Kupelian's New Book On Its Way Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily started promoting WND managing editor David Kupelian's new book "How Evil Works" this week, kicking off with an appearance by him on Sean Hannity's radio show. Interestingly, it's not published by WND -- he found a "real" publisher for it, the Threshold Editions imprint of Simon & Schuster (run by Mary Matalin).
It appears to be a sequel to Kupelian's last book, "The Marketing of Evil," which, as we pointed out at the time, essentially blamed everything he doesn't like on '60s hippies in general and the Clintons in particular. The book contains factual errors (such as treating anti-Kinsey activist Judith Reisman as credible), and he appeared to have partnered with the right-wing legal group Alliance Defense Fund to hype a lawsuit that tangentally involved the book in order to boost sales.
"How Evil Works" appears to be more of the same. The list of subjects in the book includes:
What's really going on in Washington, D.C., today? (The Marxist strategy of manufacturing and exploiting crises is the central operating principle of the Obama presidency.)
How does terrorism really work? (It's intended not just to frighten and intimidate, but to reprogram our beliefs, per the Stockholm Syndrome.)
Why are big lies more believable than little ones? (Everyone tells little white lies, but not big, bold, audacious ones, and so they assume others wouldn't either – an assumption world-class liars use to their great advantage. More importantly, big lies possess an inherent power to upset us – triggering a key control mechanism.)
Why do we treat mental-emotional-spiritual problems like rage and depression with drugs? (We've been seduced by secular medical "experts" who tell us what all egos love to hear: "It's not your fault.")
Regarding that last subject: We're guessing he plans to rehash the case of Andrea Yates, who killed her five children. As we detailed in 2007, when he first wrote about it, he blamed Yates' condition on the antidepressants she was taking, failing to mention the fact that she and her husband were under the sway of a fundamentalist Christian minister, under whose influence Yates home-schooled the children and who harshly judged mothers he considered to be too permissive with their children, claiming that if the mother was going to hell, her children would too.
We'll try to get a hold of the book and see if Kupelian's incomplete, factually challenged analysis still stands.
WND Ignores Double Standard In Attack on Brennan Topic: WorldNetDaily
A Feb. 16 WorldNetDaily article cites "calls for President Obama's homeland-security adviser John Brennan to step down " following "Brennan's recent appearance at a New York University assembly and his comments that having a percentage of terrorists released by the U.S. return to terrorist attacks 'isn't that bad,' since the recidivism rate for inmates in the U.S. prison system is higher."
New Article: A Blizzard of Bamboozlement Topic: NewsBusters
Noel Sheppard and the boys at NewsBusters seize on back-to-back snowstorms in Washington to push their discredited claim that there's no such thing as global warming. Read more >>
AIM To Honor Inaccuracy at CPAC Topic: Accuracy in Media
A Feb. 16 Accuracy in Media press release announces that AIM will give "Reed Irvine Accuracy in Media Awards" to Andrew Breitbart and Marc Morano during the upcoming Conservative Political Action Conference. That's hilarious, because neither Breitbart nor Morano are known for their accuracy.
NewsBusters Covers for Palin's Hypocrisy Topic: NewsBusters
Kyle Drennen runs to the defense of Sarah Palin and Fox News in a Feb. 16 NewsBusters post, dismissing suggestions that Palin should quit her job as a Fox News contributor in order to follow through on her criticism of Fox Broadcasting's "Family Guy" for having "tangentially mocked her son with Down Syndrome."
Drennen does so by making this stunning statement: "Of course, Fox News has no connection to the Fox broadcast channel or any of its entertainment programming."
Drennen and NewsBusters are echoing Palin's hypocrisy on the issue by criticizing "Family Guy" while giving Rush Limbaugh a pass on using the word "retard" because it was satirical. As we noted, Noel Sheppard attacked Stephen Colbert for following Limbaugh's satire exception -- but not Limbaugh himself.
And, yes, Sheppard freakedout about the "Family Guy" joke but continued to remain silent about Limbaugh. But then, protecting Limbaugh no matter what offensive thing he says is simply what the MRC does.
CNS Ignores Teleworking In Bashing Snowed-Out Federal Workers Topic: CNSNews.com
A Feb. 16 CNSNews.com article by Penny Starr asserts that "When the federal government closed for four days and two hours last week because of snow and ice in the Washington area, U.S. taxpayers still had to shell out an estimated $425 million to $670 million in wages and benefits to those workers."
Starr makes no mention of the fact that approximately one-third of federal workers in the Washington area logged on to federal servers from home, meaning that, contrary to Starr's suggestion, some work was indeed getting done during the snowstorms.
Meanwhile ... Topic: WorldNetDaily
Over at Media Matters, we examine how WorldNetDaily columnist Jill Stanek has gotten blogging gigs at NewsBusters and Andrew Breitbart's Big Journalism despite 1) admitting she knows little about media analysis and 2) her long history of misleading and inflammatory statements (like essentially condoning the murder of George Tiller).
A Feb. 14 Accuracy in Media blog post by Don Irvine highlights Obama White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan's pointing out that the recidivism rate for released detainees from Guantanamo is lower than that of those released from U.S. prisons. He adds, "So exactly what is a bad recidivism rate for terrorists that want to blow up planes and kill Americans?"
We don't recall Irvine being upset when Bush secretary of state Condoleezza Rice similarly compared the rates of recidivism among enemy combatants with those of American criminals back in 2005.
Imagine radical Islam with a nuclear weapon operating in a post-American world.
Most importantly — what a time for America to have such a weakling in the White House.
But his weakness is waking people up. Remember the movie “Awakenings”? Oliver Sacks, played by Robin Williams and semi-fictionalized as Malcolm Sayer in the movie, discovers the amazing effects of the drug L-dopa. It awakened people who had been catatonic for decades.
Watching the tea party convention, reviewing the latest polls, and being fortunate enough to have witnessed the Scott Brown win and the gubernatorial Democratic losses a couple of months back, it dawned on me that Obama is to the American people what L-dopa was to Oliver Sacks’ patients.
Obama, with all his jihad-enabling, is waking up the American people. President L-dopa.
WND Slowly Backing Away From Vaccine-Autism Link Topic: WorldNetDaily
We've detailed how WorldNetDaily has long promoted the idea of a link between vaccines and autism. It's now ever-so-slowly creeping away from the claim as it becomes increasingly discredited.
When the medical journal Lancet retracted a couple weeks ago a study it had published in 1998 linking the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine to autism, WND didn't report on it in one of its own articles but linked to another website's story on it. That was surprisingly followed up by a Feb. 11 column by Phil Elmore that's an all-out assault on the false link:
There exists in our society the pervasive myth that childhood vaccinations can somehow visit autism on your child. The very notion is upsetting and disturbing. It is, however, entirely and fundamentally without merit – misinformation that is breathtaking in its falsehood and outrageous in its audacity. "Big Pharma" has become a scapegoat for legions of distraught parents who, quite understandably, want some external, even malevolent force to blame for an affliction we still do not understand very well.
The purpose of vaccines is to encourage a "herd immunity" that creates a hostile climate for a given disease. Releasing into a vaccinated population a sub-population of unvaccinated individuals helps those diseases take root once more. Once established, they are more likely to mutate, endangering the entire community.
The irresponsible parents who harm their own children – and their neighbors' kids – through this negligence will continue to do so regardless of the truth. We must conclude they care more about their opinions than they do about facts.
This was followed by a letter to the editor (which disappear after a week) criticizing Elmore for noting the truth:
Phil Elmore's article on vaccines having no relation to autism is not convincing.
He seems to elate in ridicule while conceding an argument, as if he were actually winning it. For example, he concedes the entire point when he agrees that "vaccines have risks."
The fact is that it may not be moral to take risks in order to avoid other risks. It is a bit like playing God. I suspect this fact won't move Mr. Elmore, but it will probably move most WND readers, who probably prefer Christianity over Technolatry.
To be more empirical, the risk of pertussis is to me far less frightening than the risk of filling my babies with pharmaceutical junk, including but not limited to Thimerosal. I'm no expert on medicine, but I know enough about the modern medical climate (abortion, homosexual agenda, embryonic harvesting, contraception, fertility excesses) to realize that they have no moral compass.
No, Phil, I will not risk my kids' health anymore by taking vaccines. Or, let me put it this way: I'll take the natural risks rather than the unnatural risks.
Does WND have the guts to fully confront the issue by doing an original article on the Lancet retraction and not spin it as about deniers trying to explain it away? We shall see.
We've long expected that WorldNetDaily would not report any negative information about Orly Taitz unless it could figure out a way to spin it in her favor -- after all, she has ordered WND not to be mean to her.
Bob Unruh figured out a way to do it in regarding a couple piece of negative information, a $20,000 fine levied against her and the possibility of sanctions against her in the California bar. In a Feb. 13 article, Unruh portrays Taitz as the victim , uncritically repeating her claims that the fine and possible sanctions create a "hardship" for her.
In order to portray Taitz as the victim, Unruh has to omit certain facts -- like why she faces the fine and possible sanctions. Again, Unruh uncritically portrays Taitz's version of events, that "she's facing a $20,000 penalty imposed by Judge Clay D. Land in the Rhodes case and possible action by the California Bar Association, to which Land forwarded his highly critical order" -- but never explains what that criticism was, even though he had done so to a certain extent in an article last October.
To refresh Unruh's memory: Land stated that Taitz had repeatedly exhibited unprofessional behavior, from forcing her birther agenda in court to filing frivolous motions to making personal attacks against opposing parties, as well as Land.
Unruh also omits the fact that Taitz has had at least twoother complaints filed against her in the California bar. Nor does he mention the accusations that she attempted to suborn perjury in a separate case.
For good measure, Unruh also peddles a lie by referencing "the estimated $1.7 million Obama has spent on court cases to prevent any of the documentation of his life to be revealed to the public." In fact, as we've previously noted, while that money was paid to a law firm through Obama for America, WND has never provided any evidence that all of the money was "spent on court cases to prevent any of the documentation of his life to be revealed to the public."
Graham Still Can't Get Over Pentagon Papers Release Topic: NewsBusters
It's been nearly 40 years gone, but it appears Tim Graham has not gotten over the release of the Pentagon Papers.
In a Feb. 13 NewsBusters post, Graham reacted to a Washington Post preview of a documentary of Pentagon Papers leaker Daniel Ellsberg by ranting about Ellsberg, denouncing him as an "America-bashing radical leftist whistleblower" and miffed that "the Post never described him with any ideological label, or described the Vietnamese enemy as communists."
Farah Tries, Fails to Divide Citizenship, Eligibility Wings of Birtherism Topic: WorldNetDaily
Is Joseph Farah conceding that Barack Obama is an American citizen?
That's one interpretation of his recent attempts to decouple questions about Obama's citizenship from questions about eligibility -- even though Obama's citizenship status is at the heart of the birther issue.
Last week, Farah insisted that it's a "lie " to claim that birthers are questioning Obama's citizenship. Now, Farah's Feb. 15 column is a letter to Newsweek demanding a retraction for its "blatantly defamatory" listing of Farah as among those who say Obama "wasn't born in the good old US of A, hence isn't a natural-born citizen and therefore cannot legally be president":
While I have written tens of thousands of words about the subject of Barack Obama's eligibility and talked for dozens of hours on the public airwaves and given hundreds of interviews on this subject, never have I stated that Obama was not born in the United States.
Therefore, I demand an immediate apology and retraction.
Farah is trying to bamboozle Newsweek (and you). Farah may or may not be on record as saying those exact words, Farah, by himself and via his WND subordinates, have certainly promoted the idea that Obama is not a citizen.
As we've previously noted, Farah has on at least two occasions repeated the claim that Obama's grandmother has said that Obama was born in Kenya. (A claim, by the way, which is completelyfalse, and which WND has yet to correct.) That is making the claim by implication that Obama is not a citizen.
As recently as Feb. 4, WND reporters were referencing "the growing ranks of officials and prominent commentators who say they are unsure of whether President Barack Obama is a U.S. citizen."
And if Farah wasn't questioning whether Obama is a citizen, it wouldn't have published a supposed "Kenyan birth certificate" without first trying to verify if it was authentic (it wasn't).
Farah's effort to decouple citizenship from eligibility is bizarre and futile. The only issue being raised regarding Obama's eligibility to be president is the citizenship issue. If Farah is not questioning Obama's citizenship, he has no case to challenge his eligibility.
So, Mr. Farah, will you concede that Obama is a citizen? Because that's exactly what you're doing in claiming that citizenship is not an issue. Or is birtherism too big a business for you to forthrightly state the truth?
Newsmax Still Rewarding Humes For His Obama Smear Topic: Newsmax
How come John L. Perry lost his Newsmax column, while James Humes has not?
Perry was the columnist who essentially advocated a military coup against President Obama -- and has not written for Newsmax since. Humes viciously and falsely smeared Obama by inventing words to put in Obama's mouth, and all he was required to do was alter his column to walk things back a little. At no point was he made to apologize for his lie.
And yet, Humes has been rewarded for his perfidy, not only with a speaking slot on the upcoming Newsmax cruise, he's still writing a column. His latest takes a look at Abraham Lincoln and George Washington. Humes writes of them: "About the only thing they had in common was their height and their honesty."
We don't know how tall Humes is, but he has already demonstrated he does not have honesty in common with the men he's writing about. The same goes for Newsmax.
It seems that Marxist President Obama is taking a lesson from Vladimir Lenin, leader of the Russian Bolsheviks who took over Russia in October 1917 and began imposing communist policies over the economy, which then led to widespread famine.
Fearing a counter-revolution, Lenin decided to make some small concessions to the capitalist and free-market instincts of the peasants and petty bourgeoisie by enacting a New Economic Policy. It was necessary to take that one step back in order to later take two steps forward.
Lenin's New Economic Policy restored some positive economic activity, which was later halted by Stalin who proceeded to take two giant steps forward in communizing the entire economy. Lenin had said: "A wise communist will not be afraid of learning from a capitalist." And Stalin continued to learn from capitalists on how to run a totalitarian dictatorship with their help.
Therefore, it ought not to surprise anyone that Communist China has learned to adopt capitalist economic policies while still maintaining total communist control. It is a master of the "one step back, two steps forward" strategy, which keeps it in power.
Of course, the United States is neither Russia nor China, nor is this 1921. But there is no doubt that the present ruler in the White House and his associates came into office determined to impose a totalitarian socialist government over the United States.
-- Samuel L. Blumenfeld, Feb. 15 WorldNetDaily column