Dishonest WND Portrays Women Who Threatened To Blow Up Church As 'NBC Producer' Topic: WorldNetDaily
The article trying to blame a journalist's sexual orientation for his suicide is not the only recent example of WorldNetDaily misleading about people involved in journalism. An April 24 WND article by Joe Kovacs carries the headline "Mom who threatened to blow up church was NBC producer." But Kovacs walks back that headline over the first three paragraphs of his article:
A woman “claiming to be the Messiah” who threatened to blow up a California church on Easter Sunday while carrying her baby and a gun is a former digital producer for the NBC-TV affiliate in San Diego.
Anna Conkey, 31, was tackled by her fellow churchgoers during the April 21 incident at the Tsidkenu Church in the Clairemont area of San Diego.
NBC 7 says Conkey is also a former intern at the station, as well as a U.S. Navy veteran and graduate of San Diego State University.
So Conkey wasn't an "NBC producer" after all -- she was some undetermined point an intern working in digital production for the NBC affiliate station in San Diego.
Kovacs does make it clear further in the article that the woman was apparently having mental health issues -- which means her media work had nothing to do with the incident and that WND's hook of portraying her as a journalist who hated religion enough to threaten to blow up a church is doubly dishonest.
A white journalist, actor and director who drew a following on Twitter by attacking “whiteness” and President Trump killed himself Saturday evening.
Pieter Bosch Botha, 34, also known as Pieter Howes, died at the Sandton hotel in Johannesburg, South Africa, after a battle with depression, reported the South African TV industry website TeeVeeTee.
Never heard of him? Neither have we. WND's article is little more than a rewrite of a piece on the man published by something called Information Liberation, which has been described as an extreme-right operation known for publishing false and misleading information -- which tells you how decimated the news side of WND is these days in his current financial crisis. (WND calls Information Liberation an "independent news and commentary site.")
WND, though, weirdly focuses on Howes' sex life, calling him a "gay white journalist" in the headline and inexplicably making the article's lead image a tweet from Howes' wedding -- even though his sexuality is irrelvant to anything in the story.
WND seems to want you to think that Howes killed himself because he was gay -- and maybe that he deserved to die. There's really no other logical explanation we can think of that would cause WND to play up his sexual orientation.
Of course, WND hates journalists as much as it hates people who are gay, so it can be credibly argued that it's pleased by this development.
Do the national media and Democrats think President Trump won’t leave office if he loses a close election in 2020?
At least one voice at CNN is joining the chorus of concern stoked by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
The network’s Chris Cillizza, a former MSNBC and Washington Post contributor, fretted on Twitter that Pelosi has said the 2020 Democratic nominee must win the presidential race emphatically or else Trump might not “concede.”
Pelosi’s concern that Trump might refuse to leave office if he loses followed on Hillary Clinton’s newest complaint about having an election “stolen.”
Of course, one person on TV is not "the national media." And WND seems to have forgotten that it raised the very same question about President Obama.
In a March 2015 column, WND editor Joseph Farah ranted that Obama "respects neither the law nor the American tradition of peaceful changes of power" and, thus, might refuse to leave the White House when his term ends. Farah added: "Again, do I think Obama will leave office in January 2017? Yes I do. But, with a track record like this – and, actually much worse – should we simply take it for granted?"
In a follow-up column a few days later, Farah argued that the Obamas were "are living it up on your dime" through federally paid vacations --which ignores the fact that President Bush had taken three times as much vacation time as Obama did -- and that he would be loath to give that up:
No doubt Obama will be in a position to make lots of money after the presidency, whenever he decides to end it. But it’s hard to imagine him enjoying six all-expense-paid vacations every year at his venue of choice. Not too many people live that kind of life – even with the “endowments” recent past presidents often get from their oil baron friends in the Middle East.
Do you think Obama’s about to give that up and move out of the White House to make room for Hillary Clinton?
I don’t know. The more I think about it, the less convinced I am.
Meanwhile, a July 2015 article by Cheryl Chumley claimed that Obama's assertion that he could likely win a third term in office "tapped into previous pundit discussions and constituent fears he might not want to leave the White House when his time was up – and in that case, who would actually stop him from staying?" But Chumley also quoted Obama saying that he couldn't run again because "the law is the law, and no one person is above the law, not even the president."
Going even further back, a 2014 column by Kathy Shaidle highlighted how Rush Limbaugh "has expressed his fear that President Obama may not step down when his term ends in 2017" because of something related to Obamacare.
And in an August 2016 column, Farah speculated that Obama would not leave office if Donald Trump won the presidency because he had criticized Trump:
Given what Obama has said about Trump, would he not have an obligation to prevent Trump from assuming office? And what would that mean to the peaceful process America has enjoyed for more than two centuries of transitions of power?
These are questions Americans have never before been confronted with in American history.
Should he not be asked pointedly about the implications of his stunning statements?
Should he not express exactly what his intentions are beforehand rather than to leave any doubt in the minds of the people?
If no one else will ask the question, I will: “Mr. President, if Donald Trump wins the election to become the next president of the United States, will you willingly and peacefully leave office and cooperate fully with the transition of power the way all of your predecessors in the White House have done in the past?”
It’s a simple question that needs to be asked and answered – given Obama’s highly inflammatory rhetoric over the last week.
There should be no doubt in the minds of the American people. There should be no veiled threats hanging over the heads of the citizenry as we prepare for the next election. It’s time for Obama to lay his cards on the table.
Will America follow the rule of law and the will of the people after the November election no matter what Obama might think about his successor?
Somehow we doubt thagt WND will apply this very same test to Trump, who has criticized most of the Democratic presidential candidates and will certainly be much more hostile to the eventual nominee that Obama ever was to Trump.
WND Gives A Platform to Obama's Disgruntled Half-Brother Topic: WorldNetDaily
Malik Obama is a disgruntled man who's still trying to ride the coattails of his half-brother, Barack -- and supported Donald Trump for president in 2016 when the coattail-riding didn't work out for him. And because WorldNetDaily is even more disgruntled with Barack Obama that it looks for reasons to smear him even though he's been out of office for more than two years, it gave Malik Obama a platform. Behold, an anonymously written May 7 WND article:
Malik Obama, the older half-brother of Barack Obama, said in an interview that when he fell on hard times, he asked to stay with his brother and his family for a brief period, but Michelle Obama was against it.
Malik told “The Hidden Truth Show with Jim Breslo” the then-president turned his back on him again when two of Malik’s children died while waiting for approval to come to the United States from Kenya.
“I told him, brother, you’ve got to help me out,” Malik said.
He said that while illegal immigrants entered the U.S. claiming they had a right to be there, he was “struggling to follow the legal channel.”
The relationship went from being the best man at each other’s weddings to no longer being on speaking terms, Malik said, PJ Media reported.
Malik said the falling out centered on Malik starting the Barack H. Obama Foundation, named for Barack Obama Sr.
“He said if I don’t shut it down, he is going to cut me off,” Malik said. “This was an opportunity to do something. If he were to be a part of it, it would not be an issue. It is my father’s foundation.”
Malik said his brother “is a narcissist.”
“He feels like he is only one.”
WND has long portrayed Obama as a narcissist (while dismissing even the very thought that Donald Trump is an even greater one), so Malik is simply playing into an old trope that WND for some reason wants to relive.
WND also conveniently ignored Malik's credibility problems -- which it should know because it uncharacteristally busted him. In 2017, WND stated that a purported birth certificate Malik tweeted how showing that Barack Obama was born in Kenya "is not a valid document" (even though it spent two months claming otherwise wen it first surfaced in 2009).
It's rather sad that WND has to regress to dubious attacks on Obama -- and it doesn't exactly inspire confidence in any future WND might claim to have.
WND's Kupelian: Either You Love God, Or You're A Man-Hating Marxist Topic: WorldNetDaily
The theme of this month's edition of WorldNetDaily's sparsely read Whistleblower magazine is "HATING MEN," and David Kupelian has posted his lead essay. After cherry-picking a few examples of male-bashing feminists, he ponders: "Question: How can intelligent, educated adults in 2019 America, where women are freer and better off than in any country or at any time in history, possibly be consumed with such unbridled hatred for an entire group that comprises fully half of the population? Especially when that half of the population has fought all of our wars, cleared all of our wilderness, invented everything, constructed our civilization, and protected and sacrificed itself for women and children from day one."
Kupelian's answer: Hating men is the same thing as hating God, because if you're not of the proper Judeo-Christian mindset, you're a Marxist. No, really:
For Western nations rapidly transitioning into post-Christian societies, two opposite worldviews now openly war with each other. One is the traditional Judeo-Christian, biblical, patriarchal “prism” and the other is based on Marxist notions of radical equality.
The Bible – and the historical, cultural, moral and spiritual worldview it illuminates and champions – is utterly patriarchal. God is neither our Mother nor a genderless cosmic being, but our heavenly Father. God the Father created the first man, Adam; then out of Adam He created Eve. Almost all the Old Testament prophets were men. Jesus Christ was a man, as were all His disciples and apostles. Down through the centuries, the vast majority of Jewish and Christian religious leaders, from popes and priests to evangelists, rabbis and ministers, have been men. So, for that matter, have the vast majority of national political leaders.
Why? Is it, as alleged by those sworn to “tear down the patriarchy,” simply because men take advantage of their greater size, strength and aggressiveness to oppress women by bullying them into submission? Or is there a higher, indeed transcendent, principle – a divine order – evident in the overwhelmingly dominant leadership role men have exercised throughout human history?
In the Judeo-Christian worldview, just as God causes electrons to orbit around atomic nuclei and planets to orbit around suns so everything doesn’t crash into everything else and quickly descend into smoldering chaos, He also ordains a certain order to life on earth – to prevent much the same chaotic outcome.
Competing against this traditional worldview, which for centuries admirably served as the basis for a stable and prosperous America, is today’s essentially godless cult of radical equality. Seen through this prism, every race, religion, ideology, culture, ethical system and sexual/gender orientation, no matter how bizarre, immoral or insane, is as valid and worthwhile as every other (well, except for Christianity, conservatives, Republicans, men and white people in general). At the core of this worldview, there is no God, no divine moral law, no higher purpose of life binding us all together; there is only power and glory for the individual and tribe. And since there’s no ultimate meaning to anything, there can be no real differences between the sexes, other than those we ourselves decree.
Thus, everything Americans of previous generations thought was solid and real, even the most basic biology, is now considered merely the result of “social constructs” overseen by society’s oppressor class. So, for example, whether there are two genders as we once believed, or 24 or 48 (Facebook currently offers 71 gender choices, but a more recent online list includes 112), we are living in a time when every person is encouraged to pursue his, her or zir own “truth.”
But in reality, without the Living God overshadowing people in their relationships with one another, it doesn’t ultimately matter whether we have a patriarchal culture (Muslim culture is oppressively and abusively “patriarchal”), or a revolutionary matriarchy with a radical feminist queen at the top, or some dreamed-up totalitarian nightmare regime of enforced radical equality. The result will be the same: ever-evolving anxiety, conflict, loss of freedom, madness, violence and slavery. One of our founding fathers, William Penn, put it perfectly: “If man is not governed by God, he will be ruled by tyrants.”
Truth is, what we’re really beholding in today’s growing condemnation of men – not of the Harvey Weinsteins of the world, but disdain toward men in general – is primal rage and rebellion against God and the divine laws, order and values He so wisely has provided for our eternal benefit.
That framing is, of course, cartoonish. Kupelian must describe those he despises in the most radical, denigrating terms he can think of as part of a mysterious, monolithic "left" -- while depicting his own right-wing views as being the only possible correct viewpoint. It's that stark binary viewpoint that has doomed WND, and his insistence on sticking with it despite flailing to keep his job alive shows he has learned nothing from the past year and a half of trying to keep WND alive (or from his heart attack).
WND Repeats Bogus Attack on 'Anti-Trump' Textbook Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily's Art Moore repeats a bit of right-wing clickbait in an April 24 article:
A new high-school American history textbook depicts President Donald Trump as mentally ill and castigates both him and his supporters as racist.
Published by Pearson Education, “By the People: A History of the United States” will be used by many Advanced Placement students beginning in 2020, reports Todd Starnes.
In the final section, titled “The Angry Election of 2016,” the book states Trump’s “not very-hidden racism connected with a significant number of primary voters.”
“Most thought that Trump was too extreme a candidate to win the nomination, but his extremism, his anti-establishment rhetoric, and, some said, his not very hidden racism connected with a significant number of primary voters,” the book says.
Trump’s supporters, the author writes, are “mostly older, often rural or suburban, and overwhelmingly white.”
It says supporters of Democratic challenger Hillary Clinton “feared that the election had been determined by people who were afraid of a rapidly developing ethnic diversity of the country, discomfort with their candidate’s gender and nostalgia for an earlier time in the nation’s history.”
Clinton supporters “also worried about the mental stability of the president-elect and the anger that he and his supporters brought to the nation.”
But as the fact-checkers at Snopes detail, the textbook accurately attributes those views. The book doesn't "depict President Donald Trump as mentally ill" or "castigate both him and his supporters as racist"; it ascribes those views to Clinton supporters. Further, Starnes -- and, thus, Moore -- ignored that the textbook also stated that "Trump’s supporters saw the vote as a victory for the people who, like themselves, had been forgotten in a fast-changing America — a mostly older, often rural or suburban, and overwhelmingly white group" as well as the fact that there was also a negative depiction of Clinton from the point of view of Trump supporters, who "chanted 'lock her up' at political rallies, believing that Clinton’s use of her private e-mail account was not only a serious mistake — which many believed it was — but also a crime. Many within Trump’s base saw Clinton and the Democratic Party as elite snobs out of touch with many Americans’ economic pain or, perhaps even more, many Americans’ anger at being dismissed as not worthy of serious consideration."
Lazy stenography doesn't exactly instill trust in a media organization, even if lazy stenography is all you can afford to do.
WND's Double Standard On 'Naked Refusal' To Accept Election Results Topic: WorldNetDaily
An anonymously written May 5 WorldNetDaily article states:
The Democrats’ “naked refusal” to accept the 2016 election results triggered a recent Senate rule change on approving judicial nominees, according to a lawyer for a public-interest law firm.
“Something had to be done to restore the original constitutional vision. Adopting the two-hour standard was sadly necessary to put the brakes on persistent partisan obstruction on judicial nominees,” wrote Ken Klukowski of the First Liberty Institute wrote.
Here we have yet another example of WND complaining about something that happened under Trump that it championed under President Obama. As far as "naked refusal" to accept election results go, we need only to go back to a 2014 column by WND editor Joseph Farah in which he ranted: "Obama has never been my president. I have steadfastly refused to acknowledge him as such. He is undeserving of the honorific. To this day, I am unconvinced he is even eligible for office."
WND beat Democrats to the "not my president" mantra. If only it would honestly acknowledge its history on the subject.
WND's Dubious Doc Can't Stop Fearmongering About Vaccines Topic: WorldNetDaily
Jane Orient is a medical misinformer who leads the fringe-right Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, and her current crusade is ranting aghainst compulsory vaccination by peddling misleading fearmongering about their safety. WorldNetDaily has been giving Orient a platform for this -- particularly during the current measles outbreak -- and did so again n a May 2 column, in which she mocks the proven concept of herd immunity:
It’s about the need for herd immunity, they say. We need a 95 percent vaccination rate for herd immunity to measles. With only 91 percent or so, we are having outbreaks! If we could just vaccinate another 4 or 5 percent!
Mayor De Blasio has a point about vaccinating everyone. Adults are getting measles because their shots have worn off. It is likely that we have survived for decades with a large part of the adult population vaccinated – but not immune. So where do the mandates stop?
Outbreaks have occurred in populations with a near-100 percent vaccination rate. Was it vaccine failure? Or was the vaccine not refrigerated properly? Or was a claimed outbreak real? One in Ann Arbor, Michigan, was called off when a special test, a reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) showed a vaccine-strain measles virus rather than a wild-strain measles virus. Some 5 percent of vaccinees may get an illness that looks like measles, but it is just a “vaccine reaction.” Can they shed live virus? Yes. Should you keep your immuno-compromised child away from recently vaccinated people? Just asking.
Like all medical treatments, vaccines are neither 100 percent effective, nor 100 percent safe. Read the FDA-required, FDA-approved package inserts.
Does Orient really want to stop all vaccinations until they can be 100 percent effective with no side effects? That's irresponsible -- even as she admits that no medical treatment is totally safe. She can't even admit that vaccines help the vast majority of people.
Orient did attempt a conciliatory note at the end of her column:
The threat of infectious diseases is real and increasing. We need more robust public health measures, better vaccines, and improved public knowledge and awareness. Deploying vaccine police and shutting down debate will erode trust in health authorities and physicians, although more people may get their shots. But such heavy-handed measures will not defeat the enemy – measles and worse diseases.
But Orient is not interested in "debate" -- she just cares about irresponsible fearmongering that is solely designed to convince people to act against their best health interests.
WND Still Pushing Conspiracy on Notre Dame Fire Topic: WorldNetDaily
Being the irresponsible conspiracy-mongers they are, WorldNetDaily has enthusiastically pushed the idea that the fire at Notre Dame Cathedral was intentionally set, probably by Muslims. So committed is WND to this conspiracy theory that it's doing something that's become increasingly rare given its current dire financial state: original reporting.
WND's Art Moore made a phone call to France and he told us all about it in an April 28 article:
When the Fox News Channel’s Shepard Smith hung up on French politician and media analyst Philippe Karsenty during live coverage of the Notre Dame Cathedral blaze, authorities already were speculating the catastrophe that gripped the world was caused by an accident.
Although speculation is the coin of the cable-news realm, an indignant Smith wanted nothing to do with Karsenty providing context to the April 15 fire – nearly 2,000 attacks on French churches in two years – that would suggest an alternative cause should be considered.
And, in fact, as Karsenty pointed out in a phone interview from France with WND, a former chief architect of the Notre Dame – whose analysis has been virtually ignored – believes the accident theory makes no sense.
Karsenty told WND he was “shocked” when Smith abruptly ended the interview.
“I just wanted to put it in context,” he said, referring to the surge of attacks on churches. “And then I said, nevertheless, the media are lecturing us an hour after it started, saying it can only be unintentional.
“I didn’t say it was a terrorist attack. I didn’t say it was criminal,” Karsenty recalled to WND.
Karsenty observed a pattern in such incidents – particularly if it might have something to do with Islam – of authorities, without having investigated, immediately telling the public it was an accident.
“If you come out and say, ‘Wait a minute, there may be another explanation,’ it’s not [allowed],” he said.
“You don’t have the right to think freely.”
Moore also complained that Fox's Smith has a "reputation as a left-leaning counter to the network’s conservative commentators and hosts.
WND being WND, of course, Moore allowed no countervailing view -- can't interfere with the conspiracy theory, y'know.
More White Nationalism Links At WND Topic: WorldNetDaily
We documented the other day how a BuzzFeed News profile on apparent former alt-right white nationalist Katie McHugh exposed that the Media Research Center hired an activist with the racist, misogynist Youth for Western Civilization, Tim Dionisopoulos, to run its social media accounts for four years. It turns out there's a link here to WorldNetDaily as well.
The article states that McHugh -- while still an alt-right white nationalist -- worked for WND for a few months in late 2017 but, according to her WND supervisor, "let go for performance issues." This, by the way, was a few months after she was fired from Breitbart for a string of racially charged tweets culminating in one stating, "There would be no deadly terror attacks in the U.K. if Muslims didn't live there." Clearly, the Muslim-haters at WND had no problem with that tweet.
But there's another WND-white nationalist link here as well. McHugh's boyfriend for a few years in the mid-2010s was Kevin DeAnna, founder of Youth for Western Civilization. In February 2012, DeAnna became the "marketing coordinator" for WND.
WND was actually proud of this connection for a while. A May 2012 article touted how DeAnna, along with three other WND writers, were placed on a Southern Poverty Law Center list of "the 30 most dangerous activists in the country." The article noted DeAnna was founder of YWC but did not describe the nature of the organization. DeAnna also wrote several articles for WND before his apparent departure in October 2012; we noted at the time that DeAnna defended Russian leader Vladimir Putin's persecution of the punk band Pussy Riot.
DeAnna also wrote an article promoting Bilderberg conspiracy theories; as it so happens, Dionisopoulos also wrote an article for WND around the same time featuring "citizen journalists" protesting outside of a Bilderberg Group gathering in Virginia (which we also noted at the time).
This is far from the first time WND has been caught dallying with white nationalism and barely disguised racism -- from Colin Flaherty to Paul Nehlen to Scott Greer, that thread has been running through WND for years.
WND's Brown In Denial About Hating Buttigieg Because He's Gay Topic: WorldNetDaily
Michael Brown began his April 17 column by taking a shot at Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg:
Go ahead. Ban be. Block me. Get out your nasty dictionary and vilify me. Call me obsessed. Hateful. Bigoted. Have at it.
The fact is, there are a million things I’d rather write about, but the state of the world leaves me no choice. To be silent is to give tacit approval. To be silent is to accept. To be silent is to capitulate. And that’s not going to happen.
A Democratic leader announces his presidential candidacy and then turns to kiss his same-sex partner. And the crowd celebrates.
Sorry, but I’m not celebrating.
After more ranting about transgenders, Brown added:
It is love that motivates me and moves me. Love for God. Love for America. Love for the coming generations. Love for what is best.
You can call it hate. You can brand me a Nazi. That will only encourage me to speak up all the more clearly.
We'll call it hate, since we're not seeing any love in Brown's motivation. After all, he spent his May 3 column explaining how we must hate Buttigieg because he's a gay Christian:
How then has he surged up in the polls? Why has he become the darling of the left?
It’s because he is gay. And he is “married” to his partner. And he is a professing Christian. And he is challenging sacred biblical and church traditions. What more could the left ask for?
But there’s a nuance to this we cannot miss.
Mayor Pete and his partner are the perfect poster boys for the gay agenda, a culmination of years of messaging and marketing.
They seem like really nice guys (and might well be).
They seem wholesome.
They are churchgoing.
They care about the poor.
To the best of our knowledge, they are not frequenting gay bars looking for anonymous sex encounters.
They are like your ideal neighbors, just a little different.
Brown complained about that purported "gay agenda" of homosexuality being "just another thing," asserting that this meant that he couldn't then demonize them as filthy sluts -- or, as he put it, "As for negative aspects of homosexuality (such as higher rates of promiscuity and STDs or “open” marriages), those should be hidden from the public eye."
Brown then demonstrated more a nimosity toward Buttigieg and his husband -- again while denying he is doing any such thing:
It could well be that Pete and Chasten are really nice guys. That they’re really committed to each other. That they would be very nice neighbors.
But two men (or two women) “marrying” will never equal a man and woman marrying. Two dads or two moms will never equal a mom and a dad (nor will they ever be able to reproduce themselves physically in their offspring). Sex distinctions, established by God at creation for the good of the human race, still matter.
Consequently, while I do not have the slightest animosity towards Mayor Pete (or Chasten), what I will celebrate is the miracle of a man and a woman coming together as one. A couple joined in romantic and sexual union, reproducing the unique byproduct of their emotional and spiritual and physical lives – a literal, new creation.
That’s the real first family, and it represents the fullest expression of God’s heart.
Gay families will take these words as hate-filled and denigrating, for which I’m truly sorry. I’m simply saying that God’s ways are truly best.
Pro tip for Brown: If you are devoting an entire column to defending the idea that Buttigieg and his husband must not be taken seriously -- and, indeed, be rejected as aberrant freaks -- because they are gay, you are denigrating them with a large degree of animosity.
WND's Tomczak Fawns Over Trump Again Topic: WorldNetDaily
As befits a writer who once described "your 10 Christimas gifts from President Trump," WorldNetDaily columnist Larry Tomczak is back for some more gushing in his April 22 column over Trump and glossing over his amoral behavior because he delivers the right-wing goods, not to mention that he was divinely appointed by God:
I am of the conviction that Donald Trump was God’s provision for our nation at a time when we needed an outsider, not a man pleaser. He is blunt, a businessman and certainly has lots of baggage!
When President Trump says and does things contrary to God’s Word, I don’t self-righteously criticize him and write him off but intentionally pray for him and cite what he’s doing contrary to Scripture. I distinguish between his policies and his personal misdeeds. He reminds me of Winston Churchill quoted in Andrew Roberts’s excellent biography, “I may not be the best practitioner of the Church but I am its best protector.”
I was in a leaders’ gathering in New York prior to Trump’s election where he spoke of a sense of destiny to restore America’s greatness as one nation under God. He spoke of the Bible his mom gave him, his Presbyterian roots, the priority of family and his abstinence from all cigarettes and intoxicants. He passionately stated the necessity of jettisoning the Johnson Amendment intimidating pastors from speaking on critical moral issues in our day.
A man of his word
While in office Donald Trump has kept his word to honor conservative values. He’s been strongly pro-life and pro-Israel; put committed Christians in his Cabinet and constitutionalists on courts throughout America; spoken out against socialism and apocalyptic global warning theories; started rebuilding our military and restoring respect for our veterans; brought about prison reforms; stood strong on legal immigration and national security; plus, initiated tax cuts and economic policies enabling millions of Americans to prosper, especially blacks and Hispanics. Our economy is at the most robust place in decades!
All the while he has been under the most vicious, hateful, unrelenting attacks of any person alive. Since the moment of his election, spiritual powers and principalities have operated through the media and personalities in an attempt to discredit him and perpetuate a false narrative that the election was illegitimate and must be overturned.
The entire Mueller report we endured for two years cost $30-$35 million of our tax money and was not a needed “investigation.” It was in reality a bogus scheme corrupt from the very beginning (multitudes hope this will now be uncovered). There isn’t and there simply never was any Russia-Trump collusion to interfere in the election, obstruction or the slightest bit of evidence found!
Actually, there are examples of obstruction detailed in the Mueller report, and there were enough documented examples of Trump campaign contacts with Russian operatives to warrant an investigation. But nobody's ever accused Tomczak of sticking to the facts.
WND Rewrites Year-Old Story To Smear Clintons Again Topic: WorldNetDaily
In March 2018, WorldNetDaily published an anonymously written article with the lurid headline "Bill, Hillary Clinton tied to sex-slaves 'cult" --but that link was tenuous at best and had absolutely nothing to do with sex. The group, known as NXIVM, had bundled donations to Hillary Clinton's 2008 presidential campaign, years before anyone ever suspected any problems with the group, and officials under Bill Clinton, while Arkansas governor, had charged NXIVM leader Keith Raniere with running a pyramid scheme in a previous operation. But that was enough for WND to smear the Clintons yet again.
Fast forward to April 21, more than a year later -- and WND has basically published the same story with a slightly different news hook of one of the group's members, actress Alison Mack, pleading guilty to a charge in the case.
"Sex-cult case snares Hillary Clinton campaign," blared the anonymously written article's headline, with the lead paragraph asserting, "The stunning allegations of sexual abuse and human trafficking inside the NXIVM cult now has snared the Hillary Clinton campaign." A few paragraphs later, WND tried the hard sell:
At the suggestion of a political operative, who has since pleaded guilty to an unrelated New York state bribery charge also involving campaign contributions, the contributions were ‘bundled’ and presented to the candidate at a fundraising event attended by conspirators.”
Tyler Durden reported at Zerohedge: “And whose ‘presidential primary campaign’ did the group allegedly attempt to buy influence with?
“None other than Hillary Rodham Clinton, according to former NXIVM publicist-turned-whistleblower Frank Parlato, who told Big League Politics, ‘I was there, and I knew that the contributions were made by more than a dozen NXIVM members of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.”
What followed was a rehashing of the 2007 donation bundling and the 1992 Arkansas charges against Raniere -- in other words, nothing new, just the same old tenuous connection designed to smear the Clintons, and bogus news at that.
If trying to put old, bogus news in new bottles is all that WND can do these days, maybe it doesn't deserve to live.
Farah's Wife Picks Up The WND Fundraising Baton Topic: WorldNetDaily
We haven't heard much from WorldNetDaily on the existential-issues front -- and almost nothing beyond rote pleas for money since editor Joseph Farah became incapacitated by a stroke. But on April 24, Farah's wife, Elizabeth -- who is also the WND's chief operating officer -- sent out an email that added a few details about Farah's stroke on top of the usual fundraising plea:
This is Elizabeth Farah, Joseph's wife.
You don't hear from me much as Joseph traditionally speaks for the two of us . . . but today he cannot.
Several weeks ago, Joseph suffered a serious stroke. He was out for his morning walk with our dog, Cooper, and it struck.
Joseph being the strong man that he is, didn't want to tell me at first. I know he was scared, but he didn't want to see that fear in the eyes of his wife.
Once I realized that something was wrong, I rushed him to the hospital and doctors confirmed that Joseph had been hit by a significant stroke that impairs his thoughts.
I thank God that it is treatable and we're in the process of learning and deciding at this point.
But along with my duties as Joseph's wife, I have a duty to our combined passion, and that's WorldNetDaily.
Elizabeth Farah then attached an email message she said her husband had been working on. It's a variation on his usual themes about the "cartel" of Facebook and Google purportedly running WND out of business (and not, you know, WND's long history of fake news and conspiracy theories). At one point he writes that Generation Z readers "could scroll all day and NEVER come across a single article that notes the accomplishments of the Trump Administration and they certainly would not see this string of letters . . . J E S U S," adding that "Facebook and Twitter users are shielded from anything that doesn't fit a liberal narrative, while honest publications that serve truly independent news, are elbowed out of the room."
Perhaps those Generation Z readers should ask Clark Jones or Seth Rich's parents about how "honest" WND is.
Farah then touted the newly created WND News Center, which is "now responsible for the fiercely independent articles that we publish each day." As we've previously noted, WND is following the Daily Caller model of outsourcing labor-intensive reporting to a nonprofit organization that would then give the work to WND for free (which technically offering it to others on the same terms). However, we've seen no evidence that the WND News Center is up and running; as has been the case since jettisoning its reporting staff, most original articles are still unbylined rewrites of news that originally appeared elsewhere.
Elizabeth Farah signed off by begging for money and writing that "I'll do my best to keep you up to date on the operations of the WND News Center" -- never mind that transparency about its operations has never been anything WND has cared about in the past. There still hasn't been a public accounting of the money Joseph Farah raised over the past year or so from readers or where it all went. (The WND News Center is a 501(c)3 nonprofit, so it has to make its donors public.)
She added, sounding a lot like her husband:
Now that you've read Joseph's email, you can only imagine the stress this had placed on him.
But to make matters worse, following his stroke, one of the members of what Joseph refers to as the "Tower of Babel" (Google, Amazon, Facebook and Twitter), went on the attack and, through the Washington Post, published a hit piece on WND that they thought would put us down for the count.
With your help, it won't.
In fact, WND has not refuted any claim in the devastating Post piece, which made it clear that years of financial mismanagement that -- along with all the fake news and conspiracy theories -- are a lot more responsible for WND's current state of affairs than anything Google and Facebook may have done (and that Farah's stroke wasn't publicly disclosed until after the Post contacted WND for comment on the article's allegations).
In other words, things are still pretty shaky on the WND front.
WND's Latest Argument For Conversion Therapy: It's A Free Speech Issue! Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily has tried various tactics to downplay anti-gay conversion therapy -- uncritically repeating claims from right-wing anti-gay activist groups -- at one point trying to rebrand it as "gender-confusion counseling."
The latest attempt is an Aptil 14 article that parrots right-wing legal group Liberty Counsel's efforts to overturn a ban on conversion therapy for minors in Boca Raton, Fla., by framing it as "a significant free-speech case in which liberal activists are pressing states to censor viewpoints with which they disagree." How? Liberty Counsel is representing conversion therapists who use talk therapy.
The only note of opposition noted by WND is a distorted claim that "Critics claim it’s injurious to children to hear that they can address same-sex attractions that could be the result of abuse or dysphoria." WND cited no named source making that specific claim. WND also cited another anti-gay group as asserting that a “campaign of outrageous lies sand misinformation” is behind the anti-conversion therapy effort -- and again, no evidence is provided. By contrast, an actual news outlet reporting on the story noted that a study found that "LGBTQ individuals whose parents had sent them for the counseling as teenagers had a high rate of attempting suicide."