Muslim Derangement Syndrome Watch, Mychal Massie Edition Topic: WorldNetDaily
Whether it is another transpicuous display of Erebusic diversity (and it is), or another blatant attempt to transmogrify the Untied States into accepting the incursion of Islam as a valued tradition of America (and it is), all reasonable-minded Americans should be outraged.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the American flag isn’t a case of “should be” always said in English, it is a case of “it must always be” pledged in English. There is no acceptable reason for it to be otherwise. For this columnist and hundreds of millions of other Americans, English is recognized as the official language of the United States, regardless of the fact that Congress and Obama refuse to codify it as same. It is the language of those whose blood was shed – from which the Pledge was born.
[...]
Islam played no part in America’s history apart from ensuring that there was a robust supply of slaves.
I emphatically state that Muslims are not welcome to come here and form their own idea of government and establish their own definitions of what is acceptable based on their so-called religious beliefs. This is the United States of America. It is not an Islamic outpost.
[...]
Reciting the Pledge of Allegiance isn’t “a simple student activity to promote mutual understanding”; it is an act of reverence to those who gave their lives to make America free. It is a Pledge of loyalty born out of the debt that was paid in blood for America to become the greatest nation in the world, and if Muslims do not like that, then I submit perhaps they would be more comfortable back in the Middle East.
Vadum's March 29 WND article is a masterpiece of sloppy reporting, starting with this ominous opening:
The Obama administration is using your tax dollars to back a super-wealthy, left-wing charity that cuts checks to a myriad of avowedly "progressive" causes, including the notorious Media Matters for America, founded by Hillary Clinton ally and Fox News nemesis David Brock.
It's just one of many examples of how in the Obama era, government is handing out money to nonprofits that share the ideology and political inclinations of a president who looks back warmly on his time as a community organizer in Chicago.
It takes numerous paragraphs and even more numerous extraneous partisan attacks to lay it out, but the gist of Vadum's article is this: The Social Innovation Fund, which is administered by the taxpayer-supported Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS), gave a $7.5 million grant to the Silicon Valley Community Foundation for a certain educational program that is "designed to increase the number of third graders who read proficiently in 11 high need school districts in San Mateo County, California."
Had Vadum stopped there, he would have been on safe ground. Instead he goes conspiratorial, accusing the Silicon Valley Community Foundation of being a "left-wing" nonprofit that is "already awash in private funds" due to its links with Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg. Vadum claims the foundation "doesn’t represent the political proclivities of most Americans" because it has given some money to "left-wing" groups like the Center for Responsible Lending (a nonpartisan group that educates Americans about predatory lending practices) and the National Immigration Forum (which apparently violates Vadum's right-wing sensibilities by not hating immigrants).
Vadum suggests that the federal grant money is going to these purportedly "left-wing" causes:
So how did the Silicon Valley Community Foundation, which doesn’t represent the political proclivities of most Americans, get its hands on federal money?
Federal bureaucrats get to decide which groups and proposals are funded by the Social Innovation Fund. SIF creates a kind of artificial civil society, one designed from above by elites. It focuses on three areas that are hard to define with precision: “economic opportunity, youth development, and healthy futures.”
In practice, it means that bureaucrats and grant recipients propose more government spending and bigger government as solutions to more or less all problems.
It also means SIF uses taxpayer money to help groups hostile to the interests of taxpayers. Even worse, many of these groups want to remake society along radical left-wing lines.
In fact, such federal grants are typically watched closely to make sure the money is spent on the program it is intended, and the foundation must also verify that.
If Vadum's smear tactic sounds familiar, it is. Back in 2004, WND did the same thing to Teresa Heinz Kerry, wife of then-Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, by claiming that her donations to the Tides Foundation (which Vadum also accuses the Silicon Valley Community Foundation of funding) went to various and sundry radical causes, even though her donations were specifically earmarked for specific, non-radical purposes. When WND was finally forced to report the truth about Heinz Kerry and Tides, it then declared the truth was irrelevant to its anti-Kerry political crusade.
Vadum is doing the same thing here -- claiming that Obama is personally sending federal money to fund various "left-wing" groups while ignoring the specific programs for which that money is used. Vadum's entire WND series does this.
In a follow-up article, Vadum suggests that AARP received a CNCS grant because it was "one of Obamacare's chief cheerleaders" and "has an unabashedly left-wing political agenda" -- largely overlooking the fact that the grant given to AARP was for increasing financial stability in older women, which has nothing to do with Obamacare.
Another Vadum article attacks another CNCS funding recipient, the Edna McConnell Clark Foundation. Because Vadum is such a bad writer, it's suggested early on that the Clark Foundation is "named for President Obama's Marxist law-school mentor, known for his promotion of the radical 'critical race theory.'" But as Vadum later writes, the foundation is named after the "daughter of 19th century perfumer David Hall McConnell, founder of cosmetic giant Avon," and that his real issue is that "Clark Foundation has given grants to the Dorchester, Massachusetts-based organization BELL," named in honor of Derrick A. Bell Jr., Harvard Law’s first black tenured professor. Vadum notes that the CNCS money he's attacking goes toward "improving the educational skills and workforce readiness of economically disadvantaged young people as well as helping them to avoid high-risk behavior," but he doesn't explain why he apparently thinks that's an unworthy cause -- or bother to prove that any of it ever went to BELL.
Finally, Vadum complains that "The Obama administration has given $16.8 million since 2010 to its allies at a left-wing nonprofit known as the Local Initiatives Support Corp. LISC, in turn, has provided grants to many radical groups, including a Chicago-based nonprofit founded by the late Marxist activist Saul Alinsky." Needless to say, at no point does Vadum prove that any federal money went to that Alinsky-founded group (nor did he mention that Alinsky died more than 40 years ago).
In short, Vadum is doing what he always does -- cranking out factually deficient, innuendo-laced right-wing screeds that are designed to keep up the hate factor on the right.
Strangely, such shoddy work has kept him employed as the "senior editor" at the Capital Research Center -- and, not so strangely, a byline at WND.
Does homosexuality cause harm? As the author of Romans rightly points out, it does. It makes homosexuals ill. And then it kills them. Unpleasantly, permanently and irremediably.
[...]
The Church’s continuous teaching on homosexuality is not some outmoded, fuddy-duddy, far-right, redneck hate-crime. It is born of love for those who might otherwise be drawn into the homosexual deathstyle. It is intended to prevent the misery, disease and death that homosexuality – no less than smoking – brings to its unfortunate practitioners.
Thirty years ago, I pointed out in the American Spectator that in the absence of the usual public-health measure to contain a new and fatal infection – immediate, compulsory, permanent isolation of carriers – millions would die of HIV. I also pointed out that Western sensibilities would not permit the identification and isolation of carriers.
-- Christopher Monckton, March 29 WorldNetDaily column
Considering that less than 2 percent of Americans self-identify as homosexual, why is there such a vigorous effort to accommodate homosexuals afoot, and to legitimize not only the lifestyles of homosexual men and women, but a broad range of generally unrelated sexual preferences, practices and gender identifications?
Further, why are the youngest of Americans – school children – a central focus in this endeavor of public policy?
Most importantly: From whence did this imperative arise?
The answers both illustrate and confirm something I have said for a long time: Efforts on the behalf of homosexuals in the area of civil rights have precious little to do with the civil rights of homosexuals (real or imagined) and everything to do with achieving the optimal moral debasement of American society.
Although many homosexuals argue for the normalcy of their sexual orientation, it is not their desires nor motivations that have driven the agenda reflected in the points described above. That was the brainchild of radical leftists, who have spent the last 50 years insinuating themselves into positions of influence in America.
Their objective of moral debasement gave rise to the imperative for neutralizing Christianity, America’s chief force for moral stability.
By the way, if you don’t think this war on religious freedom is being carefully orchestrated, you are completely in the dark.
In each case I’ve studied, homosexual activists have specifically and deliberately targeted business owners who they know are Bible-believing, committed Christians. Anyone needing a photographer, a videographer, a caterer or a wedding-cake baker to commemorate their same-sex marriage vows should have no problem finding many eager for their business. This is not about “anti-gay discrimination.” This is about religious discrimination, religious bigotry, coercion and punishment targeted against individual believers and, in fact, a class of people based on their religious beliefs.
If the imperative to respect homosexual passion is imposed by law for all human beings, then the disposition to treat sexual passion as an irresistible impulse, rather than a choice, becomes the norm. What will become of the human species if this new imperative encourages homosexuality, tantalizing people with the prospect of sexual pleasure entirely unalloyed with any responsibility for procreation and child rearing?
As I observed in a recent article, the result could be precipitously declining natural birthrates and the concrete extinction of the human species. Is it wrong to act by law to forestall such consequences? Is it wrong for the people of Indiana or any other state to show their special regard for the exercise of unalienable right involved in procreation, employing for that purpose the power the U.S. Constitution’s 10th Amendment reserves to them?
Get off your knees, Gov. Pence; you’re not in a gay bathhouse (where only gays are, presumably, welcome). Muster a coherent defense of the bedrock of a free republic – and of civilization itself: the rights of private property and freedom of association.
Why do men like Mr. Pence, who understand these principles all too well, buckle before a mob of lobotomized tyrants with the intelligence of a Miley Cyrus?
For [Tim Cook] and other homosexual activists, Christians cannot observe their religion and live by the Bible’s words they hold sacred without discriminating against gays. If this is about “how we treat each other as human beings,” as Cook writes, then how can he justify a same-sex couple going to a baker or photographer they well know is Christian, for whom homosexuality is a sin, and demand a cake or photography for a gay wedding? Can Tim Cook really believe that this is decent, tolerant, freedom loving human behavior?
The truth is that the objective of the homosexual campaign is not about American freedom. The objective is the de-legitimization and annihilation of Christianity in America.
Even WND's Corsi Won't Question Cruz's Eligibility To Be President Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily is so averse to applying to Ted Cruz the same presidential "eligibility" standards it imposed on Barack Obama, even WND's chief birther won't touch the issue.
Corsi -- who promoted the issue so much at WND that he wormed his way onto Sheriff Joe Arpaio's incompetent "cold case posse" investigating Obama's eligibility, thus ensuring its investigation would be biased and the outcome predetermined -- has been utterly silent on the issue so far. He has said nothing about Cruz's eligibilty on his Twitter account (which he has blocked ConWebWatch from following, though there are plenty of ways around that) since Cruz announced his president run on March 23.
Corsi wrote about Cruz in a March 31 WND article -- but it had nothing to do with eligibility. The apparently more pressing issue was the links Cruz's wife has to the Council on Foreign Relations, a "globalist" group hated by right-wingers like Corsi.
Much of Corsi's article was dedicated to letting a Cruz spokesman spin away the link, stating that Heidi Cruz was merely a "term member" who worked on a single CFR report and that her contribution to it was "narrowly focused on economic issues." Corsi also quotes the spokesman saying that Cruz has called CFR “a pernicious nest of snakes” that is “working to undermine our sovereignty.”
Corsi also self-servingly refers to the "2007 bestselling book “The Late Great USA: The Coming Merger with Mexico and Canada,” while not mentioning that he wrote that book or explaining on what universe that book was "bestselling."
It seems WND has declared a total blackout on reporting on the question of Cruz's eligibility -- and WND's chief birther is playing along.
NEW ARTICLE: Jesse Lee Peterson's Obama Derangement Topic: WorldNetDaily
As with many WND columnists, Peterson has acquired the disease of spouting bizarre and hateful things about the president. Read more >>
WND Marks Anniversary of Terri Schiavo's Death With More Bias Topic: WorldNetDaily
With the 10th anniversary of the death of Terri Schiavo, it was inevitable that WorldNetDaily -- which covered the heck out of the Schiavo case -- would mark it somehow. And it does so with a March 30 column by Diana Lynne, WND's main reporter on Schiavo at the time.
Lynne was a highly biased reporter, blatantly taking the side of Schiavo's family, the Schindlers (who didn't want Schiavo, who had been in a persistent vegitative state for about 15 years, to die) and against her husband, Michael (who sought to let Terri die). We actually wrote a letter to WND seeking changes to make it coverage more fair and balanced, which actually did result in a few changes. It may have been the last time WND has taken ConWebWatch's sound jounralistic advice.
Lynne's column is preceded by a self-serving "editor's note": "Diana Lynne is one of two reporters who broke the story of the struggle over Terri Schiavo’s life – both of them with WND. Lynne’s coverage eventually brought the story to the attention of international media." Never mind that very little of that reporting was fairly presented.
In her column, Lynne plays advocate again, lamenting "the killing of an innocent, defenseless, disabled woman who was not suffering from a terminal illness" and blaming the "mainstream media" for its "rampant distortion, bias and misreporting of facts" -- displaying an utter lack of self-awareness of her own rampant distortion, bias and misreporting of facts. She again effectively accuses Michael Schiavo of murder, suggesting that "he was the one who no longer wanted Terri 'to be'" and claim he was aided by "a pro-death, activist attorney whose fees were paid for with the lion’s share of the $750,000 earmarked for Terri’s care."
Lynne's column concludes with a WND plug for her book on the case: "Diana Lynne tells the complete, unvarnished story that led to Terri Schiavo’s court-ordered death – order 'Terri’s Story' to commemorate the 10th anniversary of her passing." As we've documented, Lynne's book is just as biased as her reporting, portraying the Schindlers much more sympathetically than Michael Schiavo and hiding the right-wing interests that financially supported the Schindler family's fight against Michael (which she misleadingly portrayed as "a grass-roots effort") and buried the fact that the Schindlers' spokesmen, Randall Terry and Gary McCullough, are anti-abortion extremists; McCullough served as a media consultant to Paul Hill, who was convicted and executed for the murder of a doctor who performed abortions (and is quoted as saying, "Paul Hill is my friend. No, I won't denounce his actions").
The bias never ends at WND -- even 10 years after the fact.
WND Ignores WND Reporter's Investigation of Cruz's Eligibility Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily's Aaron Klein tweeted out a preview of his March 29 radio show: "On my radio show TONIGHT 7-9 p.m: Is Sen. Ted Cruz “natural born” and Constitutionally eligible? I'll investigate."
You'd think WND would be quick to pounce on this investigation by one of its reporters by detailing that evidence. But, strangely, it hasn't. No mention of Klein's investigation of Cruz's eligibility ever made it to WND.
WND did, however, publish another article based on Klein's radio show, his interview with Frances Fox Piven, who right-wingers like Klein blame for "the infamous so-called Cloward-Piven Strategy."
Two days after Klein's radio show (which moved downmarket from WABC to a small-wattage station in New York) aired, WND still hasn't mentioned Klein's investigation. It did publish an article by Garth Kant fawning over how much Cruz's politics resembles that of Ronald Reagan.
Meanwhile, Klein himself apparently doesn't want his radio show that well listened to. The podcasts of his show are entombed behind a paywall, and one must pay $4.99 for the privilege of listening to him.
So unless you were actually listening to Klein on Sunday evening, the results of his Cruz investigation are going to be difficult to obtain. Which, given WND's wild enthusiasm for Cruz's presidential candidacy and double standard for eligibility concerns between Cruz and Obama, is presumably just the way WND wants it.
WND's Farah Tells Lies In Order to Claim Obama Is 'Anti-Semitic' Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily editor Joseph Farah is a liar; it's whathedoes. So it's no surprise that Farah's March 29 WND column attacking President Obama over his purported stance on Israel is yet another pack of lies.
The column begins with an ominous-sounding editor's note: "Joseph Farah wrote this column before the Obama administration betrayed Israel in the most shocking way by revealing classified information about its nuclear program." In fact, as Media Matters documents, the declassifed 1987 document in question was released only after the Department of Defense spent years fighting its release -- due to a Freedom of Information Act request, not from any demand from Obama -- and the Washington Examiner reports that the Pentagon asked Israel to review the document before releasing it.Media Matters also noted that the Bush administration released information about Israel's nuclear program, and we don't recall Farah getting bent out of shape over that.
In the column proper, Farah listed things he claimed prove Barack Obama's (remember, Farah doesn't consider Obama to be the president) "latent anti-Semitism," and he piles up more lies:
-- "Obama used taxpayer money, his own political operatives and a nonprofit front group to interfere in the recent Israeli election, specifically with the intent of toppling Benjamin Netanyahu as prime minister." As we've documented, none of the evidence WND's Aaron Klein compiled actually prove any of that happened as Farah describes, and Klein's focus on former Obama operatives working for the opposition ignores the fact that Republican operatives were working for Netanyahu's campaign.
-- "Obama’s anti-Israel bent has been palpable since his first full day in office – Jan. 21, 2009 – when he gathered his new national-security team in the Oval Office and laid out a tough new policy toward Israel. ... Obama’s White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel famously told Abe Foxman in a private meeting: 'This is Israel’s moment of truth. This president is determined to make peace between Israel and the Arabs.'" Funny, this sounds almost exactly -- like, almost to the word -- what noted Obama-hater and fabulist Ed Klein wrote in his book "The Amateur":
he Jewish problem with Obama can be traced back to his first full day on the job. On January 21, 2009, he summoned his national security team to the Oval Office and laid out a tough new policy toward Israel.
[...]
However, a clue to the president’s true intentions came in March 2009, when Abe Foxman, the national director of the Anti-Defamation League, met with the president’s then chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel.
“This is Israel’s moment of truth,” Emanuel told Foxman. “This President is determined to make peace between Israel and the Arabs.”
For this example, Farah is actually less of a liar and more of a plagiarist.
-- "Then came Obama’s even more famous call for a return to Israel’s pre-1967 borders – which more accurately should be termed 'Auschwitz borders.'" In fact, Obama said negotiations over a Palestinian state should start with the 1967 borders, not end there -- which has been the starting point for the past several presidents.
Farah harrumphed at the end of his column: "He looks like an anti-Semite. He walks like an anti-Semite. And he talks like an anti-Semite. I am forced to conclude there’s a malignant anti-Semite in the White House. It’s time for Jews who have been reflexively supporting him for too long to see if for themselves."
Meanwhile, we are forced to conclude that a malignant liar runs WND. No wonder nobody believes them.
WND's Cashill: George Zimmerman Is 'Mockingbird's' Tom Robinson Topic: WorldNetDaily
Leave it to George Zimmerman fanboy Jack Cashill to perpetuate Zimmerman's sense of victimhood.
In his March 25 WorldNetDaily column, Cashill praises the "unvarnished 13-minute interview with his attorney" Zimmerman released as a video (Cashill didn't note that the attorney who did the interview was his divorce attorney). Cashill didn't mention Zimmerman sort of likening himself to Anne Frank in that he claims to "still believe that people are truly good at heart" -- an odd thing to say for a man who's been arrested twice on domestic violence charges -- but that may be because Cashill thinks Zimmerman is really Tom Robinson, the black man falsely accused of raping a white girl in "To Kill A Mockingbird":
In their own minds, those on the left still see themselves as Atticus Finch standing outside the jailhouse, shotgun reluctantly in hand, protecting the “mockingbird” within.
Zimmerman knows better. He was that mockingbird. When he looked out and saw that mob calling for his head, he saw not the racists of old, but the liberals he used to think were his friends.
Of course, unlike Robinson, Zimmerman indisputably killed a person. But that's OK with Cashill because he likes it when people he doesn't like -- gays, blacks, abortion doctors -- are killed.
WND: 'Celebrate Bibi's Victory' ... With a Spot On WND's Israel Tour Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily is not ashamed to exploit current events to promote its annual tours to Israel -- last year, it touted how violent skirmishes betwen Israel and Hamas "spiked" interest in the trip.
WND's latest promotion for this year's Israel tour may be less crass but no less shameless. Its headline: "This year in Jerusalem ... celebrate BiBi's victory."
Apparently there's no better way to celebrate the election of a right-wing president in Israel than by giving WND money.
As the subhead suggests, the tour also includes musician-turned Christian Richie Furay, whom the article enthusiastically touts as "a pastor-worship leader who’s in the Rock ‘n’ Roll Hall of Fame."
It was total manipulation. Hillary was no longer a political shrew, a deviously cunning political operator. She was, instead, a doting grandma. There! Just look at the pictures for yourself.
I think we’re way overdue for an encore presentation.
It’s been 15 weeks since we’ve seen adorable pictures of Charlotte.
It’s been 15 weeks since we’ve seen Hillary cradling her granddaughter in her arms.
It’s been 15 weeks since Bill told the media that his granddaughter is “the best thing since sliced bread.”
Hillary has no answers for why she broke the law and jeopardized national security secrets with her reckless email policy. So she’s got to change the subject.
Watch for Charlotte to be strolled out any day now.
Last week, as I have for the last many years going back to the Clinton administration, referred to Bill and Hillary as the Bonnie and Clyde of American politics. Given the events of the last week, and watching Bonnie’s offensive and criminally motivated demeanor at her recent press conference at the United Nations Tuesday, where she spun a number of topics including her so-called missing emails, I feel compelled to coin a new and more apt name for her: “the Wicked Witch of the Left.”
I think you are a benevolent, insidious, sexualist, sexist racist. I mean that in the nicest of ways. In fact, based upon your own definitions, I think that might be a compliment to you. I am not even sure anymore because it all depends on what the definition of the word “is” is.
Why do the American people need access to all of Hillary Clinton’s emails as secretary of state?
Because there’s already ample evidence she used her office to rake in hundreds of millions of dollars for the Clinton Foundation, which pays most of her bills and allows her to live like the queen of England.
Now, let me nominate a woman who should go down as the very worst government employee in U.S. history. Her name is Hillary Clinton. Her claim to fame is that she married a charismatic politician and rode his coattails to the White House, to a seat in the U.S. Senate and to the job of secretary of state.
Hillary Clinton recently gave a speech and joked, in the context of the email scandal, that she needs a “new beginning” with the press. Right on, Ms. Hillary does need a new beginning: to be sent to prison.
It's Time For WND's Occasional Warning Of The 'Coming Financial Collapse' Topic: WorldNetDaily
Barrett Moore's March 20 WorldNetDaily column starts ominously:
Candidly, I don’t have the time right now to be writing an article that most in the West would ignore or repudiate. I wrote this piece, however, for the staff of WND with whom I have consulted over the years. WND is one of the few news organizations in America that is interested in truth, and unconcerned with the consequences of reporting it. I admire that, and so should you. Few news organizations remain that are not just inundating us with misinformation and propaganda. But I digress.
We are at the precipice of war, and this is a call to action. While it might not come tomorrow, the threat does grow by the day as conflict between the largest and most powerful nation states becomes inevitable, driven by the impending implosion of the empire of debt accumulated by Western democracies, and by the yearning of Russia and China (and their surrogates) to escape the constraints of almost 70 years of American hegemony.
I am not talking about another one-sided skirmish in the desert, but rather a real war, where satellites fall from the sky, ships sink, supply chains are disrupted and there is a loss of life not seen since the last century; a war of such a magnitude that few Westerners alive today can comprehend it. Such a war will alter the world as we know it. And, reading the tea leaves, it seems there is little we could do now to stop it. At this stage, all that is missing is the spark that ignites the inferno. It might come tomorrow, it might delay a while longer. We can prepare, but preparation takes years and years, and requires a threshold level of certainty that the threat exists, that it merits attention, that it demands action.
A lot of ranting about "the coming financial collapse" follows, peppered with things like, "If you question my advice, then tell me, why did Mr. Jamie Dimon buy an island? Or why does Hank Paulson actually live on one? Or what about James Cameron, who up and moved to New Zealand?" Barrett concludes: "You have been warned. Recalibrate your mindset. Now prepare."
Funny thing about that whole "rich people fleeing the country," though. Former WND financial columnist Porter Stansberry did pretty much the same "coming financial collapse" rant five years ago, complete with bragging about how he's prepared to flee the country at a moment's notice:
I'm built for pleasure, not for fighting. So I've simply designed an "escape pod." I have a nice boat on the dock right behind my house in Miami. I can safely leave the country -- at any time -- with most of my wealth, within 24 hours. I'm building a house on the water in a safe foreign country that doesn't have any ties to America (Nicaragua). I've moved a significant amount of my savings out of the country -- legally. I'm pursuing a diplomatic passport to ensure any attempt to restrict travel out of the country won't stop me.
Given that Stansberry is involved with dubious financial schemes that have netted him a $1.5 million sanction from the Securities and Exchange Commission, his desire for an "escape pod" is probably not driven by the state of the U.S. economy.
WND's Farah Perpetuates Lie That U.S. Removed Iran, Hezbollah From Terror List Topic: WorldNetDaily
Joseph Farah rants in his March 24 WorldNetDaily column:
When I first saw this report, I really thought it was an early April Fools’ Day joke.
The director of national intelligence, James Clapper, removed Iran and Hezbollah from the list of world terrorist threats.
The report has been sent to the U.S. Senate, where it should be renounced in the strongest terms possible and publicly rejected.
As we documented when NewsBusters' Tom Blumer, Clapper does not control the official list of what the U.S. considers terrorist threats -- the State Department does, and it still lists Iran and Hezbollah -- and any omissions to that effect in the DNI report means nothing in that regard.
But Farah is an inveterateliar, so nobody expects the truth from him anyway -- which would seem to be a strange position for someone who operates a "news" website to be in.
WND Straight-Up Lies About Margaret Sanger Topic: WorldNetDaily
It's a general accepted legal principle that the dead can't be libeled. WorldNetDaily takes full advantage of that in an unbylined March 24 article that simply makes up things about Margaret Sanger:
Barack Obama says a little girl wrote to him asking why there were no women’s faces on U.S. currency.
That started a movement by a group called Women on 20s, which is now conducting an Internet poll on which of 15 candidates should be the first to replace President Andrew Jackson, ironically the founder of Obama’s party.
But creating the biggest stir on the list of candidates is Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, a eugenicist who advocated aborting as many black babies as possible for the benefit of society.
In Sanger’s book, “Pivot of Civilization,” she characterized African-Americans and immigrants as “human weeds,” “reckless breeders” and “spawning … human beings who never should have been born.”
WND's claim that Sanger "advocated aborting as many black babies as possible for the benefit of society" is an out-and-out lie, since Sanger never advocated abortion for anyone -- she considered it a "horror."
While Sanger held eugenicist views that were unfortunately popular in her day, those views were not racially driven. Planned Parenthood notes that Sanger's advocacy of family planning ran against the views of some eugenicists who believed that healthy and "fit" women should have as many children as possible.
Further, WND is simply making up quotes from Sanger's "Pivot of Civilization." The terms "human weeds" and "reckless breeders" appear nowhere in the book, and their approximate substitutes are taken out of context.
A search of the text of "Pivot of Civilization" shows that three of the four references to "weed" refers to child laborers removing weeds in beet fields. The fourth is a quote of another researcher highlighting " the ruthless struggle for existence in China" because of its poverty and high birth rate, adding that" Nature's law will therefore continue to work out its own pitiless solution, weeding out every year millions of predestined weaklings."
The book does attack "reckless" breeding, but Sanger does not specifically single out "African-Americans and immigrants" as such -- indded, there are two mentions of the word "Negro" (the preferred term at the time for African-Americans) in the entire book. And the word "immigrant" appears only once in the book,
By contrast, Sanger spends much more time fretting over native white Americans -- "pure American stock," as she quotes another writer calling them -- who aspire to nothing more than having children and working in farm fields.
Sanger's statement about "children who never should have been born," therefore, has nothing to do with blacks or immigrants. And the closest the word "spawning" appears to that direct phrase in the book is in chapters 3; the "children who never should have been born" phrase appears in chapter 4.
WND has simply decided to make up stuff about Sanger. But we're sadly used to WND makingupstuff.
Fringe WND Doctor Likens Obama To Reichstag Fire Topic: WorldNetDaily
Lee Hieb -- the fringe AAPS-linked doctor and WorldNetDaily fave who's already on record spouting dubious medical claims and outright lying about statistics involving vaccines -- is back at it in a March 22 WND article by Paul Bremmer, in which she blames Obamacare for an allegedly increased rate in the closing of rural hospitals because Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements to doctors and hospitals have been cut under the Affordable Care Act. She doesn't hesitate to go Godwin:
“Up until now, hospitals have failed and succeeded, they’ve come and gone just like businesses,” Hieb said. “Some are better-run than others, but the economic deck was not totally stacked against them. Now, unfortunately, the economic deck is stacked against them in such a way that, universally, smaller hospitals are disenfranchised.”
Dr. Hieb went so far as to compare the shuttering of rural hospitals to the infamous Reichstag fire, which some believe was a false flag attack by Nazi Germany.
“This is going to be like the Reichstag fire,” Hieb proclaimed. “It’s going to be an excuse to say, ‘Look, the free market failed, and now we can go in and institute universal health care, because you see, these people in these rural areas need healthcare, and you’re not getting it to them.’
Yes, she really did liken Obamacare to the Reichstag fire.
But if one reads the Washington Post article that inspired Bremmer's item and Hieb's rant, the answer is much more complicated, and no single cause can be blamed. But one of the causes is the refusal of some states to to expand state Medicaid programs in the face of federal cutbacks:
Experts and practitioners cite declining federal reimbursements for hospitals under the Affordable Care Act as the principal reasons for the recent closures. Besides cutting back on Medicare, the law reduced payments to hospitals for the uninsured, a decision based on the assumption that states would expand their Medicaid programs. However, almost two dozen states have refused to do so. In addition, additional Medicare cuts caused by a budget disagreement in Congress have hurt hospitals’ bottom lines.
But rural hospitals also suffer from multiple endemic disadvantages that drive down profit margins and make it virtually impossible to achieve economies of scale.
These include declining populations; disproportionate numbers of elderly and uninsured patients; the frequent need to pay doctors better than top dollar to get them to work in the hinterlands; the cost of expensive equipment that is necessary but frequently underused; the inability to provide lucrative specialty services and treatments; and an emphasis on emergency and urgent care, chronic money-losers.
[...]
Rural hospitals took a second hit from the health law’s reductions in special Medicaid payments to hospitals with large numbers of indigent and uninsured patients. Federal officials made the cuts assuming that most states would embrace the Medicaid expansion envisioned in the law, thus sharply reducing their number of uninsured. But 23 states, including Texas, have declined to do so.
But, apparently, it's easier to play the ol' Nazi card than it is to do any actual research.
Whether it is another transpicuous display of Erebusic diversity (and it is), or another blatant attempt to transmogrify the Untied States into accepting the incursion of Islam as a valued tradition of America (and it is), all reasonable-minded Americans should be outraged.
Matthew Vadum has always been a 
Does homosexuality cause harm? As the author of Romans rightly points out, it does. It makes homosexuals ill. And then it kills them. Unpleasantly, permanently and irremediably.
WorldNetDaily is so averse to applying to Ted Cruz the same presidential "eligibility" standards it imposed on Barack Obama, even WND's chief birther won't touch the issue.
With the 10th anniversary of the death of Terri Schiavo, it was inevitable that WorldNetDaily -- which covered the heck out of the Schiavo case -- would mark it somehow. And it does so with a March 30 
WorldNetDaily editor Joseph Farah is a liar; it's 
Leave it to George Zimmerman fanboy 
It's a general accepted legal principle that the dead can't be libeled. WorldNetDaily takes full advantage of that in an unbylined March 24 
Lee Hieb -- the fringe 
