WND's Farah Wants to Restrict Muslim Immigration to U.S. Topic: WorldNetDaily
Not only do I – an Arab-American male – agree on the importance of considering the ideological and religious worldview of those being screened for sensitive security jobs and for passenger flights for the safety of all, but I would go much further.
I say it's time to strictly limit Muslim immigration into the United States to avoid the kinds of disasters we're seeing in Europe.
Having said this, I can anticipate the hysterical reactions from the phony civil libertarians who consistently act against America's best interests and vital national security concerns.
"Isn't that religious bigotry and intolerance?" they will say. "Isn't America supposed to be religiously blind and welcome one and all to our shores?"
No, plain and simple. That's their blueprint for America's destruction, not mine. America doesn't owe anyone – no foreigner anywhere – an engraved invitation to be part of our national covenant and community. We've been far too lax in allowing anyone and everyone who flouts the rules entry to this country. That has to stop immediately. The very next step we need to take is to determine what kind of people will help our nation stay true to its Constitution and other founding principles – and what kind of people will not.
It seems obvious to me that anyone who subscribes to Saudi-style Shariah law, as described in the Islamic Quran and Hadith, would not be inclined to swear allegiance to the Constitution – at least not without crossing his fingers taqiyya-style.
But we need to do more than just require immigrants seeking entry to the U.S. as visitors or citizens to swear allegiance to our Constitution. We need to put the burden of proof on Muslims to demonstrate their desire to leave the world of Shariah behind them, to renounce its principles as well as to take a formal oath to uphold and affirm America's national covenant.
Furthermore, we need strict national quotas on immigration by Muslims – even those willing to renounce Shariah and swear an oath to the U.S. Constitution.
Because there are 1 billion Muslims in the world, most of whom simply do not share our Judeo-Christian worldview – the one that separated us from the rest of the nations and made America special and great.
Already, with only a few million Muslims living in America, they are having a disproportionate impact on our culture. Let me give you one example: There are still more Jews in America than Muslims, though the gap is narrowing quickly. Yet, Jews do not use their influence to ensure that Jews and non-Jews alike are forced to eat according to rabbinical kosher rules. However, it is increasingly difficult for non-Muslims in America today to buy a Thanksgiving turkey that has not been ritually sacrificed to Allah. Most of the meat sold in Costco is also halal.
I don't know about you, but I don't want to eat meat sacrificed to Allah. With Islam a tiny minority religion in the U.S., it seems perverse that people like me have to be careful not to eat food ritually sacrificed to this god of the few.
NewsBusters Thinks Coulter's Foul-Mouthed Insults Are 'Irrepressible' Topic: NewsBusters
NewsBusters regularly excoriates people in the media for saying unpleasant things about conservatives, but when right-wingers say vile things about liberals, it's either ignored or encouraged. One beneficiary of this blatant double standard has been Ann Coulter.
In that spirit, Mark Finkelstein performs a similar service with a Noel Sheppard level of fawning in a Nov. 29 post, gushing over how, in an appearance on MSNBC's "Morning Joe," "the irrepressible Ann called Ted Kennedy 'human pestilence.'" Funny, we don't recall Finkelstein or anyone else at NewsBusters describing, say, Bill Maher as "irrepressible."
Further, Finkelstein makes no mention whatsoever of another insult Coulter hurled during the same show that was so vile MSNBC cut off her audio.
Is Finkelstein so gutless that he won't call out Coulter for saying something he'd attack had it come out of the mouth of someone who wasn't a right-wing darling? Apaprently so.
Sheppard, meanwhile, is similarly gutless, since he hasn't said a word about the foul words out of his beloved Coulter's mouth. He was too busy being distracted by Coulter saying something adorable on another channel.
WND Unloads Cain Book While It's Still Worth Something Topic: WorldNetDaily
The Cain-gasm is over.
WorldNetDaily, it seems, has given up on Herman Cain's presidential campaign, which it breathlessly promoted and defended in the face of sexual harassment allegations. Allegations of an affair by Cain, however, seem to be the final straw.
But not until WND can find one final way to cash in on it.
So WND is trying to unload Cain's autobiography while it still might sell for something vaguely close to retail price by portraying it as a "collector's item." But there's resignation in the sales pitch in a Nov. 29 WND article:
It was a bold plan, he told us.
But what might have been bolder than the 9-9-9 economic plan was the audacity of a presidential candidate who didn't realize you can't sweep a 13-year affair under the rug.
With Herman Cain now reassessing his bid for the Republican nomination – and probably no more than hours away from withdrawing from the race – the WND Superstore is commemorating the 9-9-9 plan with a blowout sale on his book, "This is Herman Cain: My Journey to the White House."
You guessed it. The sale price on what is likely to become a collector's item is $9.99 – while supplies last.
"This book is sure to be a collector's item – given the circumstances of his presidential campaign," says Joseph Farah, editor and chief executive officer of WND. "Just look at what presidential memorabilia of the past is selling for these days."
That feels exceptionally cynical and insincere, even for Farah. He knows what doesn't sell now is heading straight for the remainder bin, and he doesn't want to take a bath on the losses.
MRC's Graham: Right-Wing Media Should Only Be Cheerleaders for GOP Candidates Topic: Media Research Center
Tim Graham does have a bad habit of giving away the game of his employer, the Media Research Center. For instance, he has admitted that most news reports the MRC monitors are not biased.
Graham concedes more of the MRC's real agenda in a Nov. 28 NewsBusters post attacking conservative Washington Post blogger Jennifer Rubin for committing the offense of scrutinizing Republican presidential candidates and pointing out that most of the right-wing media is not. Graham lectures Rubin on the proper role of the right-wing media, which does not involve saying anything bad about Republican candidates because that's exactly what the liberal media wants them to do:
Rubin could be right that there's a political danger in reacting over-defensively to liberal media attacks on Republican front-runners. But there is also a political danger in reacting under-defensively to liberal media attacks. Conservatives should recognize that the media isn't carefully vetting Republicans in order to assist GOP voters in making the right choice. It's trashing Republicans to insure a smoother path to re-election for President Obama. If the evidence of the last five years hasn't established for Rubin that the media are overtly pro-Obama, then nothing will.
It's also not "ideologically isolated" to insist on actual evidence against a candidate, like an actual name and a resume, before Republicans throw a Herman Cain under the bus. It's not "ideologically isolated" to think the Post's anti-Perry coverage of the "N-head" rock that can be seen through the white paint was ludicrously oversold. Media criticism and skepticism should not be carelessly dismissed as a denial of "honest analysis and fulsome debate."
In other words: The right-wing media should only be cheerleaders for Republican candidates. The MRC has already demonstrated this by trying to smear the women who accused Herman Cain of sexual harassment despite its previous denouncement of anyone who said something mean about the women who accused Bill Clinton of sexual misconduct. (Did the MRC as for "actual evidence" and "a resume" from Paula Jones before parroting her claims? We doubt it.)
Graham also demonstrates the paranoid attitude of the right by declaring that the only possible reason anyone would want to scrutinize Republican candidates is to destroy them. Does this mean that he will admit that this is what the MRC, through is "news" division CNSNews.com, is trying to do to President Obama?
Ultimately, Graham and thte MRC do not want a balanced media; they want no criticism whatsoever of conservatives in the media. Thanks, Tim, for removing the mask even further.
CNS' Farewell to Rep. Frank Ignores How He Pwned CNS Topic: CNSNews.com
All CNSNews.com could muster upon the retirement of Rep. Barney Frank was a short Nov. 28 article by Eric Scheiner, which weirdly focuses on Frank's claim that he's leaving Congress in order to write.
Unmentioned by Scheiner is Frank's epic pwning of CNS.
As we detailed, then-CNS reporter Nicholas Ballasy tried to play gotcha with Frank by asking him whether he thought gay and straight soldiers should shower together. Frank saw the attack coming and proceeded to mock Ballasy's attitude, then turn the tables on him by asking him the same question.
Maybe CNS is still feeling a bit burned by the incident, which is why it did only a perfunctory story on Frank's retirement.
In a new publicity stunt, the Occupiers and their media allies have been attacking Megyn Kelly of Fox News for discussing the incident at UC Davis and supposedly calling pepper spray a “food product” and playing down its effects. A much-publicized petition was launched to get Kelly to “eat or drink a full dose of pepper spray on national television.”
It doesn’t take a visit to the campus library to determine that pepper spray is a non-lethal agent derived from peppers, as the name implies. What Kelly actually said was that it was a “derivative of actual pepper and a food product essentially.” She went on to say that the nature of the substance was “beside the point” because of its potential impact and that it was “abrasive and intrusive” to those getting exposed to it. So there was no effort to play down the nature of what happened. She pointed out that some of those exposed to the spray went to the hospital, although any injuries they may have suffered are a matter of dispute. The effects of pepper spray are usually temporary and can be washed away with water.
The point of the pepper spray was to get the demonstrators, who had erected an illegal tent city on campus, to leave. They were interfering with the rights of students on campus to get an education and be safe while doing so.
What the leftists really find offensive about Megyn Kelly’s comments is the fact that she defended the police, who used the pepper spray for the purpose of making it easier to remove the protesters. She noted that, from a legal standpoint, the cops can argue that they acted appropriately and did not use excessive force. Pepper spray was used to avoid a more physical confrontation with the people locked arm-in-arm on the sidewalk. Pepper spray is considered a more humanitarian way of dealing with lawbreakers. Batons could have been used as well.
Kelly is being singled out because she defended the police, not because she noted the organic roots of pepper spray.
Kincaid, of course, is merely engaging in wild speculation when he says that Kelly is being criticized because she "defended the police." He has no proof whatsoever to back it up.
Chuck Norris' Nov. 27 WorldNetDaily column bashes the "mainstream media," and goes on to attack what he claims is "The social psychology being used by the progressives and liberal media on many trusting and unsuspecting Americans."
But Norris' media-bashing only goes so far. Norris makes sure to tout "the paperback version of my New York Times bestseller, 'Black Belt Patriotism,' which gives America's founders' solutions for our modern problems." He also highlights "fellow culture warrior and New York Times bestseller Robert Ringer."
So the media is bad, except when you can use them for self-promotion. Got it, Chuck.
Sheppard Dubiously Defends Limbaugh Over Old Allegation Topic: NewsBusters
Noel Sheppard devotes a Nov. 26 NewsBusters post to rehashing a questionable defense of Rush Limbaugh against an accusation that he once referred to Chelsea Clinton as the "White House dog" on his 1990s TV show.
Sheppard asserted that "Limbaugh never referred to Chelsea as the White House dog," then extensively quoted from an anti-Al Franken blog to explain "what really happened back then." That blog post at the Lying Liar webste, however, makes only assertions and quotes without providing links to the alleged source material -- or, more importantly, the original video of Limbaugh's TV show.
If Sheppard was really interested in getting to the bottom of this story, he would demand that Limbaugh release the original video of the incident so people can judge for themselves. He presumably controls that video, so it would be easy for him to release those excerpts, and the corrections he claimed he made, to settle the issue once and for all.
But given that Sheppard is such a slobbering right-wing sycophant that he will desperately smear one of Herman Cain's sexual harrassment accusers, he clearly doesn't have the intestinal fortitude to seek the truth if it means one of his conservative heroes might look bad.
In a Nov. 18 WorldNetDaily article, Bob Unruh recounts a New Hampshire hearing starring Orly Taitz, who was trying to get the state to kick President Obama off the election ballot for 2012 "because of suspicions of fraud" -- in this case, what Taitz claims is "evidence concerning Obama's use of a Social Security number from Connecticut, even though he has no links to the state while growing up." It's a lazy article -- Unruh portrays the hearing as told by Taitz herself in a phone interview. He did note that "A spokesman at the commission's office today told WND that the members had "broken up" their meeting and left immediately, leaving no information about any decisions they made."
Because Unruh was so lazy about covering this, you won't hear about Taitz's latest disrespectful antics.
According to the Concord Monitor, which unlike WND actually covered the hearing, Taitz howled that "This is bigger than Watergate. This is a hundred times bigger than Watergate," and repeated the standard birther argument that Obama's birth certificate is fake: "A child can see this is a forgery."
The New Republic went on to note that after House Majority Leader D.J. Bettencourt rejected Taitz's demand that Secretary of State Bill Gardner be removed for failing to address Obama's purported fraudulence, Taitz exhibited the unprofessional behavior she has become known for by going on a tirade:
Mr. Betancourt (sic), my appearance before the committee was not an outburst, but a testimony with an undeniable proof of Barack Obama using a stolen Social Security number, forged birth certificate, committing elections fraud and treason. Your answer shows that you are another corrupt and dirty politician, who is maliciously disregarding the truth and the Constitution of this nation, who needs to be removed from the position of the Republican majority leader and who should be and will be tried for treason against this nation together with other corrupt politicians who put a complete fraud and a criminal wthout any valid US identification papers in the White House.
As Slate's David Weigel notes, that drew this rebuke from Bettencourt:
Your outburst was unbecoming of any legitimate political dialogue, never mind one as ridiculous as the continued obsession over President Obama’s birth place. I have spoken to the Representatives who were present and expressed to them my strong desire that they immediately disassociate themselves from you and this folly. This country has an opportunity in less than a year to replace this President and it is my fervent hope that we will do so. However, I wholeheartedly reject your request to remove Secretary Gardner or any attempt to bring a criminal complaint of elections fraud or treason.
Will WND report Taitz's childish ranting to its readers? Don't count on it.
Tim Graham's Weekend of Gay-Bashing Topic: Media Research Center
While most of America was spending the holiday weekend giving thanks or shopping, the MRC's Tim Graham decided to use it for a little gay-bashing.
In a Nov. 24 NewsBusters post, Graham declared that basic rights for gays were nothing more than "favor[s] to the 'LGBT' community," as he attacked "obscure HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan for becoming the Cabinet's most pronounced gay-marriage advocate."
Graham followed that by a Nov. 26 post taking yet another shot at the gay-themed art exhibit the MRC manufactured a controversy over last year (while, of course, making no mention of the MRC's central role in said manufactured controversy).Graham dismissed the exhibit as "gay-left," and declared that the video that included a mere 11 seconds of "ants crawling on the crucifix of Jesus" (Graham didn't mention the brief length of the imate) was "Jesus-bashing" (which completely ignored the artist's intent with the image).
Attacking a Washington Post article about the controversy, Graham asserts that the writer "cannot fathom that he and [exhibit co-creator Jonathan] Katz endorse 'meanness' to a Catholic minority." Which is funny, given Graham's long history of meanness to the much smaller gay minority (and, again, ignores the artist's intent).
Ronald Kessler is not the only Newsmax writer to shill for a presidential candidate. Columnist Doug Wead, who more typically writes about the doings of presidents' children, has been regularly cranking out columns promoting the presidential prospects of Ron Paul.
Here's a sampling of headlines of Wead columns since 2010:
And here are a few choice Paul-fluffing quotes from Wead's columns:
"He is right on the issues. And he has hardly changed his positions in a lifetime of public service. This gives him an immeasurable advantage over Obama and Palin. The country is moving to him, not the other way around." -- April 15, 2010
"Most of all, Ron Paul still remembers the U.S. Constitution and he knows it by heart. And believes in it. You can't say that about Barack Obama or any of the other Republican candidates. There are the candidates and then there is Ron Paul. He stands alone." -- May 17, 2011
"Ron Paul and the rest of the invisible band will stay on target, moving silently through the marshes, looking to Oct. 19, the next moneybomb fundraiser and a chance to speak with their dollars. Go ahead, they say to the media elites and their robber barons, black this out!" -- Oct. 14
Expect a few more months of this from Wead, until Paul starts losing actual votes.
Bozell Unhappy That An Atheist Is On TV Topic: Media Research Center
Brent Bozell devotes his Nov. 26 column to ranting about Ricky Gervais being named to host the Golden Globe Awards. Not only doesn't Bozell like Gervais' aggressive style of comedy, he's offended that an atheist will be allowed to appear on TV:
There’s no danger in being an atheist in Hollywood. It’s an honor. But let’s not award Gervais points for sincerity. In the last year, Gervais has sermonized in print about his atheism at both Christmas and Easter. In each, he claimed he stood...for kindness. At Christmas he wrote, “[T]hat’s where spirituality lost its way. When it became a stick to beat people with. ‘Do this or you’ll burn in hell.’”Then he proclaimed: “You won’t burn in hell. But be nice anyway.”
Then at Easter, he concluded, “God or not, if I could change one thing for a better world, it would be for all mankind to adhere to this little gem: ‘Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.’ I assure you, no more stones would ever be thrown.”
Don’t bet on Gervais playing nice and putting his bucket of rocks down. NBC is paying him for the privilege of casting the first stone, and many more.
You think Bozell might give a pass on Gervais' humor if he wasn't an atheist?
What Happened To WND's Birther Billboard Partner? Topic: WorldNetDaily
When WorldNetDaily adjusted its birther billboard campaign in July to read "Where's the real birth certificate?" it acquired a new partner in the endeavor: RTR.org, a right-wing "Social Network of the Revolution." While WND didn't acknowledge RTR as a partner in the inital article on the campaign, RTR's logo appears in the upper left corner of the billboard.
For its part, RTR stated that "RTR.org's Gary Franchi partnered with WND in light of the latest Obama birth certificate revelation," and created a donation page for the campaign.
But a month later, WND put up a new billboard in Iowa -- and the picture of it in an Aug. 7 WND article shows that RTR's logo is nowhere to be found.
WND's latest billboard, shown in a Nov. 15 article, also lack the RTR logo.
So, what happened? Was there a falling out? Did one party somehow screw over the other? Was RTR unable to raise the money WND demanded? We have no idea, but inquiring minds would like to know.
Of course, the issue might be that Franchi is too nuts even for WND. in a recent "Reality Report" pretend newscast, Franchi goes truther, shills for Ron Paul, and attacks FEMA for allegedly turning away volunteer firefighters from helping with the Texas wildfires (a claim that seems to be less than true).
Tancredo: It's 'Acceptable' To Call Obama A Muslim Topic: WorldNetDaily
Portraying in his Nov. 18 WorldNetDaily column a quiz based on President Obama's "recurrent idiocies" that he claims "have become a national embarrassment," Tom Tancredo writes as one question: "Barack Obama is: A) a Christian; B) a Muslim; C) a Jew; D) unsure of his religion." In the answer key, Tancredo adds that for that question: "A, B and D are all acceptable."
Perpetuating the falsehood that Obama is Muslim is jusyt one part of Tancredo's column -- he cranks up the Obama-hate, too. He writes, "A few days ago he went to Australia and announced, 'We are here to stay.' Really? Did he buy a golf course?"
Tancredo concludes with the hateful rant: "Obama is someone who has advanced first in academia and then in politics because of the color of his skin and not by the content of his character – or, quite obviously, his brains."