WND's Farah Continues to Pretend He Cares About Miriam Carey Topic: WorldNetDaily
Joseph Farah concern-trolls in his April 17 WorldNetDaily column:
With all the outrage about the shooting death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, and the protests over the shooting death of Walter Scott while he was fleeing from a police officer in South Carolina and the “hands up, don’t shoot” sloganeering, one name is seldom uttered – Miriam Carey.
I don’t understand it.
If there was ever a more egregious, unrighteous, unjustifiable police shooting death, I’d like to hear about it.
Personally, I couldn’t care less what skin color Miriam Carey had. I would be equally upset and committed to seeking justice and truth in this case if she had been white or Hispanic or Asian or a typical American mix like me. But why isn’t the Miriam Carey scandal on the lips of every one of those who proclaim “black lives matter”? Do they mean “some black lives matter”? I don’t recognize or comprehend the standard they are applying to truth and justice.
Why is the outrage so selective?
Where are the protests of Miriam Carey’s death?
I want to participate in those protests. Instead, I find myself leading the protest.
Her totally unnecessary death at the hands of police makes me so outraged, I would be at the front lines of such a demonstration. Instead, there are no demonstrations. Her life is forgotten. Her execution-style death is forgotten.
It doesn’t make any sense.
Is it ignorance?
Is it willful blindness?
Why the selective outrage?
Is it the lack of any moral standards?
Or is it all of the above?
Don't be fooled: Farah does not care about Miriam Carey. Her death is important to him only as a tool to further his right-wing, anti-Obama agenda. As we've noted before, if the occupant of the White House was, say, a white Republican instead of a black Democrat, Farah would be passing this story on to Colin Flaherty, who would portray it as yet another example of purported "black mob violence" in America.
In filing a lawsuit (with the right-wing Judicial Watch, which must chagrin WND buddy and now-departed JW founder Larry Klayman) seeking to force the government to release information about Carey's death, Farah is not seeking justice -- he's seeking to score political points against President Obama. It's a stab at relevance and credibility given the utter failure of WND's increasingly desperate attempts to personally destroy Obama.
Carey's family and legal team seems to appreciate WND's support, but they shouldn't believe for a second Farah and WND have their best interests in mind. To Farah, Carey is a cudgel to attack Obama and nothing more, and nothing he says about his interest in "truth and justice" should be taken at face value.
In an April 17 NewsBusters post, Mark Finkelstein grouses that "volatile former Vermont governor" Howard Dean questioned the accuracy of a Hillary clinton story on the website of the Daily Mail, countering that "if the story were inaccurate, don't you think Hillary's minions would be screaming bloody murder and trotting the attendees to refute the claims? Crickets, anyone?"
Fibnkelstein doesn't mention the fact that the Daily Mail has a lengthy track record of publishing false and inaccurate stories. One writer notes that in its home country of Britain, the Daily Mail has seen 687 complaints filed against it to the country's Press Complaints Commission -- far more than any other British newspaper -- that led either to a PCC adjudication or to a negotiated resolution. The writer adds: "The paper gets away with publishing libels and falsehoods and with invasions of privacy because the penalties are insignificant."
Additionally, a former writer has discussed the Mail's shoddy journalistic standards, explaining how "the Mail's editorial model depends on little more than dishonesty, theft of copyrighted material, and sensationalism so absurd that it crosses into fabrication."
Finkelstein also fails to mention that the Daily Mail's U.S. political editor is David Martosko, the former editor of the conservative Daily Caller who's best known for standing by a false claim about Sen. Robert Menendez and prostitutes.
Making up stuff is clearly within the realm of the Daily Mail, and there is good reason not to trust what appears there. Instead of telling his readers that, however, he huffs, "If attacking the media messenger is the best the Hillary camp can do, it is in serious trouble." But isn't attacking the messenger the entire reason NewsBusters and its parent, the Media Research Center, exist?
Matt Barber rants in his April 17 WorldNetDaily column:
The very notion of “gay marriage” is an artificial construct. It’s the aberrant byproduct of the sexual revolution, which, itself, was largely instigated by bug doctor turned “sexologist,” Alfred Kinsey.
Though married to a woman who took part in his many filmed “scientific” orgies, Kinsey was a promiscuous homosexual and sadomasochist. He managed to completely upend and twist the world’s perception of human sexuality in the 1950s and ’60s with his world famous “Kinsey Reports.”
While his “research” has been universally discredited and exposed as fraudulent, ideologically motivated and even criminal, it remains, nonetheless, the primary source behind today’s “sexual orientation science.”
For this reason, and many others, the novel notion of “gay marriage” sits atop a house of cards.
On April 28, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on whether to attempt, once and for all, the deconstruction and redefinition of the institution of marriage. The court will then hand down a decision by the end of June. In anticipation of this landmark case, civil rights law firm Liberty Counsel has submitted to the Supreme Court a friend of the court brief that reveals the criminally fraudulent foundation upon which the “marriage equality” Tower of Babel has been raised.
Among other things, the brief features the findings of Dr. Judith Reisman, the foremost expert on Kinsey’s pseudo-scientific cultural activism. Reisman has served as scientific consultant to four U.S. Department of Justice administrations, the U.S. Department of Education and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). She is a visiting professor of law at Liberty University School of Law and works hand-in-hand with Liberty Counsel.
See all of Dr. Reisman’s books on sexual fraud at the WND Superstore.
As the brief reveals, most people are completely unaware that during his tenure at Indiana University, Kinsey facilitated, with stopwatches and ledgers, the systematic sexual abuse of hundreds, if not thousands, of children and infants – all in the name of science.
Kinsey asserted that children are “sexual from birth.” He further concluded, based upon experiments he directed and documented in his infamous Table 34, that adult-child sex is harmless, even beneficial, and described child “orgasm” as “culminating in extreme trembling, collapse, loss of color, and sometimes fainting. …” Many children suffered “excruciating pain,” he observed, “and [would] scream if movement [was] continued.” Some “[would] fight away from the [adult] partner and may make violent attempts to avoid climax, although they derive[d] definite pleasure from the situation.”
It’s little wonder that Dr. Reisman identifies Kinsey as a “sexual psychopath.”
Actually, it's Reisman who's the fraudulent researcher, and her obsession with Kinsey could certainly be described as approaching the psychopathic.
As we documented back in 2006, Reisman's doctorate is in communications, not in any scientific discipline. Her anti-Kinsey screeds are filled with "innuendo, distortion, and selective representation of decontextualized 'facts,'" according to one scholarly reviewer of her work.
Contrary to Reisman's and Barber's assertions, Kinsey never performed sexual experiments on children or infants. As the Kinsey Institute points out, the "Table 34" to which they refer is based largely on adult recollections and parents observing their children; it also includes data from a small number of adult men who had engaged in sexual contacts with children.
Reisman is an ideologically driven fraud to counts on right-wing press to further her anti-Kinsey obsession. She gets away with it because the dead can't be libeled and because of complicit right-wing outlets like WND who refuse to fact-check her.
The fact that Liberty Counsel based an amicus brief on Reisman's highly questionable, if not fraudulent, so-called research tells us -- and has brought on Reisman as a a visiting professor of law at Liberty University despite her not having anything resembling a law degree -- that Liberty Counsel doesn't care much for truth if it contradicts its right-wing agenda.
MRC Does Damage Control For Anti-Net Neutrality Group Topic: Media Research Center
A right-wing activist group got caught doing something it shouldn't have, and it has fallen on the Media Research Center to do damage control.
Politico reported that "A number of messages to lawmakers purporting to be from average constituents who oppose the Obama administration’s net neutrality rules don’t appear to have come from people within their districts, according to the company that manages the technology for some House members." That group is American Commitment, led by Phil Kerpen, a former top aide at the Koch brothers-backed Americans for Prosperity. American Commitment boasted that it helped direct more than 1.6 million messages to members of Congress opposing net neutrality, but the company that manages the technology behind some lawmakers "contact me" pages it had “some concerns regarding the messages,” including the fact that “a vast majority of the emails do not appear to have a valid in-district address.”
Politico quoted Kerpen saying that that American Commitment hadn’t impersonated members’ constituents, but that other groups had borrowed the pre-written text available on his website. But that wasn't good enough for the MRC's Joseph Rossell, who claimed that Politico "smear[ed]" American Commitment because "it failed to point the finger anywhere else." And Rossell is ON IT:
Additional inquiry could have established that American Commitment was not responsible. In a letter obtained by MRC Business, a vendor retained by American Commitment admitted that it (the vendor) was responsible for the erroneous messages in question.
The letter to American Commitment read in part, “Regrettably, without your knowledge or consent, the language from your letters was incorrectly associated” with a separate campaign for a different, though unspecified, organization’s letters about the same issue. The vendor had verified the data used for American Commitment’s campaign, but technical errors connected incorrect information with constituents in the second campaign.
The vendor made it clear the mistakes were not intentional. The messages that the second campaign submitted “incorrectly or with incorrect or incomplete data was by no means intended to mislead any office or any person.” The vendor also said “the mistakes were technical in nature” and that they had “taken steps to prevent future errors in submission.”
Kerpen told MRC Business that he explained this to Politico after its article was published. He also told them that the messages could not have been from his group simply based on their delivery dates. He said Lockheed Martin’s analysis confirmed that members of Congress received the erroneous messages after the American Commitment campaign was over.
If the vendor is at fault, why won't Kerpen or Rossell name it? Did Rossell ask Kerpen if that mystery vendor will be punished somehow?
One gets the feeling Rossell would not be as concerned about the purported "smearing" of American Commitment by Politico if it supported net neutrality.
Bottom line: The long arm of the law is finally closing in on the Clintons! Forget Gowdy and Congress! Forget the mainstream media reporting the whole truth! We the People are taking matters into our own legal hands! It’s past time that Hillary, the “Wicked Witch of the Left,” be put behind bars, where she can do no further harm to our nation.
Yes, indeed, Hillary has always given lip service to the idea of “fighting for women,” but that’s only in the generic, class-warfare rhetorical sense of the phrase. When it comes to concern for individual women and their victimization, she’s a monster, a predator, a serial victimizer herself.
Hillary Clinton has announced that she is running for president of the United States. What her likely nomination says about the Democratic Party and tens of millions of Americans is depressing.
Other than Barack Obama – whose resume consisted of being a charismatic black – it is hard to come up with a less accomplished individual who has run for president in our lifetime. And, unfortunately, that is saying something. Moreover, at least Barack Obama had the excuse of having been in public life for only a few years, as a state senator and then a two-year U.S. senator. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, has been in public life most of her adult years, as a very politically active first lady, a U.S. senator and secretary of state.
Yet she has accomplished nothing.
Here is a trick question to pose to her supporters: What she has accomplished?
There is no doubt that the die-hard lovers of Hillary will stand by her and apologize for her. They will try to convince Democratic and Independent voters that her time has come and she deserves this. After all, look what she has done for the American people and for her country. Blah, blah, blah. If anyone had the guts, they would ask, “Oh really? And just what has she done? Name one achievement she has accomplished as senator or secretary of state.” Not something she has done to further her political agenda, but something that made this country or the world a significantly better place. Gotcha.
Royal watching is a kind of endless soap opera on steroids. So it is with the Clintons. There seems to be a fascination with this family like no other. Therefore, I propose that we just crown Hillary queen and be done with it. Though she has held many titles, her record of accomplishment is virtually nil, with the exception of successfully skirting the law and handling the many family scandals.
According to a Politico analysis of budget documents, by Election Day 2016, taxpayers will have shelled out $16 million for the care and feeding of the Clintons, more than for any other former president.
So let’s just grant Hillary another $20 to $30 million a year to be queen. Set her up in a palace and charge admission to tour it. Put her image on coffee mugs and baby rattles.
That will spare her the need to solicit donations from foreign governments and will spare us additional congressional investigations. She will officially be above the law. Then we can elect someone with the ability to run the government like a business and let her revel in the pomp and circumstance.
We have a former first lady and former secretary of state who has just declared her intention to run for the Democratic nomination for president in 2016. The idea of Hillary Rodham Clinton even considering a run for president given her unparalleled treachery, hypocrisy and self-serving deceit is almost too obscene to consider. Yet, consider it we must, since it is indeed a reality.
By her action and inaction, Clinton may as well have taken out a contract on the people we lost in Benghazi, Libya, on Sept. 11, 2012 – and that is only the worst in her decades-long history of treasonous dealings. It may surprise some to hear, but I believe she may be far more evil an individual than Obama.
The leading Roman Catholic exorcist is calling out the Islamic State, naming it as Satan manifested on Earth.
Father Gabriele Amorth, 90, founder of the International Association of Exorcists, has taken to Facebook to confront the Muslim group terrorizing Syria and Iraq and rapidly spreading its influence throughout the Muslim world, reported the Catholic News Agency.
“ISIS is Satan,” the priest posted on the social-media site.
“Things first happen in the spiritual realms, then they are made concrete on this Earth.
The shocking truth about ISIS – Eye-opening new e-book on maniacal ‘Islamic State’ FREE to WND readers!
“There are only two spiritual realms: The Holy Spirit and the demonic spirit,” Father Amorth said, adding the demonic enters in “because evil is disguised in various ways: political, religious, cultural, and it has one source of inspiration: the devil.
“As a Christian I fight the beast spiritually,” he said.
CNS' Lauretta Brown apparently saw that story and decided to do her own version the next day:
Father Gabriele Amorth, a high-profile exorcist for the diocese of Rome, Italy, said in a Facebook post last week that the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) “is Satan.” He also lamented the West’s lack of response to the threat of ISIS.
"ISIS is Satan. Things first happen in the spiritual realms, then they are made concrete on this earth,” Amorth wrote on April 8, according to a translation provided by Catholic News Agency (CNA).
“There are only two spiritual realms: The Holy Spirit and the demonic spirit,” he continued.
Amorth said the demonic spirit enters “because evil is disguised in various ways: political, religious, cultural, and it has one source of inspiration: the devil. As a Christian I fight the beast spiritually.”
Of Larry Klayman And 'Demeaning' Remarks Topic: Newsmax
Poor Larry Klayman's feelings have been hurt. From an April 15 Newsmax article:
Mika Brzezinski's remark that Marco Rubio is a "little boy" next to Hillary Clinton in a presidential matchup is "outrageous" and "inappropriate," says Larry Klayman, founder of the government watchdog Freedom Watch.
"It's very demeaning, obviously," Klayman said Wednesday on "The Steve Malzberg Show" on Newsmax TV.
"Everything's turned upside down in our political world these days. You can't speak out for fear of being called a racist or a sexist, but when the left does it it's acceptable …"
Klayman sure has a strange idea of what is "demeaning" and "inappropriate." After all, this is a guy who asserted (in a court filing, no less) that a judge who ruled during a divorce hearing that Klayman engaged in "grossly inappropriate" behavior with his children issued that ruling because she was Jewish and "resented" that Klayman "believes in Jesus Christ and considers himself a Jewish Christian." Klayman also claimed that another judge who ruled against him was "a woman scorned."
Needless to say, Malzberg was silent about Klayman's own history of demeaning remarks. If Klayman is the limit of the caliber of the guest Newsmax TV is able to attract, it has a long climb to be considered a legitimate "news" outlet.
MRC Promotes Misleading Claim About Redskins Name Topic: Media Research Center
Last November, the Media Research Center's Dan Joseph interviewed M. Andre Billeaudeaux, author of a children's book purporting to explain how the Washington Redskins got their name. Billeaudeaux explained that the name was picked in 1933 (at the time, the team was located in Boston and called the Braves) in part to honor "Lone Star" Dietz, the Redskins coach at the time, and other Native Americans who played for the team. On April 8, Joseph posted an interview Billeaudeaux with the right-wing network One America News.
Just one problem: That's not quite true.
As the Washington Post detailed, team owner George Preston Marshall admitted another reason for changing the name. A 1933 Associated Press article quoted Marshall saying the motivation was not to honor Dietz but to differentiate itself from a baseball team also known as the Boston Braves.
In his interview, Joseph and Billeaudeaux gloss over the racism of Marshall -- under him, the Redskins were the last NFL team to integrate, and a foundation was created after his death thatincluded the provisio that no money should go toward “any purpose which supports or employs the principle of racial integration in any form.”
In neither interview is it mention that Billeaudeaux's book has been promoted at RedskinsFacts.com, a website operated by the Redskins in support of the team's name.
In both interviews, the unsubstantiated point is brought up that people who are complaining about the Redskins name being racist were not complaining about Andrew Jackson -- who famously persecuted Native Americans during his presidency -- being on the $20 bill. But a campaign begun earlier this year to replace Jackson with a woman drew howls of protest from the MRCwhen one of the proposed candidates was Margaret Sanger. NewsBusters blogger P.J. Gladnick whined that the campaign is being "headed by a former Hillary Clinton political operative."
So it appears the MRC is not eager to get rid of Jackson on the $20 bill either. But then, the MRC is fully on board in support of the Redskins name too.
WND's Farah: Ethics, Schmetics, We Have Ben Carson As 'Exclusive' Columnist! Topic: WorldNetDaily
It's almost cute to watch WorldNetDaily editor Joseph Farah pretend he's a fair and responsible journalist.
Here is Farah in an April 14 WND article about snagging Ben Carson as an "exclusive" columnist:
When Dr. Ben Carson’s weekly column was dropped by his syndicate last month because of his possible candidacy for the presidency in 2016, WND’s Joseph Farah scratched his head in bewilderment.
“Why should the American people be denied the opportunity to hear from Dr. Carson in his own unadulterated words every week at the very moment they are expected to evaluate their options for new leadership?” he wondered.
There’s no legal reason, said Farah. There’s no ethical reason, he suggested.
“There’s no hideous ‘Fairness Doctrine’ affecting print media on the Internet – not yet, at least,” said Farah. “Why should pure political speech, protected by the First Amendment so the people can be informed, be buried at the very time it is most important? Why should candidates be forced to buy snippets of time to get their views before the public?”
So Farah contacted Dr. Carson and offered him an exclusive forum for his views in WND every week. He gratefully accepted the opportunity, and his new weekly column begins today and will be published each Wednesday.
Of course, there is an ethical reason why a news outlet should not give an active candidate a forum in the form of an "unadulterated" weekly column: it demonstrates lack of objectivity and shows bias.
Given that Farah has never been troubled by such ethical concerns, it's no surprise that he would do such a thing -- and, by extension, taint Carson with an "exclusive" association to a "news" organization known for its lies and hate.
Farah tries to play off his bias later in the article:
Will some accuse Dr. Carson of getting a free ride for his views at WND at the expense of other presidential candidates – Republicans and Democrats? Farah has an answer to such a charge.
“I invite every serious, bona fide presidential candidate – Democrat and Republican, Libertarian and others associated with smaller parties – the same opportunity,” said Farah. “Our commitment to Dr. Carson does not imply an endorsement of his candidacy. It’s a commitment by WND to create a wide-ranging forum for the views of all serious presidential candidates – the more the merrier. Let a thousand flowers bloom.”
Presidential candidate interested in taking advantage of this unique opportunity to reach millions of voters with their ideas, views and values are encouraged to contact firstname.lastname@example.org for more information about submitting both regular columns or occasional special commentaries.
Does Farah really think Hillary Clinton, the only declared candidate so far -- whom Farah has smeared as "a shrew, a harpy, a battle-ax" and earlier this week called "a monster, a predator, a serial victimizer" -- believes WND will give her the same "unadulterated" treatment Carson will get? How about Republican Marco Rubio, who WND accused of not being eligible to run for president while glossing over similar concerns regarding a candidate Farah loooooves, Ted Cruz?
Farah is making such an offer because he knows nobody except conservative Republicans and right-wing fringe candidates will take him up on it -- after all, they can count on WND treating them with kid gloves editorially and not neutralize that "unadulterated" message.
Farah simply has no interest in fair and ethical journalism. There's no reason for presidential candidates who don't hold the same right-wing views as Carson and Cruz to believe WND will actually give them the same "unadulterated" forum he has promised to Carson.
WND is damaged goods, but Farah and Carson don't seem to be aware of that fact.
MRC Unhappy With Attacks on GOP Presidential Candidate (Unless The MRC Makes Them) Topic: Media Research Center
As you'd expect, the Media Research Center really doesn't like how Rand Paul has been treated in the media. An April 7 post by Geoffrey Dickens detailed "The Media’s Worst Attacks on the Kentucky Senator," and the next day Jeffrey Meyer complained that the media wouldn't label Paul a conservative despitte his high marks from the American Conservative Union.
But if the MRC itself bashes Paul or ignores his alleged conservative credentials, that's a different matter.
Indeed, the same day Dickens posted the "worst" attacks on Paul, the MRC-run CNSNews.com published its own attack on Paul:
One day before Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) formally announced his intention to run for president in 2016, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) criticized him for being "to the left of Barack Obama" on foreign policy.
"As to Rand Paul, I like Rand a lot," Sen. Graham told Fox News's Greta Van Susteren on Monday. "But at the end of the day, his foreign policy is to the left of Barack Obama."
Graham noted that Rand Paul was the only senator in September 2012 to vote against Graham's resolution saying that containment would not be the policy of the United States -- that the U.S. would not allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon. The resolution passed 90-1, with Paul providing the only no vote.
Oddly, the MRC did the same thing regarding Marco Rubio. Two days after Dickens compiled the "worst" attacks on Rubio, a CNS article by Susan Jones issued her own attack under the headline "Rubio Doesn't Rule Out Amnesty, Gay Marriage, or Military Action in Iran." Jones made sure readers knew that Rubio avdocates immigration reform -- the "amnesty" to which the headline misleadingly refers -- and thinks "it should be up to the states, not the federal government or the courts, to define marriage as they see fit."
Apparently, if Republican candidates are to be criticized, only the MRC is allowed to do it.
NEW ARTICLE: The Two Sides of Phil Elmore Topic: WorldNetDaily
The WorldNetDaily columnist will debunk some of WND's most cherished conspiracy theories, but he'll also write screeds attacking liberals, feminists and (of course) President Obama. Read more >>
MRC's Bozell Doesn't Want Any Gay Content on TV Topic: Media Research Center
For the past few weeks, the Media Research Center has been leading a campaign to get ABC to strangle before it happens -- to abort, if you will -- a planned show based on the early life of activist and sex advice columnist Dan Savage.
The MRC has misled in its campaign, claiming that ABC "plans to air" the Savage based show when it has only ordered a pilot episode and has not green-lighted the series. While the MRC claims it's only concerned about Savage's "unspeakably vile statements" -- which, by the way, have nothing to do with the content of the proposed ABC show, which is about a teenage boy coming out as gay -- its hidden agenda runs much deeper.
MRC chief Brent Bozell inadvertently revealed the engame in an April 9 Associated Press article:
Even without Savage's involvement, Bozell said his group would probably oppose the show.
"Would a show like this bother me?" he said. "Sure. It makes a political statement. Where is the market demand for this? You might even resign yourself that this is the way that it is, but when I heard it was Savage, I gasped in disbelief."
In other words, Bozell is opposed to the fact that gays would be depicted on TV -- that is, if they aren't being denigrated. Apparenlty, any gay person on TV is a "political statement," despite the fact that Bozell can't identify any actual politics in a sitcom pilot.
Bozell has had a lot of anti-gay freakouts over the years. For example, his reaction to CNN's Anderson Cooper coming out as gay was to sneer that Cooper can "give us his expert opinion on teabagging now," and he declared that gay characters on TV mean "indoctrination" of viewers and that the characters "never face any real opposition to the gay agenda."
Bozell should stop pretending his crusade isn't only about Savage.
WND Questions Rubio's Eligibility -- But Not Cruz's Topic: WorldNetDaily
Remember a few weeks back, when WorldNetDaily's Cheryl Chumley finally got around to addressing Ted Cruz's eligibility issues (only after Donald Trump brought it up first)? She didn't reference any of WND's past work on eligibility -- even though by the strict definition of "natural born citizen" it has pushed over the years, Cruz does not qualify as one -- and portrayed Cruz as eligible.
A different Republican announcing his presidential bid, however, got a much different treatment.
Chumley's April 13 article on Marco Rubio's presidential bid made a point of noting that "Tea-party types from his home state say they’ve moved beyond the Rubio wagon" and that "Rubio’s not popular with hard-core immigration activists, either."
Then Chumley played the eligibility card:
Meanwhile, others contend Rubio’s not even a natural-born citizen and therefore, ineligible to seek the presidency. Rubio’s parents, as WND previously reported on at least two occasions, were not U.S. citizens at the time of his birth.
Rubio was born in Miami, Florida, on May 28, 1971, to Mario and Oriales Rubio, who were born in Cuba, though the senator has not released his birth certificate for the world to scrutinize.
As WND reported in 2011, Rubio press secretary Alex Burgos said the senator’s parents “were permanent legal residents of the U.S.” at the time Marco was born in 1971.
Then four years after Marco was born, “Mario and Oriales Rubio became naturalized U.S. citizens on Nov. 5, 1975,” Burgos told WND.
When asked specifically if Rubio considered himself to be a natural-born citizen, Burgos responded, “Yes.”
This time, Chumley linked back to a 2012 WND article featuring how "Larry Klayman argued today before Florida Circuit Court Judge Terry Lewis in the presidential eligibility case brought by Democrat voter Michael Voeltz that Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution requires a person eligible to be president to be born to parents who are each U.S. citizens at the time of the birth. That definition of natural-born citizen would clearly disqualify Rubio from running either for president or vice president."
Chumley doesn't mention that this definition also excludes Cruz. In fact, Chumley mentions Cruz only once in her Rubio article but only as a member of the "crowded" field of candidates Rubio would be joining.
So, yeah, it seems WND is actively censoring any discussion of Cruz's eligibility -- presumably because it knows he doesn't qualify under its own definition.
Chapman is silent about the elder Cruz's history of saying incendiary and hateful things. Instead, Chapman touts how Cruz "fought against the Communists in Cuba, was arrested there and tortured," as if that was an excuse.
As with Graham's utterings, how any of this qualifies as "news" in Chapman's eyes is anyone's guess. Plus, note that both of these Cruz posts appeared after his son announced his presidential bid; it could be argued that Chapman is engaging in a little bit of unethical electioneering for Ted Cruz by promoting his father.
Not only is what Chapman doing unethical in a journalistic context, it may also be illegal, given the nonprofit status of CNS' parent, the Media Research Center, and the restriction on political activities that status confers. The "brink of destruction" post can be read as an implicit endorsement of Ted Cruz's campaign, given how Chapman dutifully quotes how the elder Cruz complains that "We have the most lawless administration we have ever had, where the rule of law, the Constitution is trampled every day."
CNS, it seems, is merely an arm of the MRC's political operation and not any sort of independent "news" organization, and Chapman appears determined to keep it that way.
More Irony: Another WND Columnist Laments Dishonesty In Media Topic: WorldNetDaily
Laura Hollis laments in her April 9 WorldNetDaily column:
There seems to be a collective shrug of helpless resignation when politicians or policymakers lie. But we should be appalled when journalists facilitate those lies (or create their own) because they share the liars’ social objectives.
When politicians can lie with impunity and “journalists” are more enamored with a “narrative” than with facts, we are in grave peril, indeed. It is hard to know which is more damaging: believing the lies we are being told or sinking into a state of cynical resignation, assuming that no one tells the truth anymore. Either result rewards the liars and corrodes the culture.
We deserve better. But we will not get it unless we demand it. From deceitful politicians, we can withhold our vote. From deceitful media, we can withhold our money. Those are – apparently – the primary currencies they understand.
Like fellow WND columnist Michael Brown a week before, she overlooks the inconvenient fact that her laments about honesty in media appear on the website of perhaps the most dishonest "news" organization operating today.
We offer the same recommendation to Hollis that we offered to Brown: Hold the organization that publishes you responsible for its lies and misinformation before complaining about others.