WND Makes It Clear: It's Promoting Birtherism Out of Hatred for Obama Topic: WorldNetDaily
Bob Unruh inadvertently gives away the game in an April 11 WorldNetDaily article, in which he notes that President Obama's birth certificate is "an issue that remains unresolved for some of his harshest critics."
What Unruh doesn't say: In order for Obama's "harshest critics" to consider the birth certificate "issue" to remain "unresolved," those critics must deny reality by pretending their concerns have never been addressed, though they have.
Unruh is apparently among those reality deniers, because he spends much of his article rehashing -- well, copying-and-pasting from earlier articles -- evidence purporting to call into question Obama's eligibility to be president without acknowledging those concerns have been discredited.
Thus, by deliberately ignoring reality, Unruh and WND are essentially admitting that they are perpetuating the birther conspiracy solely out of spite afor a president they hate.
Unruh also repeats his earlier dishonesty on the subject by relaying an Alabama Supreme Court ruling shooting down yet another birther lawsuit by quoting only the opinion of birther justices who dissented and completely ignoring the prevailing opinion that Alabama state officials were under no legal obligation to verify the eligibility of a presidential candidate.
On top of all that, Unruh served up this sneering derision of the president:
“And just to be clear I know where my birth certificate is,” he said. “But a lot of people don’t. A lot of people don’t.”
He was smirking, “Ha, ha.”
“I think it’s still up on a website somewhere,” he said. “Ha, ha, ha, ha.”
Then he took a long pause.
“You remember that? That was crazy,” he said. “That was some crazy stuff. Ha, ha, ha.
“I hadn’t thought about that in awhile,” he said, shaking his head. “Ha, ha, ha. Ha, ha.”
Perhaps if right-wing activists like Unruh were to acknowledge reality by reporting actual facts about Obama's birth certificate instead of rehashing discredited attacks,
MRC Takes Colbert Out of Context To Attack Him For Replacing Letterman Topic: Media Research Center
Needless to say, the Media Research Center is not taking the choice of Stephen Colbert to replace David Letterman well.
Geoffrey Dickens kicks things off in an April 10 NewsBusters post by declaring that Colbert "call[ed] Sarah Palin 'a f**king retard'" -- which is dishonestly taken out of context. Dickens did attempt that missing context later in his post:
After playing a clip of Sarah Palin telling Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday that Rush Limbaugh’s use of the word was acceptable because it was satire, Stephen Colbert, on his February 8, 2010 show concluded, “It is okay to call someone a retard if like Rush you clearly don’t mean it...And Sarah Palin knows that it is okay to call someone a retard if like Rush you clearly don’t mean it. Which is why we should all come to her defense and say, ‘Sarah Palin is a f**king retard.’ Get it.”
But Dickens is still omitting crucial context -- Palin had demanded the resignation of then-White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel for using the term “[bleeping] retards,” and Colbert was pointing out her hypocrisy in giving Limbaugh a pass.
Dickens also harrumphed, "On his March 15, 2012 show Colbert joked that the Taliban had 'a better track record on women’s issues' than Rush Limbaugh." Again, Dickens omits context here -- as the accompanying video makes clear, Colbert was noting that the Army had decided to stop advertising on Limbaugh's radio show in the wake of his misogynistic tirade against Sandra Fluke, while continuing to negotiate with the Taliban in Afghanistan.
Dickens then complained that NBC's "Today" show "played a clip of a mock political ad by Colbert that likened Mitt Romney to a serial killer." Dickens ignores the context here too -- Colbert was simply taking Romney's statement that "corporations are people" to its logical extension, that dismantling corporations, as Romney's Bain Capital does, is tantamount to murder.
WND Wants To Turn Rancher Dispute Into Another Ruby Ridge Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily sure does love to hook up with right-wing poster boys with unsavory backgrounds that must be whitewashed. They've found another one in a Nevada rancher with a propensity for violent rhetoric -- and they're ready to escalate things.
An April 9 WND article by Jack Minor sets things up in a WND-friendly way:
Federal officials have now taken to killing the calves and cattle of a Nevada rancher as part of a standoff that his family says has the potential to become another Ruby Ridge, where, in 1992, federal agents shot an unarmed Idaho woman holding a newborn infant in her arms.
“We have seen cows with tight bags but no calves on them, who are being moved by the BLM,” Ammon Bundy told WND. “This means they have separated the newborn calves from their mothers and they will eventually die.”
Ammon, 38, is the son of Cliven Bundy, a Nevada rancher whose ties to the area go back to the 1880s and who has been engaged in a land dispute since 1993 with the Bureau of Land Management over long-established cattle-grazing rights.
Minor gives the other side of the story short shrift, making no effort to interview federal officials and blaming the federal government for "taking steps to escalate the situation" while ignoring the fact that Bundy is the one who has made sure the situation escalated by violating the law for two decades.
An April 11 WND article by Art Moore touts how Bundy is drawing support from "private armed militias," which have "made the confrontation over Bundy’s use of federal land for grazing a rally cry." Moore waiyts until the 44th paragraph to mention a statement from federal officials that Bundy has been breaking the law for 20 years. Like Minor, Moore made no apparent effort to contact federal officials.
If the Bundy situation does escalate, WND's biased reporting will have done its part in making sure that happens.
CNS' Chapman Shocked To Discover U2's Bono Is A Christian Topic: CNSNews.com
Last year, WorldNetDaily treated as news something music fans have known for decades -- U2 lead singer Bono is a Christian. Now it's CNSNews.com's turn to discover this. Michael Chapman relays this startling revelation in an April 10 CNS article:
Bono, frontman for the Irish band U2, investor, and philanthropist, said he believes Jesus Christ was divine, that he arose from the dead, and that he made promises to the world that will come true.
Bono, who has an estimated worth of $600 million, also said he prays “to Christ” in order “to know the will of God,” adding that he and his family pray together and sometimes go to church to pray for others who are suffering.
“I pray to get to know the will of God, because then the prayers have more chance of coming true -- I mean, that’s the thing about prayer,” said Bono in an interview with Ireland’s RTE One last year. “We don't do it in a very lofty way in our family. It’s just a bunch of us on the bed, usually, we’ve a very big bed in our house. We pray with all our kids, we read the Scriptures, we pray. It’s not even regular.”
This is apparently such stunning news to Chapman that he has to take this revelation from a year-old interview.
Just wait until Chapman finds out that U2 recorded a version of the 40th Psalm ... 30 years ago.
WND's Cashill: Hate Mail to Hank Aaron Was Written By The KGB Topic: WorldNetDaily
It's been a while since we've gotten a good conspiracy theory out of Jack Cashill, so it was nice to see him make the effort again in his April 9 WorldNetDaily column.
Cashill takes issue with Hank Aaron talking about the racist hate mail he received as he approached Babe Ruth's home run record in 1974, asserting without any real evidence that it was generated by Soviet KGB agents in an effort to stir racial tension in the U.S.:
Before slandering his fellow Americans any further, Aaron needs to review the work of Vasili Mitrokhin, for many years the senior archivist for the KGB.
Although Mitrokhin died 10 years ago, the book he co-authored with Christopher Andrew, “The Sword and the Shield,” might possibly open Aaron’s eyes.
For years, a disillusioned Mitrokhin made detailed copies of many of the KGB files. One KGB strategy he exposed was the effort “to weaken the internal cohesion of the United States and undermine its international reputation by inciting race hatred.”
Aaron claims to have received thousands of such letters, most of them with northern postmarks. It is possible, I suppose, that these letters came from homegrown racists.
The evidence, however, suggests another possibility. By 1974 racial tensions had defused. Hank Aaron had few enemies. Babe Ruth had few diehard fans. And the number “714″ lacked the iconic power of the number “60.”
Huh? Ruth's home run record did not have "iconic power"? Really? And the man who trashed Travon Martin and exhalted his killer as a civil-rights hero lectures us on the supposed lack of racial tensions in the 1970s? But Cashill's not done yet:
I knew some rough characters back then, but I did not know the person whose animus toward Aaron or love for Ruth would have moved him to go to the trouble of getting Aaron’s address and sending him hate mail.
We do know, however, that American communists like Jim Jones, the leader of the People’s Temple, had his minions doing exactly what Mitrokhin described during this same time period.
Hoping to subvert race relations in America, not strengthen them as he claimed, Jones ordered his people to write hateful, racist letters and attribute them to white people he hoped to embarrass.
We know, too, that in 1969 Charles Manson tried to stoke a race war by blaming the murders his people committed on black radicals – in a phrase, “Helter Skelter.”
If Cashill really believes any of that, he might want to have a chat with his fellow WND conspiracy-monger Colin Flaherty about his race-baiting.
MRC Doesn't Understand How Calling Criticism 'Emotional' Could Be Considered Sexist Topic: Media Research Center
Kyle Drennen misses the point to an almost comic extent in an April 7 Media Research Center item:
On her 12 p.m. ET hour show on MSNBC Monday, host Andrea Mitchell accused former NSA and CIA director Michael Hayden of being sexist simply for criticizing Senator Dianne Feinstein's slanted Intelligence Committee report condemning the interrogation of terror suspects under the Bush administration.
Mitchell played a clip of Hayden questioning the credibility of the report on Fox News Sunday, where he cited Washington Post columnist David Ignatius: "He said that Senator Feinstein wanted a report so scathing that it would 'ensure that an un-American brutal program of detention and interrogation would never again be considered or permitted.' Now that sentence, that motivation for the report...may show deep emotional feeling on the part of the Senator, but I don't think it leads you to an objective report."
After the sound bite, Mitchell hyped the supposedly offensive portion of the legitimate criticism: "So was the Senate Intelligence chair just too emotional in the way she wrote that report?" Talking to left-wing New York Times columnist Gail Collins, she further asked: "What about the way men of a different opinion – and there are lots of opinions on this issue – how men criticize women in power?"
Collins joined in Mitchell's rant: "But when, you know, John McCain talks about waterboarding and the terrible, you know, moral consequences and practical consequence that kind of thing has, that's foreign policy. Clearly when Dianne Feinstein does it, it's emotional."
Either Drennen is so evolved as a human being that he doesn't see how dismissing Feinstein's criticism as "emotional" could possibly be considered sexist, or he's so retrograde that he doesn't think it's a big deal.
Meanwhile ... Topic: WorldNetDaily
Richard Bartholomew catches WorldNetDaily convicting a Muslim professor of harrassment before a trial has been held in the case, by removing the word "alleged" from the claims of harrassment.
NEW ARTICLE: Good News For American Workers Is Bad News For CNS Topic: CNSNews.com
Terry Jeffrey and CNSNews.com don't believe that positive news about dropping unemployment rates and more jobs created should be reported when the president is a Democrat. Read more >>
WND's John Rocker Can't Stop Whining About Being Accurately Quoted Topic: WorldNetDaily
It seems that one reason John Rocker has a WorldNetDaily column is so he can continue to whine about being accurately quoted in a 2000 Sports Illustrated profile of him and bash its author, Jeff Pearlman. Rocker does this again in his April 8 column, though this time he decides to own his bigotry:
The benefits I’ve gained far outweigh the detriments. There truly is no such thing as bad publicity. The things I’ve been able to do; the doors that have opened; the places I’ve been able to go and the famous/influential people I now consider friends in large part stem from the notoriety created by that SI piece. I know that was not Pearlman’s intent, but that’s how it’s turned out as I look back over the last 14 years from a bird’s eye view.
Most individuals who only played six years in the Major Leagues would not have the ability to pull off some of the things I have simply on name recognition. Most players who possess a similar resume in professional baseball would not have had the material to write an autobiography and then use that as a platform to aid many adolescents during their difficult maturation process. And many players who boast my mediocre level of success in sports could not have started an organization for homeless veterans and accomplished all that we have in just two short years.
But because of Sports Illustrated and the recognition that has come along with it, I still have a voice that people listen to 14 years later. I still get interview requests from names like Geraldo Rivera, Neil Cavuto and Michael Savage where I proudly spread the word about Save Homeless Veterans. I don’t know too many Big Leaguers who haven’t seen action in 11 years that can still do that.
Rocker takes his usual pot shots at Pearlman, calling him "a belligerent, vindictive individual" and mocking him for now writing for a "glorified 'blog' site," gloating that "he’s not employed by any reputable news outlet." Given that Rocker's column is published by an outlet no sentient human being would describe as reputable, he might want to rethink that insult.
P.S. For all of his whining about SI and attacks on Pearlman, not once does Rocker claim, let alone prove, that he was misquoted.
MRC's Double Standard on Misleading Information About Climate Change, Redux Topic: Media Research Center
In an April 8 Media Research Center Business & Media Institute article, Sean Long fights an old battle over global warming numbers.
First, he's offended that an NBC special on climate change mentioned that there is "a 97 percent 'consensus' on the issue of climate change," calling the number "misleading":
The most recent origin of that claim is from geologist James Powell, who presented it in a study in January 2014, but even he admitted that his methods were subjective. Marc Morano of the website Climate Depot criticized Powell for failing to define what “accepts man-made global warming” meant, making his characterizations of scientific studies meaningless.
But then Long cited his own meaningless number: "In 2010, Marc Morano released a collection of more than 1000 scientists who 'challenged man-made global warming claims.'"
As we pointed out the last time the MRC cited Morano's number, many of the scientists who "challenged man-made global warming claims" on Morano's list have no formal training in climate science. Additionally, there are millions of people in the world who could be considered scientists, and Morano never provided any evidence that his list of 1,000 is statistically significant.
WND Hides The Likely Reason Limbaugh Lost His Hearing Topic: WorldNetDaily
Kathy Shaidle's April 8 WorldNetDaily article contains all they fawning you'd expect in a story about Rush Limbaugh, even when it's bad news:
He’s finally doing it: Thirteen years after Rush Limbaugh received his first cochlear implant, he will undergo surgery next week to receive one in his other ear.
In 2001, Limbaugh noticed his hearing was rapidly growing worse – a shocking discovery for anyone, but particularly tragic for a man who makes his living engaging with callers on talk radio.
But Shaidle doesn't mention the likely reason Limbaugh lost his hearing -- his addiction to painkillers.
As Salon documented, news of Limbaugh's hearing loss in 2003 coincided with news that Limbaugh was abusing painkillers. One of the painkillers Limbaugh reportedly used has been linked to sudden and profound hearing loss in patients who misuse or abuse the drug.
Given the links between the two and how both were big news at the time, you'd think Shaidle would have mentioned it.
Newsmax's Hirsen Tries To Portray 'Noah' As A Failure Topic: Newsmax
"Noah" was the biggest-grossing movie in the country on its opening weekend, so Newsmax's James Hirsen had to figure out a different way to attack it. His answer in his March 31 column: Market research!
The much-talked about, biblically questionable big-screen release “Noah” finished its debut weekend with a better than expected $44 million in box-office take. But when it comes to the movie’s long-term success, there are some dark clouds lurking on the horizon.
CinemaScore is a highly regarded market research firm that polls film audiences and rates their viewing experiences with letter grades. The firm reports its results and forecasts box-office receipts based on data collected.
CinemaScore’s representatives routinely survey opening-day audiences in 25 of the largest movie markets in North America to determine a grade ranging from A+ to F for the respective film. Most movies receive a minimum of “B+” as a CinemaScore grade, with anything less being cause for concern for the studio and filmmakers involved.
The controversial “Noah,” which was delivered to the screen by Paramount and director Darren Aronofsky, received a dismal CinemaScore of “C” from moviegoers.
Despite the buoyant box-office showing, the “C” CinemaScore rating seriously jeopardizes the movie’s chances in the all-important weeks to come.
If “Noah” should take a precipitous fall in the weeks to come, it may turn out to be an unprofitable venture for Paramount. According to the studio, the budget for the movie was $125 million, a relatively modest number for a current studio blockbuster.
However, several reports indicate that a significant additional sum was spent on marketing and distribution, so it remains to be seen whether the movie will be in the black months from now.
Well, perhaps not. Box Office Mojo notes that "Noah" is very popular outside the U.S. -- as of this writing, it has taken in $73.6 million in the U.S. but more than $106 million overseas for a total gross of $179.8 million. That means the film has made back its production costs and at least a part of its marketing in less than two weeks of release.
WND's Gun Columnist Unhappy That Domestic Abusers Can Lose Their Gun Rights Topic: WorldNetDaily
The bamboozelment starts early in Jeff Knox's April 3 WorldNetDaily column:
The U.S. Supreme Court came down with a decision in March that effectively expands the base of people prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms in this country. In a unanimous decision in the case U.S. v. Castleman, the Court ruled that the law banning possession of firearms by anyone ever convicted of any crime of violence against a spouse or significant other – often referred to as the Lautenberg law – applies not only to crimes labeled as “Domestic Violence” or to such crimes that involve what an average person would consider actual violence, but also to things like pushing, shoving, or grabbing, even when no harm was intended and no injury sustained.
Many states have intentionally drawn a distinction between minor contact among family members during an argument and violence intended to harm, intimidate, or control. Those states’ common-sense approach to the matter has now been overruled by the Court, and convictions for charges like simple assault in cases like a woman slapping a cheating spouse, or a man pushing his way out the door to get away from an argument, will now include the mandatory loss of firearm rights for life – even if the incident occurred decades ago.
In fact, according to the Supreme Court ruling, the defendant in this case, James Castleman, pleaded guilty to "intentionally or knowingly caus[ing] bodily injury to" the mother of his child.
Despite having gotten a fundamental fact about the case he's writing about wrong, Knox goes on to complain that misdemeanor domestic violence isn't really violent and, thus, not sufficient to take away the perpetrator's right to possess a gun:
Our legal system distinguishes between a misdemeanor and a felony based on the severity of the crime. By definition, misdemeanors are minor criminal acts that cause little harm. On the other hand, felonies are serious crimes that cause significant harm. Punishment for misdemeanors and felonies reflect this distinction. If a crime deserves felony-level consequences, then the crime should be classified as a felony. If specific acts that can be labeled as “domestic violence” do not rise to the level of felony crimes, then the consequences should not be felony consequences.
Rather than address the problem of serious domestic violence being labeled a misdemeanor in many jurisdictions, the Lautenberg law simply throws an extra consequence onto the misdemeanor – the loss of the right to arms for life. Serious domestic violence should be a felony. Minor incidents of bumping or pushing have always rightly been considered misdemeanors. There is no rational justification for those involved in such incidents being debarred of their rights.
The Supreme Court begs to differ:
"Domestic violence" is not merely a type of "violence"; it is a term of art encompassing acts that one might not characterize as "violent" in a nondomestic context. See Brief for National Network to End Domestic Violence et al. as Amici Curiae 4-9; DOJ, Office on Violence Against [*5] Women, Domestic Violence (defining physical forms of domestic violence to include "[h]itting, slapping, shoving, grabbing, pinching, biting, [and] hair pulling"), online at http://www.ovw.usdoj.gov/domviolence.htm.[fn5] Indeed, "most physical assaults committed against women and men by intimates are relatively minor and consist of pushing, grabbing, shoving, slapping, and hitting." DOJ, P. Tjaden & N. Thoennes, Extent, Nature and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence 11 (2000).
Minor uses of force may not constitute "violence" in the generic sense. For example, in an opinion that we cited with approval in Johnson, the Seventh Circuit noted that it was "hard to describe . . . as `violence'" "a squeeze of the arm [that] causes a bruise." Flores v. Ashcroft, 350 F. 3d 666, 670 (2003). But an act of this nature is easy to describe as "domestic violence," when the accumulation of such acts over time can subject one intimate partner to the other's control. If a seemingly minor act like this draws the attention of authorities and leads to a successful prosecution for a misdemeanor offense, it does not offend common sense or the English language to characterize the resulting conviction as a "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence."
Knox concludes by lamenting that "the charge of 'guns for wife-beaters' resonates in the media," hampering any effort to repeal such laws, adding that "Labeling good people as criminals and taking away their constitutionally guaranteed rights based on minor lapses in the heat of passion serves no public safety purpose." Of course, if you've been convicted of domestic violence -- even a misdeameanor -- chances are you're not a good person.
MRC Ignores Criticism Of Its Hispanic Media Study By Hispanic Media Topic: Media Research Center
As we've noted, the Media Research Center's effort to monitor Hispanic media is hampered by its longtime hostility toward Hispanics. That disrepect has continued with its dismissal of criticism of its big report attacking Hispanic media as liberal.
After the MRC report was released on April 1, both Telemundo and Univision gave their reaction to Politico defending the accuracy and fairness of their reporting. Politico obtained another crucial viewpoint:
But Gabriela Domenzain, a principal at The Raben Group and former Director of Hispanic Media for Obama's 2012 campaign, said that when she worked at both Univision and Telemundo conservative guests often didn't want to appear on the network even when invited.
"I can tell you in no uncertain terms that the predominant reason why Republicans and conservatives are not seen more or cited more on Spanish-language news outlets is their own refusal to comment or be interviewed by the networks and publications that Hispanics read and watch the most," Domenzain said.
"When pressed on why they don’t bring this to light, (national publications) will respond with what most journalists would say: they fear that going on the offense and brining their futile attempts to interview republicans to light, will only damage the slim-to-none possibility they may have in actually landing an interview," Domenzain said. "Unfortunately this drowns out the reasonable conservative voices that would benefit the Republican party in terms of courting the Hispanic vote and also makes it very hard to get critical information to Hispanics on what the Republican positions are, how they may help, or hurt them."
But in their April 4 column promoting the report, the MRC's Brent Bozell and Tim Graham ignored what Domenzain had to say about conservatives refusing to appear in Hispanic media. Instead, they attacked a Univision spokesman for defending the network's coverage of the Affordable Care Act as a public service to its viewers.
If the MRC cannot even give its targets the respect of acknowledging the shortcomings in its research, why should they treat the MRC with the respect they seem to be demanding?
Politico noted that MRC officials plan to meet with executives at Univision and Telemundo to discuss the study, but the networks had yet to commit to such a meeting. Given the complete lack of respect the MRC has shown the networks thus far, we're not surprised.
What If WND Had A Brendan Eich In Its Midst? Topic: WorldNetDaily
Joseph Farah spends his April 7 WorldNetDaily column ranting against the "fascist Mozilla guerrillas" and "homosexualistas who targeted Brendan Eich" for donating to an anti-gay marriage campaign, adding, "Must everyone think alike in America today or face the persecution of losing one’s job?"
If there's a ConWeb outlet that has been the most hostiletogays, it's WND. So we'll ask the same question we asked about the MRC: Would a top WND official who was revealed to have donated to a pro-gay marriage campaign receive the same "fascist guerilla" treatment Farah claims Eich got?
Given that WND has a habit of publishing the most vicious gay-bashers like Matt Barber and Scott Lively and disinvited Ann Coulter for not hating gays enough, and givenFarah's own notable freakout over purported "forced homosexualization" -- plus the fact it's WND editorial policy to put the word "gay" in scare quotes -- we'd say the answer is yes.
Farah shouldn't pretend he's more tolerant than those who went after Brendan Eich, because he's not.