WND Thinks Homosexuality Is Just A 'Trendy Notion' Topic: WorldNetDaily
Bob Unruh writes in a June 21 WorldNetDaily article:
Peter and Hazelmary Bull run a bed and breakfast in the United Kingdom and were sued by two homosexuals when the Christian couple refused to rent them a bedroom in their business, which also is their home.
The fight brought on by the homosexuals went all the way to the nation’s highest court, resulting in an order that the Christian couple pay the “gay” duo a couple thousand dollars in damages.
All based on the idea of “nondiscrimination” laws where homosexuals are protected, but Christians are not. That Christians’ beliefs and practices must cede to the trendy notion of homosexuality.
That's right -- Unruh and WND think homosexuality is nothing but a "trendy notion."
WND's Klayman Lies About Obama and the Redskins Topic: WorldNetDaily
Larry Klayman rants in his June 20 WorldNetDaily column:
In this age of so-called political correctness comes yet a new outrage. This week the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, succumbing to pressure from the likes of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, invalidated the Washington Redskins’ trademark on the grounds that it is offensive to Native Americans. The absurdity of all of this is self-evident.
Where does the madness stop? For years Indian activists have been trying to get the Cleveland Indians to cease using a bucktoothed red-faced logo, “Chief Wahoo,” on their hats and uniforms. Should we white people complain when trademarks and logos depict someone who is a pale face? Should black people complain similarly because the Cleveland NFL football franchise has been for decades named the Browns? And, should Peter Sellers’ “Pink Panther” movies be banned because in them Inspector Clouseau refers to his Asian sidekick Cato as “my little yellow friend.” The hard fact is that American Indians do have a rosy complexion, and in fact it is quite appealing aesthetically.
And now our “Mullah in Chief” has once again decided to chime in. Last Saturday, Obama, instead of handling the impending crisis in Iraq, decided to handle what is clearly a more important matter by opening his big mouth and stating, “If I were the owner of the team and I knew that there was a name of my team – even if it had a storied history – that was offending a sizable group of people, I’d think about changing it.” Obama surely knows best about offending a sizable group of people. Maybe he should change his middle name, Hussein, since it dredges up memories of Saddam Hussein, among other thoughts.
But Obama -- whom Klayman libels yet again with the "Mullah in Chief" smear -- did not say those words "last Saturday," which would have been June 14. There was no compelling reason to, since the decision on the Redskins trademark wasn't issued until June 18. Obama actually said those words last October, when he was asked about it in an interview and Iraq had not yet returned to the headlines.
We'd express amazement that Klayman could have botched such a simple fact, but we know what a crappy lawyer he is.
(P.S. We made a screenshot of Klayman's error, and we will post it if Klayman and WND alter the column without acknowledging the error.)
Bozell & Graham: Redskins Losing Trademark Is Obama's Fault, Somehow Topic: Media Research Center
Brent Bozell and Tim Graham use their June 20 column to rant about the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office withdrawing trademark protection for the Washington Redskins, naturally blaming "the left, which has removed every moral objection to traditional understandings of profanity, continues its own crusade to ban words that violate their sensitivities on race, gender and sexual preference."
Yet it's President Obama's fault somehow, too. Bozell andGraham write that "A quick review of the PTO's record shows this was an overtly political decision — surely aimed at or requested by the White House." But they offer no evidence that the Obama White House was ever involved in the process. Still they conclude:
But say the word "Redskins," and the left collectively faints. In the case of the "R-word," a majority of the community has never been offended. Even a majority of the Indians have never been offended. But the left's crusade, using Obama's PTO, continues.
By reflexively blaming Obama, Bozell and Graham ignore the fact that the dispute over the Redskins trademark has been going on for years. As Sports Illustrated points out, the PTO first cancelled the trademark in 1999, but the decision was overturned by a federal court on appeal in 2003. Both of these events occurred before Obama was elected U.S. senator, let alone president.
Perhaps if Bozell and Graham didn't engage in such absurdly reflexive Obama-bashing, the Media Research Center might be taken more seriously.
WND's Corsi Is Still Keeing the Birther Faith Topic: WorldNetDaily
Birther dead-ender Jerome Corsi writes in a June 21 WorldNetDaily article:
Arpaio also told Rusty Humphries of the Washington Times recently one of those “sensitive” projects was his continued investigation into Barack Obama’s allegedly forged birth certificate.
“If I was the governor, which I turned down a couple of weeks ago because I would have to resign, I’m not going to leave this office to somebody coming in when I have sensitive investigations going, including the president’s birth certificate,” Arpaio said. “I haven’t finished that yet.
“I don’t care where [Obama] was born. That has nothing to do with it,” he continued. “I’m concerned about a forged, fraudulent government document. From Day 1 I’ve been investigating that, now we have to find out who’s behind that. I’m getting close.”
You also won't hear from Corsi how the whole right-wing birther conspiracy he helped foment has been utterly discredited in many other ways, or that Arpaio's cold case posse may be dissolved because it has been operating without valid state corporate filings, or that a man who shot a California Highway Patrol officer and a Bureau of Land Management ranger is a birther.
The liberal St. Louis Post-Dispatch has bowed to the "Fire George Will" folks and discontinued his syndicated column after he wrote about liberal universities now being pressed to stem an alleged tide of campus sexual assault. They're switching to big-government conservative Michael Gerson, the former chief speechwriter to President George W. Bush.
Gotta love all the unsupported assertions in that paragraph. How does Graham know the Post-Dispatch is liberal? Does the fact that it published Will and will publish Gerson suggest otherwise?
Graham's assertion that Will's column targeted "liberal universities" (how does Graham know those universities are liberal?) over "an alleged tide of campus sexual assault" glosses over the offending claim Will made: that being a sexual assault victim is somehow a "coveted status."
Finally, Graham whines that Gerson is a "big-government conservative" with, yes, no supporting evidence nor an explanation of how Gerson's purported view is any different from Will's.
Conservative media criticism, ladies and gentlemen.
WND's Chastain Gets Global Warming Wrong Topic: WorldNetDaily
Jane Chastain writes in her June 18 WorldNetDaily column:
A graduation is supposed to be about the graduates. Instead Obama made it about him, or his latest political cause du jour. Not only that, he tried to scare these young people right out of their caps and gowns by telling them, “The 18 warmest years on record have all happened since you graduates were born.” Either the president didn’t have his facts straight, or he lied.
According to the most recent RSS satellite data, a brief 16-year warming period ended in 1997, about the time most of these graduates were 5 years old.
Obama does have his facts straight, and Chastain does not. The World Meterological Organzation points out that 13 of the 14 warmest years occurred in the 21st century, and as far back as 2010, 18 of the warmest years on record occurred since 1992, when the college graduates Obama addressed were likely born.
Chastain is even more wrong to claim that "a brief 16-year warming period ended in 1997." In fact, the overall trend of warmer temperatures has been going on since the 1950s, and the fact that 13 of the 14 warmest years have occurred in the 21st century seems to contradict her claim that global warming "ended in 1997."
I have written two books chronicling President Obama’s nightmarish path of destruction, but since the second one was published, events have been happening at an even more explosive pace. Who would have ever imagined that Ronald Reagan’s famous statement that “freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction” would turn out to be a gross understatement?
In the past several weeks alone, alarming events have transpired that are enormously disturbing by themselves. Taken together, they are borderline horrifying, yet Obama proceeds, undeterred.
Obama and his allies have failed miserably at everything except destroying the U.S. economy and expanding the welfare state. His comments about gun control are an effort to draw attention away from the failures, corruption, lies and subterfuge that have been the hallmarks of his presidency and focus attention on a shouting match between billionaire Mike Bloomberg and the “gun lobby.”
Now we come to Barack Hussein Obama, declared Person of the Year by Time in 2008 and 2012. (Time changed the title from Man of the Year to Person of the Year in 1999.) Obama has been the most destructive president in American history. He is known as the most biblically hostile president. He has incessantly attacked the foundations of America. He has attempted to tear down the Constitution and recreate it in his own image. He has been labeled America’s first gay president, is a shameless supporter of the murder of children in the womb (even attempting to force private institutions to fund it, Proverbs 6:16-19) and has abused his power in an attempt to strip American citizens of their Second Amendment right to bear arms. Obama without question is following in pursuit of the dictators honored by Time magazine.
When millions of Egyptians rallied in the streets to overthrow Muslim Brotherhood warlord Muhammad Morsi as president, Obama suspended aid he had earmarked for the tyrant he helped bring to power.
When a Muslim Brotherhood army that included a strong al-Qaida element set out to topple Syrian President Bashar Assad, Obama sought congressional approval for airstrikes to support the insurgents – and he did help arm them.
He can’t wait to turn Afghanistan over to the “Tallybon,” as he likes to call them. He even released five of their top commanders from Guantanamo Bay using the excuse of bringing home an American captive. Of course that “prisoner of war” turned out to be a deserter and a Taliban collaborator.
There’s a pattern here. If you can’t see it, check your lenses. Obama supports the Muslim Brotherhood. To expect him to come to Iraq’s aid with air power that can blow away much of the al-Qaida terrorist army amassing on the road to Baghdad would be foolhardy. It’s against all his instincts.
There’s another reason Obama has hesitated to take this obvious action. This will be hard to believe for some, but the facts are becoming more apparent everyday: Obama fosters chaos.
Newsflash to black Americans: Barack Obama has never loved you, and by now it should be clear to you!
Suddenly Obama is creating a series of crises that overwhelm the American system – crises that only he can “solve” by imposing solutions that: 1) help destroy the country he detests, 2) help the Democratic Party maintain its stranglehold over its constituencies and 3) feed his strange need for absolute power.
Obama’s latest crisis is the invasion occurring at our Southern border. We now have a national emergency on our hands. It’s one that will devastate Obama’s original constituency – black Americans – more than any other group.
Finally, speaking of a typical liberal, Barack Obama has been called by some the Antichrist. Maybe, maybe not. But it is certainly fair to call him the Antimoses. Moses, you may recall, spent years leading his people through the desert to the Promised Land. Obama, on the other hand, has spent years leading his people from the Promised Land to the desert.
Iraq, the “Rome” we spent billions of dollars to liberate – not to mention the loss of 4,487 dead and another 32,226 wounded soldiers – was burning. Islamic extremists were busy executing civilians and Iraqi troops as they made their way to Baghdad. Our embassy staff was being evacuated
… while Obama golfed!
With our troops in Afghanistan, the Taliban was busy cutting off the fingers of those who voted in the weekend election as a warning to others
… while Obama golfed!
Meanwhile, the Russians, to whom former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton presented a “reset button,” were busy tightening their grip on Ukraine
… while Obama golfed!
Even closer to home, our southern border is in chaos. We have a humanitarian crisis on our hands unlike anything we have ever experienced
While many, for some unfathomable reason, remain wedded to the idea that this and countless other developments involving the Obama administration are the result of its incompetence, others have reached the point where their ability to suspend their disbelief has been stretched beyond the breaking point, and they no longer believe it is a matter of political ineptitude or poor leadership.
As I have said before in this space, operating outside of the realm of believability has been a deliberate tactic of this regime, and a largely complicit establishment press contributed to its success.
Thus, despite overwhelming evidence, many Americans will still find it difficult to accept that the rise of ISIS was facilitated by the Obama administration.
In my latest blog post, I discuss the poll in which a majority of Americans agreed with the view that the Bergdahl swap warrants Barack Obama’s impeachment and removal from office. Outraged over the Bergdahl swap, many people have awakened to the need to deal with Obama’s de facto coup d’état attempt, which they may finally have found the eyes to see. But as with a person startled from sleep, crying out and casting about in confusion, this momentary scramble to stave off suddenly perceived danger is unlikely to be long-lasting or effective.
MRC Writer Defends Bashing Film She Didn't Watch Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's Katie Yoder wrote twoarticles bashing the film "Obvious Child" for its abortion-related subject matter despite, as we noted, never having seen the film.
Yoder defends her deliberate ignorance in a June 18 MRC article and attacks the critics who called her out for bashing a film she hadn't seen as raising a "bogus" argument:
When “Obvious Child” hit theaters this month, conservatives were aghast the media glorified it – without irony – as an “abortion romantic comedy.” Liberals lashed back, claiming, like the movie’s Director Gillian Robespierre, that "[Conservatives bashing Obvious Child] haven't seen the movie; they're basing it on articles and trailers."
That defense is bogus. We are, after all, talking about the destruction of innocent human life – something nearly impossible to contextualize and utterly repulsive as a romantic comedy plot device.
Yoder's defensiveness is itself bogus. Simple journalistic honesty dictates that you first fully encounter something before you attack it. Apparently, the MRC doesn't teach its writers to do that.
Yoder's column is actually her account of finally bothering to go see the film -- not to behave responsibly, mind you, but to "play along" with her critics. But since Yoder has an agenda, she made sure to keep her mind closed, determined to find nothing whatsoever rewarding about the film:
After watching “Obvious Child” last week, I’m only more determined to continue my “bashing.” The difference is I sat through a lot of crude sex jokes. From comparing an abortion to a “drive-through” or a DMV visit to concocting a plot where every main female character aborted a baby at some point, the film sets out to normalize abortion as a part of everyday life. “Obvious Child” is in the end little more than slick pro-abortion agitprop.
Although adored by the “pro-choice” community and organizations like Planned Parenthood that lobbies we’re “not in her shoes” because abortion is “a deeply personal and often complex decision,” the movie surprisingly deemphasizes choice. With job loss, apartment loss, and a budding relationship, Donna’s “choice” appears limited – and never once does the camera hint at the process of her decision.
Yes, I empathized for Donna, felt her situation. But, at the same time, the movie forgets to voice women who choose life – AND women who choose abortion. The “comedy” makes a joke out of women who go through a difficult decision to abort and ignores regrets of women who do. They exist.
Of course, anything that doesn't slavishly follow the pro-life agenda is "pro-abortion agitprop" to Yoder, who appears to be mostly upset that the film won't demonize a character who has an abortion, as Yoder and her MRC colleagues strive to do in real life.
Since Yoder treated viewing the film as a chore to mollify critics instead of the open-minded fact-finding mission a real writer would have done, it's no surprise that she wasn't moved by it. She never had any intention of allowing that to happen.
Aaron Klein Anonymous Source Watch Topic: WorldNetDaily
Aaron Klein writes in a June 17 WorldNetDaily article:
Members of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, or ISIS, were trained in 2012 by U.S. instructors working at a secret base in Jordan, according to informed Jordanian officials.
The officials said dozens of ISIS members were trained at the time as part of covert aid to the insurgents targeting the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in Syria. The officials said the training was not meant to be used for any future campaign in Iraq.
This being Aaron Klein, no actual evidence is offered to back up this claim, only the word of mysterious, anonymous "informed Jordanian officials" in whom Klein has provided no reason whatsoever for readers to place their trust.
Last March, the German weekly Der Spiegel reported Americans were training Syrian rebels in Jordan.
Quoting what it said were training participants and organizers, Der Spiegel reported it was not clear whether the Americans worked for private firms or were with the U.S. Army, but the magazine said some organizers wore uniforms. The training in Jordan reportedly focused on use of anti-tank weaponry. The German magazine reported some 200 men received the training over the previous three months amid U.S. plans to train a total of 1,200 members of the Free Syrian Army in two camps in the south and the east of Jordan.
Britain’s Guardian newspaper also reported last March that U.S. trainers were aiding Syrian rebels in Jordan along with British and French instructors.
But those articles do not back up Klein's claim -- they disprove it. The Der Spiegel article claims that Americans were training the Free Syrian Army, the secular opposition group mainly comprised of defected Syrian Armed Forces personnel. It is not a terrorist group and is definitely not affiliated with ISIS.
Similarly, the Guardian article states that the training is being done "in an effort to strengthen secular elements in the opposition as a bulwark against Islamic extremism."
In other words, they were doing the exact opposite of what Klein claims.
Klein himself turns contradictory, writing that "The Jordanian officials said all ISIS members who received U.S. training to fight in Syria were first vetted for any links to extremist groups like al-Qaida." But a link to ISIS presumably would have disqualified them as well.
It seems that Klein's "informed Jordanian officials" aren't really terribly informed at all -- which tells us that there's no reason to believe Klein's article.
But that doesn't keep WND's Erik Rush from doing just that in his June 18 column, linking to Klein's article:
As reported in WND this week, ISIS members were trained in 2012 by U.S. instructors working at a secret base in Jordan; this has been confirmed not only by officials in Jordan, but in both the German and British press.
Are Americans now expected to believe that ISIS is among the “moderate” Muslim factions the administration has maintained it is imperative to support, for which Obama went to the lengths of first clandestinely arming and supplying, and then unilaterally amending U.S. law so that he might do so overtly?
Of course, Rush is such a rabid Obama-hater that Klein's highly dubious article is catnip for him.
NewsBusters Unhappy People Coming To Logical Conclusion On False-Claim Lawsuit Topic: NewsBusters
Gabriel Malor writes in a June 17 NewsBusters post:
Yesterday, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that pro-life organization Susan B. Anthony List should be allowed to challenge in court an Ohio state law that criminalizes making false statements in an election campaign. The law, which subjects individuals and groups to costly litigation, fines, and even jail time if they can't defend their political speech to bureaucrats and judges, was used in 2010 to intimidate billboard owners into rejecting the pro-life group's election advertising. The question of whether “somebody should be able to get into federal court,” in the words of Justice Kagan at oral argument, united both the left and right wings of the high Court given the obvious and repellent injury to free speech rights.
Although it said that Susan B. Anthony List should have its day in court, the Court did not rule on the underlying merits of Ohio's false statements law. But that's not how left-wing commentators saw it. Immediately mischaracterizing the decision as endorsing a "right to lie," writers from across the Left used the decision to smear Susan B. Anthony List, in particular, and the political right, in general, as liars.
Malor ignores the fact that if you are fighting against a law that penalizes false political claims, as the Susan B. Anthony is, the conclusion is logical and inescapable that the SBA List wants to be able to spread falsehoods with impunity.
Melor also fails to explain what's so onerous about having to prove the truth of your words.
WND's AAPS-Linked Doctor Fearmongers About Disease-Ridden Immigrants Topic: WorldNetDaily
Dr. Elizabeth Lee Vliet writes in a June 17 WorldNetDaily column:
A flood of illegals has massively surged at our southwestern borders. The economic impact of medical care, education and incarceration for illegals forced on taxpayers is bankrupting Arizona.
Why are such swarms entering the U.S. illegally NOW, particularly children? Newspapers in Mexico and Central and South America are actually describing U.S. “open borders,” encouraging people to come with promises of food stamps or “amnesty.” It is textbook Cloward-Piven strategy to overwhelm and collapse the economic and social systems, in order to replace them with a “new socialist order” under federal control.
Carried by this tsunami of illegals are the invisible “travelers” our politicians don’t like to mention: diseases the U.S. had controlled or virtually eradicated: tuberculosis (TB), Chagas disease, dengue fever, hepatitis, malaria, measles, plus more. I have been working on medical projects in Central and South America since 2009, so I am aware of problems these countries face from such diseases.
If this sort of fearmongering sounds familiar, it should. Vliet is a past director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, which is perhaps best known for publishing a journal article by Madeline Cosman claiming an increase in leprosy cases that she blamed on illegal immigrants -- but it turned out that Cosman falsely inflated the number of cases.
Vliet also writes:
Vaccine-preventable diseases like chicken pox, measles and whooping cough spread like wildfire among unvaccinated children. Other illnesses, along with scabies and head lice, also thrive as children are transported by bus and herded into crowded shelters – courtesy of the federal government. Treatment costs are borne by taxpayers.
Our public health departments complain of being overtaxed by a dozen cases of measles or whooping cough. How will they cope with thousands of patients with many different, and uncommon, diseases? Americans, especially Medicaid patients, will see major delays for treatment.
But the fact that there are large numbers of unvaccinated children has been exacerbated by the AAPS' stance against mandatory vaccination. The AAPS invited Andrew Wakefield, the doctor whose claim that vaccines cause autism had to be retracted by the medical journal that published it after it was determined to be an "elaborate fraud," to speak at its 2011 annual meeting.
Perhaps Vliet should address the issue of fearmongering about vaccination and its quite tangible consequences before she fearmongers further about disease-ridden immigrants.
NEW ARTICLE: A Cop-Killer's Best Friends Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center doesn't want to talk about how its operations earned Facebook likes from cop-killer Jerad Miller, and WorldNetDaily doesn't want to talk about how its anti-police rhetoric mirrors that of Miller's. Read more >>
WND Delves Into Lame Ethnic Humor With 'Sum Ting Wong' Headline Topic: WorldNetDaily
Somebody apparently forgot to tell WorldNetDaily that ethnic humor based on derogatory stereotypes stopped being funny a good 30 years ago, if not more.
That would seem to be the logical explanation for why WND headlined a June 17 article "Sum Ting Wong: Feds bust illegals at Chinese restaurants."
The odd point of the article is that it's "bizarre" to go after "Asian restaurants in the sleepy little town of State College, Pennsylvania, the home of Penn State University" when there's an "ongoing flood of illegal aliens pouring across the Mexican border into the U.S." But it comes off as portraying Asians as somehow more desirable immigrants than Hispanics.
That shows that the place where something's wrong is actually WND.
Seton Motley Misleads About Net Neutrality Again Topic: NewsBusters
Seton Motley has longmisled about net neutrality, and he does so again in a barely coherent June 16 NewsBusters rant, in which he targets HBO's John Oliver for explaining the subject in a manner of which Motley does not approve:
Oliver doesn't explain Net Neutrality - he gets it fundamentally wrong.
Oliver’s segment was start-to-finish Leftist rote. Unwittingly I’m guessing, he’s carrying the water of the Internet’s bandwidth hogs. Particularly video-streaming companies like Netflix, Google (who owns YouTube) - and, perhaps, movie channel HBO? - who want the government to mandate that they get a free ride for being bandwidth hogs.
And Oliver omits a panoply of contravening information.
Oliver begins his piece by incorrectly asserting that huge-bandwidth-using-companies paying for the bandwidth they use is the creation of an Internet “fast lane.” Thus leaving the rest of us consigned to the “slow lane.”
Only there will be no such thing. What Oliver and Company report as brand new “fast lanes”- are in fact regular lane deals that have existed as long as has the Internet. It is all a part of what is called peering.
The words "fast lane" and "slow lane" are the total extent to which Motley quotes Oliver, which poses a problem in Motley trying to disprove Oliver -- and a sign that Motley will be building straw men instead of engaging in a actual discussion.
Motley also undermines himself by including in one of his links showing how "pseudo-news pseudo-consumers were thrilled" a substantive debunking of the point he's trying to make, a Slate piece by Marvin Ammori.
Motley takes particular umbrage at Netflix over the peering, or interconnection, issue:
Netflix for years had no problem paying middle men for their monster bandwidth use - companies like Level 3 and Cogent. Who are Internet Service Providers (ISPs) - just for these guys rather than us.
Then it occurred to Netflix that it made more business sense to cut out these middle men - and deal directly with our ISPs.
Except Netflix suddenly, disingenuously claimed these very ordinary deals were Net Neutrality violations.
But again, Netflix has always paid someone for their bandwidth hoggishness (as well they should). The only thing new here is their trying to get the government to mandate they no longer have to.
Ammori debunks this idea, responding to a critic named Jon Healey who had made claims similar to Motley's:
Interconnection is a term referring to where and how Comcast’s network connects to the network carrying Netflix’s traffic. This connection is necessary for Comcast users to watch Netflix. Netflix claims that Comcast (and apparently Verizon and others) deliberately congest these connections to force Netflix and other companies to pay Comcast (and Verizon). John Oliver suggested—based on these facts of Netflix’s speeds on different networks—that Comcast and others would have the incentive to make websites work poorly to force them to pay.
But you don’t have to know what interconnection is to realize Healey is being misleading. If you watch the video, you’ll notice Oliver never says the Comcast-Netflix dispute is a network neutrality issue. But, if he had, he would have been in good company. As a matter of fact, not spin, the net neutrality proposal actually includes questions on interconnection (and other things Wheeler opposes, like Title II, protecting mobile users, and banning discrimination). That suggests that interconnection has at least something, not “nothing,” to do with net neutrality. Plus, as I explain here, the net neutrality legal orders have repeatedly rested on interconnection concerns from 2005 through 2010, including for their jurisdictional authority in key decisions. Oh, and the lawyers at Netflix, Level 3, Cogent, and ... the major Internet companies ... all believe that the interconnection is part of this debate and have filed legal arguments about it in the FCC's net neutrality docket. So clearly interconnection has something to do with net neutrality. Healey is just repeating the FCC chairman's talking points that interconnection is not related to net neutrality.
Ammori notes that "John Oliver joined the huge chorus that consists of just about everyone except the phone and cable giants, politicians opposed to anything Obama supports, and the FCC chairman." Add Seton Motley to that list.
WND's Massie: Michelle Obama Is A Filthy Whore Topic: WorldNetDaily
Mychal Massie has long had an irrational hatred of Michelle Obama (one word: Buttzilla). For his June 16 column, Massie hauls out his thesaurus to come up with new ways to denigrate her:
I am prepared to argue same because, if we have a white Christian conservative as president, we can criticize his (or her) policies without concern of being called racists. It would be expected of that person to adhere to the highest standards of integrity, truthfulness, transparency and protocol. A white Christian conservative’s wife would be expected to exhibit social grace and decorum consistent with the office her husband held and not comport herself as a demimonde or slattern in expensive designer clothes.
A "demimonde" is, according to Merriam-Webster, "a class of women on the fringes of respectable society supported by wealthy lovers; ... the world of prostitution." A "slattern" is "an untidy slovenly woman; also : slut, prostitute."
Which means that Massie is calling Michelle Obama a filthy whore.
This is apparently the kind of thing that keeps WND paying him the big bucks.