeps Up Anti-Gardasil Paranoia Topic: WorldNetDaily
In keeping with the fearmongering, science-denying tone of his website's so-called reporting, Joseph Farah's Oct. 27 WorldNetDaily column is all about attacking Gardasil.
Farah complains that GOP presidential candidate Michele Bachmann "in the unfavorable light of the anti-science zealot" for raising questions about Gardasil. He then joins Bachmann in anti-science zealot land by repeating unverified claims of "adverse reactions" to the vaccine and asserting that "no one is even sure whether the drug, peddled by Merck, is even effective at preventing HPV and, thus, reducing cervical cancer."
Later, Farah asserted again that "some doctors have even challenge the link between HPV and cervical cancer." But the only doctor WND has cited as making that claim is Christian Fiala, whom anti-abortion websites have denounced as "Austria’s most notorious abortionist," which makes WND's embrace of him rather curious.
Farah also takes a unrealistic view of adolescence by claiming, "HPV, like all other sexually transmitted diseases, can be prevented 100 percent of the time simply through abstinence from promiscuous sex by teenage girls." That fixation on female behavior -- Farah makes no mention of the role teenage boys play in spreading HPV -- is reminiscent of WND's obsession with female teachers who have sex with their students, which similarly ignores the behavior of male teachers.
Newsmax Denounces Obama Spending $750 Million On Re-Election -- As Newsmax Demonstrates Why He Must Topic: Newsmax
Newsmax's Christopher Ruddy wrote a tsk-tsking Oct. 26 column complaining about the money President Obama is expected to spend on his re-election:
New York magazine’s John Heilemann, co-author (with Mark Halperin) of “Game Change: Obama and the Clintons, McCain and Palin, and the Race of a Lifetime,” an inside account of the 2008 presidential campaign, says Obama’s strategy is for a “demolition job” against the Republican nominee.
“He and his campaign [will] spend $750 million to make whichever Republican he’s running against unacceptable to the American people, the same way that George W. Bush did to John Kerry,” Heilemann recently said on Chris Matthews’ MSNBC show, “Hardball.”
“That’s a lot of money. And whoever they get is going to have real flaws. It’s possible they can accomplish that, but it’s going to be a demolition job.” Heilemann has predicted an “onslaught of negative advertising” against the Republican candidate, nothing less than a smear effort, in my book.
How depressing that Obama’s re-election has come to this, from a man who sought to present himself as a great uniter and healer of our nation.
With the election fast approaching, Obama seems to be desperate and employing a $750 million wrecking ball to demolish the Republican opponent next year will confirm it.
Ruddy doesn't mention one reason why Obama will be spending that kind of money: He and his Richard Mellon Scaife-funded Newsmax will be running its own wrecking ball against the president, trying to demolish his chances for re-election. Ruddy is simply complaining that his own anti-Obama propaganda will be countered by Obama campaign spending.
Just a few days after Ruddy's column appeared, the organization he heads sent out the following message to its email list:
If you're including Obama's middle name, you are most certainly aiming to demolish.
The link in the email leads to a lengthy video read by Newsmax's Ashley Martella, attacking Obama's "lack of leadership" and asserting that "you need to ask yourself, can you trust President Obama?" This turns into a solicitation for Newsmax magazine, in which you are promised four "special reports" on Obama featuring "new secret information you've never heard before" -- but it later becomes clear that Martella is talking about four back issues of the magazine.
That in turn links to a solicitation for those "special reports," including the usual throw-in of three free issues of the magazine that you must actively cancel when the free issues end to avoid being charged $39.95 for a full year's subscription.
And even then, the claims are misleading. For instance, Martella asserts that one of the "special reports" is about Obama's "attempts to quash the tea party revolution." In fact, the copy provided on the solicitation page describing the tea party issue makes no such claim; it's clear that the magazine takes a broader look at the tea party movement and how it "must find a way to translate electoral success into effective governance." The closest it gets is a line stating that one highlight of the report is "The Obama vow that can make the movement grow stronger."
Another report claims to be about "Barack Obama's war on Fox News." Nowhere is it mention that Fox News started it by declaring war on Obama from the day he took office and asserting that was the "voice of opposition."
Make no mistake: Ruddy has earmarked a significant portion of Newsmax's Scaife-bolstered budget to attacking Obama at every turn with the goal of getting him out of office. His complaints about Obama doing similar spending are just crocodile tears.
WND Misleads On Foundational Birther Text Topic: WorldNetDaily
One of the key tenets in WorldNetDaily's belief that Barack Obama is a "natural born citizen" who is not eligible to be president is the 1874 Supreme Court ruling Minor v. Happersett. For instance, Joseph Farah writes in his Oct. 25 WND column:
Any serious debate about Obama's eligibility should have ended a long time ago. He's not eligible. It matters not where he was born – which, ironically, is still very much in doubt. What matters is that he was not born of parents who were American citizens at the time. That's what "natural born citizen" means. It does not mean "born in the USA," much as Obama and his protectors in the media would like you to think.
"Natural Born Citizen" was defined by an 1875 Supreme Court ruling (Minor v. Happersett) as children born of two U.S. citizens – regardless of the location of the birth. It found: "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners."
We need only ask ourselves one question: "Were both his parents U.S. citizens when he was born?" By Obama's own admission, and also by the questionable documents he has provided the public, the answer is "no." And that settles it. Obama is not eligible to be the president.
But Farah and WND have largely overlooked the inconvenient fact that Minor v. Happersett's definition of "natural born citizen" had nothing to do with eligibility for the presidency and was incidental to the legal issue at hand.
As the Obama Conspiracy blog details, Minor v. Happersett involved a woman who was suing for the right to vote. The court ultimately ruled that while the woman was a natural born citizen, that didn't make her eligible to vote. The blog states regarding the section of the ruling Farah quoted:
The most obvious point is that there are two and exactly two kinds of citizens discussed here: ” natural born” and “naturalized”. Take a minute and reread the citation and verify this for yourself. You will see no distinction made between those who are born a citizen and those who are a natural born citizen. Note: “all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens” — not “natural born citizens” but “citizens” but natural born implied because they are born citizens.
The issue addressed in this section is not who is a natural born citizen, but who is a citizen. So when the court talks about “some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents” they are saying that there are “doubts” as to whether the children of aliens born under the jurisdiction of the United States are citizens at all. This is the point glossed over when trying to use this case to create a third type of citizen (the non-natural born, non-naturalized citizen).
The distinction is not between “plain citizens” and “natural born citizens” but between “natural-born citizens” and aliens (e.g. not citizens).
All of the preceding discussion is related to the situation before passage of the Fourteenth Amendment (“To determine, then, who were citizens of the United States before the adoption of the amendment”). The reason for this digression to the time before the Fourteenth Amendment was the question of whether Minor was a citizen apart from the Fourteenth Amendment. The court said that she was: “she has always been a citizen from her birth and entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizenship.” She was such a citizen because her parents were citizens and she was born under the jurisdiction of the United States, and the pesky argument about those not born of citizen parents before the Fourteenth Amendment “it is not necessary to solve”.
I don’t know if this question was ever solved for those born before the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment, but it is not necessary for us to solve either because there are no more persons living born before the Fourteenth Amendment, and because it was solved for those born after by the Supreme Court in United States v. Wonk Kim Ark. Wong, born in the United States of alien parents, was declared a citizen. It is hardly reasonable to quote the dicta in Minor as casting doubts while refusing to recognize the dicta in Wong which resolved them.
When will Farah and WND report the full truth about Minor v. Happersett? Probably about the time that it acknowledges the existence of John Woodman's birther-debunking book.
These Are Bozell's 'Jewish Leaders'? Topic: Media Research Center
Brent Bozell's big fit of right-wing activism this week is to brand the Occupy Wall Street and related protests as anti-Semitic.
In an Oct. 25 Media Research Center press release, Bozell demanded that the TV networks cover a video theMRC's Joe Schofstall shot of some guy'srant, declaring it to be "real, documented evidence of anti-Semitic slurs coming from an OWS participant." Bozell went on to assert that there is "scintilla of video or audio evidence" of racism in the tea party movement, which is categorically false.
That falsehood and dishonesty notwithstanding, Bozell tried to up the ante in an Oct. 26 MRC press release declaring that "three prominent Jewish leaders united with the call for the TV networks to cover the anti-Jewish hatred." But what sort of "leaders" are Bozell's buddies?
First on the list is Don Feder, who heads something called Jews Against Anti-Christian Defamation, a group most people have never heard of until now -- indeed, we found that when you click on the link provided in the press release to the group's website, it returns an error saying it cannot be found.
Second on Bozell's list is Rabbi Daniel Lapin of American Alliance of Jews and Christians (even though the website is under the URL rabbidaniellapin.com. Lapin was a useful tool for convicted felon Jack Abramoff -- as we've noted, Abramoff is the former chairman of Lapin's now-defunct organization Toward Tradition, through which Abramoff funneled money to influence politicians.
Bozell's final "Jewish leader" is Michael Medved, who is much better known as a second-tier right-wing radio host.
Meanwhile, actual Jewish leaders at the Anti-Defamation League -- which does not shrink away from highlighting anti-Semitism -- have a different, reality-based view than the constituency-less hacks Bozell has backing him up. From The New York Times:
Abraham H. Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, urged the protest organizers to condemn any expressions of anti-Semitism, but said, "There are manifestations in the movement of anti-Semitism, but they are not expressing or representing a larger view." He also pointed out that, according to his organization's periodic polls, roughly one in six Americans believed Jews had too much power in Wall Street and the American government.
"So it's not surprising that in a movement that deals with economic issues you're going to get bigots that believe in this stereotype," Mr. Foxman said. "The movement is not about Jews; it's not about Israel. It's about 'the economy, stupid.' "
Bozell also repeated the lie that allegations of tea party racism are "unsubstantiated." Maybe such lies -- and the apparent requirement of bending to his partisan right-wing agenda -- are the reason Bozell can't attract any actual Jewish leaders to stand by him.
CNS Forgets That David Duke Supported the Tea Party, Too Topic: CNSNews.com
An Oct. 27 CNSNews.com article by Erick Hamme begins:
David Duke, a former grand wizard of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, has joined President Barack Obama, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) in expressing support for the Occupy Wall Street movement, whose protests have been marked by anti-Semitism.
Unmentioned by Hamme: Duke also supported the tea party, to the point of defending the movement against charges of racism:
Tea Party people are called racist because the vast majority wants to stop the massive non-European immigration that will turn America into a crumbling tower of Babel. Most Tea Partiers believe that we in America have the right to preserve our heritage, language, and culture, just as every nation has that human right. The vast majority of Tea Party activists oppose affirmative action and diversity, which are nothing more than programs of racist discrimination against white people. The vast majority of Tea Party enthusiasts despise Hollywood and the mass media.
You know, the unelected media bosses have far more power than any senator or congressman, and are far more alien to America than the British were at the time of the American Revolution. At least the British were of our own, Christian cultural heritage, while the non-Christian ethno-religious minority who dominates Hollywood sees itself as very distinct from the 98 percent of the rest of us.
Tea Party activists are true populists who see the powers that control international finance and the Federal Reserve as the biggest threats to American prosperity and freedom.
The Tea Party movement is made up of American people who have watched in silent anger while the nation of our forefathers has been destroyed. The Tea Party movement, as the original Tea Party, is about preserving our heritage and our freedom.
Funny that Hamme wouldn't be interested in telling the full story about Duke. That suggests he's not a real reporter but simply a tool of CNS' anti-Obama agenda.
We conservatives, libertarians and people of faith have even stronger grievances with the establishment than do our leftist brethren, particularly given all that President Obama and his socialist minions have done not only to dismantle the vision and reality of our Founding Fathers, but also based on their own dastardly and incompetent performance in office. While even the left, at home and abroad, now recognize that blowhard and corrupt establishment leaders like Obama have failed them and are, as a result, taking concrete actions in the "street," we conservatives have not been so bold and courageous.
Secondly, although much of Freud's psychoanalytic theories have been ruled fraudulent, unsustainable and untrue by modern science and psychiatric literature and scholarship, nevertheless Freud's maniacal atheism and hatred of religion, history, hierarchy and moral traditions have been wholly adopted by modern-day liberals, progressives and socialists, into whose education atheism has been infused not only in every aspect of public and private education curriculum and the academy, but also Freud's legacy is found permeated throughout American politics, law, popular culture and society.
For example, progressives, the Democratic Party, President Obama and his administration have been zealous advocates of taking Freud's perverse legacy to brand new nihilistic ends. How else could one explain contemporary social policies like abortion on demand, same-sex marriage, the homosexual and LGBT revolution, the radical feminist movement, support of Occupy Wall Street protesters and the modern amoral trends to exposing our children to greater and more extreme forms of psychopathy and psychosexual depravity?
Apart from the obvious double standard of the person who ran for office promising full transparency, this is unquestioningly suspicious. More importantly, no matter what is argued to the contrary, this administration makes the Capone organization (sans murder) look legitimate – so there is no question that if this legislation is successful it will also be used to prevent access to his personal life before taking office.
What is it that Obama is so desperate to keep concealed? And don't tell me it's a birth certificate–citizenship thing. Because even if that is true, my instincts tell me there is something much more devastating that he doesn't want known. Perhaps it has to do with mental health – who knows? But there is something chilling enough for him not to want it known – ever.
Obama is arguably the most narcissistic president in history – it stands to reason that for him to spend over a million dollars in legal fees to keep his background hidden means whatever it is is not just image-altering; it must be a death knell.
The media and investigative press should hang their heads in shame for working to keep the Melchizedekian magic Negro's background secret. The media that were able to uncover and expose Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's dalliance and subsequent child, born secretly outside of his marriage, within days is unwilling to unearth Obama's history? Why? Is it possible they know and aren't talking?
With his records sealed forever and access to his past successfully forbidden, the only thing left to go into his presidential library will be pictures of his wife's opulent taxpayer-funded vacations and him on the golf course.
Frankly, Gadhafi's death should heighten the GOP's criticism of Obama. To the degree the U.S. military was involved in Gadhafi's death the killing was an illegal act of Obama. After all his preaching on the "rule of law," when Bush was the object of his rebuke, Obama arrogantly unleashed the killing power of the U.S. military in Libya without the authorization of Congress.
Conservatives understand the left's love affair with and predestination of Obama. We understand that almost nothing could have prevented the installment of Barry Soetoro, aka Barack Obama, in the White House. We understand that the Constitution's eligibility clause was viewed as archaic and really having no place in our postmodern society as related to the beloved savior of the left.
But the establishment could have at least given us a mock hearing on Obama's constitutional eligibility. The Senate or a federal court could have a least ruled that only one U.S. citizen parent is necessary to confer the highest class of citizenship, which is required for eligibility. The legal body could have at least ruled that an unbroken chain of natural allegiance to the United States is not required to meet the definition of "natural born citizen" as applied to Barack Hussein Obama II.
Of course the intellectuals of the left know that the weight of the law and history says otherwise. But, at least with a hearing, the appearance of lawfulness and legitimacy would have been projected to a dumbed-down public. A perfunctory hearing would have at least given the appearance that Obama was a man under law and not above it.
Like Apollo, Barack Hussein Obama appeared before us, early in his path to power, before Greek columns that presaged his hubris. Nose in the air, contempt on his face, Obama and his fellow travelers have done nothing but reinforce their peculiar – and brittle – autocratic attitudes. Foreshadowing the sense of hypocritical entitlement that would mark her tenure as first lady, Michelle Obama – who adores eating junk food and spending taxpayer money on vacations while lecturing Americans on what to eat and how to live – told us that she had never been proud of the United States. (That was, of course, until her husband Barack sat in the catbird seat of political power.)
Much more recently, both Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden have snarled at reporters who had the temerity to lob something other than softball questions at their beneficent masters. Obama had nothing but sneering contempt for Ed Henry, when Henry dared to quote candidate Mitt Romney's criticism. Joe Biden went so far as to demand an investigation of Human Events' Jason Mattera this week – for having the audacity to press Biden on his absurd threats of rape should Obama's "jobs bill" not pass.
All this happens as Obama prepares to make good on his threats to work around Congress in making law "administratively," forcing his policies down our throats regardless of our protests. Meanwhile, his supporters cheer these dictatorial moves, for they abhor their fellow citizens' rude insistence on disagreeing with Glorious Leader Obama.
Underlying every action and every despotic proclamation by Obama and his ilk is their unspoken outrage: How DARE you? How dare you disagree? How dare you resist? How dare you criticize? Don't you know what is good for you?
The arrogance and cavalier comportment President Obama and his minions (Attorney General Eric Holder springs to mind) display as they engage in blatantly criminal exercises is not unique to them. It is indicative of the mentality that has been cultivated by American politicians over decades. It is ironically antithetical to the egalitarianism advanced by America's founders (as opposed to the empty social-justice doctrine of the left). The only difference is that this administration possesses said arrogance and cavalier attitude in spades compared to their predecessors.
Mother Jones, details how prior to his emergence as an anti-Muslim activist and current adviser to Mitt Romney's campaign, Walid Phares was a top official in a Lebanese sectarian religious militia responsible for massacres during that country's civil war.
WND's Newest Hero: A Birther Gun Nut With Sexual Fetishes Topic: WorldNetDaily
You thought that a vindictive online stalker was an odd person for WorldNetDaily to defend? Wait 'til you meet its latest poster boy.
An unbylined Oct. 27 WND article tells the case of Darren Huff, who this week was the subject of "a convoluted federal court result in which a defendant was convicted of ferrying guns across state lines, from his home in Georgia to Madisonville, Tenn., without using them." WND continues:
Huff had been stopped by Tennessee law enforcement officers in April 2010 and he reportedly told them he was en route to support efforts to arrest Monroe County officials who refused to allow a grand jury to consider allegations against Obama.
The AP reported that officers said Huff was carrying a loaded Colt .45 plus an assault rifle and ammunition. Huff testified in court that he was en route to help Walter Fitzpatrick, a Tennessee retiree who was placed under arrest when he tried to make a citizen's arrest on a grand jury foreman.
You might remember Fitzpatrick as an earlier WND poster boy, about whom WND hid his lengthy history of contacts with law enforcement, ranging from numerous instances of alleged domestic violence and harassment to restraining orders and various other judgments filed against him. Fitzpatrick was also court-martialed and convicted of failing to properly supervise the spending of his ship's "morale, welfare and recreation" money, effectively ending his Navy career.
Needless to say, WND isn't telling the whole story about Huff. As Talking Points Memo reported, Huff is on videotape telling offers during his stop by Tennessee law enforcement that "I’ve got my .45 because ain’t no government official gonna go peacefully" -- which would seem to run counter to the Huff statement WND reported that "I have never made a statement about taking over the courthouse, the city, the state, nothing."
WND mentions that Huff is a member of "a Georgia militia," but not its name -- Oath Keepers, which last year insistedwasn't an militia (though it if was, it wouldn't be a bad thing). That took place during the child custody case of an Oath Keepers member whose membership in the group was made an issue by WND in order to obscure allegations of child abuse.
But that's not the best part that WND won't tell you. Wonkette reports that according to the FBI’s “Returned Property” document, the items that were given back to Huff after his arrest included a "one (1) pink dildo with remote," "one (1) DVD containing pornographic material 'Tranny Hunter'," "four (4) condoms," and "one (1) bottle of KY Gel."
This is who WND considers a respectable birther and Second Amendment supporter. WND must be so proud.
MRC Thinks Its Transgender Freakout Is Vindicated Topic: Media Research Center
Remember earlier this year, when the Media Research Center's Culture & Media Institute went into freakout mode over a J. Crew ad featuring one of the clothing firm's designers painting her young son's toenails pink, declaring that it was "blatant propaganda celebrating transgendered children"? Well, they're feeling pretty smug over the latest chapter in this story: the designer, Jenna Lyons, is involved in a messy divorce battle with her husband, which includes allegations that Lyons "has fallen in love with another woman."
The MRC now feels vindicated in its attack on Lyons.
An Oct. 25 NewsBusters post by Paul Wilson declares a weird sort of victory, baselessly asserting that the Lyons ad "was clearly meant to serve as pro-transgender propaganda or at least normalize gender confusion," and huffed that "many in the media scornfully dismissed the transgender aspects of the ad, and portrayed members of the conservative community as hysterical, hypersensitive fools.: Wilson added: "But the company line at J. Crew, and recent behavior of Lyons, tells a different story. Could it possibly be that the media was wrong on this issue, and CMI was right?"
Um, no. He has no proof beyond his own vivid imagination that the ad "was clearly meant to serve as pro-transgender propaganda," utterly discounting the fact that young children like bright colors, think it's fun to paint themselves bright colors, and haven't assigned gender roles to those colors.
The bottom line is that CMI's attack on Lyons was driven by homophobia, and claiming that the attack is vindicated because she may have a female lover is homophobia as well. Wilson is confusing vindication with bigotry.
NewsBusters Unhappy Media Is Reporting the Truth About Cain Topic: NewsBusters
In an Oct. 21 NewsBusters post, Kyle Drennen expresses his unhappiness that NBC reported that Herman Cain's presidential campaign appears to be less about running for president than it is about selling his books and building his brand.
Drennen doesn't counter any of the facts NBC reports or even the premist -- perhaps because they appear to be true. Indeed, Cain has no real campaign structure in any of the key primary states, including South Carolina and Iowa.
There's no "liberal bias" involved in Drennen's complaint -- he's simply upset that the media reported facts he'd rather see ignored.
NEW ARTICLE: Terry Jeffrey, Obama-Hater Topic: CNSNews.com
The CNSNews.com editor in chief is using the website he runs to launch specious attacks against the president and his administration. Read more >>
Les Kinsolving can't be much of a reporter if he can't be bothered to stop dishonesty in his name by his own employer.
An Oct. 21 WorldNetDaily article, like somanyothers, portrays White House press secretary Jay Carney's declining to take a question from Kinsolving as a deliberate attempt to avoid a question -- even though neither Kinsolving nor WND provide any evidence that Carney knew the question Kinsolving was going to ask.
And even if Carney had know the question, Kinsolving has demonstrated himself to be such a right-wing hack that Carney was fully justified in thinking that Kinsolving is a crank and not a real reporter.
Is Kinsolving so weak and powerless and lacking in personal integrity that he is unable or unwilling to do anything about the dishonest depictions of Carney that appear in these whining WND articles (which we doubt Kinsolving actually writes)? Or is he fully complicit in the dishonesty of his employer?
Either way, just consider it another justifiable reason for Carney -- or anyone else -- to never taking a question from Kinsolving.
More Crude, Misleading Math From CNS' Lucas Topic: CNSNews.com
Fred Lucas writes in an Oct. 24 CNSNews.com article:
Vice President Joe Biden said yesterday on CNN that nobody can say "that the stimulus did not create jobs," but he did not specificy how many jobs he believes President Barack Obama's stimulus created and how much each of those jobs cost.
According to the most recent report on the stimulus by the Congressional Budget Office, the law had created a maximum of 2 million jobs as the fourth quarter of 2011 at a cost of $412,500 per job.
CBO estimated that the actual total might be greater than that. In its calculation, there will be between 600,000 and 2 million people employed in the fourth quarter of 2011 as a result of the stimulus.
Taking the high-end number of 2 million and dividing it by the $825 billion cost of the stimulus yields a cost of $412,500 per job.
Unfortunately for Lucas, that crude calculation is not how this sort of thing works. As PolitiFact details:
We checked the White House report, and of the $666 billion stimulus total, 43 percent was spent on tax cuts for individuals and businesses; 19 percent went to state governments, primarily for education and Medicaid; and 13 percent paid for government benefits to individuals such as unemployment and food stamps.
The remainder, about 24 percent, was spent on projects such as infrastructure improvement, health information technology and research on renewable energy.
The White House points out that Recovery Act dollars didn’t just fund salaries — as the blog item implies. Lumping all stimulus costs together and classifying the total as salaries produces an inflated figure.
Lucas misleads further by dividing the entire amount of the stimulus by the number of jobs existing in a single quarter, ignoring jobs created earlier.
Lucas tried this same sort of dishonest calculation last month too.
WND Still Hiding Truth About Creepy Online Stalker Topic: WorldNetDaily
Why is WorldNetDaily still defending an online stalker?
We have no earthly idea, but an Oct. 21 WND article (this one unbylined) takes the side of stalker Mike Palmer once again -- and once again hides the real facts of the case.
WND narrowly focuses on the loss of Palmer's gun rights as a result of a restraining order against him. As it has donebefore, WND discusses in only the vaguest of terms why there is a restraining order against Palmer:
The summary suspension of 2nd Amendment rights for Mike Palmer, a 55-year-old Christian missionary from Phoenix, was issued in a complaint by Melody Thomas-Morgan of Prescott, Ariz., who charged that an online discussion was a threat to her life.
The discussion concerned the "wages of sin is death," and the reader claimed that Palmer was threatening her with "death," with that word in quotes in the legal filings.
In fact, there is no "discussion" occurring. As we've detailed, Palmer is the friend and "spiritual mentor" of Thomas-Morgan's ex-husband, and is using his blog to harrass her and her children on the ex's behalf. Palmer's discussion of Thomas-Morgan's "death" on his blog can resaonbly be interpreted as a threat to her life.
Why doesn't WND tell the real truth about Palmer, or even bother to contact Thomas-Morgan so she can tell her side of the story? Because WND has a history of taking the side of creepy people who must be whitewashed for public consumption.
In siding with a vindictive online stalker, WND has taken the side of yet another creepy person. Why should anyone take this "news" organization seriously?
NewsBusters' Double Standard on Insults Topic: NewsBusters
Noel Sheppard whines in an Oct. 22 NewsBusters post: "Academy Award-winning actress Kathy Bates wants President Obama "to stand up on his hind legs and fight these rat bastards."
While that was going on, Fox Business host called Vice President Joe Biden "numb nuts." Sheppard has yet to speak out about that disrespectful statement not by an actor but by the host of a TV "news' show-- presumably because he approves of the insult.