ConWebBlog: The Weblog of ConWebWatch

your New Media watchdog

ConWebWatch: home | archive/search | about | primer | shop

Wednesday, January 22, 2020
WND's Farah Returns For More Trump Sycophancy
Topic: WorldNetDaily

Still in apparent recovery from his stroke, WorldNetDaily editor Joseph Farah is starting to ease back into column-writing. But as we noted the last time he popped up, he's even more a of Trump sycophant than before.

In a Jan. 13 column, Farah devoted a lot of space to accusing people who issued provocative tweets following President Trump's ordered killing of Iranian military leader Qasem Soleimani as suffering from "Trump Derangement Syndrome." He even highlighted one writer "from the right" (actually, the libertarian Reason magazine), adding, "Trump Derangement Syndrome – it comes from every angle."

Farah, of course, will not tell you how he has suffered from Obama Derangement Syndrome since 2008, with the low point being his aggressive promotion of birther conspiracy theories and simply straight-up lying about the president. He is essentially what he is complaining about, albeit from a different ideological viewpoint.

This kind of Trump sycophancy is an easy layup for Farah, even as he continues to recover from a severe medical event. But that's all it is.

Posted by Terry K. at 1:51 AM EST
Monday, January 20, 2020
WND's Zumwalt Has Issues With (Non-Right-Wing) Women
Topic: WorldNetDaily

Speaking at a private event in Singapore, Obama made a sexist comment, but, like other liberals given free rein to do so, it generated virtually no criticism from the left. He suggested if women ran every country, there would be less war and strife and much improved living standards. Stating women are "indisputably better" than men in leadership, he condemned old men in positions of power as the cause of world problems. He added that women are much more advanced and even-keeled than men and, as such, would reflect much greater wisdom in all they do. And, Obama incredulously believes, they would need only limited time to effect an impact, saying, "I'm absolutely confident that for two years if every nation on earth was run by women, you would see a significant improvement across the board on just about everything … living standards and outcomes."

One only wonders whether Obama's outlandish claim was made because Michelle told him to do so as, perhaps she considers a possible 2020 presidential run. She may not be content remaining, as she has described herself, our "Forever First Lady," feeling a need to add that of "Forever President" as well.

Before addressing the timing of Obama's claim, let us address its substance.


The bottom line concerning Obama's sexist claim is regardless of whether a nation's leadership is male or female, it is not the driver on peace and prosperity. The real driver is a leader's substance in doing the right thing at the right time and in the right interests of the people he or she represents.

But Obama's statement was off. Only days afterward, one of the darkest moments in our history occurred – led by a woman choosing to dishonor our republic and our Constitution purely in the interests of political activism. Pretending to give her impeachment sham against Trump an air of legitimacy, she wrapped herself in the flag the day the House voted, teaching her fellow Democrat representatives the words to the "Pledge of Allegiance."


While Obama touts the fair-mindedness of female leaders, Pelosi demonstrates she lacks any such gene within her DNA. Instead, she leads a group of coup plotters who are bound and determined to impeach a duly elected [resident, voted into office by almost 63 million Americans, because she and her cohorts disagree with his politics.

-- James Zumwalt, Jan. 1 WorldNetDaily column

Posted by Terry K. at 12:52 AM EST
Saturday, January 18, 2020
Mychal Massie's Islamophobic (And Factually Deficient Anti-Clinton) Meltdown
Topic: WorldNetDaily
Mychal Massie kicked off his Jan. 6 WorldNetDaily column with a big Muslim-hating rant:

Sirhan Sirhan is the Palestinian Muslim who murdered Democrat senator and presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy in the Ambassador Hotel, in Los Angeles. We watched in horror as the footage was replayed. That was June 1968. At that time Muslims couldn't claim American injustice as their "lie du jour."

Let's dispense with the damnable lies that Muslims are a peaceful, loving people. Those who by accident display said characteristics are the exception, not the norm. Islam is a murderous cancer on the fabric of humanity, adherents of which have committed acts of barbarous terrorism since Ishmael.


It's easy to understand why anti-Semitic parasitoids like Ilhan Omar, AOC and Rashida Tlaib are upset that Qassem Soleimani was blown to Jahannam, the Islamic hell – even though that's where his kind belong and where he should have been sent many years ago.

When we hear Omar, AOC, Tlaib and the domestic terrorist group Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), we understand they're mourning the extermination of parasitosis like Soleimani, because he's the equivalent of family to them.

Massie then launched an attack in President Clinton: "In factuality, the blood of the Americans who were murdered Sept. 11, 2001, is on the head and hands of Clinton. He was offered bin Laden on a silver platter, but he refused Sudanese President Bashir's offer to arrest, detain and hand over Osama bin Laden to the United States."

As we noted as early as 2007 -- and also when Massie made this same clain in 2014 -- no less than the 9/11 Commission found no "reliable evidence" that Sudanese officials offered bin Laden to the U.S.

Posted by Terry K. at 10:48 AM EST
Wednesday, January 15, 2020
WND's Cashill Tries To Whitewash Klayman's Legal Troubles
Topic: WorldNetDaily

Larry Klayman is such a terrible lawyer -- and such a good friend of WorldNetDaily -- that WND columnist Jack Cashill has to do some serious conspiracy-building to distract from Klayman's latest legal problems.

Cashill devoted most of his Jan. 1 column to attacking a member of the District of Columbia Bar Board of Professional Responsibility, which "made a recommendation that Judicial Watch founder Larry Klayman be suspended, a recommendation now under appeal, from the practice of law in the district for 33 months." None of it, of course, is relevant to the reasons that Klayman was facing discipline before the D.C Bar, which Cashill only briefly mentions: "The case itself has little to do with politics. It involves Klayman's pro-bono defense of a female Persian broadcaster at Voice of America. When she did not get the result she wanted, she turned on Klayman."

And as brief as that reference is, it manages to get the facts wrong. As the Washington Post more accurately summarized the story regarding his representation of a former VOA employee named Elham Sataki:

According to charges initiated by the bar’s disciplinary counsel in July 2017, Sataki alleged that Klayman induced her to move to Los Angeles, abandon her job in Washington and rely on him for housing and living expenses.

When she refused to enter a romantic relationship, he allegedly increased his compensation demands and exploited her “precarious financial position and his position as her attorney,” the report stated.

Despite her desire to pursue her case “simply and quietly,” Klayman, allegedly for his own political agenda, named unnecessary and high-profile defendants including former secretary of state Hillary Clinton and attacked the judge hearing Sataki’s case as politically biased, the report stated.

Klayman allegedly refused to withdraw from her case after Sataki fired him, then published several articles about it without her knowledge or consent in WorldNetDaily, a right-wing news aggregator site.

The report cited excerpts of communications from Klayman to his client after she rejected him, such as a text from April 23, 2010, in which he stated, “When someone u deeply care for tells u stuff like, ‘you’ll never be my Boyfriend . . . how would u feel?’ ”

In a letter later that year to a third party, Klayman wrote, “I do truly love Ellie. . . . But I do not want to hurt her and my own emotions have rendered me non-functional even as a lawyer,” according to the report.

Sataki told investigators, in a statement quoted in the report, “It was a vicious cycle and never ending and it felt like I was in an abusive relationship instead of a client/attorney relationship."

Klayman even wrote to Sataki's therapist proclaiming his love for her and other stalker-ish behavior.

Cashill is not going to tell you any of this, of course, because  the truth gets in the way of his victim-creating and conspiracy-mongering. Just like he won't tell you that Joel Gilbert is a liar and a charlatan while he's promoting Gilbert's latest cenematic atrocity.

Posted by Terry K. at 12:19 AM EST
Monday, January 13, 2020
WND Sources Anti-Trans Story To A White Nationalist
Topic: WorldNetDaily

An anonymously written Dec. 30 WorldNetDaily article begins:

A new report documents how a transsexual in Colorado and a partner shot nine students at their school, then later claimed the victims deserved it for their "transphobia."

In Maine, a transgender defended the murder of two parents because they failed to "accept" the the "transition."

And in Maryland, a transgender who also was a mass shooter killed three before using the gun for suicide.

Such violence isn't unusual, according to a report by the website National Justice.

The site said "individuals identifying as transgender are not only less likely to be victims of murder than biological women (and far less than men), their small population is well represented among murderers, serial killers and pedophiles."

So, what is this National Justice website WND is citing? Let's begin by looking at the source article itself,  which carries the byline of one Eric Striker. Look at Striker's archive at National Justice reveals articles with headlines such as "Jewish Brilliance: Synthetic Like Zirconia" (in which he highlights "Jewish underachievement" and complains that "We are convinced that Jews are our masters only because celebrating the group-achievements of far more accomplished Europeans is forbidden by the establishment") and "Zionist Money Already Corrupting the 2020 Elections" (in which he highlights that "8 out of 10" of the top political donors "are Jews").

There's also an article about a "dissident lawyer" named Augustus Invictus "who is accused of kidnapping his wife and children" and "suffering" in prison where he was put in solitary confinement and "denied his special religious diet." Invictus is a white supremacist with a history of violent incidents and abusive relationships who is a Holocaust denier and opposes allowing women to vote, and his "special religious diet" apparently involves a pagan faith that uses animal sacrifice.

Another article identifies Striker as the "editor-in-chief" of National Justice, fighting against a complaint from the web-security firm Cloudflare stating that the "abusive behavior" contained on the website violates its terms of service. Striker whined in response: "This publication is far more ethical in its practices than much of the mainstream media. This is nothing more than a good old fashioned press crackdown!"

Yes, Eric Striker is a white nationalist -- and it's not even his real name. The Southern Poverty Law Center identified Striker as the pseudonym of Joseph Jordan, a prolific alt-right writer who has also been published by the neo-Nazi Daily Stormer, where he was "blaming Jewish people for everything from Sports Illustrated swimsuit models not being thin enough for his taste to his belief that heavy metal music was becoming too politicized." He also appears to be of Hispanic descent.

This is who WND considers to be a credible source -- which tells us that its white nationalism problem remains an ongoing one.

Posted by Terry K. at 12:40 AM EST
Saturday, January 11, 2020
Your Thesaurus-Enhanced Mychal Massie Rant of the Day
Topic: WorldNetDaily

Anyone having seen "Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home" should instantly recognize Nancy Pelosi and her Erebusic cabal as the Klingon lawyer and contingent arguing that they demand justice: read, retribution for the destruction they brought upon themselves as a result of their unprovoked attacks and murders – including their murder of Kirk's son as they set about to steal the Genesis device. I'll be polite and not mention that the Klingon lawyer was easier on the eyes than Pelosi and her evil brood of calumniators.

The parallels between the aforementioned movie and the Pelosi Democrats are inescapable. They are guilty of grave misconduct and corruption and yet they insist upon President Trump being punished for nothing. They no longer even pretend to be innocent of prison-worthy crimes. It's just as the Klingon lawyer told Sarek, Spock's father, when he enumerated their criminal wrongdoings and asked if they denied same: "We deny nothing."


Intellectually honest people, even if they did not vote for President Trump, must admit the Democrats have perpetrated a sham and charade upon the American people. They're the ones who are guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors, not President Trump.

Obama was the very definition of corruption, and yet these pernicious marplots were silent. "Fast and Furious," Obama's illegal gunrunning operation, was enough to impeach and remove him from office.


Add to the aforementioned, the ophidian darling of the left, Hillary Clinton's weapons smuggling operation that led to the murder of Tyrone Woods, Ambassador Christopher Stevens, Sean Smith and Glen Doherty in Benghazi. But, what the heck? As Clinton said: "What difference does it make now?"

And Nancy Pelosi, the poster child for tardive dyskinesia between facial contortions, repeatedly babbles that President Trump is not above the law.

-- Mychal Massie, Dec. 23 WorldNetDaily column

Posted by Terry K. at 10:37 AM EST
Wednesday, January 8, 2020
Pat Boone Goes The Divine-Donald Route On Ukraine
Topic: WorldNetDaily

Pat Boone's Dec. 24 WorldNetDaily column stated off complaining about Christianity Today editor Mark Galli's editorial advocating President Trump's impeachment, asserting that it was "so uncalled for, so unexpected from a publication whose sole purpose is to report what's happening in the Christian community at large – not to offer advice about totally political issues." Boone continued:

Abortion, illegal immigration, drug trafficking, prostitution, rampant pornography even on movie and TV screens – these are moral blights on our society Galli's magazine should address, because Christians can agree they are obvious spiritual threats to families, our children and America's future.

But to publicly jump into the middle of a far from settled controversy involving unproven charges against a duly elected president is terribly out of line for any "magazine," let alone one known as a Christian news service.

We would remind readers that Boone frequently made unproven charges against a duly elected president -- when that president was named Obama.

Boone then handwaved the key charges against Trump in the Ukraine scandal that led to his impeachment, declaring that there was "no harm done" and "that was that." Boone even purported to read the president's mind: "Trump was concerned about possibly facing Biden in the 2020 election – he would have eagerly embraced that unlikely possibility. Trump was understandably curious, not "digging for dirt," as has been repeatedly been charged."

This, by the way, from a man who thought that Obama should have been impeached because he allegedly faked his birth certificate. (It wasn't a fake.)

Then, Boone felt the need to lecture the editor of a Christian publication about Christianity:

So now I want to remind editor Galli, my Christian brother, of some very relevant biblical facts.

Jesus "hung out" with a lot of unsavory characters. The religious leaders, the Jewish hierarchy, were very critical of Him sitting and eating and even drinking with tax collectors and known publicans and sinners. Jesus answered that He had come specifically for people like them, rather than for supposed "good" people who didn't think they needed saving.

The same type of leaders criticized Jesus for accepting expensive fragrant oils from a known prostitute, whispering, "If He really knew what this woman is, He wouldn't have anything to do with her," and Jesus rebuked them for their hypocrisy and ignorance, commending the woman for preparing him for His coming death.

He noticed despised tax collector Zacchaeus up in the tree, and called him by name to come down and take Him to his house for dinner (resulting in the despised man's own salvation). He repeatedly surprised and scandalized the religious authorities by doing things they didn't approve, and were more openly criticized by Jesus than even the woman taken in adultery and about to be stoned, by law!

But Galli didn't criticize Trump for associating with "unsavory characters" -- he pointed out that Trump is an unsavory character who acted in a "profoundly immoral" manner.

Boone wasn't done lecturing, though, going into full divine-Donald mode:

So, brother Mark, you know the Bible; is Trump appointed by God?

Yes, we the people elected him, as we did Obama and Bush, Nixon and Clinton. But once we elected them, God authorized them to give us either what we need … or what we deserve. And as we continue to pray for them – as He orders us to do – God works through them and their decisions to show us both what we are, as individuals and a nation, and what we need to do to become more what He wants us to be.

Trump came to this office promising to "drain the swamp" of entrenched self-serving politicians and agencies, and amazingly, he's been doing that. You can certainly say that Jesus came to "drain the swamp" of hypocritical, self-righteous but ineffectual religious traditions – and HE did that.

His obvious flaws notwithstanding, Trump has been more supportive of Israel, the unborn, marriage and religious liberty than any other president in modern history. And furthermore, He operates under the expressed authority of God.

So, let him that is without sin cast the first stone.

In fact, Galli pointed out that the "grossly immoral character" of Trump "damages the institution of the presidency, damages the reputation of our country, and damages both the spirit and the future of our people" -- and that the magazine made the same call when Bill Clinton faced impeachment. We suspect that Boone wasn't similarly upset about that.

Posted by Terry K. at 1:17 AM EST
Monday, January 6, 2020
Fake News: WND Promotes Bogus Story About Purported Trump-Hat Attack
Topic: WorldNetDaily

Just because WorldNetDaily is being slowly subsumed into the Western Journal doesn't mean it has given up on publishing fake news -- after all, the Western Journal has a history of doing just that as well. Now it's pushing fake news with the assistance of the Western Journal.

On Dec. 14, WND stole a post from fake-news generator Gateway Pundit:

A 14-year-old student in Hamilton County, Florida, was hospitalized after being brutally attacked by multiple classmates on the schoolbus for wearing a Trump hat to school.

The family of the student, who has not been publicly identified, has now hired a lawyer and released a video of the attack.

Earlier in the day, the student also had milk poured over his head.

As it turned out, that basically wasn't true. The school district where the alleged incident took place stated that not only was there "no evidence" the student was wearing his Trump hat at the time of the assault, but that "The incident began with a verbal altercation between two students that escalated when additional students became involved." Meanwhile, the local sheriff's office added that there was no evidence of a hate crime in the assault, though several juveniles were charged with battery as a result of the alleged incident.

Further, as Media Matters reported, the Twitter account on which news of the alleged assault first surfaced has also promoted far-right QAnon conspiracy theories, and it changed its story about the incident -- first claiming that "8 black kids" assaulted the boy, later changing it to "two girst and 3 boys."

But WND wasn't about to let the fact that the claim isn't true get in the way of a good story. The next day, it published an article by Jared Harris of the Western Journal pooh-poohing the evidence proving the story wrong and clinging to the conspiracy:

Despite appalling video evidence, officials say the brutal pummeling of a young pro-Trump boy does not meet the criteria for a hate crime.

The savage beating spread like wildfire earlier this week as conservatives and even liberals were shocked by the ferocity of it. The clip can be seen here.

While the mother claims the brutality was over her son's support of President Donald Trump, officials have only given those behind the attack a virtual slap on the wrist with misdemeanor charges.

"An investigation has been conducted," the Hamilton County Sheriff's Office wrote on Facebook, "and Hamilton County Sheriff’s Office has filed charges on five juveniles for First Degree misdemeanor battery.


Hamilton County School District Superintendent Rex Mitchell released a statement on the attack Friday, seemingly dismissing it as an "altercation between students," instead of labeling it what it appeared to be on the video -- a group ganging up on a single boy at the back of a school bus.

According to Mitchell, the school district's investigation found no evidence that the boy's pro-Trump hat caused the ruthless attack.

"The incident began with a verbal altercation between two students that escalated when additional students became involved," Mitchell wrote.

"In addition to the video that was posted online which was recorded by a student, the school district reviewed the bus video which depicted, not only the altercation, but all events prior to the altercation and its conclusion."


Since the video seems to begin halfway through the fight, there's no way to tell how the conflict started or what it was over. The date of the new video is unclear, making it hard to determine when it happened in relation to the original clip.

Harris did not report the fact that  the school district found no evidence the Trump hat played a role in the assault, nor did he report that the first account of the alleged assault was false or that it came from a QAnon-linked Twitter account.

WND doesn't seem to understand that simply finding a different source for the fake news it publishes doesn't address its credibility problems.

Posted by Terry K. at 12:53 AM EST
Saturday, January 4, 2020
WND's Brown Is Wrong About The 'Charlottesville Lie'
Topic: WorldNetDaily

Michael Brown spent his Dec. 23 WorldNetDaily column complaining about the "power of the lie":

Speaking of the hatred that united the Jersey City shooters and the synagogue shooters in Poway and Pittsburgh, Biden then blamed President Trump for this hateful climate.

He said, "After Charlottesville, instead of condemning a naked display of hatred, Trump assigned a moral equivalence between those streaming through the night with torches, chanting anti-Semitic bile – and the courageous neighbors and activists who stood against them. He gave license and safe harbor to white supremacists, Neo-Nazis, and the KKK."

He continued, "As I said after Charlottesville, we are in a battle for the soul of this nation. And, it's why I am running for president."

The only problem is that Trump did not say that "those streaming through the night with torches, chanting anti-Semitic bile" were very fine people. 

To the contrary, on Aug. 12, 2017, the day of the Charlottesville protests, he said, "I think there is blame on both sides.

"You had some very bad people in that group" (referring to those protesting the removal of a confederate statue). "But you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides."

Then, two days later, Trump issued a categorical statement, saying, "Racism is evil and those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including the KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other hate groups."

How on earth could anyone get this wrong? And how on earth, now more than two years later, could former Vice President Biden's claim that, "He gave license and safe harbor to white supremacists, Neo-Nazis, and the KKK"?

Read Trump's words again; then read Biden's words again. This is willful misrepresentation.

Not only so, but the next day, on Aug. 15, at a wide-ranging press conference, Trump said again that "we condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry, and violence."

And in answer to another question, he explained exactly what he meant by the "very fine people." He said, "You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name."

That's who he was talking about.

Well, no. As we pointed out the last time someone claimed this, the group that was protesting the removal of the Confederate statue and Robert E. Lee park renaming was a group calling itself American Warrior Revolution, which considers itself a militia and later effectively blaming liberal counterprotester Heather Heyer for her own death in getting mowed down by a car driven by white supremacist James Fields Jr.

In other words, what Brown is calling the "Charlottesville Lie" isn't a lie at all. Not that Trump defender Brown will ever admit it:

He could not have made himself clearer. And anyone with an open heart and mind – really, anyone who simply wanted to know the truth – would understand exactly what he was saying.

What is so frightening is that people – millions of people – believe the lie. And they believe it to the point that, if you're white and you voted for Trump, then you are, by default, a white nationalist, a racist.

Of course, Trump's cardinal sin was calling out hatred on the left as well as on the right, speaking against both neo-Nazis and antifa.

And, given his comments in the past about Mexicans and Muslims, which were either exaggerated or taken out of context, it was all too easy to create the Charlottesville Lie.


May God help our nation pursue the truth before a web of lies so entangles us that we can no longer find our way out.

Funny, we don't recall Brown ever holding Trump accountable for the web of lies he has spun over the years.

Posted by Terry K. at 2:17 AM EST
Wednesday, January 1, 2020
WND's Cashill Tries To Keep Seth Rich Conspiracy Theory Alive
Topic: WorldNetDaily

Jack Cashill just can't quit Seth Rich conspiracy theories, it seems.

Cashill started off his Dec. 18 WorldNetDaily column by complaining that federal judge Emmet Sullivan "forcefully rejected the court filings of attorney Sidney Powell in her attempt to have the guilty plea of Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn thrown out" -- Cashill didn't explain that Flynn and Powell were attempting to relitigate a case in which Flynn had already pleaded guilty to lying to federal invesigators -- and then claimed that Sullivan "Sullivan has a history of suppressing unwanted information" regarding Seth Rich. Invoking fellow right-wing conspiracy theorist Matt Couch, Cashill asserted:

Couch and his team at America First Investigations were sued, as Couch writes, "for seeking the truth in the unsolved murder of Seth Conrad Rich."

According to Couch, it was Sullivan who signed the sealed order preventing him and his team from discussing the fruits of their investigation.

In fact, Couch is being sued not for "seeking the truth" but for defamation by Aaron Rich, brother of Seth Rich, after repeatedly promoting the apparently false claim that Aaron and Seth Rich were paid by Wikileaks for their purported involvement in leaking Democratic mails. The lawsuit has already resulted in the Washington Times retracting a column it published pushing the claim, written by right-wing retired Navy Adm. James Lyons.

Like a good conspiracy theorist, Cashill dismissed the fact-based claim that it was Russian hackers who got into the DNC servers and leaked the email contents:

If the Russians did play a part – highly unlikely – the media did not want to know and neither apparently did Judge Sullivan. He put information found in the discovery phase of the lawsuit under a sealed order.

"That means that whatever we find in our discovery as a defense (bank records, emails, eBay records, PayPal records, phone records, autopsy) and things we are seeking in our investigations can never be talked about publicly," writes Couch.

In fact, discovery has not been sealed. As a motion filed by Aaron Rich's attorney states:

Defendant Couch states in his blog post, "Something that we haven’t talked a lot about is the fact that anything found in the discovery phase (discovery goes both ways, and we have nothing to hide) has been sneakily put under a sealed order." ... Of course, no judge has ordered that discovery in this case be sealed — this Court has entered the protective order that all parties (including Defendant Couch) requested it enter and to which all parties (including Defendant Couch) stipulated. Dkt. 22; Dkt. 29. The only order bearing Judge Sullivan’s signature in this case, Dkt. 2, did not seal discovery but rather exempted Mr. Rich from the obligation of listing his address in the Complaint, as is evident from the publicly filed Complaint that redacts solely Mr. Rich’s address, Dkt. 3.

It appears that Couch is lying about discovery being sealed, and Cashill simply played along. That doesn't exactly help WND's quest for credibility.

Posted by Terry K. at 11:11 AM EST
Monday, December 30, 2019
WND Laments That Hallmark Channel Will Stop Pretending That Gays Don't Exist
Topic: WorldNetDaily

Like the Media Research Center, the gay-haters at WorldNetDaily didn't take the Hallmark Channel's decision to reverse a right-wing-demanded withdrawal of a commercial featuring a same-sex couple very well -- or, for that matter, the mere idea that the channel might make Christmas movies that including same-sex couples.

In a Dec. 6 article, Stephen Kokx of the Western Journal -- which the financially strapped WND seems to be slowly subsumed into --  ranted that "News that the Hallmark Channel is looking to add LGBT-friendly movies to its lineup is yet another stab in the back for conservative Christians, many of whom are still reeling from Chick-fil-A’s recent betrayal of traditional family values," adding, "The channel's reputation for airing wholesome, feel-good stories is widely known and greatly appreciated by millions of Americans who detest the radical nature of the LGBT movement's demands." He went on to huff:

The fact that one of the last remaining enclaves of family-friendly entertainment is about to cave to the increasingly coercive LGBT army shouldn’t be surprising.

There are very few courageous defenders of God’s truths left in the entertainment industry.

Moreover, Christians across the country knew all along that liberal activists were lying when they claimed back in the mid-2000s that gay "marriage" wouldn't affect us in any way.

We knew it would just be a matter of time till LGBT activists pressured networks like the Hallmark Channel to promote their lifestyle.

Apparently LGBT folks don't have families in Kokx's bigoted world; the channel is simply trying to include all families in its definition of "family-friendly."

Todd Starnes used his Dec. 16 column to freak out over the channel's commercial reversal, declaring that it would"now broadcast television commercials that feature kissing lesbians." He had his own anti-gay rant to indulge in:

Hallmark's decision came just hours after Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg blasted the network's decision to pull the lesbian-friendly ads.

"Families are built on love – no matter what they look like," Buttigieg, the first openly gay presidential candidate, tweeted Sunday. "Being 'family friendly' means honoring love, not censoring difference."

In other words, "wholesome" Mayor Pete believes the reason for the season is forcing children to watch lesbians making out on the Hallmark Channel.


The reality is the sex and gender revolutionaries want to indoctrinate your children – whether they are watching the Disney Channel or the Hallmark Channel.

Starnes didn't explain why he's not similarly offended when heterosexual couples make out on the channel, or why that's not "indoctrination."

Posted by Terry K. at 12:33 AM EST
Saturday, December 28, 2019
Mychal Massie Rant Watch
Topic: WorldNetDaily

It's time for all Americans and specifically blacks to ask: What have they got to lose in supporting President Trump? It's time for all Americans and specifically blacks to ask: Just what have Democrats done for them? President Trump has done the single-most important thing any American could ask of the president. He has created an economic environment the likes of which has never been seen, and specifically never been seen or enjoyed by blacks.

President Trump has restored dignity to working-class America, especially the black working class. His policies have resulted and are resulting in more jobs and higher-paying jobs. Democrats and President Obama, whom blacks were bullied and guilted into supporting, lied to America and specifically to blacks who felt they had to support him because of his skin color.

Unemployment for blacks and women were at historic highs under Obama. Under President Trump, in three years they are the lowest in history.

Obama never promised blacks and women dignity. He promised sodomite bathrooms and sex-change operations. Democrats vying for the nomination in 2020 are promising to give trillions of dollars in free benefits to illegal aliens and free abortions for black women.

-- Mychal Massie, Dec. 9 WorldNetDaily column

Posted by Terry K. at 2:19 AM EST
Monday, December 23, 2019
WND Is Also Sad Chick-fil-A Stopped Hating Gays As Much As WND Does
Topic: WorldNetDaily

We've noted how got sad that Chick-fil-A changed its charitable donation strategy to de-emphasize groups that support anti-LGBT causes. The anti-gay columnists at WorldNetDaily has also been feeling that sadness.

Professional gay-hater Scott Lively declared that "Christians are reeling from the stunning betrayal of Chick-fil-A last week, but I called it in 2014." After complaining that right-wingers have "been duped by the progressives into playing a game of [liberals'] invention we are absolutely guaranteed to lose," he huffed further:

Chick-fil-A is the latest case in point, proving there is no safe haven from Marxist aggression even in private Christian companies (or private associations like the Boy Scouts).

It is logically impossible to win a debate when you adopt the other side's presuppositions, because premises dictate conclusions with mathematical certainty. When we unwittingly self-identify as "conservatives" and grant that our opponents are "progressives" we literally ensure their progress toward their goal by limiting our influence to the speed at which their "progress" occurs.

Michael Brown begged Chick-fil-A to change its mind:

Please do not cave in to LGBT activists and their allies. Please do not capitulate to the pressure of the radical left. Please do not throw the Fellowship of Christian Athletes (FCA) and the Salvation Army under the bus. Please reverse your decision to no longer fund these important Christian organizations.

Do you remember when millions of Christians stood with you when the radical left called for a boycott of your fine company? Do you remember when they turned the boycott into a "buycott"?

These same Christians are scratching their heads today. They are wondering why the company they love so much now feels the need to satisfy the demands of people who despise many of the common values we hold dear.


You choose to stand with those who celebrate two-women "marrying" and against those who say that kids deserve a mom and a dad?

You stand with those who advocate for males who identify as females competing in women's sports and against those who care about women's rights?

You stand with those who block you from opening new restaurants on college campuses and stand against those who have enjoyed your food and services for decades?

Jerry Newcombe, meanwhile, complained that the Salvation Army, which is one of the groups Chick-fil-A has stopped funding, is suffering from "mislabeling," adding, "To think of the Salvation Army – which does so much good work for people of every race, creed, color, sexual-orientation, whatever – as somehow anti-gay is preposterous." In fact, the Salvation Army has been linked to anti-gay activities in the past. Then Newcombe defended the idea that the Salvation Army is anti-gay:

By what criterion is the Salvation Army an anti-gay hate group? Because they do not let practicing, unrepentant homosexuals become leaders? Should GLAAD or other radical LGBTQ groups be forced, against their will, to have as leaders those who oppose their lifestyle?

What if someone tried to force one of these LBGTQ groups to hire as a leader someone like Omar Mateen, a true anti-gay (and anti-Christian) hater, who shot up and killed dozens of homosexuals and lesbians at the Pulse Nightclub in Orlando?

Newcombe concluded by huffing: "Shame on those who would slander the Salvation Army as a 'hate group.' Talk about 'fake news.'" So hating gays is not "hate"?

Posted by Terry K. at 1:19 AM EST
Saturday, December 21, 2019
Erik Rush's Anti-LGBT Meltdown
Topic: WorldNetDaily

First off: There's no such thing as a transgendered person. We might as well rip that Band-Aid off right now. If someone self-identifies as a gender other than his or her biological one, there is something wrong with that person. Excepting the miniscule number of individuals who are born with some form of genetic abnormality or physiological deformity, those who claim to be transgender suffer from deep emotional and/or psychological dysfunction – period.

Second: Homosexuality, itself, is not normal. Nor is homosexuality a lifestyle choice such as most people understand lifestyle choices. Like transgenderism, homosexuality represents fundamental emotional and psychological dysfunction and should be treated as such.


Once upon a time, it was taken as a given that the homosexual – like the addict, the serial philanderer or the degenerate gambler – was a morally compromised person. It wasn't the sexual deviance so much that offended others; it was the fact that as morally compromised people, homosexuals could not be counted on to operate within the bounds of accepted morality.

We now live in an environment in which even many conservatives have surrendered to key elements of LGBTQ orthodoxy, starting with the notion that "there's nothing wrong with being gay."

Well, if one follows the line of reasoning offered here, there definitely is.


So, do I contend that those in the LGBTQ camp are evil people who should be disenfranchised or persecuted? No more than I think that the addict, the serial philanderer or the degenerate gambler should be disenfranchised or persecuted. These are people who suffer from deep emotional and psychological maladies, and who should be offered emotional and psychological aid in the event that they become willing to receive it.

As far as accepting, normalizing and mainstreaming such behavior goes, I'll close with this: Considered in light of the above, allowing the LGBTQ lobby to drive the civil rights narrative in this area – which is precisely what we've been doing for the last 40 years – is nothing short of patent insanity.

-- Erik Rush, Dec. 4 WorldNetDaily column

Posted by Terry K. at 11:37 AM EST
Updated: Sunday, December 22, 2019 10:43 PM EST
Wednesday, December 18, 2019
WND's Kupelian Touts Bogus Letter Denying Climate Change
Topic: WorldNetDaily

David Kupelian's article for the current issue of WorldNetDaily's sparsely read Whistleblower magazine -- with the theme of the Green New Deal being "the Democratic Party's ultimate coup d'etat -- is a lot of ranting and getting things wrong about climate change.

He tries to discredit the idea of climate science by citing views about the climate from the 19th century, as if education and knowledge about the subject hasn't changed over the past 125 years. Then he touts non-experts as experts; at one point he devotes several paragraphs to how "Village News Publisher Julie Reeder explained" how "the earth, ironically, is getting greener every day." But Reeder has no apparent background in environmental science; she runs a small-town newspaper in California.

Kupelian then highlighted: 

Indeed, in late September, more than 500 scientists and professionals in climate and related fields signed a letter to the United Nations saying "There is no climate emergency."

"Climate science," their declaration reads, "should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific. Scientists should openly address the uncertainties and exaggerations in their predictions of global warming, while politicians should dispassionately count the real benefits as well as the imagined costs of adaptation to global warming, and the real costs as well as the imagined benefits of mitigation."

The scientists added: "There is no statistical evidence that global warming is intensifying hurricanes, floods, droughts and suchlike natural disasters, or making them more frequent. However, CO2-mitigation measures are as damaging as they are costly. For instance, wind turbines kill birds and bats, and palm-oil plantations destroy the biodiversity of the rainforests."

Since there is no "climate emergency," they conclude, "there is no cause for panic and alarm. We strongly oppose the harmful and unrealistic net-zero CO2 policy proposed for 2050."

But that letter is meaningless. As actual experts point out, few of the signatories are professionals in biology, ecology, or environmental science, and the claims cited in it ranges from being cherry-picked to misleading to just plain wrong.

But telling the truth is not on Kupelian's agenda -- propping up a right-wing narrative is. And a key part of that is attacking the bogeyman that is Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and the Green New Deal she's championing with a big ol' WND-style conspiracy theory:

But wait.

What if the Green New Deal is not about remedying the supposed catastrophic effects of climate change? What if it's all just a ploy, a Trojan horse designed to bring about a full-scale socialist revolution in America?

It turns out, that's exactly what Ocasio-Cortez' own former chief of staff, Saikat Chakrabarti – widely acknowledged as the brains behind the socialist New York congresswoman – revealed during a recent media interview: The real purpose of the Green New Deal is to turn America socialist.

In a story reported by the Washington Post, Chakrabarti stunningly admitted: "The interesting thing about the Green New Deal is it wasn't originally a climate thing at all. Do you guys think of it as a climate thing?" asked Chakrabarti. "Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing."

We are beholding one of the greatest hoaxes in world history.

Make no mistake. It may be tempting to dismiss Ocasio-Cortez, whose arrogance is exceeded only by her ignorance. But just beyond this colorful public character with the bright red lipstick is the entire elite globalist left, which for decades has been dreaming and scheming about implementing their precious socialist new world order.

And they think now is finally their time.

But first, they have to get rid of the great disrupter of their plans: President Donald J. Trump.

Spoken like a guy who's worked at WND for a couple decades.

Posted by Terry K. at 12:53 AM EST

Newer | Latest | Older

Bookmark and Share

Get the WorldNetDaily Lies sticker!

Find more neat stuff at the ConWebWatch store!

Buy through this Amazon link and support ConWebWatch!

Support This Site

« January 2020 »
1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31

Bloggers' Rights at EFF
Support Bloggers' Rights!

News Media Blog Network

Add to Google