WND Touts 'Truth' Award For Man With Fake Name Who Uses Anonymous Sources Topic: WorldNetDaily
Alyssa Farah writes in a June 29 WorldNetDaily article:
Former Iranian Revolutionary Guard member-turned-CIA spy Reza Kahlili, who has pulled back the curtain on some of the innermost secrets of the Islamic regime, has been honored by the Endowment for Middle East Truth at its “Rays of Light in Darkness” dinner.
Kahlili appeared through Skype to accept his “Speaker of the Truth” award, donning a surgical mask, baseball cap and glasses to mask his identity. A device was used to disguise his voice as he addressed the audience.
Farah (who is WND editor Joseph Farah's daughter) didn't note the irony of a man who has taken such elaborate measures to hide his true identity receiving an award for being a supposed "Speaker of the Truth."
Farah also fails to note the unverifiable nature of the anonymous sources he cites for the increasinglyfantasticclaims he makes, making it difficult for anyone, let alone the Endowment for Middle East Truth, to verify whether Kahlili is, in fact, a "speaker of the truth."
Cleric Isn't As 'Radical' As Newsmax Thinks Topic: Newsmax
Under the headline "White House Slammed for Radical Cleric Meeting," Lisa Barron writes in a June 26 Newsmax article:
White House officials met this month with Sheik Abdullah bin Bayyah, a deputy of radical Egyptian cleric Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the so-called spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood who has been banned from entering the United States.
The June 13 meeting took place on the same day the Obama administration announced plans to arm Syria's rebel forces, reports the Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT).
However, even Fox News admits he's not as "radical" as he's being portrayed:
Bin Bayyah, for his part, has urged the U.N. to criminalize blasphemy. His group has spoken out in favor of Hamas and in 2009 issued a fatwa barring "all forms of normalization" with Israel.
In 2010, Bin Bayyah publicly rejected a fatwa that had been used as the justification for Al Qaeda terrorism.
In his criticism of the fatwa, he said: "Anyone who seeks support from this fatwa for killing Muslims or non-Muslims has erred in his interpretation and has misapplied the revealed texts."
The Muslim scholar has taken criticism from violent extremists for this position.
He has also worked with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and other groups on global health issues.
By contrast, the IPT is run by anti-Muslim activist Steve Emerson, who most recently was promoting the discredited claim that a Saudi student was involved with the Boston Marathon bombings. Apparently, in Emerson's mind, every Muslim is a "radical."
WND Rushes to Paula Deen's Defense Topic: WorldNetDaily
It probably shouldn't be a surprise given its penchant for race-baiting and eagerness to portray Trayvon Martin as a violent thug, but WorldNetDaily is rushing to the defense of celebrity chef Paula Deen over the backlash to her racist remarks.
Chelsea Schilling asks in a June 29 WND article: "How did Paula Deen, a spunky 66-year-old TV chef, go from being the much-loved 'queen of Southern cuisine' to exiled pariah in just days?" Schillling makes sure we know that Deen's use of the N-word was "many years ago," and that "Even Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson came to Deen’s defense."
In case Schilling's pro-Deen bias wasn't clear from her writing, she includes the phone numbers and email addresses of the networks and companies that have dropped Deen, stating that "Concerned individuals may contact the following partners who have dumped Deen."
WND's columnists are also jumping on the pro-Deen bandwagon. Ilana Mercer laments in her June 28 column:
Celebrity chef Paula Deen has transgressed against America’s many Orwellian Ministries of Truth. While being deposed by a disgruntled employee, in May of 2013, Deen was forced to confess to using the “N-word” decades ago, upon which the Paula Deen Enterprises began to lose revenue.
Now the poor woman is on that familiar, modern-day Via Dolorosa: the apology tour.
Mercer goes on to suggest that Deen's views of black people are justified because one robbed her:
Blaming Old-South culture – as the prototypical knaves of conservatism are doing – is, moreover, unlikely to help exculpate Ms. Deen in the minds of the morons who judge her for her words, rather than for her deeds. The bad Old South macro-narrative is as ineffective in mitigation as is pointing out that Deen misspoke because of a near-death experience. “A black man [once] burst into the bank that I was working at and put a gun to my head,” recounted Deen. “I didn’t feel real favorable towards him.”
It is for the same reason that the young mother, seen here in a video gone viral being kicked and punched repetitively and mercilessly by a burly black man, should watch her words in the future. The home of the mom was invaded by the man, who delighted in brutalizing her in front of her toddler.
But then, Mercer also kinda misses apartheid, so she may not be the most objective person to talk to about racial issues.
Erik Rush -- one of the black conservatives WND keeps around to provide it cover for Colin Flaherty's race-baiting -- laments even more in a June 30 column (while also working in a plug for his book):
Regarding the Deen debacle, some have criticized the inequity, capriciousness and mercilessness of the mob mentality, as well as the hypocrisy of the liberal media, which tolerates abject racism from Rev. Al Sharpton, Touré Neblett and other people of color, while queuing up to crucify someone who admitted to using a racial slur in private years ago.
The conditions to which I would call attention are those I have previously cited, and which were addressed at length in my book, “Negrophilia: From Slave Block to Pedestal – America’s Racial Obsession.” In general, they speak to liberals’ imperative for portraying America as still being an institutionally racist nation.
Obviously I don’t know what is in Paula Deen’s heart, but that is hardly relevant to her predicament or to the argument at hand. What’s really sad and unjust about this affair is that those pursuing the issue don’t care what is in her heart.
MRC Complains Fringe Denier Views Aren't Treated Equally With Obama's Statements on Global Warming Topic: Media Research Center
A June 26 MRC Business & Media Institute item by Julia Seymour complained that the "opposition" was largely omitted from the TV networks' coverage of President Obama's efforts to combat climate change, grousing that "The uncritical coverage of the president’s speech is consistent with the networks’ bias on the issue of global warming."
Given that credible surveys have repeatedly found that the vast majority of climate scientists agree humans are changing the climate, it appears that the networks engaged in appropriately balanced coverage. After all, there's no sense in giving a fringe view equal footing with one rooted in scientific consensus and agreed upon by 97 of 100 climate experts.
Between Colin Flaherty's obsession with "black mob violence" and Jack Cashill's eagerness to exonerate George Zimmerman in the death of Trayvon Martin, WorldNetDaily has been a veritable font of race-baiting recently.
WND wants to make sure its readers stay in a race-baiting mood, asking in a June 27 poll question, "Should George Zimmerman be convicted to prevent race riots?"
Demonstrating that WND knows its readers all too well regarding preconceived notions trumping actual evidence, the winning answer so far by a wide margin is, "He should be cleared because there is not a shred of evidence he did anything but defend himself."
So, will WND ask if Zimmerman should be exonerated to prevent Colin Flaherty and Jack Cashill from rioting?
MRC Cherry-Picks A Poll To Claim Pro-Choice Side Is 'Losing' Topic: Media Research Center
Geoffrey Dickens writes in a June 28 Media Research Center item:
The Big Three (ABC, CBS, NBC) networks were so excited by Democratic Texas state senator Wendy Davis’s filibuster they failed to notice she is on the losing side of the abortion debate.
Anchors like NBC’s Brian Williams and ABC’s Diane Sawyer were so busy hailing Davis’s “epic” filibuster and her rise to “folk hero” status that they failed to report the findings of a National Journal poll showing her extremist pro-abortion stance is an unpopular one.
According to the latest United Technologies/National Journal poll, Americans favor a bill banning all abortions after 20 weeks by a 48 to 44 percent. The poll also found that younger respondents are even less accepting of the Davis stance, as it found those between the ages of 18 and 29 were in favor of a post-20 week abortion ban by a margin of 52 to 39 percent.
Not one of the Big Three networks mentioned the National Journal poll findings.
First: Dickens offers no evidence to back up his contention that Davis took an "extremist pro-abortion stance," and he fails to consider the possibility that the bill she was filibustering against is what is "extremist."
Second: Dickens is cherry-picking poll results that conform to his right-wing, anti-abortion agenda. A more relevant poll would be one that polls Texans about the specific bill in question, not a national poll on a general issue.
From a June 17-19 Greenberg Quinlan Rosner poll of Texas residents:
A majority of Texans oppose the legislation currently being considered by the legislature that imposes restrictions on abortion and 80 percent do not want abortion to be raised during the special session of the legislature called at the end of May by Governor Rick Perry.
Of registered voters, 63 percent say the state has enough restrictions on abortion and 71 percent thinking that the Governor and legislature should be more focused on the economy and jobs. A majority opposes the sort of legislation passed by the state Senate and being considered by the state House during this legislative Special Session, believing that it imposes further restrictions on abortion. Overall, only 34 percent trust the Governor and the legislature to make decisions about women's healthcare.
Why didn't Dickens report that poll, even though it's more directy relevant to the issue at hand? Because he wouldn't have a post otherwise.
WND's Cashill Hides Holes In Zimmerman Witness Claim Topic: WorldNetDaily
Jack Cashill -- whose biased "reporting" is enthusiasticallydefending George Zimmerman in the death of Trayvon Martin -- declared in a June 28 WorldNetDaily article:
The testimony of eyewitness John Good on Friday in the murder trial of John Good should have put to rest any doubts about George Zimmerman’s innocence on the charge of second-degree murder for the February 2012 shooting in Sanford, Fla., of Trayvon Martin.
Curiously, though, Cashill doesn't directly quote any of Good's testimony. That's because he backed off from the assertions he initially made to police after Martin's death -- the same assertions that Cashill previously said when Good testifies to them, "the case will be all but closed."
Cashill has been taking refuge in Good's initial statement to police that Martin "was pretty much just throwing down blows on the guy kind of MMA-style" on Zimmerman as the main hook of Zimmerman's exoneration. But he doesn't tell his readers that Good walked that claim back somewhat during his testimony, admitting he never saw an actual punch thrown.
Indeed, Good -- originally known to the public as Witness 6 -- had walked that claim back in another law enforcement interview three weeks after Martin's death. Has Cashill told his readers about that?
Joseph Farah and The Goverment's Secret Underground Maglev Railway Topic: WorldNetDaily
Joseph Farah uses his June 27 WorldNetDaily column to rant about "today’s surveillance state." As part of a slightly paranoid list of "the hard, cold facts" of how Americans allegedly can be surveilled, Farah adds:
To ensure continuity of government (COG), one or more buildings in the nation’s capital are linked to an underground railway network over a mile below ground using magnetic levitation (maglev) trains, interconnected to over a dozen military installations in the U.S.
We have no idea what Farah is talking about. The closest thing we've seen in poking around on the 'net that even remotely comes close to what Farah is describing is from this website:
There are numerous witnesses who speak about a subterranean highway through America just like our own Interstate highway system, except it’s underground. It seems this underground highway uses trucks, cars, and buses driven by electric motors. (You wouldn't want gasoline fumes polluting tunnels.) They also mention another style of transport for freight and passengers that are linked together in a worldwide network called the "Sub-Global System." It has checkpoints at each country entry. There are shuttle tubes that "shoot" the trains at incredible speed using a maglev and vacuum method. They travel in excess of the speed of sound.
Farah's paranoid beliefs explain a lot. If you believe that the government is running a secret maglev subway a mile below ground, it's an easy leap to lying in your readers' faces and peddling bogus claims about the president's purported lack of "eligibility" to hold the job.
Newsmax's image rehabilitation project for the chronically wrong Dick Morris rolls slowly forward by giving him a June 27 column to rant about NSA surveillance.
Newsmax has been providing Morris withseveralopportunities to redeem his career after getting canned by Fox News for, among other things, predicting Mitt Romney would defeat President Obama in a landslide.
WND Can't Stop Keeping Arpaio Out of Homeschool Story Topic: WorldNetDaily
For more than a year, WorldNetDaily has been reporting on a homeschooling family, the Loudermilks, who filed a lawsuit against a law enforcement agency over a search of their house after an anonymous complaint. And for all of that time, WND's Bob Unruh hasrepeatedlyendeavored to obscure the fact that the law enforcement agency in question is the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, led by WND birther buddy Joe Arpaio.
Unruh's memory hole strikes again in a June 26 WND article on the case. While Unruh notes that the Loudermilks live in Maricopa County, he waits until the 22nd paragraph of his 25-paragraph article to mention that "six uniformed sheriff’s deputies" took part in the search of the Loudermilk home. Not only does Unruh fail to identify the deputies as members of the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, he fails to tell his readers that Arpaio is one of the defendants in the Loudermilks' lawsuit.
Unruh quotes only the legal representatives of the Loudermilks in his article -- from one of WND's favorite groups, the Home School Legal Defense Association -- and he makes no mention of the defense's version of the story, nor does he explain why he does not find the other side of the story newsworthy.
WND Laughably Calls Pam Geller A 'Media Star' Topic: WorldNetDaily
A June 26 WorldNetDaily article by Chelsea Schilling on Great Britain's refusal to allow anti-Muslim activists Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer into the country carries the laughable headline "U.K. bans another U.S. media star."
The only claim to media "stardom" Schilling cites for Geller is that she's a WND columnist.
Schilling -- whose history of making false and misleading claims at WND is legion -- goes on to describe the English Defence League only as the group "which invited Geller and Spencer to its event," failing to mention the EDL's history of violence and Islamophobia. Schilling also didn't mention that EDL leader Tommy Robinson was recently convict of entering the U.S. under a false identity to attend an anti-Islam event with Geller.
That "another" person referenced in the headline as having been banned from Britain is Michael Savage, who apparently is also a "media star" in the eyes of WND. Of course, Schilling fails to disclose that WND hosts Savage's website.
In a companion piece, Geller used her WND column to rant about the ban, claiming that anyone who criticizes her and Spencer for their anti-Muslim activism supports jihad and Sharia law.
MRC Complains Historic Gay-Marriage Decisions Are Described As Historic Topic: Media Research Center
Apparently, in the eyes of the Media Research Center, it's "liberal media bias" to portray a historic event involving gays as historic. In April, for instance, the MRC's Matt Hadro complained that CNN portrayed Jason Collins' coming out as the first openly gay professional basketball player as a historic event.
That same attitude prevails in a June 26 MRC item by Kyle Drennen:
During live coverage of the Supreme Court's gay marriage rulings on Wednesday, NBC legal analyst Lisa Bloom could barely contain her enthusiasm at the decisions overturning the Defense of Marriage Act and Proposition 8: "There is no question that this is a sweeping historic decision for gay rights....I think this is only the beginning, by the way. This is the decision today, but this is going to engender many more cases to come to further protect gay rights."
Drennen offers no evidence that these Supreme Court decisions are not historic -- he's simply annoyed they were described as such.
Drennen has apparently also decided he can read minds. In a June 26 NewsBusters post under the headline "NBC Reporter Gushes: Gay Marriage Rulings 'Very Personally Satisfying' for Obama," Drennen writes that NBC correspondent Peter Alexander touted how the decisions were "very personally satisfying for the President, who it was only about a year ago during the course of the campaign...came out and said that he has had this personal evolution on the topic..."
Drennen offers no evidence that Alexander's reporting of the White House's approval of the Supreme Court decisions equates to him "gushing" over it.
NEW ARTICLE: Getting Schooled On Context Topic: The ConWeb
The ConWeb takes President Obama's remarks on religious schools in Northern Ireland out of context -- and they find themselves getting called on it by an unlikely critic. Read more >>
ConWeb Takes Gay Marriage Decisions Poorly, As Expected Topic: The ConWeb
The ConWeb reacted to the Supreme Court decisions overturning the Defense of Marriage Act dismissing a challenge to the overturning of California's anti-gay marriage Proposition 8 pretty much the way you'd expect.
Accuracy in Media chairman Don Irvine tweeted, "The country just went to hell in a handbasket.'
Purportedly objective CNSNews.com reporter Penny Starr ranted: "Sad day for our nation -- already on the path to a fallen civilization. If Obama gets another left-wing SCOTUS judge America is doomed."
WorldNetDaily responded with a heavily biased article by Bob Unruh, with the demeaning headline "Black robes 'delegitimize' Supreme Court," that quotes a plethora of anti-gay activists lamenting the decisions.It's not until the final four paragraphs of his 39-paragraph article that Unruh bothers to quote anyone expressing support for the decision.
In fact, there was no real effort at making a constitutional case against a duly enacted piece of legislation, passed overwhelmingly by the House and Senate with strong bipartisan support and signed by a Democratic Party president, Bill Clinton.
What actually happened at the Supreme Court was that five justices decided – and wrote in their opinion – that anyone who opposes same-sex marriage does so for no other reason than bigotry against homosexuals.
It’s obvious, isn’t it?
The Supreme Court virtually declared an open season on those with whom the 5-4 majority disagree.
We are no longer relevant. What we think no longer counts. We are, after all, bigots who only want to demean homosexuals.
But Farah is a bigot who demeans homosexuals (except for that one he hired to cheerlead for the Iraq War). Remember his paranoid rant about "the forced homosexualization of America" that came in response to a critic who called him out on WND's dishonest reporting on LGBT-related bills in California?
Farah appears to be demonstrating one again that there's no reasoning with a person who thinks anyone who issues a legitimate criticism of his and WND is out to get him.