WND's Unruh Hides Klayman's Latest Fit of Incompetent Lawyering
Topic: WorldNetDaily

It takes a special kind of journalistic hack to bury or completely censor a central fact in order to promote the latest cause of two of WorldNetDaily's favorite right-wingers. Fortunately for Joe Arpaio and Larry Klayman, WND reporter bob Unruh is that special kind of journalistic hack.

In a Jan. 14 article, Unruh finds big news in a tiny procedural ruling:

A federal appeals court has ordered an expedited schedule for a case brought by Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio against President Obama over his amnesty program that is being implemented even as the case progresses.

The order released Wednesday by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said the brief for the appellants is due Jan. 29, and the government’s brief in defense of amnesty will be due March 2.

“Due to the expedited nature of this case, the court will not entertain dispositive motions. The parties should therefore address in their briefs any arguments otherwise properly raised in such motions,” said the order.

Now, the fact that this Klayman-filed case is in an appeals court means that there was a ruling on the case in another court sometime earlier.  But curiously, the only reference to that earlier court's ruling is Unruh noting in passing in the 10th paragraph of his article that "Klayman said the request to accelerate the case was submitted because the lower court made a mistake in dismissing it."

That's right -- a federal district court threw out Klayman and Arpaio's lawsuit just a day after Klayman made his arguments. During his arguments, Klayman demonstrated more of the incompetent and grandstanding lawyering he's well known for, according to Politico:

Judge Beryl Howell allowed conservative legal activist Larry Klayman to present more than an hour’s worth of arguments against the effort at a hearing in Washington on Monday, but her quizzical looks and pointed retorts left little doubt that the legal gadfly’s effort will come up short, at least in her courtroom.

[...]

At one point, Howell even dismissed Klayman’s arguments as suffering from a “logical fallacy,” since the key immigration policy changes Obama announced last month haven’t kicked in yet

[...]

At one point, Klayman’s comments earned a rebuke from the judge. “Let’s not play to the gallery, here,” she warned.

The conservative gadfly predicted the case would be heading to the Supreme Court, which he said could make Howell famous.

“In this room, I think you are the most famous person, Mr. Klayman,” the judge replied.

Unruh took his know-nothing attitude toward the adverse federal court ruling in a Jan. 20 article promoting how Arpaio and Klayman "recently submitted comments to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas in Brownsville asking to be allowed to file a friend-of-the-court brief in a case brought by dozens of states against Obama over the same issue," adding that "Arpaio alleges he suffers direct economic harm from the defendants’ executive action amnesty for citizens belonging to a foreign country."

This time, Unruh made no mention whatsoever that Arpaio and Klayman's federal lawsuit was dismissed, or that the judge's skepticism of their claim that Arpaio has been directely harmed is one reason why. As Howell stated her ruling throwing out the lawsuit:

The plaintiff attempts to rely upon the doctrine of competitor standing to avoid the strict limitations imposed on cases where the source of the plaintiff’s harm is the independent actions of third parties. Yet, the cases on which the plaintiff relies ... do not support the plaintiff’s standing argument in this case.

[...]

Second, and relatedly, the programs challenged by the plaintiff do not regulate the plaintiff directly; rather, they regulate federal immigration officials. As the Supreme Court has made clear, “[w]hen . . . a plaintiff’s asserted injury arises from the government’s allegedly unlawful regulation (or lack of regulation) of someone else, much more is needed” to confer standing.

[...]

[T]he plaintiff cannot demonstrate irreparable harm since the plaintiff waited two years to challenge the DACA program and because any harm to the plaintiff is likely to occur regardless of the challenged policies.

It appears that rather than report the full truth, Unruh has instead chosen to hide the fact that the person whose lawsuit he's promoting is a rather incompetent lawyer.

Newsmax TV Laughably Claims It Cares About 'Free Expression'
Topic: Newsmax

Newsmax is trying to make hay out of a minor controversy involving its TV channel, as described in a Jan. 20 article by Jim Meyers:

A former senior White House aide to President Obama became furious after he noticed Newsmax TV airing on a United Airlines flight.

Bill Burton, who served as Obama’s deputy White House press secretary, was apparently outraged when he saw Newsmax TV yesterday on the plane’s video screens, and quickly tweeted:

"Hey there, @united. Why on earth is newsmax tv the default channel running on all of your screens when boarding your planes."

Burton apparently doesn’t have much use for the liberal ideals of free expression or allowing for an open exchange of ideas and opinions – at least when it comes to Newsmax TV.

[...]

The tweets of Burton and United have now gone viral, and some United customers are not happy about the airline’s quick cave-in to P.C. browbeating.

But Newsmax TV appears to care about "free expression" and an "open exchange of ideas and opinions" only when those ideas and opinions conform to its conservative ideology. Newsmax's archive of articles derived from Newsmax TV content shows it's almost entirely dominated by right-wing opinion from right-wing commentators.

For example, Newsmax TV's panel following Presdient Obama's State of the Union address featured only conservatives: Newsmax reporter John Gizzi, columnist John Fund and serial health care misleader Betsy McCaughey. Needless to say, all three bashed the president and his policies.

Where's the non-right-wing commentary that should be a key part of the "open exchange of ideas and opinions" Newsmax TV claims to offer? We're not seeing it.

WND's Corsi Inadertently Shows Bias And Craziness Of AIM's Benghazi Kangaroo Court
Topic: WorldNetDaily

WorldNetDaily's Jerome Corsi thinks he's doing Accuracy in Media's "Citizens' Commission on Benghazi" a favor by reporting its findings, but instead he's unintentionally demonstrating how biased and delusional it is.

Corsi writes in a Jan. 18 WND article of "exclusive interviews conducted with 11 of the 17 members of the commission," in which they claim that the congresional investigation has been "compromised" and that Rep. Trey Gowdy, the Republican House member in charge of the Benghazi investigation, "has been warned away from the final conclusion or he’s been threatened."

What Corsi won't tell you, however, is that -- as we've documented, the "Citizens' Commission on Benghazi" is a kangaroo court stacked with birthers, Obama-haters and conspiracy theorists who could not possibly be trusted to investigate the issue objectively. Of course, as a birther, Obama-hater and conspiracy theorist himself, Corsi simply saw like-minded people instead.

Corsi goes on to quote one CCB member as fretting that Gowdy's next hearing on Benghazi " likely will be closed and classified." But the CCB has demonstrated no transparency whatsoever in its proceedings. It has held no public hearings, and its interim report states conclusions without detailing how it reached them. Its sources, when mentioned at all, were typically anonymous, such as the "American citizen source trusted by the CCB."

A day later, Corsi wrote another article on the CCB, touting its crazy conclusion -- again, lacking any on-the-record support -- that  "The Obama White House and the State Department under the management of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton 'changed sides in the war on terror' in 2011." Corsi laughably tried to distance the commission members from the commission itself by claiming that they were "speaking for themselves, not for the commission."

It wasn't his goal, but Corsi spent these two articles demonstrating why how utterly fringe the "Citizens' Commission on Benghazi" is and why it cannot be believed.

NewsBusters Complains 'Nightly Show' Debut On MLK Holiday Is 'Obsessing About Race'
Topic: NewsBusters

Jeffrey Meyer had the unenviable task (from a right-wing standpoint) of reviewing the debut episode of "The Nightly Show," Comedy Central's new program starring Larry Wilmore. So we have the only black host currently on late-night TV, with a show debuting on the Martin Luther King holiday, so naturally Wilmore would focus on racial issues.

What do you think Meyer took away from the show? The headline of his Jan. 20 post reveals the answer: "Larry Wilmore Debuts New Comedy Central Show By Obsessing Over Race."

Meyer didn't make a comparison to fill out his definition of obsessive coverage -- after all, NewsBusters has been obsessing about Benghazi much more than Wilmore did in his debut show.

WND Reporter Perpetuates Lies About Firing of Atlanta Police Chief
Topic: WorldNetDaily

Leo Hohmann follows in the footsteps of fellow WorldNetDaily reporter Bob Unruh by uncritially promoting right-wing falsehoods regarding the firing of Atlanta police chief Kelvin Cochran.

In a Jan. 19 WND article, Hohmann asserts that Cochran was fired because he "dared to violate the sensitivities of the LGBT community" and that Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed "simply didn’t like the book that his fire chief authored":

Cochran got caught in the filter, fired by Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed because he wrote a book for Christian men that presented the case for traditional morals. Just one page in the book discussed homosexuality, describing it as one of many sexual sins. That was enough to get him fired, despite his many accolades both locally and nationally as a distinguished fire chief.

In a sign of his bias, Hohmann made no effort to talk to anyone who supports Cochran's firing -- he talks only to opponents, and he uncritically quotes their claims. Hohmann notes that some in the media "have reported the firing of Cochran is good," but he can't be bothered to directly cite any instance of this. Curiously, Hohmann doesn't even quote directly the offfending passages from Cochran's book, in which he equated homosexuality to bestiality and pedophila.

Hohmann also makes no mention whatsoever of the Atlanta city investigation that found Cochran was not fired for the content of his book but, rather, for failing to obtain proper permission from the city to self-publish it and for insubordination.

Hohmann bizarrely brings up another case of purported persection of "people who are visited by police for using certain words online or voicing criticisms considered off limits":

Brandon Raub was perhaps the most high-profile case.

Raub, a 26-year-old former Marine, found himself detained against his will for a week in 2012 after making a Facebook post that questioned the government’s official explanation of the 9/11 attacks. Federal, state and local authorities worked in tandem to scoop Raub up and place him in a mental institution. They had no arrest warrant and no search warrant.

Of course, the rest of us remember Raub as someone who also posted a series of disturbing words on Facebook, includingh rap lyrics that can seen as threatening. Needless to say, Hohmann quotes none of Raub actually posted; that tells you that they so undermine his case that Hohmann can't quote what they say.

Hohmann also doesn't mention that Raub was arrested after a report of a 17-year-old performing oral sex on him (the charges were later dropped).

The fact that Hohmann must hide so much of the truth in order to peddle his biased agenda is just another reason why nobody believes WND.

CNS Reporter, Managing Editor Pretend Fox News Apology Over 'No-Go Zones' Doesn't Exist
Topic: CNSNews.com

Apparently, because the Media Research Center hasn't acknowledged that Fox News has apologized for and retracted a claim that there are numerous "no-go" zones in Europe where non-Muslims are forbidden to enter -- even stating that there is "no credible information" to support that they exist -- it didn't actually happen.

How else to explain Penny Starr's Jan. 19 CNSNews.com blog post uncritically repeating claims by Republican Gov. Bobby Jindal that those "no-go zones" exist?

Starr made no mention of Fox's apology over the "no-go zones" claim. Instead, she plays up a Daily Mail article Jindal referenced. But as the Guardian noted, the article did not give specific religious groups or towns.

Interestingly, unlike Starr, the Daily Mail reported Jindal's remarks while also noting Fox News' apology for making the same claims.

Starr promoted her article on Twitter by claiming, "Gov. Bobby Jindal tells the truth and the liberal news media is aghast." She did not identify what part of Jindal's comments were "the truth."

But Starr is not alone in her determination to wipe Fox News' apology from the right-wing memory. CNS managing editor Michael W. Chapman repeatedly promoted the Daily Mail story on his Twitter account; his account makes no mention of the Fox News apology.

WND's Klayman Fishes For A Client To Sue Duke Over Islamic Call to Prayer
Topic: WorldNetDaily

Apparently, failed lawyer Larry Klayman believes he's not getting enough press lately. He's now begging for someone to let him represent them in a lawsuit against Duke University over its aborted-for-now plan to air the Muslim call to pray from the bell tower of the campus' chapel.

At the end of his Jan. 16 WorldNetDaily column, he adds: "I do not intend to sit back and watch Duke’s reputation and standing as a premiere [sic] institution for higher learning be destroyed. Contact me if you are a Duke alumnus or donor and want to take legal action."

The rest of Klayman's column is as Islamophobic, complete with an attempt to turn the song "Devil With a Blue Dress On" into a tortured metaphor (because Duke's mascot is a blue devil, you see): "Mitch Ryder’s “Molly” is now sporting a sinister, black mask replete with a burqa." Klayman also denigrates the Islamic call to prayer as "obnoxious, offensive and represents “disturbing the peace” – notwithstanding that it has already provoked threats of violence given the current state of Muslim ISIS-inspired terrorist attacks in the United States, Canada, France, Great Britain and now Belgium."

MRC Thinks Joy Behar Is A 'Journalist'
Topic: Media Research Center

In a Jan. 19 Media Research Center item headlined "Journalists Thrilled By All of Obama’s State of the Union Speeches," Rich Noyes makes no effort to discern between commentators allowed to express opinions and regular journalists, and he plucks the words of those journalists out of context to hide the fact that many of them simply appear to be making objective observations about Obama's speeches instead of the endorsements Noyes claims they are.

And then there's this section:

That's right -- Noyes is portraying Joy Behar, a former co-host of the decidedly not-journalism show "The View," as a "journalist."

Mind you, Noyes is the MRC's research director. But it's "research" like this that keeps the MRC from being taken seriously as a legitimate research organization -- it's too enslaved to its right-wing agenda for that.

WND's Cashill Changes Mind, Now Thinks Zimmerman Might Be Responsible for His Own Behavior
Topic: WorldNetDaily

WorldNetDaily columnist has spent much of the past couple of years making excuses for George Zimmerman, who was acquitted of murder in the 2012 killing of Florida teen Trayvon Martin, even as Zimmerman's behavior became more erratic and violent. (Cashill did write a book about how Zimmerman was a civil rights martyr, after all -- currently submergeda at the flop-worthy No. 501,682 at Amazon -- so he had to try and preserve what little stream of his income that represented.)

But it now appears Zimmerman has gone too far even for a man inordinately fond of killers as Cashill is. In a Jan. 17 WND article, Cashill shows he's rather slow on the uptake by noting that Zimmerman's latest arrest on a domestic violence charge means he's "showing signs of trouble."

Cashill then goes into armchair-psychiatry mode, proclaiming without evidence that Zimmerman has no support network and, thus, needs to recommit to his Catholic faith:

Cashill thinks Zimmerman, a Catholic, needs to get back to his faith to turn his life around.

“I think what would be ideal for him is really to find a spiritual retreat for about six months where he could get his head straight,” the author said.

Cashill said Zimmerman will not find spiritual balance following his current path.

“He’s not going to find [balance] in the kind of pursuits he’s pursuing now – women or guns or whatever,” Cashill said. “He just needs to be re-grounded and re-moored to turn his life around.”

But lest anyone think Cashill has completely rediscovered the idea that a person should be held accountable for their own behavior, he just can't seem to completely stop making excuses for Zimmerman, lamenting that Zimmerman "must be the most unloved man in America right now" and making sure others share the blame for his plight:

Regarding the ongoing civil suit, which alleges that Zimmerman violated Martin’s civil rights, Cashill doesn’t believe there is much of a case.

“It strikes me as Eric Holder’s way of telling his radical black supporters, and white supporters, too, that, ‘We haven’t let him off the hook yet,’” he said.

[...]

Nevertheless, the New Black Panther Party has not rescinded the $10,000 bounty it placed on Zimmerman’s head in 2012. Cashill is appalled that the White House and the attorney general’s office have not denounced the organization.

“There’s no consequence, no negative consequence for the New Black Panther party,” he said.

When you've devoted your life to being an apologist for unsavory people, as Cashill has, it's apparently hard to go cold turkey.

MRC Unhappy Climate Deniers Are Accurately Labeled
Topic: Media Research Center

Mike Ciandella complains in a Jan. 14 Media Research Center item:

A group of climate change alarmists has demanded that the media stop being so nice to those with different viewpoints on climate. The Committee for Skeptical Inquiry petitioned the media to drop the term “skeptic” in favor of “denier,” when referring to anyone who questions their views on climate change.

The petition ignored more than 400 scientists who have publicly questioned the extent of mankind’s influence when it comes to climate change.

According to the Orwellian-sounding Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, “Public discussion of scientific topics such as global warming is confused by misuse of the term ‘skeptic.’” The Committee’s petition called for journalists to only use the term “denier,” and never “skeptic,” when referring to anyone not convinced that humans are responsible for climate change. CSI is a project of the Center for Inquiry, a group which, among other things, campaigns to prevent religious groups from being allowed to own hospitals.

CSI also relies heavily on the word of “experts” like Bill Nye (whose career depends on people not realizing that “science guy” doesn’t mean “scientist”) and Neil deGrasse Tyson (who has been criticized for fabricating quotes to make a point). Despite this, The Washington Post hyped this petition, and even used Nye’s name in the headline for credibility.

At no point does Ciandella dispute the accuracy of the label. While he tries to blur the issue by claiming that deniers merely have "different viewpoints on climate," he merely bashes those who support its (accurate) use.

Ciandella's complaining that Nye isn't a real scientist is rather rich considering that many of the leading lights on the denier side are even less qualified. For instance, Marc Morano, who leads the denier site Climate Depot, has a bachelor's degree in political science and spent much of his pre-denier career in media working for both Rush Limbaugh and the MRC-owned CNSNews.com.

Similarly, "Lord" Christopher Monckton also has no formal training in science; his degrees are in journalism and the classics. But Ciandella doesn't mention their purported lack of training in the subject in which they speak publicly on the most.

And it's quite rich of Ciandella to complain about the word "denier" when he uses the word "alarmist" to describe anyone who agrees with the demonstrated science of global warming.

WND's Unruh Dutifully Repeats Lies About Fired Atlanta Fire Chief
Topic: WorldNetDaily

Bob Unruh is in stenographer mode yet again in a Jan. 14 WorldNetDaily article about fired Atlanta fire chief Kelvin Cochran. Unruh uncritically repeats the claims of right-wing groups that the city "fired him for nothing other than his faith" and that the city had granted Cochran permission to publish his "Christian book" that smeared homosexuals.

In fact, as we've pointed out, a city investigation into Cochran's firing found that Cochran was fired for his behavior, not his faith, and that he never sought the proper permission to self-publish his book.

Even though that investigation came out five days before Unruh's article appeared, Unruh makes no mention of it. In fact, Unruh made no apparent effort whatsoever to talk to anyone who would have told him the facts about Cochran's firing -- he simply regurgitates the factually deficient claims of right-wing activists who are trying to turn Cochran's firing into a cause celebre.

Of course, such laziness and bias is what WND is paying Unruh to do, so it's unfortunately not a surprise. It is, though, yet another reason why nobody believes WND.

CNS Bases 'News' Article On Right-Wing Website's Rant
Topic: CNSNews.com

We have previously praised CNSNews.com's writer Patrick Goodenough for being an unusually fair and balanced writer for the ConWeb. But it appears he has been fully assimilated into the borg.

In a Jan. 14 CNS article, Goodenough fretted about Israeli "media bias" because the purported cause of "Reports claiming that Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu angered French President Francois Hollande by taking part in Sunday’s mass rally in Paris":

Israeli media also charged that the prime minister had unceremoniously shoved his way to the front row, where he joined the leaders of France, Germany, Mali, the European Union, the Palestinian Authority (P.A.) and others.

The left-wing daily Ha’aretz cited an unnamed Israeli source as saying France had privately asked Netanyahu not to attend; that Netanyahu had agreed but changed his mind after learning that two political rivals were planning to go; and that France had then retaliated by inviting P.A. chairman Mahmoud Abbas to take part.

[...]

By contrast, a review of French media reporting on the rally finds no French officials – named or otherwise – cited as confirming tensions between Hollande and Netanyahu.

[...]

In an op-ed in the conservative Israel Hayom daily on Tuesday, Haim Shine, a member of board of governors of Jewish Agency, said the anti-Netanyahu media’s coverage of the Paris visit “shows the degree to which they resent Netanyahu and the Israel he represents.”

Note the pejorative labeling of Ha'aretz as "left-wing" while Israel Hayom is benignly described as "conservative." Actually, Israel Hayom appears to be as right-wing as Goodenough claims Ha'aretz is to the left.

This is the kind of pseudo-news CNS usually provides -- Goodenough offers no particular demonstrated expertise on "media bias" in Israel, and even CNS' parent, the Media Research Center, does next to nothing on the subject. Then he cuts to where he apparently got the idea for his article:

Writing on the Frontpage magazine site, Freedom Center fellow Daniel Greenfield said the sources of the reporting were “a major reason to be skeptical of the claims” about the Hollande-Netanyahu spat, adding that “the lack of French reports confirming it are suspicious.”

“While it’s entirely possible that Hollande really did not want Netanyahu to come, the sourcing on this story is from Ha’aretz,” he said. “Ha’aretz is a left-wing Israeli publication that will print absolutely anything negative about Netanyahu that it can.”

“Israel is in an election season now, and one of the domestic political attacks against him is that he alienated Obama and Europe. So this particular line plays all too well into the attack campaign by Ha’aretz’s favorite candidates.”

Strange that in an article that's supposed to be about biased news outlets, Goodenough doesn't identify the political Leanings of FrontPageMag. It's the digital platform for far-right activist David Horowitz and is not interested in actual "news" or unbiased research, as Greenfield's completely unsupported claim that Ha'aretz will "will print absolutely anything negative about Netanyahu that it can" amply demonstrates.

Greenfield goes on to sneer that "Haaretz is an untrustworthy source in general and a particularly untrustworthy source for anything involving Netanyahu," again without providing any evidence to back it up.

Horowitz and his FrontPageMag are so far out of the political mainstream that the last time we wrote about them, it was because a Greenfield rant about "the leftist hijacking of black identity" contained a doctored image of Hillary Clinton in blackface.

That's the level of discourse that takes place there. Why did Goodenough think this screed needed to be sanitized and elevated?

WND's Unruh Censors Evidence of Fraud In Houston Anti-Gay Petitions
Topic: WorldNetDaily

As a lazy reporter and a homophobe, WorldNetDaily's Bob Unruh enjoys spreading lies about Houston mayor Annise Parker (whom Unruh is unusually eager to have us know is a lesbian) and that city's anti-discrimination ordinance.

Unruh carries water for anti-gay forces once again in a Jan. 15 WND article about the court fight over the ordinance. After injecting in the very first paragraph that Parker is a lesbian, Unruh plays stenographer to the anti-gay forces, this time ranting about how petitions attempting to overturn the ordinance were thrown out by city officials: "But the city attorney, David Feldman, then stepped in and disqualified most of the signatures that had been collected, and the city has been fighting efforts to overturn the ordinance ever since."

What Unruh won't tell you: there's ample evidence of fraud in those petitions.

While collecting manymore signatures than needed to force a citywide vote on the anti-discrimination ordinance, many signature pages were invalid because some of the circulators who collected stacks of signatures were not qualified Houston voters, as required by law, while some of those signatures themselves were not from valid Houston voters.

There's also evidence that signatures purportedly from different people apparently share the same handwriting -- also evidence of fraud.

Unruh is utterly silent about the clear evidence of fraud in the petition process. Apparently, he -- like the Houston pastors for whom he's serving as stenographer -- doesn't think there should be any validation process and that the fact that a signature exists automatically means it's valid.

Unruh also uncritically quotes local anti-gay pastors complaining that the city was trying to "assault on the right to trial by jury" by having the pastors' case over the petitions heard by a judge instead of a jury. But as one blogger points out, Houston's charter determines that this type of issue is settled by a district judge. So it is the pastors who are circumventing the established rule of law by changing the procedure. Unruh mentions nothing about that.

So, we have a reporter censoring information that contradicts the political agenda of his employer. Anyone surprised?

NewsBusters Publishes Tony Perkins' Falsehoods About Fired Atlanta Fire Chief
Topic: NewsBusters

The Media Research Center is getting as bad about peddling falsehoods as WorldNetDaily is.

On Jan. 14, the MRC's NewsBusters published a post by Family Research Council chief Tony Perkins on the case of fired Atlanta fire chief Kelvin Cochran. Perkins ranted about a New Yorkk Times editorial about Cochran, which noted that Cochran did not have permission from city authorities to publish his self-published book that includes homophobic rants. RetortsPerkins: "Not only did Cochran have permission from the city’s ethics office to publish his book, but he only distributed it in his personal capacity at church -- where a handful of his coworkers attend."

Perkins is lying. A city investigation into the Cochran case, released five days before Perkin's post was published, confirms that Cochran never had city permission to publish the book:

At the outset of the investigation, Chief Cochran admitted that he did not inform Mayor Reed that he was publishing the book and did not have the Mayor’s permission. The only indication there was any mention of the book to anyone in the Mayor’s Office is the Chief Operating Officer at the time of publication remembering that Chief Cochran had talked about writing a book on leadership.

Chief Cochran insists Ethics Officer Hickson authorized both the publication of the book and the reference in the book to his position as AFRD Chief. His recollection is that he first contacted Ms. Hickson to determine if it was permissible to publish the book and that he later asked if it was appropriate to identify himself in the book as AFRD Chief. Ms. Hickson indicated that she did not approve publication of the book and had no authority to grant such approval. She said she told him that he would need to get the Mayor’s permission as well as a formal opinion from the Board of Ethics.

Further, contrary to Perkins' claim, Cochran did in fact distribute his book at the workplace. From the investigation:

Chief Cochran stated that he provided the book to certain members of his command staff as a personal gift. He originally stated that he did not provide it to anyone who did not request a copy. The investigation disclosed that the book was distributed in the workplace to at least nine (9) individuals. Three (3) of these officers stated that the book was given to them without a request on their part.

Perkins insisted that "At no point did Kelvin Cochran 'foist' his views on anyone." But if Cochran is giving his book to employees who did not request one, he is in fact foisting his views on people.

Perkins asserted that the city of Atlanta, in firing Cochran, is engaging in a "campaign of discrimination against Christians." In fact, Cochran was not fired because of his Christianity but, rather, because of his unprofessional behavior. As the city investigation points out, Cochran was fired because he failed to obtain proper approval for his book and because of his insubordination by speaking publicly about his ordeal.

Does the MRC not vet the blog entries it posts? Apparently not.

WND Shockingly Covers Teacher-Student Sex Story That Isn't About A Female Teacher
Topic: WorldNetDaily

For years, WorldNetDaily has been pruriently fixated on female (but not male) teachers who have affairs with students, for reasons it has never explained.

But WND is finally expanding beyond that narrow, disturbing focus. A Jan. 13 WND article by Joe Kovacs surprisingly focuses on a male teacher who had sex with a student.

Kovacs doesn't explain this new coverage strategy or why a male teacher having an affair with a student is suddenly newsworthy to him after years of ignoring it. But this may be an aberration; the article includes a link to WND's lovingly detailed "big list" of "Female teachers with students."

Of course, Kovacs will never publicly admit one real reason for obsessing about such things: Sex sells, and writing about sex draws readers. WND may profess to operate on Christian principles (even though its founder and editor is an inveterate liar), but it knows what attracts eyeballs.