WND Gets U.N. Press Pass -- And, Of Course, Uses It to Bash U.N. Topic: WorldNetDaily
We noted earlier this year that WorldNetDaily was trying to get a press pass from the United Nations -- the same organization WND has vowed to destroy. (We also earned a little hate mail from WND's U.N. correspondent, Stewart Stogel, for pointing out that he, by definition of his employment by WND, is a right-wing hack.)
Well, WND got its wish. An Aug. 9 WND article describes how it "has been granted an office to establish a formal bureau at the United Nations headquarters in New York, the latest sign of the new [sic] organization’s expanding coverage." WND self-aggrandizingly adds, "WND joins the likes of the New York Times, the Times of London and the NHK (Japan) with formal bureaus."
And what does Stogel do with his first article from WND's new U.N. bureau? Attack the U.N., of course, over a tweet:
The United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs apparently has decided to ignore concerns raised by Israel after a public affairs officer in Jerusalem Tweeted an anti-Israel hoax.
That's right -- Stogel wrote an article about a tweet. Apparently, there was nothing more important happening at the U.N., or at least something he couldn't use to attack the U.N. ... which appears to be Stogel's mission.
CNS' Jeffrey Parses Akin To Save Anti-Abortion Talking Point Topic: CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com editor in chief recognizes that Todd Akin's statements on rape and pregnancy undercut the absolutist right-wing argument that abortion should be outlawed in all instances, including in cases of rape. So his Aug. 22 column is devoting to parsing Akin's remarks to disassociate that claim from the rest of what he said:
Akin's answer had two distinct parts. In the first, he made a claim about the physiological likelihood of a rape victim conceiving a child as the result of the criminal act committed against her. In the second, he made a policy statement about whether aborting such a child ought to be permitted.
The first part of Akin's answer was worse than gratuitous. It made a claim he could not back up and did so in language that itself raised questions.
But what about the second part of Akin's statement — that rapists ought to be punished but not children conceived through rape?
Is this a logical, morally defensible, even laudable and courageous position?
Needless to say, Jeffrey insists it is, and also that Mitt Romney believes the same thing, even though he has never explicitly said so and has actually denied the position in criticizing Akin:
Given Romney's premises, what would be the logical position for Romney to take on whether American law should permit the taking of an innocent human life conceived through a rape?
"Gov. Romney and Congressman Ryan disagree with Mr. Akin's statement, and a Romney-Ryan administration would not oppose abortion in instances of rape," Romney campaign spokeswoman Amanda Henneberg told multiple news organizations on Monday.
This has been Romney's position ever since he declared himself pro-life. "I am pro-life," Romney wrote in a July 26, 2005, op-ed in the Boston Globe. "I believe that abortion is the wrong choice except in cases of incest, rape and to save the life of the mother."
So, if abortion is not the "wrong choice" in cases of rape, what kind of choice is it?
Who exactly benefits when the government permits the deliberate killing of an innocent child conceived through rape?
Like WorldNetDaily's Joseph Farah, Jeffrey wants to change the subject away from Akin and insist his larger point was accurate:
Rep. Todd Akin's substantive position that we should protect the right to life even of those conceived through rape — who are themselves a second victim of that evil act — is not only in keeping with the good heart of America, it is plain and simply right.
By the way, Jeffrey's "worse than gratuitous" statement was his only criticism of Akin.
WND's Farah Agrees With Akin: Pregnancy From Rape Is Rare Topic: WorldNetDaily
Joseph Farah mostly defends Todd Akin's remarks on rape and pregnancy in his Aug. 21 column, particularly endorsing Akin's claim that pregnancy from rape is rare:
“From what I understand from doctors, that’s (conception as a result of rape) really rare.” So far, he is absolutely, 100 percent right. It’s exceedingly rare. Some feminist sources claim as many as 5 percent of women raped get pregnant. Though you will find studies placing the percentage at 1 percent to 5 percent, many of them are politically loaded. The fact of the matter is that women can only get pregnant when they are fertile. One-third of women are either too young or too old to get pregnant. A woman is capable of being fertilized only 3 days out of 30 every month. A fourth of all women in the U.S. of childbearing years have been sterilized. Only half of all rapists deposit sperm in the victim’s vagina. Many sexual attackers are impotent or ejaculate prematurely. But, at the end of the day, it’s very rare for a rape victim to become pregnant following one attack.
In fact, medical experts say the rate of pregnancy from rape is no different than that from consensual sex.
Farah does concede that Akin is on "thin ice" for saying, "If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down," but then adds: "He probably meant to say 'forcible rape' instead of 'legitimate rape.'" But, really, claiming Akin meant to refer to "forcible rape" instead of "legitimate rape" is a distinction without a difference; right-wingers (like Paul Ryan) have attempted to insert "forcible rape" language into law, such as when a bill co-sponsored by Akin and Republican vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan attempted to limit taxpayer-funded abortions to instances of "forcible rape." That's a definition that can be read to exclude victims of statutory rape or a drugged woman who was raped.
Farah then quickly moves to declare Akin's comments "unfortunate," adds, "Why should an innocent child, a product of rape, be exterminated because of an act of violence by someone else?" and further rush to his defense:
So Akin made some unfortunate, inaccurate comments. We’ve all done that. Every human being on the plant. Joe Biden does it daily, hourly.
Akin has also apologized profusely for his comments.
I’m not surprised at all that the media and the Democratic Party refuse to let the matter go. What is more disappointing is that the Republican establishment immediately dropped Akin like yesterday’s mashed potatoes – completely writing off his chances and worthiness for victory within hours of the statement.
Who among the Republicans calling on Akin to drop out of the race have never been responsible for a gaffe?
Think about it. It’s like a friend of mine said recently. “Which of the following do you find more troubling? 1) Ted Kennedy kills a woman; 2) Barney Frank runs a homosexual prostitution ring out of his apartment; 3) Bill Clinton is credibly accused of raping Juanita Broaddrick; (4) Todd Akin misspeaks.”
Does that help put this in perspective?
The only thing in perspective here is that Farah has told another lie. In fact, the House ethics committee cleared Frank of any involvement in a prostitution ring operated by a Frank associate, and that claims of prostitution activities taking place in Frank's apartment were discredited by witnesses.
But Farah justdoesn'tcare about the truth, so his eager willingness to lie is sadly unsurprising.
Ed Koch Defends Putin's Prosecution of Punk Band Topic: Newsmax
Most observers have viewed the prosecution of Russian punk band Pussy Riot for performing an anti-Putin song in an Orthodox cathedral as a sign of growing intolerance of political dissent in Russia. But Ed Koch is "delighted" that "religious hatred" is being punished.
Some approve of the verbal attack on Putin. Others support the denunciation of the Russian Orthodox Church leadership and the church disruption because of the church leadership support of Putin. All cited characterize the issue as one of free speech.
I do not.
I would assume that many of the band’s supporters would take a different position, and rightly so, if here in the U.S. a black church were invaded and three men or women engaged in comparable conduct insulting holy places within the church and the pastor.
When I was mayor in 1989 and the AIDS activist group Act Up — unjustifiably angry with John Cardinal O'Connor — invaded St. Patrick's Cathedral and interrupted mass, throwing communion wafers — which for Catholics are the actual Body of Christ — to the floor.
Some were arrested.
As far as I can recall, no one was punished. But I think the decision of the Russian court to punish a hate crime was just and something to be applauded rather than condemned and ridiculed.
One can argue concerning the degree of punishment, whether fines rather than jail time should have been imposed, but that is a function of the Russian penalty procedures.
I also believe it is not in the interest of the U.S. to support the actions of the band. At a time when the Iranian nuclear threat grows by the day and we are fighting Islamic extremists around the world, we should be seeking to enlist President Putin to join the West in our effort to prevent the Islamist fanatics from achieving their goal of destroying Western civilization, not making him the enemy and this band the victim.
I do not believe the issue is properly one of freedom of expression.
The right to free expression is not unlimited and does not mean one can say anything anywhere and at anytime.
Further, Russia and most countries do not have embedded in their law the constitutional protection of the First Amendment that we do.
I for one am delighted they now punish religious hatred. Aren't you?
Another Lie From Mychal Massie Topic: WorldNetDaily
Mychal Massie's Aug. 20 WorldNetDaily column is full of advice to Mitt Romney, which of course involves telling lies about President Obama:
I would carry copies of my returns for the five years Obama wants released, on every campaign stop. I would hold them up to the crowds and open every rally and/or interview by saying, “I will release these the moment Obama unseals the things he has paid millions to keep hidden from the American public.”
I would turn Obama’s demands into a vendetta against him. I would run campaign ads showcasing Obama as a hypocrite for trying to divert attention from his abysmal record and trying to hide his past. I would point out that the only reason a person hides things about himself is because he has something to hide.
One of my campaign slogans would be – I’ll show you mine if you unseal yours. I would tell the people that no president or world leader in history has hired large law firms to keep his past a secret.
As we've previously pointed out, not even WND has proven that Obama has "paid millions" to hide his records, only his campaign paid a law firm money for legal services that included defending Obama in a birther lawsuit. Many of the records he's supposedly hiding are protected by federal privacy laws -- the same ones the apply to Massie's records -- and cost nothing to keep private.
Only the truly stupid and gullible can extrapolate Obama having "paid millions to keep hidden from the American public" from that. But that's what Massie appears to be.
MRC Doesn't Want Media to 'Tell The Truth' About FRC 'Hate Group' Designation Topic: Media Research Center
Despite its "Tell the Truth!" mantra, the Media Research Center just hates it when the truth is told about conservatives. And so it is with the Southern Law Poverty Center's designation of the Family Research Council as a "hate group" for its anti-gay activism:
In an Aug. 20 NewsBusters post, Matt Hadro grumbled that "CNN gave more credibility to the SPLC" for reporting the FRC's designation as a hate group. But Hadro can't even argue a lack of balance; he concedes that CNN "aired the FRC's Tony Perkins lashing out at the SPLC for their "reckless" use of the 'hate group' label."
In an Aug. 20 MRC Culture & Media Institute item, Lauren Thompson huffed that "pro-LGBT organizations ... still openly refer to Family Research Council as a 'hate group.'"
Neither Hadro nor Thompson offered any evidence that would contradict the SPLC's designation. That tells us that the SPLC is accurate, and the MRC can't handle the truth.
The MRC was similarly upset last week at the Huffington Post for reporting the undisputed fact tha the SPLC called the FRC a "hate group."
NEW ARTICLE: Mychal Massie, Depraved Liar Topic: WorldNetDaily
The president -- and, in particular, Michelle Obama -- sends the WorldNetDaily columnist into spasms of sputtering rage and venomous lies. Read more >>
MRC Strains to Prove Debate Moderators Are Biased Topic: Media Research Center
Not even Brent Bozell could give Newsmax any evidence that the moderators named for the presidential debates this fall have a "liberal bias." So it's no surprise that Bozell's group, the Media Research Center, is similarly failing to prove the claim.
Tim Graham gives it a try in an Aug. 14 NewsBusters post going after ABC's Martha Raddatz. But mostly, he whines that Raddatz reported news that Graham would rather not see reported.
Graham actually complains that Raddatz called the drone killing of "American citizen/radical terrorist" Anwar al-Awlaki "Another huge victory in the War on Terror." Why? "These are words ABC never used in the Bush era," Graham asserts. Graham was also annoyed thatRaddatz portrayed a historic event -- the end of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy -- as a historic event.
Graham is even upset that Raddatz reported what other people say, complaining that Raddatz reported the opinion of "one officer's wife" following Nidal Hasan's massacre at Fort Hood, "I wish his name was Smith." Graham suggested without evidence that this was Raddatz's personal opinion.
Graham sneered in an Aug. 15 NewsBusters post that CNN's Candy Crowley "fits within the CNN media-elite mold of liberalism ," whatever that means. Graham certainly doesn't explain. But even as he's smearing her as an "affirmative action" pick, Graham has to concede that she's a balanced questioner:
Affirmative-action lovers were thrilled that CNN's Candy Crowley would be the first female to moderate a presidential debate since Carole Simpson's sneering turn in 1992. Crowley deserves the opportunity after being in the field of political news for decades, and is the closest thing the current crop of moderators has to a Tim Russert type in being able to question firmly both sides of the aisle.
Nevertheless, Graham fills out his blog post with cherry-picked quotes purportedly demonstrating Crowley's "more liberal moments."
We noted that WorldNetDaily had regularly covered a cause-celebre same-sex child-custody case in which the star, Lisa Miller -- a former lesbian-turned-Christian being respresented by right-wing legal group Liberty Counsel -- was fighting to keep the daughter she had raised with her former same-sex partner, Janet Jenkins, away from her ... until Miller and her daughter mysteriously disappeared in violation of court orders that required her to share custody with Jenkins.
Miller, as it turned out, fled the country with the assistance of Mennonite communities and, possibly, help from people associated with Liberty Counsel (an FBI affidavit states that Miller is living in a house in Nicaragua owned by the father of a Liberty University School of Law admininistrative assistant). It's also been reported that Liberty University School of Law, of which Liberty Counsel is an affiliate, teaches its students to engage in civil disobedience in situations such as the Miller case.
Now, WND is back covering the case. Why? Jenkins has sued several people and groups involved in the case, including the Thomas Road Baptist Church and Liberty University School of Law, of which Liberty Counsel is an affiliate. The lawsuit, filed under RICO statutes, claims that they andothers conspired to keep Miller hidden outside of the United States away from U.S. justice.
A May 18 WND article by Bob Unruh reports on Jenkins' lawsuit while failing to link to it so readers can decide for themselves. Needless to say, Unruh misrepresents the nature of the charges made in the lawsuit, stating only that "Jenkins’ lawsuit alleges Liberty University is liable because a student worker sought donations to help Miller. The suit makes similar claims about a member of Thomas Road Baptist Church." Unruh mentions nothing about the law school assistant's father (the assistant was the one seeking the donations) of the law school's teaching of civil disobedience; the lawsuit also quotes Thomas Road pastor Jonathan Falwell similarly advocating civil disobedience.
This was followed by an Aug. 19 article by WND managing editor David Kupelian defending Miller and Liberty and repeating one-sided and dubious attacks against Jenkins.
Kupelian cites reports from LifeSite News -- an anti-abortion website known for its biased reporting -- claiming that "clinical therapist Sylvia Haydash in her affidavit testified as to Isabella’s 'extremely regressive behaviors' after visiting with Jenkins." Kupelian failed to mention that Haydash was acting under Miller's direction, making her testimony suspect.
Like Unruh, Kupelian fails to mention the fact of the Liberty law school assistant's father owning the house in Nicaragua where Miller is reportedly staying. He does acknowledge the lawsuit's statement of how the law school teaches civil disobedience, but only as a prelude to letting Libert Counsel chief Mathew Staver deny the lawsuit's allegations.
Having deliberately ignored relevant facts about the case, Kupelian gets on his gay-bashing soapbox:
Decent people everywhere are outraged at the sheer perversity of the court system’s rulings in the Lisa Miller case: How can you possibly take a little girl from her biological mother and forcibly give her to a lesbian with no biological or adoptive relationship to the child, and who independent witnesses and experts claim is a destructive influence on the girl’s life? And then, as a result of this judicial blindness, when the mother takes desperate measures to protect her own child, she is deemed an international criminal, and everyone the lesbian plaintiff dreams might have helped the mother is drawn into an ever-expanding legal net.
Have we gone completely mad? Have we lost our humanity as a nation?
In family law, courts always claim as their mandate, first and foremost, to act in the best interests of the child – which is exactly as it should be. In this case, however, the child’s interest has been utterly trampled underfoot in favor of the politically correct “rights” and ungodly agenda of activist homosexuals.
Today’s idiotic and ultimately suicidal national pretense that homosexuality is perfectly normal – that two men or two women can somehow be joined together in holy matrimony, that moral/religious opposition to this perversity renders you a bigot and a criminal, and that justice is somehow served by forcing a Christian mother to turn over her beloved daughter to a litigious homosexual – all this, my friends, is high mockery of God and His laws.
Kupelian concludes: "God bless Lisa and Isabella, wherever they may be – and God bless all those who have helped them."
This means Kupelian endorses crimes when they are committed to harm the rights of homosexuals. But you already knew WND hates gays.
In an Aug. 19 article, Newsmax editorial director Steve Coz gave Donald Trump a platform to respond to Obama senior adviser Robert Gibbs calling a "right-wing nutjob":
“I was a great student at a great school, Wharton School of Finance,” Trump told Newsmax late Sunday night. “I built a net worth in excess of $8 billion, built a tremendous company, and have employed tens of thousands of people. I hardly see where I qualify under his definition.”
Of course, the business success Trump claims doesn't make him any less of a right-wing nutjob.
Coz rather curiously skips over the other thing Gibbs said about Trump -- that he's the "birther in chief." Coz mentions the remark, but does not quote Trump responding to it.
Instead, Coz takes the opportunity to do some more Trump-fluffing:
Trump flirted with the idea of a presidential candidacy last year and even enjoyed a brief turn in the polls as the front-runner. He first gained serious attention in March 2011 with his harsh words for China and his tough critique of the Obama administration's weak foreign policy.
He recently declined an offer to deliver a prime-time speech at the Republican National Convention, but he has been promising to deliver a big “surprise” at the convention in Tampa, Fla., which begins on Aug. 27.
He's also been making headlines in his day job, as the billionaire developer and household name known for bold deals. Trump is turning his attention to golf courses that he's purchased and developed in Scotland, Los Angeles, and soon, Miami. The Miami course Trump is buying for $150 million, The Doral, features five championship golf courses and will soon be renamed Trump National Doral, The Washington Post recently reported.
None of which, again, makes him any less of a right-wing birther nutjob.
Coz spends the rest of the article trying to change the subject by talking about Joe Biden.
An Aug. 20 WorldNetDaily article carries the headline "Blacks pummel white guy for 'fun of it.'" and it surprisingly doesn't carry the byline of WND's chief race-baiter, Colin Flaherty.
That's not to say Flaherty has been idle, though. He penned an Aug. 16 WND column responding to Salon's takedown of his race-baiting work (which he conveniently does not link to), in which he pretends he's not race-baiting:
I also write about 20 black people who beat up a white woman at a park:
“He also seems to intentionally elide the stated motive for the attack, which wasn’t anti-white animus but a missing pair of sunglasses.”
Note the word “seems” – a word I never use. Something happened and I confirmed it. Or I did not write it. There is no seems.
I do not say the attack was anti-white. I describe the attackers as a mob of black people as part of a pattern of dozens of such attacks in Minneapolis. I don’t do the mob minding-reading trick, so I do not speak to motivation. But I do keep my eyes open and watch what happens. It is called reporting.
Given that the entire ouevre of Flaherty's work is about blacks beating up white people, the implication that it's anti-white is built in. It's just silly for Flaherty to pretend that's not the point.
And then, later in his column, Flaherty again brings up "racial violence" -- thus reinforcing his point that blacks beating up whites is all about being "anti-white."
Just give it up, Colin. Be honest with yourself and embrace the clear meaning of what you write.
Oh No! It's MRC vs. Devo Topic: Media Research Center
In an Aug. 16 Media Research Center Culture & Media Institute item, Ryan Robertson responds to Devo's new song about Mitt Romney's dog, which was infamously strapped to the roof of his car, not by critiquing the song but by attacking the band.
The headline of Robertson's article calls Devo "pop has-beens," while the article begins, "It’s kind of sad, really – a novelty pop band with a lone hit 30 years ago trying to make political hay of an incident of about the same vintage."
Dismissing Devo as noting but "a novelty pop band with a lone hit 30 years ago" shows a serious (though unsurprising) lack of musical knowledge on Robertson's part. According to Allmusic, Devo's first album was "one of the first pop albums to use synthesizers as an important textural element," and it "revived the absurdist social satire of the Mothers of Invention, claiming punk rock's outsider alienation as a home for freaks and geeks."
Further, according to Allmusic, the band's founding concept of de-evolution -- the idea that instead of evolving, mankind has actually regressed -- was informed by one band member witnessing the deadly National Guard shootings at Kent State University. Devo dramatized conformity, emotional repression, and dehumanization in order to attack them, not to pay tribute to them.
And Robertson's dismissing Devo as "pop has-beens" is ironic given that his employer has given a regular column to a musical has-been who hasn't had a hit in at least as long, Charlie Daniels.
When Will Jerome Corsi Give Woman's Birth Certificate Back? Topic: WorldNetDaily
John Woodman, author of a book debunking many of the WorldNetDaily-promoted birther conspiracies, recently reported that WND's Jerome Corsi refuses to return a woman's birth certificate he borrowed.
Woodman states that the certificate -- from a girl born in Hawaii in August 1961 -- was used by Corsi in a September 2011 WND article to attack Barack Obama's birth certificate as inauthentic. But Corsi inadvertently debunked one of his own conspiracy theories, that Obama's certificate was a fake because the certificate number was out of sequence with another pair of certificates known as the Nordyke twins. As we noted, when Corsi realized that, the images of the girl's certificate accompanying Corsi's article were replaced with ones that obscured the certificate number.
According to Woodman, the now-grown woman who lent Corsi her birth certificate, whom Woodman identifies only as "Hawaii Girl" to protect her identity, would like her birth certificate back, but Corsi won't give it to her:
“Hawaii Girl” mentioned that she had loaned her birth certificate to Jerome Corsi last year, at the request of a friend. This was with the understanding that Corsi was going to use it to compare to other known birth certificates, and that she would be getting it back.
She has twice requested its return — probably through her friend who asked her if she would loan it — but Mr. Corsi has not returned the certificate.
This is the only copy of her long form birth certificate that “Hawaii Girl” possesses. It is her valuable personal property, and Hawaii Department of Health rules now make it very difficult to get a replacement. It is an intensely personal document, and I would expect it has some emotional value to her.
“Hawaii Girl” herself seemed rather resigned to the fact that in spite of Corsi’s promises, and in spite of the fact that the certificate is hers, she won’t be getting it back any time soon.
Will Corsi do the gentlemanly thing and return the woman's certificate? Given the dishonorable and dishonest way he has conducted himself throughout the birther "investigation," don't count on it.
Flashback: MRC Denied Anti-Abortion Rhetoric Motivated Tiller's Killer Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center has been doing its best to portray the man who shot a guard at the Familiy Research Council headquarters in Washington as a mainstream liberal. For instance, Brent Bozell used his Aug. 17 column to call the incident "liberal violence" and the shooter "a gay-left activist," and he delcared that the Southern Poverty Law Center's designation of the FRC as a hate group "is obviously now causing real harm."
In an MRC press release, Bozell ranted that the shooter is a "militant, hate-filled left wing wacko" and that "the liberal media have created a culture that not only tolerates, but validates anti-Christian and anti-conservative violence."
But the situation was much different when Scott Roeder shot and killed Kansas abortion doctor George Tiller. Despite his numerous contacts withlong-established anti-abortion group Operation Rescue, the MRC bent over backwards to disconnect him from the mainstream anti-abortion movement and deny that the right's anti-abortion rhetoric played any role in creating Roeder.
In a June 2, 2009, column, Bozell called Roeder an "unhinged vigilante," insisting, "In the very heart of the pro-life community, there is nothing they wanted less than another shooting of an abortionist." Bozell also denied that "the mere act of denouncing Tiller as a killer of babies – as if he were instead removing tumors – is an invitation to terrorism and murder." A few weeks later, Bozell complained about the media's alleged "theme that describing abortion as the death of a baby enables terrorism."
CNS' Penny Starr insisted in 2010 that Roeder is "a mentally unstable man" despite the fact that Roeder did not mount an insanity defense at his trial and a psychologist hired by the defense found Roeder competent to stand trial.
The MRC at one point even seemed to justify Tiller's death as the equivalent of the abortions he performed. In a June 1, 2009, MRC item by Scott Whitlock taking offense at one news report stating that "The abortion debate turns deadly": "The abortion debate turns deadly? If the procedure is successfully performed, isn't abortion always fatal?" (Whitlock later took offense at the news report failing to "point out the specific pro-life organizations that have strongly rejected this violent act.")
So, yeah, when Roeder murdered Tiller, the MRC was doing pretty much the opposite of what it's doing now in the FRC shooting. Double standard much?
WND Misleads About Bradlee Dean's Prayer Topic: WorldNetDaily
Bradlee Dean is a WorldNetDaily columnist and they share a (decidedly incompetent) lawyer, so it's no surprise that WND has come to Dean's defense by whitewashing his controversial statements.
For instance, in a July 11 WND article, Bob Unruh let Dean swat away controversy over a school presentation Dean led in Iowa:
He said complaints, like that from a mother who said, “They told these kids that anyone who was gay was going to die at the age of 42,” were based on distortions.
In fact, Jake MacAulay, a spokesman for the band, had said that the average age of death of a homosexual male is 42 years.
Actually, that alleged statistic is itself a distortion, based on a discredited claim from anti-gay "researcher" Paul Cameron.
WND let the Dean camp mislead again in an Aug. 18 article claiming that Dean's notorious prayer last year in the Minnesota legislature is "still making waves." The unbylined article quoted MacAulay claiming that the reason Dean's prayer caused a stir is because he mentioned praying in Jesus' name.
In fact, as was reported at the time, the controversy was over Dean's insult to President Obama's faith. Dean claimed that "the head of the denomination and his name is Jesus. As every President up until 2008 has acknowledged."
That's just basic reporting. As with its blackout on news unfavorable to birthers, WND won't tell its readers the truth about Bradlee Dean because it will make him look bad.