WND Raising Money To Help Arpaio (And His Birther Friends) Fight Recall Election Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily has long been cozy with Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio, working closely with him to make sure his cold case posse's "investigation" of President Obama's birth certificate stuck to WND's birther conspiracies and ignored inconvenient facts. Now, it appears the ties have grown closer than ever.
On March 20, WND sent out an email (screenshot below) to its "a subscriber to the Offers from WNDsuperstore.com e-mail list or past customer" soliciting donations to a fund to defend Arpaio against a recall effort. The email's text echoes a Feb. 21 WND article by Bob Unruh announcing the creation of a "citizen coalition," Citizens to Protect Fair Election Results, to defend Arpaio against the recall.
In fact, the "concerned citizens" behind the group are the birthers from the Surprise Tea Party who petitioned Arpaio to do his birther investigation following a presentation by WND's Jerome Corsi. And as we've previously noted, the group is represented by none other than failed lawyer Larry Klayman, who is forwarding the false legal argument that Arpaio can't be recalled until six months after starting his new term, a requirement that applies only for an elected official's first term. Like Unruh's article, the flawed legal reasoning is repeated in the email and the group's birther ties are not mentioned.
The email, which lists Klayman as its author, concludes by stating: "I urge you to make a donation to support Sheriff Joe Arpaio right now – no matter the amount. If everyone who reads this appeal gave the minimum amount of $5, it would raise the considerable necessary resources to protect Sheriff Arpaio."
This raises all sorts of red flags. First, the email is not listed as paid for by Arpaio, CPFER, or Klayman, which means that WND is, for all intents and purposes, donating to a political campaign.
Second, as the Arizona's Politics blog details, CPFER is registered with Arizona state corporation officials as a limited liability corporation, or LLC. In other words, it's a for-profit corporation. As far as we know, it's highly unusual for a political action group to be an LLC.
While we're unclear on how the law works, we suspect this means that not only are donations to CPHER not tax-deductible, there is no requirement for the group to disclose its donors. As Arizona's Politics, the LLC filing largely protects group members from individual liability should, for instance, it be required to pay legal fees in the event of an unsuccessful legal action. But it will likely not stand as an LLC because of its political activities -- it should eventually be turned into a political committee that is required to disclose donors and finances.
In other words, it's a very shady thing all around, and WND's direct involvement in the group is very much a red flag for possible election law violations. And remember that Klayman is also WND's attorney, which raises conflict-of-interest issues.
At The MRC, Reporting Facts = Contempt Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center is taking the Colbert axiom that facts have a liberal bias to the next level: It's an expression of contempt to merely report facts.
Kyle Drennen wrote in a March 19 MRC item, headlined "Report on Iraq War Anniversary By NBC's Richard Engel Drips With Contempt" (boldface is his):
In a report on the tenth anniversary of the Iraq War for Tuesday's NBC Today, chief foreign correspondent Richard Engel was unable to conceal his contempt for the conflict: "Iraq's oil money was supposed to pay for the war. It didn't work out that way. From now on, the war set its own agenda, an insurgency erupted that became a religious civil war....Iraqis accuse the United States of invading to find weapons of mass destruction that were never there, and destroying a delicate religious balance."
Engel continued: "The [Bush] White House stopped claiming all was well in Iraq, and thousands more troops surged. The violence dropped, and Americans left. Nine years, almost 4,500 troops killed, 32,000 wounded, 130,000 Iraqi civilians killed. The cost, according to a new study, nearly $2 trillion."
How did Drennen read Engel's mind to confirm the "contempt" in his heart? He doesn't say. And Drennen never contradicts anything Engel reported.
That means Drennen is holding Engel in "contempt" for reporting the truth. That's what passes for "media research" at the MRC.
The Month in Joseph Farah's Gay-Bashing Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily editor Joseph Farah has been on quite the gay-bashing tear of late.
In a March 5 column, Farah called gay marriage "one of the most radical ideas considered since child sacrifice." A week later, Farah denied he was likening gay marriage to child sacrifice -- "Of course I didn’t say they were the same. I just proclaimed them radical ideas" -- but then writes, "I didn’t intend to link child sacrifice with same-sex marriage. Yet they are linked. They are inextricably linked as behaviors characterized as abominations by the God of the Bible. They both emerge right from the pit of hell."
On March 18, Farah took aim at Sen. Rob Portman changing his mind about gay marriage because his son is gay: "I guess we should all be grateful Rob Portman’s son didn’t choose to become a polygamist or a serial killer."
And on March 19, Farah rants about proposed laws against anti-gay conversion therapy, declaring that "The homosexual lobby is powerful and forceful in the world of psychology, psychiatry and counseling."
But Farah ignores how some of that "conversion therapy" is conducted -- one gay teenager recounted how he received electroshock therapy, was ordered to masturbate to images of women, and was forced to medicine to induce vomiting when a therapist flashed a photo of two men holding hands.
Apparently Farah approves of such coercive tactics, perhaps reasoning that merely being gay is much worse than the psychological damage inflicted by such treatment.
CNS Wants You To Think Lesbians Are Fat And Drunk Topic: CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com has been in quite the lesbian-denigrating mood of late.
A March 11 CNS article by Elizabeth Harrington complained that the National Institutes of Health "has awarded $1.5 million to study biological and social factors for why 'three-quarters' of lesbians are obese and why gay males are not." Harrington followed that up with a March 18 article grousing that the NIH "has awarded $2.7 million to study why lesbians are at a higher 'risk for hazardous drinking.'"
Given the anti-gay agenda of CNS and its Media Research Center parent, it's not a stretech to surmise that one purpose of Harrington's articles is to hold lesbians up for ridicule. Indeed, the comment threads of both articles are littered with hateful anti-gay invective, and no apparent attempt has been made to moderate the thread or delete extremely homophobic comments.
This combination of gay obsession and refusal to police its readers' invective reveals just how hateful and homophobic CNS employees are.
WND Push-Polls On Obama Impeachment Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily is continuing its shift away from Obama birtherism and toward Obama impeachment.
On the former front, birther queen Orly Taitz seems to have become persona non grata at WND. Not only did it ignore Taitz's crashing of a CPAC session headed by anti-Muslim activist Pam Geller to rant about birther stuff, Geller didn't even bring up Geller in her WND column about her CPAC appearance.
That's strange for two reasons: Geller is a birther, and she referenced Taitz's interruption on her blog, Atlas Shrugs:
Taitz's remonstrations and insults were wrong. Her insults were rude and wrong. Her issue is with CPAC, not Breitbart. If she wants to be there, she should take a room and hold an event.
Is Geller following in WND's footsteps and pretending she didn't swallow the birther conspiracy hook, line and sinker? How dishonest of her.
On the latter front, a March 17 WND article by Bob Unruh summarizes the latest handiwork from ethically challenged pollster Fritz Wenzel, which purports to claim that more Americans are demanding Obama's impeachment. But if you look at Wenzel's questions -- which Unruh laughably called a "scientific survey" -- it's clear that Wenzel was pushing his respondents to agree with his predetermined conclusion that Obama should be impeached.
Look at the progression of questions on one issue, recess appointments:
The U.S. Constitution provides for the president to fill vacancies in his administration when the U.S. Senate is in recess, but when the Senate is in session, they must confirm his nominees. But while the Senate was in session in January 2012, President Obama made what he called recess appointments and these people took office and began to take action on federal business. A federal court later ruled that these appointments violated the Constitution, but these officials continue in their positions. Do you agree or disagree that President Obama should have made these appointments?
Do you agree or disagree that these officials should remain in office making decisions after a federal court has ruled their appointments unconstitutional?
Do you agree or disagree that President Obama should be impeached for making these appointments in violation oo the Constitution?
Wenzel is simply reciting right-wing talking points about the case in a biased, misleading way, completely omitting the Obama administration's arguments. Further, it was not a "federal court" that declared the appointments unconstitutional -- it was a three-judge panel of that court, the DC Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals. The administration can appeal to have the full DC Circuit review the case, after which it can go to the Supreme Court. In fact, one of the federal agencies involved in the case is petitioning the Supreme Court to review the case, bypassing the full DC Circuit.
In short, the DC Circuit panel that reviewed the case is not the last word on it, but Wenzel didn't see fit to tell his poll respondents that.
Wenzel similarly leaves out important details in a series of questions on Obama's drone policy:
The Obama administration has used missile strikes fired from unmanned drones to kill at least three United States citizens, none of which had renounced their citizenship or been convicted of a crime in any U.S. court. The administration received no permission to conduct these killings from Congress or from any federal judge or court. Regardless of whom these people were who were killed, do you agree or disagree that the Obama administration had the right to kill its own citizens in this manner?
These citizens were all said to have links to terrorist activities, despite not being adjudicated by the courts. Knowing this, do you agree or disagree that the Obama administration had the right to kill these American citizens?
Had the Obama administration pursued and won criminal convictions against these people, even if in absentia, would you agree that following that legal process would then give the Obama administration the right to kill these American citizens, or would you have preferred these people be captured and subjected to the traditional U.S. court system of punishment?
Do you agree or disagree that President Obama committed an impeachable offense by ordering these U.S. citizens be killed?
Wenzel doesn't tell his respondents who the American citizens are who were killed by drone strikes -- known terrorists Anwar Al-Awlaki and Samir Khan, and Al-Awlaki's teenage son -- nor did he mention that all of these drone strikes occurred on foreign soil, not in the United States.
And, yes, Wenzel is a highly partisan pollster with a heavy anti-Obama bias, as Unruh demonstrates:
“American voters apparently are finally, after more than four years, beginning to connect the sluggish economy, the precarious state of international affairs and Barack Obama,” Wenzel said. “After an inauguration bounce, his job approval has now returned to near the lowest level he has ever seen, with 42 percent giving him positive marks for his overall performance.”
Wenzel said: “Some of this has to do in particular with his ham-handed management of the recent sequester budget battle with Congress – and the aftermath which has shown he and his administration spokesmen deceived the country. Even some media outlets have started grilling administration officials over inconsistencies and other problems. The tide seems to have turned against the Obama administration, as not even a majority of Democrats give him positive marks for his handling of his job.”
Can anyone really expect a "scientific" poll about Obama to come from someone with such clear animus against him? Bob Unruh apparently does.
Examiner's Demise Shows Even Conservatives Are Tired Of Funding Conservative Journalism Topic: Washington Examiner
NewsBusters' Matthew Sheffield has long been begging right-wing funders to fund right-wing journalism. but even right-wing sugar daddies have limits to how much money they're willing to lose on the perennial money pit that is conservative journalism.
This has been proven again with the Washington Examiner's announcement that it will cease being a daily newspaper and refashion itself into a weekly conservative opinion journal. The Examiner is owned by conservative billionaire Philip Anschutz. While the privately held Examiner has never released its financial numbers, but given the shaky state of the newspaper industry as a whole, it's highly doubtful that the Examiner was a money-maker -- if it was, Anschutz would likely not be pulling the plug.
We detailed in 2009 how the Examiner stacked its opinion pages with conservative commentators that peddled the usual misinformation -- indeed, Anschutz reportedly mandated that the paper carry "nothing but conservative columns and conservative op-ed writers." While Examiner editor Stephen G. Smith insisted that the paper's news reporting was "down the middle," its was bound to be tainted by the opinion pages' right-wing tilt, fairly or not.
And there was some bias in the Examiner's news product, from pushing misleading talking points on health care reform to launching attacks on government security officials. One reviewer complained that the Second City comedy troupe didn't make enough anti-Obama jokes. A front-page headline once infamously blared, "Obama disses white guys." The bias even spread to the sports page.
Smith's insistence that the Examiner is "not some wild-eyed right-wing Web site" overlooks the fact that extremism has had its moments, which include promoting birtherism and Examiner columnist Tim Carney arguing against anti-discrimination laws.
Even giving the Examiner away -- it's a free paper -- apparently hasn't generated much reader loyalty or created much traction, at least not enough to make it profitable. The paper is typically sparse of advertising, with few display or classified ads, and often more legal notices from local governments (which the Examiner contracts with local governments to print) than either.
The problem with Sheffield's call for conservative journalism outlets ignores the fact that conservatives have demonstrated they don't want journalism, they want opinions that reinforce their views. The Examiner's move from journalism to full-time ideologically driven conservative writing is just the latest example.
UPDATE: Jim Romenesko catches the Examiner making a big front-page boo-boo in today's paper, on top of the news of its imminent dismantling:
On 10th Anniversary of Iraq War, 'Iraq' Appears Nowhere On WND Front Page Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily has long defended the Iraq War -- a 2007 column by Joseph Farah, for example, declared that increased terrorism in Iraq meant that "most of the terrorist violence is taking place in Iraq should suggest our strategy to make America safer is working," and that the Democrats' "surrender plan" would mean that "All the sacrifices we have made in Iraq to date would be for naught."
So on this 10th anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, WND should be proudly looking back at its accomplishments, right?
Well, not so much. As of this writing, not only does today's WND front page not mention the anniversary, the word "Iraq" doesn't even appear. It does, however, feature a story on how a devil character in a Bible miniseries looks like President Obama.
NewsBusters Does Damage Control for CPAC Topic: NewsBusters
NewsBusters' Matt Hadro labored to downplay an incident at last weekend's CPAC in which an audience member at a session titled "Trump the Race Card: Are you sick and tired of being called a racist when you know you're not?" touted the benefits of slavery.
In a March 18 NewsBusters post, Hadro attacked CNN for reporting on the incident, dismissing the audience member as "a random CPAC attendee" and calling the incident "isolated." Hadro also played up how "GOP strategist Ana Navarro gave some much-needed context" by further playing it down by claiming that "there were 10,000 people that went through there in three days" and "it's very hard to keep some jerks out, to keep the crazy out."
Has Hadro or anyone else at NewsBustsers ever given that benefit of a doubt to a liberal event? Probably not.
Hadro also uncritically repeated Navarro's claim that the people who brought up slavery in the session "got thrown out." In fact, TPM reports that they weren't removed and that " several attendees expressed sympathy with their grievances about oppression against whites if not their take on slavery."
So, no, it wasn't as "isolated" or "random" as Hadro would have you think.
Who Does The Devil In Bible Miniseries REALLY Look Like? Topic: WorldNetDaily
Given that WorldNetDaily already thinks President Obama is the Antichrist, it's no surprise that it would pounce on claims that the devil in the miniseries "The Bible" looks like Obama.
WND's self-proclaimed Bible scholar Joe Kovacs -- who apparently hateds Obama more than he loves God -- obliges by pushing the meme in a March 18 article: "President Barack Obama, already famous for having flies attracted to his face, is now the subject of devilish talk after Sunday night’s episode of 'The Bible' miniseries on the History Channel, with big names such as Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh providing their thoughts."
But there's another, more sinister likeness that Kovacs has overlooked.
The actor playing the devil is Mehdi Ouazanni. He's the guy on the left, and on the right is someone whom you might find familiar:
That's right. If the devil is Obama, the guy who portrays him is really Joseph Farah.
Given Farah's jihad against Obama for the past five years, the theological implications of this are staggering. Since Farah also portrays himself as a Bible expert, perhaps he can explain.
Bozell Silent About Ashley Judd Rape Joke By His CPAC Introducer Topic: Media Research Center
Brent Bozell's Heatheriffic speech at CPAC was introduced by right-wing "comedian" Steven Crowder, as the beginning of the video of the speech as posted on MRCTV shows.
But Crowder's remarks leading up to his introduction of Bozell included a joke about actress Ashley Judd, who's thinking about running for Senate in Kentucky:
By the way, in breaking news, Ashley Judd just tweeted that buying Apple products, again, is akin to rape. From her iPhone. Rape—now she knows how my brain felt after Divine Secrets of the Ya-Ya Sisterhood. Oh, she said it. What is this obsession with Ashley Judd and rape? It's pretty unnerving.
As Mother Jones points out, there' s a reason Judd talks about rape: She is, in her own words, "a three-time survivor of rape." And rape in Africa is a large part of what she does as a public health activist.
But rather than immediately denounce Crowder's crude remarks, Bozell started in immediately on his prepared remarks, which included the pompous declaration, "After three long days, they saved the best for last: me."
Given that Bozell's first instinct when Rush Limbaugh went on a three-day misogynistic tirade against Sandra Fluke was not to criticize Limbaugh for his vile remarks but to set up a "We Stand With Rush" website, it's not really a surprise that Bozell is similarly callous about rape jokes.
WND's Mind-Reader Smears Obama Again Topic: WorldNetDaily
Anderw G. Hodges is WorldNetDaily's go-to guy when it wants some pseudo-scientific dressing to smear President Obama. He obliges again in a March 17 WND article by Bob Unruh:
“Obama replied to (rare) press challenges about his contribution to the problem, ‘Give me an example of what I might do.’ Then he proceeded to unconsciously answer his own question with further denials, declaring, ‘I am not a dictator. I’m the president,’” Andrew G. Hodges, M.D., told WND in an assessment.
“Understand his powerful ‘dictator’ image spontaneously comes from his mind. Immediately following it with ‘president’ he unconsciously confesses, ‘I am the dictator president,’” Hodges said.
“For good measure he adds further unconscious proof in yet another vivid denial. I ‘can’t force Republicans to do the right thing’ – confessing again that in dictatorial fashion he was forcing the Republicans’ hands by not negotiating and failing to do the right thing.”
[...]
“He suggested the idea, ‘I should somehow do a ‘Jedi mind-meld’ with these folks [Republicans] and convince them to do what’s right.’ He used a mixed image from two sci-fi shows,” Hodges explained. “First he alluded to a Jedi ‘mind trick’ used on weak-minded foes (‘Star Wars’ films) implying his continued mind games to trick subservient foolish Americans.
“He suggested the idea, ‘I should somehow do a ‘Jedi mind-meld’ with these folks [Republicans] and convince them to do what’s right.’ He used a mixed image from two sci-fi shows,” Hodges explained. “First he alluded to a Jedi ‘mind trick’ used on weak-minded foes (‘Star Wars’ films) implying his continued mind games to trick subservient foolish Americans.
As is WND's style, Unruh made no apparent effort to contact others for a contrary opinion of Hodges' gimmicky "ThoughtPrint decoding" or explain how Hodges is doing anything other than projecting his own hatred of Obama and/or throwing red meat to the rubes who hate Obama as much as he does.
CNS: Some Catholics' Opinions Are More Equal Than Others Topic: CNSNews.com
A Quinnipiac poll finding that support for same-sex marriage among Catholics is at 54 percent did not sit well with the right-wing Catholics at CNSNews.com. So they figured out a way to spin the numbers.
How? By essentially declaring that there are two kinds of Catholics, and the opinions of one kind don't really matter.
Catch the spin in a March 7 CNS article by Patrick Burke:
Quinnipiac University conducted a national poll and reported that “American Catholics support same-sex marriage” by a margin of 54 to 38 percent, but for those Catholics who go to church every Sunday, a requirement of their faith, the poll results showed that Mass-attending Catholics oppose same-sex “marriage” by a margin of 55 to 38 percent.
CNS then revealed how it got to that number:
CNSNews.com asked Quinnipiac if results were available to the question of same-sex marriage based on Mass attendance.
The polling institute responded by e-mail with results that showed 55 percent of Catholics who attend Mass weekly oppose same-sex "marriage" -- 38 percent voiced support for gay “marriage” and 9 percent either did not know or did not give an applicable response.
In other words, at least 55 percent of Catholics who attend Mass weekly as required by their faith oppose same-sex "marriage."
On all other questions, the poll proceeded to break down results asked of American Catholics based on rate of Mass attendance. For example, American Catholics were asked whether or not they believe the Church is headed in the right direction, in addition to their views on Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI.
Burke doesn't explain why the opinions of Catholics who don't go to church weekly are less valid than that of those who do.
Burke also quoted Catholic League president William Donohue attacking the Quinnipiac poll without disclosing that his boss, Media Research Center chief Brent Bozell, is on the Catholic League's board of advisers.
WND Ramps Up Anti-Vaccine Fearmongering Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily has long beenanti-vaccine -- a dishonest instinct that appears to be rearing its ugly head again.
On the heels of factually challenged fearmongering about HPV vaccines, a March 15 WND article by Garth Kant promotes a billboard campaign by the National Vaccination Information Center "urging parents inform themselves about potential dangers from vaccines." But Kant is silent on just how anti-vaccine the organization is.
NVIC is an antivax group, plain and simple. Despite hugely overwhelming tsunami-level amounts of evidence showing no link between vaccines and autism, they still think there is one. They go on and on about “vaccine injuries”, yet actual severe side effects from vaccines are very rare, especially when you realize that many millions of vaccines are given every year. The NVIC relies on anecdotes of injuries as evidence, but that's very dangerous thinking. Stories and personal observations are a good place to start—it’s how you might notice a connection between two things—but it’s not where you end. You must apply rigorous testing to your ideas, so that you can make sure you’re not seeing a connection where none exists.
But that’s not what NVIC is about. They are convinced vaccines cause injuries, and ignore evidence that there isn’t.
Sounds a lot like WND. In an attempt at false balance, Kant writes: "WND has long attempted to provide such information by reporting on the controversies surrounding vaccines for small pox, human papillomavirus (HPV), autism and the wide variety of vaccinations given babies." But much of that reporting has been misleading, unbalanced, or just plain false.
And to apparently prove that, Kant rehashes some of WND's past fearmongering on vaccines. Among those is the claim that HPV vaccines guard against only two of the 100 strains of HPV; in fact, the vaccines protect against four strains, and Kant fails to note that those strains are responsible for 90 percent of genital warts cases and 75 percent of all cervical cancers.
Kant also repeats a claim by Dr. Joseph Mercola without noting that Mercola is a conspiracy theorist who has been twice ordered by the Food and Drug Administration to stop making claims about his supplements that go beyond their intended uses.
Kant goes on to dishonestly overstate the danger of vaccines by writing, "But, just because vaccinations are safe for most doesn’t mean they are safe for all." The reality is that "most" is actually "nearly everyone." As even WND has conceded, the rate of adverse reactions of the more than 35 million doses administered of the HPV vaccine Gardasil is a paltry 0.05 percent.
Kant even cites his WND boss, Joseph Farah as some kind of medical authority: "Because HPV can be transmitted by sexual activity, Farah recommends parents talk to their sons and daughters about chastity." Apparently, Farah thinks an HPV vaccine is some sort of green light for reckless sexual activity -- an ignorant notion.
Kant even rehashes the debate over whether the preservative thimerosal causes autism, spending several paragraphs on the issue before getting around to nothing that no actual researcher has found a link between thimerosal and autism.
Kant is just engaging in irresponsible fearmongering, and WND's readers will be stupider for it. Then again, that's the kind of reader WND seems to want.
Dear Matthew Sheffield: There's Nothing 'Innovative' About CNS Topic: NewsBusters
Matthew Sheffield devoted a March 6 NewsBusters post to his ongoing lament that right-wing funders won't fund a genuine news operation. As we've pointed out, this is essentially an admission that conservative journalism doesn't succeed in the marketplace, since the top conservative newspapers in the country have long been money pits kept alive with the help of either right-wing billionaires or being subsidized by more profitable ventures.
Sheffield does get some things correct, such as agreeing with the Huffington Post's Michael Calderone that the conservative media in its current state is more interested in playing gotcha than doing real shoe-leather journalism. But he also oddly complains that Calderone "ignores some very innovative journalism being produced by my colleagues over at CNSNews.com."
Actually, what Sheffield calls "innovative" at CNS is really a more extreme case of the problem Calderone outlines:
CNS rewrites Associated Press headlines to add right-wing bias.
It protects its fellow right-wingers by hiding their hate from readers.
It thinks Jay Leno jokes that bash Obama are "news."
There's nothing terribly "innovative" about any of this -- right-wing outlets have been doing the same thing for years. CNS, however, does have the financial power of a multimillion-dollar nonprofit organization behind it.
But then, Sheffield has already conceded that the only way right-wing "news" can succeed is with a deep-pocketed ideologue funding it, not through the free market.
WND's Klein Revives Teresa Heinz Kerry Zombie Lie Topic: WorldNetDaily
It's suddenly 2004 in the brain of Aaron Klein, as evidenced by his March 14 WorldNetDaily article:
Secretary of State John Kerry’s wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, is a primary donor to the Tides Foundation, one of the country’s biggest financiers of the radical left.
Tides is a controversial clearinghouse that funds groups such as MoveOn.org, ACORN, Media Matters for America and a litany of so-called anti-war organizations.
If that line of attack sounds familiar, that's because it is -- WND was making the exact same attack in 2004 when John Kerry was running for president.
But Klein ignores, as WND didthen, an inconvenient fact about Teresa Heinz Kerry's donations to Tides: They are earmarked for specific projects in Pennsylvania.
Klein provides no evidence that any Heinz Kerry money funds any of the "radical left" programs he names -- he's merely playing a crude version of the dishonest guilt-by-association game that is one of his unfortunate fortes.
