WND's Evidence for 'No-Go Zones' Cites Repudiated Evidence Topic: WorldNetDaily
As Jerome Corsi has demonstrated, WorldNetDaily has been rather desperate to promote the idea that there really are "no-go zones" in Europe where non-Muslims are prohibited from entering, no matter how shaky. But other WND writers have botched the story even worse than Corsi (shocking, we know).
Art Moore tried to bolster the "no-go zones" claim -- infamously promoted by self-proclaimed Middle East expert Steven Emerson in a Fox News appearance for which Fox later issued an abject apology -- in a Jan. 20 WND article:
The French government lists on its website 751 Zones Urbaines Sensibles, or Sensitive Urban Zones, that the state does not fully control, notes Middle East foreign policy expert Daniel Pipes, director of the Middle East Forum.
The French zones, which have specific street demarcations, were first identified by the government in 1996. An estimate that is now 10 years old found 5 million people living in the zones, Pipes noted.
Pipes, who was one of the first to use the term “no-go zone” in reference to Muslims in Europe, noted in 2006 that France’s Sensitive Urban Zones ranged from two zones in the medieval town of Carcassonne to 12 in the heavily Muslim city of Marseilles, with hardly a town in the country lacking one.
Pipes has continuously updated his original 2006 post, citing references by politicians, civil leaders and journalists to “no-go zones” in Britain, Germany and Sweden, as well as France.
Since 2007, Pipes has visited largely Muslim areas of Paris, Copenhagen, Malmö, Stockholm, Berlin and Athens to find out for himself what is happening. He explained that for “a visiting American, these areas are very mild, even dull.”
“We who know the Bronx and Detroit expect urban hell in Europe too, but there things look fine. The immigrant areas are hardly beautiful, but buildings are intact, greenery abounds, and order prevails,” Pipes said.
“These are not full-fledged no-go zones,” he explained, “but, as the French nomenclature accurately indicates, ‘sensitive urban zones.’ In normal times, they are unthreatening, routine places. But they do unpredictably erupt, with car burnings, attacks on representatives of the state (including police), and riots.”
But Moore omits one key observation Pipes made: that the "sensitive urban zones," or ZUS, aren't no-go zones, even though he stated it in that "continuously updated" post Moore cites. Pipes wrote:
Before my travels, I expected these areas to be similar to the worst areas of the United States, such as the Bronx or Detroit, where buildings are decrepit, streets menacing, and outsiders feel distinctly unwelcome.
My experiences starting in 2007 belied this expectation. All the immigrant areas turned out to be well maintained, with safe streets, and no sense of intimidation. I walked around, usually with camera in hand, and felt at ease. I encountered no difficulties at all.
That said, there is a reason why the French government calls these regions sensibles (sensitive, delicate). They contain many social pathologies (unemployment, drugs, political extremism), they seethe with antagonism toward the majority society, and are prone to outbreaks of violence.
So, from an American point of view, these areas are a bit confusing: potentially dangerous, yes, but in normal times very ordinary looking and with no sense of foreboding. Thus, the term no-go zone does not accurately reflect the situation.
A Jan. 22 WND article by Bob Unruh apparently cribbed from Moore's article in suggesting that Pipes has called the ZUS areas "no-go zones" when he has repudiated the claim.
Unruh simply stole from Moore's article because he's just that lazy of a reporter, but what's Moore's excuse? There's no way he couldn't have read it, so we can probably assume his selective editing of Pipes was deliberate.
Don't expect a Fox News-like apology from WND -- it really doesn't do such things unless it's too painfully false to ignore (like it did in 2012 when it falsely claimed that Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly believed the Bible prohibited interracial marriage).
NEW ARTICLE: The Super PAC That Didn't Do Anything Topic: WorldNetDaily
A super PAC endorsed by WorldNetDaily's Joseph Farah and Jerome Corsi did not donate to candidates, got the bulk of its money from WND, and spent it all on administrative expenses and fundraising. Read more >>
Vicious Hypocrite At WND Complains About 'Vicious Hypocrisy' In Media Topic: WorldNetDaily
A Jan. 25 WorldNetDaily article by Jerome Corsi originally carried the headline "News media caught in vicious hypocrisy."
Think about that. Corsi is well known for his viciousness in peddlinglies and unverified sleaze to advance his right-wing agenda --not to mention his complete refusal to retract all his reporting promoting birther conspiracies that has proven utterly wrong -- and he's attacking the media for "vicious hypocrisy"? That's rich.
Anyway, the gist of Corsi's article is trying to rehab the reputation of right-wing anti-Muslim activist Steven Emerson after having to apologize for falsely fearmongering about the alleged existence of "no-go zones" in Britain and Europe:
While longtime counter-terrorism expert Steven Emerson was strongly criticized by establishment media for his remarks in a Fox News interview about Muslim “no-go” zones in Europe where police have lost control, many of the same news outlets have repeatedly used the term for at least a decade.
“The political left in the mainstream media has decided to demonize me,” Emerson said in a WND interview. “It’s outrageous for media outlets to apologize, saying ‘no-go zones’ don’t exist in Europe, when even the New York Times for years has published articles documenting Muslim ‘no-go zones’ do exist in European countries like France.”
Since this is Corsi, he's being unsurprisingly dishonest. His very first example to support his claim is an article referencing unrest caused by "gangs hoping to turn their neighborhoods into no-go zones for police so drug trafficking and racketeering can thrive." Not that no-go zones actually exist -- but that perpetrators hope they will. And the article in question did not single out Muslims as being the driving force behind this drive.
Corsi then went on to suggest that all of the hundreds, or thousands, of areas in France designed as "sensitive urban areas" (or ZUS) were no-go zones. But as Snopes points out, ZUS areas are not exempted from policing or French law, something that even fellow anti-Mulsim activist Daniel Pipes has backtracked on.
WND Plugs Profitable Anti-Boehner Campaign In Middle Of Boehner Highlighing Anti-Boehner Profiteers Topic: WorldNetDaily
In another entry from the "you can't make this stuff up" department, here's a Jan. 24 WorldNetDaily article:
Why is House Speaker John Boehner the target of so much criticism from conservatives?
He’ll tell the nation on “60 Minutes” Sunday his critics on the right are turning him into a “human piñata” so they can profit off their attacks.
“The issue with the tea party isn’t one of strategy,” he says. “It’s not one of different vision. It’s a disagreement over tactics, from time to time. Frankly, a lot is being driven by national groups here in Washington who have raised money and just beating the dickens out of me. It works. They raise money, put it in their pocket and pay themselves big salaries.”
And then, there's the very next paragraph, in bold italic type:
Agree with Boehner? Then don’t support “Dump Boehner Now” campaign. It allows you to reach every single Republican House member with hard copy letters with FedEx delivery guaranteed. So far, 575,000 have been delivered in two months.
That's right -- WND is promoting its anti-Boehner campaign, which generates a tidy profit for WND, in the middle of an article about Boehner complaining about political operatives profiting on anti-Boehner sentiment.
That's either monumental self-unawareness or monumental chutzpah. We're not sure which.
WND's Unruh Tries To Keep The Birther Flame Alive Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily's Bob Unruh is a dishonest reporter, so it should be no surprise that he's a birther as well.
Unruh pours on the birther prose in a Jan. 24 WND article:
Barack Obama has been focusing more and more, including in his 2015 State of the Union Tuesday, on what pundits describe as legacy issues.
He may envision a legacy 20 or 30 years after his White House tenure of a Web-oriented, Washington-centric health care system that efficiently dispatches what system managers believe people need for health care – a quick abortion, dietary rules or a painkiller for a terminal disease.
In that future, he may hope, as a result of his executive amnesty, for a new Hispanic majority that routinely gives the Democratic Party power as the GOP fades into oblivion.
He may even visualize little plaques on community college campuses across the 50 states noting that Americans are attending for free in exchange for mandatory public service, because of the work of President Barack Obama.
But it’s doubtful he’s rejoicing in the fact that it was his presidency that raised the issue of constitutional eligibility to headlines, courts and congressional debate, and possibly even a ruling from the Supreme Court.
The issue arose even as he ran for president the first time. It surged on his election, was on fire after his inauguration and has been in the courts ever since.
Of course, the only reason the question of Obama's "eligibility" has been repeatedly in the courts is because birthers -- and their enablers at WND -- refuse to acknowledge the existence of evidence that discredits them.
Unruh's article is in the service of promoting the latest birther lawsuit; this one seeks to impose a duty upon the state of California to verify the eligibility of presidential candidates despite the fact neither state nor federal law mandates such a duty.
Unruh notes that one of the plaintiffs, John Dummett, "was a write-in candidate for president of the United States on the California election ballot," but doesn't explain how a write-in candidate can have standing to sue over a ballot issue, especially one who apparently did no campaigning for his so-called presidential run in 2012 if his Facebook page is any indication. Indeed, it seems Dummett is only claiming to be a presidential candidate for the sole purpose of trying to establish standing to sue over Obama's "eligibility."
The lawsuit -- which in this case is actually an appeal seeking to overturn a lower court's dismissal of the lawsuit -- makes this laughably false statement:
However, this Petition does not ask this Court to determine the eligibility of any particular individual to serve as President of the United States. Neither does it ask this Court to define the phrase “natural born citizen.” Article VI of the U.S. Constitution already requires that both “the Members of the several State Legislatures,” and “all executive ... Officers [of the] several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution.” All this Petition asks this Court to do is to ensure that, in fulfilling that oath by exercising their constitutional duty to determine the matter of selection of electors, these state legislators and state officers give meaning to the eligibility requirements for the office of President.
Of course, the entire goal of lawsuits like this is to specifically target Obama. Given that the lawyers in this case are noted birthers like William Olson and Herb Titus, it's even more laughable.
Speaking of laughable, here's how unruh summarized the California court's dismissal of the Dummett lawsuit: "But the California judges shrugged, more or less said 'So what?' and dismissed the case." At no point does Unruh quote what the court actually said, apparently decided what the court "more or less said" is accurate enough for WND.
Even though its birther obession ruined what little journalistic credibility WND had, it apparently is unable to stop pursuing it.
No first lady in history has behaved as this one has – and it is a certainty that no other first lady would have even entertained the idea of behaving in the uncouth ways she has.
The late Jackie Kennedy, Rosalind Carter, or Laura Bush would never have been caught rolling around on the floor of a late-night television stage. They are justifiably held to a higher standard than that, but the Obama woman is expected to behave commonly and discourteously. She is expected to be angry and contumacious because, after all, she is a descendant of slaves. She has been mistreated by evil whites her entire life – at least, that is, if we are to believe her narrative.
It is the same with Obama. He has been soundly criticized at every turn and justifiably so. George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter were viciously criticized for their policies. But is there anyone who would argue that they would have been permitted to finish their terms if they had been involved in an illegal gun-running operation that led to the murders of innocent Americans and hundreds of innocent Mexicans? Would any American president before Obama have been permitted to knowingly and openly lie about his abominable health-care bill with impunity?
Simply put, Obama was not about to pass up the NFL’s most watchable weekend – all four of my teams won, by the way – to march for a cause he does not believe in.
From his emergence on the national scene in 2004, Obama has been all about suppressing speech. As the titular head of the various progressive sub-cults – black, Hispanic, environmental, feminist, socialist, gay, and (bizarrely) Muslim – he has either endorsed or ignored any number of assaults on speech by his subalterns.
Historically, Obama’s progressive shock troops have contented themselves with hectoring and humiliating those who say something askance.
I have previously addressed in this space the fact that while it is being done rather quietly, Obama has been furiously importing Muslims into the U.S. – no doubt in order to reach that elusive percentage point of no return I mentioned earlier, whereupon ongoing Muslim-fomented civil unrest becomes inevitable.
The proof of Obama’s dedication to Islamist ascendency – some of which has been criminal in nature – is overwhelming, yet it is being widely denied and conveniently avoided, like the fundamental threat of Islam itself. The press ignores it, Congress is far too corrupt to address it, and in the meantime, we are treated to such classics as Senate Intelligence Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein stating that there are Islamist terror cells inside the United States, but there’s “no credible defined threat” to America.
America knows Barack Hussein Obama (Barry Soetoro) and Nancy Pelosi are wicked and corrupt. They are without a doubt constitutionally ignorant and blind to America’s enemies, because they are America’s enemies.
America knows the bad, but does she know the good, the bad and the righteous?
“We may have different takes on the events of Ferguson and New York,” said Barack Obama in his absurdly disingenuous State of the Union speech Tuesday night.
What Obama did not say is why we have “different takes” on Ferguson, namely because he and his allies in the media have done everything in their power to sell black America a false narrative of gratuitous victimization.
How many times is it worth reiterating that the president of the United States – an individual who attained that office by criminal artifice and systematic deception, by the way – has committed serial treason and is being shielded from the consequences of his actions by corrupt and compromised elected officials? There is a major push on worldwide toward advancing the designs of militant Muslims, minimizing the danger they represent and demonizing all who attempt to realistically frame the argument – and it has all been catalyzed by the individual in the White House. The wholesale failure of Obama’s supposed political opponents to publicly call him out on his crimes is as much of a crime as his own.
The foregoing considered, I trust I will be forgiven for not getting too wrapped up in the tone and content of this week’s State of the Union address.
President Obama delivered his sixth State of the Union message to a Congress that is now completely controlled by Republicans. In case you missed it, here is a brief synopsis:
“I fixed the economy (wages are stagnant and the work participation rate is a paltry 62.8 percent, the lowest since 1978), so it’s time to let the good times roll. I’m giving away free ice cream, and we’ll make the rich pay for it. Now, who wants free ice cream?”
Before you grab your dish and line up for a scoop, let me warn you. You may not get the flavor you want or need, and in the end, it will cost you more than you ever thought you would pay.
After all is said and done, my words at the World War II Memorial that rainy and cold day in October 2013, now ring truer than ever. And, those MSNBC commentators who tried to use these words to take down the tea party and our allies, now should eat crow. But they won’t, since these leftist pro-Muslim media allies of Obama share his vision for our nation – one that is socialist, anti-Judeo-Christian and which in one manner shape or form advances their so-called progressive revolution.
And our culture is surely rotten to the core when the president of the United States can openly defy the Constitution and make laws by administrative edict the same way barbarian societies have done for thousands of years – all to the applause of our media and educational elites.
WND Still Hiding Anti-Abortion Activist's Violent Past Topic: WorldNetDaily
We've highlighted how WorldNetDaily has hidden the fact that Cheryl Sullenger, the Operation Rescue official who co-wrote the WND-published book "Abortion Free," served a prison sentence in the 1980s for plotting to bomb an abortion clinic. WND is continuing to hide this fact, even as it invokes Sullenger to promote her failure of a book.
An unbylined Jan. 19 WND article tries to play up the idea that abortion clinics are inherently unsafe:
Lakisha Wilson traveled to the Preterm Abortion Clinic in Cleveland on March 21, 2014, to end her unborn child’s life.
But she ended up losing far more than her unwanted baby.
Wilson’s abortion provider did not properly monitor the 22-year-old after the procedure, and Wilson eventually stopped breathing. She was rushed to a nearby hospital, where she was put on life support and pronounced dead seven days later.
Wilson was just one of many African-American women who have been victimized by abortions that went horribly wrong. African-Americans may comprise only 13.2 percent of the total U.S. population, but black women receive 29.7 percent of all abortions in the country.
“When abortions go wrong, it is more likely that women of color are the ones who end up on slabs in the morgue,” wrote Cheryl Sullenger, a senior policy analyst for Operation Rescue. “In the past five years, four out of five abortion-related maternal deaths documented by Operation Rescue have involved Black or Hispanic women.”
Of course, Sullenger wasn't too concerned with human life when she was plotting to blow up an abortion clinic. (She now claims regret for her role in the bombing plot.) And neither she nor WND mention that the mortality rate of childbirth is much higher than it is for abortion.
WND also uncritically repeats Sullenger's factually challenged assertion that "79 percent of all Planned Parenthood abortion clinics are located within walking distance of black or Hispanic neighborhoods." In fact, according to FactCheck.org, only 9 percent of abortion clinics in the U.S. are in neighborhoods in which 50 percent or more of the residents are black.
But facts don't matter when there's a right-wing agenda to promote. Right, Cheryl Sullenger and WND?
WND's Unruh Hides Klayman's Latest Fit of Incompetent Lawyering Topic: WorldNetDaily
It takes a special kind of journalistic hack to bury or completely censor a central fact in order to promote the latest cause of two of WorldNetDaily's favorite right-wingers. Fortunately for Joe Arpaio and Larry Klayman, WND reporter bob Unruh is that special kind of journalistic hack.
In a Jan. 14 article, Unruh finds big news in a tiny procedural ruling:
A federal appeals court has ordered an expedited schedule for a case brought by Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio against President Obama over his amnesty program that is being implemented even as the case progresses.
The order released Wednesday by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said the brief for the appellants is due Jan. 29, and the government’s brief in defense of amnesty will be due March 2.
“Due to the expedited nature of this case, the court will not entertain dispositive motions. The parties should therefore address in their briefs any arguments otherwise properly raised in such motions,” said the order.
Now, the fact that this Klayman-filed case is in an appeals court means that there was a ruling on the case in another court sometime earlier. But curiously, the only reference to that earlier court's ruling is Unruh noting in passing in the 10th paragraph of his article that "Klayman said the request to accelerate the case was submitted because the lower court made a mistake in dismissing it."
That's right -- a federal district court threw out Klayman and Arpaio's lawsuit just a day after Klayman made his arguments. During his arguments, Klayman demonstrated more of the incompetent and grandstanding lawyering he's well known for, according to Politico:
Judge Beryl Howell allowed conservative legal activist Larry Klayman to present more than an hour’s worth of arguments against the effort at a hearing in Washington on Monday, but her quizzical looks and pointed retorts left little doubt that the legal gadfly’s effort will come up short, at least in her courtroom.
At one point, Howell even dismissed Klayman’s arguments as suffering from a “logical fallacy,” since the key immigration policy changes Obama announced last month haven’t kicked in yet
At one point, Klayman’s comments earned a rebuke from the judge. “Let’s not play to the gallery, here,” she warned.
The conservative gadfly predicted the case would be heading to the Supreme Court, which he said could make Howell famous.
“In this room, I think you are the most famous person, Mr. Klayman,” the judge replied.
Unruh took his know-nothing attitude toward the adverse federal court ruling in a Jan. 20 article promoting how Arpaio and Klayman "recently submitted comments to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas in Brownsville asking to be allowed to file a friend-of-the-court brief in a case brought by dozens of states against Obama over the same issue," adding that "Arpaio alleges he suffers direct economic harm from the defendants’ executive action amnesty for citizens belonging to a foreign country."
This time, Unruh made no mention whatsoever that Arpaio and Klayman's federal lawsuit was dismissed, or that the judge's skepticism of their claim that Arpaio has been directely harmed is one reason why. As Howell stated her ruling throwing out the lawsuit:
The plaintiff attempts to rely upon the doctrine of competitor standing to avoid the strict limitations imposed on cases where the source of the plaintiff’s harm is the independent actions of third parties. Yet, the cases on which the plaintiff relies ... do not support the plaintiff’s standing argument in this case.
Second, and relatedly, the programs challenged by the plaintiff do not regulate the plaintiff directly; rather, they regulate federal immigration officials. As the Supreme Court has made clear, “[w]hen . . . a plaintiff’s asserted injury arises from the government’s allegedly unlawful regulation (or lack of regulation) of someone else, much more is needed” to confer standing.
[T]he plaintiff cannot demonstrate irreparable harm since the plaintiff waited two years to challenge the DACA program and because any harm to the plaintiff is likely to occur regardless of the challenged policies.
It appears that rather than report the full truth, Unruh has instead chosen to hide the fact that the person whose lawsuit he's promoting is a rather incompetent lawyer.
WND's Corsi Inadertently Shows Bias And Craziness Of AIM's Benghazi Kangaroo Court Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily's Jerome Corsi thinks he's doing Accuracy in Media's "Citizens' Commission on Benghazi" a favor by reporting its findings, but instead he's unintentionally demonstrating how biased and delusional it is.
Corsi writes in a Jan. 18 WND article of "exclusive interviews conducted with 11 of the 17 members of the commission," in which they claim that the congresional investigation has been "compromised" and that Rep. Trey Gowdy, the Republican House member in charge of the Benghazi investigation, "has been warned away from the final conclusion or he’s been threatened."
What Corsi won't tell you, however, is that -- as we'vedocumented, the "Citizens' Commission on Benghazi" is a kangaroo court stacked with birthers, Obama-haters and conspiracy theorists who could not possibly be trusted to investigate the issue objectively. Of course, as a birther, Obama-hater and conspiracy theorist himself, Corsi simply saw like-minded people instead.
Corsi goes on to quote one CCB member as fretting that Gowdy's next hearing on Benghazi " likely will be closed and classified." But the CCB has demonstrated no transparency whatsoever in its proceedings. It has held no public hearings, and its interim report states conclusions without detailing how it reached them. Its sources, when mentioned at all, were typically anonymous, such as the "American citizen source trusted by the CCB."
A day later, Corsi wrote another article on the CCB, touting its crazy conclusion -- again, lacking any on-the-record support -- that "The Obama White House and the State Department under the management of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton 'changed sides in the war on terror' in 2011." Corsi laughably tried to distance the commission members from the commission itself by claiming that they were "speaking for themselves, not for the commission."
It wasn't his goal, but Corsi spent these two articles demonstrating why how utterly fringe the "Citizens' Commission on Benghazi" is and why it cannot be believed.
WND Reporter Perpetuates Lies About Firing of Atlanta Police Chief Topic: WorldNetDaily
Leo Hohmann follows in the footsteps of fellow WorldNetDaily reporter Bob Unruh by uncritially promoting right-wing falsehoods regarding the firing of Atlanta police chief Kelvin Cochran.
In a Jan. 19 WND article, Hohmann asserts that Cochran was fired because he "dared to violate the sensitivities of the LGBT community" and that Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed "simply didn’t like the book that his fire chief authored":
Cochran got caught in the filter, fired by Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed because he wrote a book for Christian men that presented the case for traditional morals. Just one page in the book discussed homosexuality, describing it as one of many sexual sins. That was enough to get him fired, despite his many accolades both locally and nationally as a distinguished fire chief.
In a sign of his bias, Hohmann made no effort to talk to anyone who supports Cochran's firing -- he talks only to opponents, and he uncritically quotes their claims. Hohmann notes that some in the media "have reported the firing of Cochran is good," but he can't be bothered to directly cite any instance of this. Curiously, Hohmann doesn't even quote directly the offfending passages from Cochran's book, in which he equated homosexuality to bestiality and pedophila.
Hohmann also makes no mention whatsoever of the Atlanta city investigation that found Cochran was not fired for the content of his book but, rather, for failing to obtain proper permission from the city to self-publish it and for insubordination.
Hohmann bizarrely brings up another case of purported persection of "people who are visited by police for using certain words online or voicing criticisms considered off limits":
Brandon Raub was perhaps the most high-profile case.
Raub, a 26-year-old former Marine, found himself detained against his will for a week in 2012 after making a Facebook post that questioned the government’s official explanation of the 9/11 attacks. Federal, state and local authorities worked in tandem to scoop Raub up and place him in a mental institution. They had no arrest warrant and no search warrant.
Of course, the rest of us remember Raub as someone who also posted a series of disturbing words on Facebook, includingh rap lyrics that can seen as threatening. Needless to say, Hohmann quotes none of Raub actually posted; that tells you that they so undermine his case that Hohmann can't quote what they say.
Hohmann also doesn't mention that Raub was arrested after a report of a 17-year-old performing oral sex on him (the charges were later dropped).
The fact that Hohmann must hide so much of the truth in order to peddle his biased agenda is just another reason why nobody believes WND.
WND's Klayman Fishes For A Client To Sue Duke Over Islamic Call to Prayer Topic: WorldNetDaily
Apparently, failed lawyer Larry Klayman believes he's not getting enough press lately. He's now begging for someone to let him represent them in a lawsuit against Duke University over its aborted-for-now plan to air the Muslim call to pray from the bell tower of the campus' chapel.
At the end of his Jan. 16 WorldNetDaily column, he adds: "I do not intend to sit back and watch Duke’s reputation and standing as a premiere [sic] institution for higher learning be destroyed. Contact me if you are a Duke alumnus or donor and want to take legal action."
The rest of Klayman's column is as Islamophobic, complete with an attempt to turn the song "Devil With a Blue Dress On" into a tortured metaphor (because Duke's mascot is a blue devil, you see): "Mitch Ryder’s “Molly” is now sporting a sinister, black mask replete with a burqa." Klayman also denigrates the Islamic call to prayer as "obnoxious, offensive and represents “disturbing the peace” – notwithstanding that it has already provoked threats of violence given the current state of Muslim ISIS-inspired terrorist attacks in the United States, Canada, France, Great Britain and now Belgium."
WND's Cashill Changes Mind, Now Thinks Zimmerman Might Be Responsible for His Own Behavior Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily columnist has spent much of the past couple of years making excuses for George Zimmerman, who was acquitted of murder in the 2012 killing of Florida teen Trayvon Martin, even as Zimmerman's behavior became more erratic and violent. (Cashill did write a book about how Zimmerman was a civil rights martyr, after all -- currently submergeda at the flop-worthy No. 501,682 at Amazon -- so he had to try and preserve what little stream of his income that represented.)
But it now appears Zimmerman has gone too far even for a man inordinately fond of killers as Cashill is. In a Jan. 17 WND article, Cashill shows he's rather slow on the uptake by noting that Zimmerman's latest arrest on a domestic violence charge means he's "showing signs of trouble."
Cashill then goes into armchair-psychiatry mode, proclaiming without evidence that Zimmerman has no support network and, thus, needs to recommit to his Catholic faith:
Cashill thinks Zimmerman, a Catholic, needs to get back to his faith to turn his life around.
“I think what would be ideal for him is really to find a spiritual retreat for about six months where he could get his head straight,” the author said.
Cashill said Zimmerman will not find spiritual balance following his current path.
“He’s not going to find [balance] in the kind of pursuits he’s pursuing now – women or guns or whatever,” Cashill said. “He just needs to be re-grounded and re-moored to turn his life around.”
But lest anyone think Cashill has completely rediscovered the idea that a person should be held accountable for their own behavior, he just can't seem to completely stop making excuses for Zimmerman, lamenting that Zimmerman "must be the most unloved man in America right now" and making sure others share the blame for his plight:
Regarding the ongoing civil suit, which alleges that Zimmerman violated Martin’s civil rights, Cashill doesn’t believe there is much of a case.
“It strikes me as Eric Holder’s way of telling his radical black supporters, and white supporters, too, that, ‘We haven’t let him off the hook yet,’” he said.
Nevertheless, the New Black Panther Party has not rescinded the $10,000 bounty it placed on Zimmerman’s head in 2012. Cashill is appalled that the White House and the attorney general’s office have not denounced the organization.
“There’s no consequence, no negative consequence for the New Black Panther party,” he said.
When you've devoted your life to being an apologist for unsavory people, as Cashill has, it's apparently hard to go cold turkey.
WND's Unruh Dutifully Repeats Lies About Fired Atlanta Fire Chief Topic: WorldNetDaily
Bob Unruh is in stenographer mode yet again in a Jan. 14 WorldNetDaily article about fired Atlanta fire chief Kelvin Cochran. Unruh uncritically repeats the claims of right-wing groups that the city "fired him for nothing other than his faith" and that the city had granted Cochran permission to publish his "Christian book" that smeared homosexuals.
In fact, as we've pointed out, a city investigation into Cochran's firing found that Cochran was fired for his behavior, not his faith, and that he never sought the proper permission to self-publish his book.
Even though that investigation came out five days before Unruh's article appeared, Unruh makes no mention of it. In fact, Unruh made no apparent effort whatsoever to talk to anyone who would have told him the facts about Cochran's firing -- he simply regurgitates the factually deficient claims of right-wing activists who are trying to turn Cochran's firing into a cause celebre.
WND's Unruh Censors Evidence of Fraud In Houston Anti-Gay Petitions Topic: WorldNetDaily
As a lazyreporter and a homophobe, WorldNetDaily's Bob Unruh enjoys spreading lies about Houston mayor Annise Parker (whom Unruh is unusually eager to have us know is a lesbian) and that city's anti-discrimination ordinance.
Unruh carries water for anti-gay forces once again in a Jan. 15 WND article about the court fight over the ordinance. After injecting in the very first paragraph that Parker is a lesbian, Unruh plays stenographer to the anti-gay forces, this time ranting about how petitions attempting to overturn the ordinance were thrown out by city officials: "But the city attorney, David Feldman, then stepped in and disqualified most of the signatures that had been collected, and the city has been fighting efforts to overturn the ordinance ever since."
What Unruh won't tell you: there's ample evidence of fraud in those petitions.
While collecting manymore signatures than needed to force a citywide vote on the anti-discrimination ordinance, many signature pages were invalid because some of the circulators who collected stacks of signatures were not qualified Houston voters, as required by law, while some of those signatures themselves were not from valid Houston voters.
There's also evidence that signatures purportedly from different people apparently share the same handwriting -- also evidence of fraud.
Unruh is utterly silent about the clear evidence of fraud in the petition process. Apparently, he -- like the Houston pastors for whom he's serving as stenographer -- doesn't think there should be any validation process and that the fact that a signature exists automatically means it's valid.
Unruh also uncritically quotes local anti-gay pastors complaining that the city was trying to "assault on the right to trial by jury" by having the pastors' case over the petitions heard by a judge instead of a jury. But as one blogger points out, Houston's charter determines that this type of issue is settled by a district judge. So it is the pastors who are circumventing the established rule of law by changing the procedure. Unruh mentions nothing about that.
So, we have a reporter censoring information that contradicts the political agenda of his employer. Anyone surprised?
WND Shockingly Covers Teacher-Student Sex Story That Isn't About A Female Teacher Topic: WorldNetDaily
For years, WorldNetDaily has been pruriently fixated on female (but not male) teachers who have affairs with students, for reasons it has never explained.
But WND is finally expanding beyond that narrow, disturbing focus. A Jan. 13 WND article by Joe Kovacs surprisingly focuses on a male teacher who had sex with a student.
Kovacs doesn't explain this new coverage strategy or why a male teacher having an affair with a student is suddenly newsworthy to him after years of ignoring it. But this may be an aberration; the article includes a link to WND's lovingly detailed "big list" of "Female teachers with students."
Of course, Kovacs will never publicly admit one real reason for obsessing about such things: Sex sells, and writing about sex draws readers. WND may profess to operate on Christian principles (even though its founder and editor is an inveterateliar), but it knows what attracts eyeballs.