The murder of the Australian man in Oklahoma was horrific, but not unique. Or even rare.
A similar episode of black mob violence happened just a few days ago in Memphis. And a few days before that in St. Paul. And before that in Burlington. And before that in Delaware, New Haven, Madison, Denver, Flint, Peoria, Springfield, Greensboro, Green Bay, and on and on and on.
This is a long list with more than 500 cases of recent black mob violence in more than 100 cities, big and small, many on video – and all unreported as being part of an epidemic of black mob violence throughout America.
But as we've pointed out, one of the accused killers in the Oklahoma case is most definitely not black (as pictured above). WND ultimately scrubbed its article on the shooting of references to the alleged killers' race (while, of course, failing to alert reader that the article was altered), but Flaherty apparently did not get the memo.
Flaherty isn't the only WND writer who is too busy race-baiting to care about the facts. Erik Rush wrote in his Aug. 21 WND column that "22-year-old Australian Christopher Lane was gunned down by three black youths in Duncan, Okla." He goes on to essentially blame Obama for Lane's death.
Heathers At NewsBusters Frown Upon Liberal Heathering Topic: NewsBusters
Randy Hall feels Kevin Drum's pain. He writes in an Aug. 20 NewsBusters post:
As conservatives, we know what happens every time we criticize the policies of the liberal occupant of the White House: We're instantly branded as “racist” and “intolerant” while our views are quickly and summarily dismissed.
However, Kevin Drum, a political blogger for the liberal Mother Jones website, has received similar treatment as he learned that no matter which side of an issue he supports, his mailbox on the Twitter social media website quickly fills up with emails from people taking the opposite view.
Drum described the situation by discussing reactions to policies of the National Security Agency from the “emo-progs” -- emotional progressives -- or the O-bots, people who believe that President Barack Obama can do no wrong.
“Conversely,” he noted, “if you criticize the NSA’s surveillance programs, your Twitter feed quickly fills up with equally hysterical proclamations from the O-bots that you hate Obama, you’ve always hated Obama, and you’re probably a racist swine who’s been waiting ever since 2009 for a chance to take down the nation’s first black president.”
Somebody is being criticized for showing insufficient fealty to a political agenda? Where have we seen taht before?
Oh, yeah -- at NewsBusters.
We call it Heathering, and NewsBusters loves to engage in it.Just the other day, in fact, NewsBusters executive editor Matthew Sheffield "defending" conservative Washington Post blogger Jennifer Rubin as "not enough of a team player" for the conservative movement.
Gotta love how a major Heathering website is pointing and laughing at the Heathering of others.
Mr. Rubio apparently believes that the proper response to Obama’s tyranny is to implement his agenda, rather than to oppose and end his abuses in the constitutional way. If Rubio or Paul (or any other GOP leader) had true regard for the constitutional republic established by America’s founders, they would make it clear that the Obama administration’s lawless, anti-constitutional actions on every front demand impeachment and removal of the offenders. They would decry the Obama officials’ high crimes and misdemeanors. They would appeal to the people to vote for a majority in the U.S. House and Senate sufficient to impeach the abusers and remove them from office.
Instead of using the threat of Obama’s unconstitutional abuse of power to intimidate voters, as Rubio is attempting to do, they would mobilize voters to deploy the remedy for such wrongdoing the Constitution provides. They would rally them to vote exclusively for candidates who pledge that, as soon as possible after the new Congress convenes in January 2015, they will propose and vote for the impeachment and removal of all civil officers of the United States government cooperating in the high crimes and misdemeanors of the Obama administration; and that they will support no one for any leadership position in the U.S. House or Senate who has not pledged to do the same.
You promised “transparency,” sir, yet you’ve spent millions of our tax dollars to keep all your early school, travel and passport records hidden from the people who elected you – twice. WHY, SIR, WHY? WHAT ARE YOU HIDING?
Why did you put a fake supposed “copy of your birth certificate” on the White House website? All experts confirm that it isn’t a copy of anything; it’s a photoshopped fraud. WHY?
So, Mr. President, get down here and answer our questions! Bring Holder with you, and anyone else you can blame for your own directives. If you refuse, the American people, who have already learned to distrust anything you say, will determine if you are fit to continue holding your office. There are already bills of impeachment being drawn up, and if you think you can just ride roughshod over your constitutional equal, the Congress, you’re in for a big, big shock. You are not our boss – we are yours! We represent the American people who put us here.
Though I consider Lycurgus’ practices proto-fascism, just as applicable would be proto-Marxism, or progressivism, or liberalism, or socialism, or Darwinism, or environmentalism, etc., because historically all of these failed, evil, socialist worldviews demand an invidious racism, managed outcomes, social engineering, Social Darwinism, class/race eugenics, statism and collectivism designed by leftists to force society into the same, perpetual, globalist dystopia affecting most citizens.
Although he lived over 2,600 years before Karl Marx, the father of communism and socialism, I call Lycurgus a proto-Marxist (fascist) because Marx echoed the same pagan, anti-Christian, anti-family, anti-capitalist insanity of Lycurgus, which causes me to conclude: As in the world of the Democratic Socialist Party that gave America the Progressive Revolution and the Age of Obama, so it is in the world of Darwin, Nietzsche and Marx who wrote, “My object in life is to dethrone God and destroy capitalism.”
Finally, there is good news in the Middle East. The Egyptian military, having removed the Muslim Brotherhood President Mohamed Morsi after he and his terrorist group hijacked the democratic process, is now in the act of systematically destroying this Islamic cancer on the Arab state’s secular body politic. But the good news for Egypt and by extension Israel, its Jewish neighbor, is bad news for Barack Hussein Obama, our so-called “Muslim president.”
In a statement issued yesterday from the stronghold of the left, Martha’s Vineyard, where the “mullah in chief” is vacationing on our dime, Obama bellowed, “The United States strongly condemns the steps taken by the Egyptian interim government and security forces.” In so doing, Obama also canceled yearly and crucial national security joint defense exercises with the Egyptian military. This is an outrage; for once strong action is taken to snuff out the Muslim Brotherhood, the granddaddy of all Islamic terrorist groups and the parent that houses al-Qaida, and our president condemns it, leaving no doubt where his loyalties lie – not that we needed any further proof after five years of his bowing down to Saudi kings, endorsing the Ground Zero Mosque, disrespecting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, doing all he can to harm Israel and a host of other anti-Semitic and anti-Christian actions by him and his administration. But this condemnation is the pinnacle of his pro-Muslim efforts to aid the Islamic revolution at the expense of Jews and Christians and our national security interests in the Middle East and worldwide.
Perhaps Obama fears what the Egyptian military has done to Morsi and his Muslim Brotherhood because he knows that the American people and its military, who have been sacrificed to “win the hearts and minds” of the enemy, may one day rise up and oust him and his comrades. One can only pray – not to Allah, but to our Lord and Savior – that justice will be done and that We the People will soon be liberated from this modern-day pharaoh. While Obama’s political opposition is no Moses, we hold our own future in our hands and must act soon before all is lost.
Remember, Obama’s first coronation would never have occurred had former Clinton propagandist George Step-on-all-of-us not reminded the anointed during an interview that he was a “Christian,” not a Muslim. (Anyone who needs reminding is certainly neither.)
If the American colonists of 1776 had had the same attitude toward King George as the Republican Party leaders show towards would-be King Obama, we would all still be British subjects.
Criticize Obama’s policies? Yes, of course, they do that. But call his actions by the correct term – despotism – when he usurps congressional powers and imposes laws unilaterally by executive edict? No. They can’t use that word.
Draw up articles of impeachment citing his many unconstitutional acts? Unthinkable.
Criticizing Obama’s lawlessness without calling it what it is, unconstitutional and dictatorial, is like criticizing a bank robber as “anti-social” without bringing him to trial. He will probably ignore the criticism and go on robbing banks.
Obama will continue ignoring the constitutional separation of powers and continue expanding the reach of his administrative edicts as long as the Republican Party lets him get away with it. Why would he stop?
Unable to pull himself away from the pool, golf course or this week’s “body man,” Barack Obama on Thursday released a statement reiterating his support for the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. Obama announced that the United States was cancelling its biannual joint military exercise with Egypt – which the Egyptians had already canceled.
This was Obama’s retaliation for the Egyptian military’s crackdown on the Brotherhood – despite the fact that the Brotherhood has been burning churches and terrorizing Christians all over Egypt. Instead of punishing the new regime, Obama should be thanking it, and the Egyptian protesters, for saving his administration from the disastrous consequences of Obama-backed Muslim Brotherhood rule in Egypt.
Americans cannot sanction a pro-Shariah president. Obama was elected not only to protect and defend America, but to lead the free world. He has abandoned that task. And the enemedia are an activist arm of the Obama administration. Too many Americans are woefully unaware of the catastrophic consequences of this rogue president. And America is in free-fall.
While the man who is president and his family luxuriate on Martha’s Vineyard for another of their sumptuous vacations, the rest of us Americans deal with the reality of life in 2013 – it isn’t pretty and it isn’t getting better.
Then there’s the supreme court of the state of New Mexico, which has just ruled that jurors there do not have to know how to speak, read or write English.
Spanish, English, Navajo – whatever!
I know justice is supposed to be blind, but it appears Obama and his ilk have managed to blindfold the Statue of Liberty, too.
In the purview of many blacks, color of skin trumps all else. It doesn’t matter that Obama is unequivocally the worst president in history, nor that empirical analysis supports that fact. It matters not at all to the majority of black Americans that for all the tears of joy shed because a color had been elected to the White House and along with all of the cheers of gleeful expectation that the color in the White House would swing open the gates of providence bestowing upon them the long-awaited gifts of fortune owed them, in actuality these very people are worse off today than at any time since the Carter administration.
Newsmax Rushes to Defend Reagan From 'The Butler' Topic: Newsmax
Newsmax is apparently very upset that any media depiction of Ronald Reagan might be less than positive.
An Aug. 16 article by Paul Scicchitano highlights how "A biographer of former President Ronald Reagan said some scenes in 'Lee Daniels' The Butler' may amount to what he describes as "Hollywood malpractice" if they turn out to be based on anything other than facts":
Paul Kengor, who wrote two books about the late president: "The Crusader" and "God and Ronald Reagan," took particular issue with a scene in which Nancy Reagan invites White House butler Cecil Gaines and his wife to a dinner party only for the couple to feel out of place, according to The Hollywood Reporter.
Kengor goes on to bizarrely claim that communism is worse than apartheid:
Kengor also told the Reporter that the film appears to depict President Reagan as racially insensitive and indifferent to apartheid.
“Ronald Reagan was appalled by apartheid, but also wanted to ensure that if the apartheid regime collapsed in South Africa that it wasn’t replaced by a Marxist-totalitarian regime allied with Moscow and Cuba that would take the South African people down the same road as Ethiopia, Mozambique, and, yes, Cuba,” Kengor said. “Clearly, blacks in South Africa lost rights under apartheid, but Communism was a far greater infringement . . . In Communist nations, people were literally lined up and slaughtered — and starved — on mass scales. Has everyone forgotten this?”
Newsmax followed that up with an Aug. 19 article by Andrea Billups featuring former Reagan Attorney General Ed Meese defending the president's honor, an opinion unencumbered by actually seeing the film in question:
Meese, who currently serves as the Ronald Reagan Distinguished Fellow Emeritus at the Heritage Foundation, said he has not seen the film, but from what he has heard about the movie, the portrayal seems unfair.
"I think it is important for any president to be accurately portrayed, whether it is in books, in films, or on TV. Any disparagement or unfair treatment by a film like this is unfortunate," Meese said.
Billups also quotes Reagan biographer Craig Shirley endeavoring to defend Reagan's record on apartheid by echoing Kengor's claim that it wasn't as bad as communism:
Shirley said to Fox News that Reagan's views on South Africa must be judged in the context of the Cold War.
"The sanctions would have hurt the least affluent among the South Africans at the time, who were the blacks there," Shirley said. "The Zulu tribe, representing 6 million blacks, was vehemently opposed to the sanctions. … When Mandela came to power, one of the first things he asked for were the sanctions to be lifted. So it's a very complex issue and they present it [in the film] in a very simplistic fashion."
"Certainly as president, in terms of dealing with apartheid, he was absolutely opposed to apartheid," Meese told Newsmax. "He had some concern about the sanctions that were in place because of what it would do generally in terms of our position on the Cold War. But also he was concerned about the impact economic sanctions would have on the people of South Africa, including those people who happen to be people of color."
But that wasn't enough denunciation for Newsmax. An Aug. 21 article by John Gizzi features Reagan White House chief of staff Ken Duberstein also running to Reagan's defense:
"Ronald Reagan saw everybody as the same and was colorblind," Duberstein, who was Reagan's last chief of staff, said in an exclusive interview with Newsmax. "He accepted everyone for who they were and did not have a bad bone in his body."
As for Reagan's views on a person's race or ethnic heritage, Duberstein, who saw Reagan on an almost daily basis in his second term, said: "It's not something I ever heard him express a comment on, not ever."
"Look, I was Reagan's chief of staff and I'm a Jew from New York and General Powell was Reagan's national security adviser and he was a black from the South Bronx," Duberstein told Newsmax. "Doesn't that say it all?"
Actually, no, given that Newsmax has quoted only defenders of Reagan and no critics.
WND's Kupelian Does Not Like Cities, City Folk Topic: WorldNetDaily
You know you're in for a doozy of a piece when David Kupelian begins his Aug. 16 WorldNetDaily column by likening all big cities to Babel:
There is something a little strange about big cities.
The enigmatic biblical story of the tower of Babel revolves around this strange something that occurs when large numbers of people come together in one place and form a great hive.
It’s not that something bad has to happen – it doesn’t, especially if the people governing that city are highly principled and grounded in reality. But how often does that happen?
Kupelian ghoes on to cite "the abandonment of traditional Judeo-Christian values that has led to today’s devastating social, moral and financial corruption," which mostly happens in big cities.
This leads, inevitably to invoking the urban liberal/rural conservative divide with a map of presidential voting by county -- utterly irrelevant since people, not counties, vote for president -- and then perhaps not so inevitably to bashing transgenders:
My childhood home was just outside of D.C., in Montgomery County, Md., one of the most affluent and – especially today – ideologically progressive counties in the nation. To illustrate, Montgomery County has been in the news for passing county ordinances permitting men to frequent women’s restrooms if they “feel” that they are really women – you know, “inside.” Behaviors and “orientations” that a generation ago would have been regarded as both pathological and possibly criminal are today enshrined in law and culture alike. And such upper middle-class suburban communities that serve as enclaves for the federal government’s hundreds of thousands of well-paid employees – most of them liberal – serve as natural proving grounds for such wildly progressive policies.
Then, back to the utterly inevitable side, Kupelian blames the ills of big cities on liberals in general and Obama in particular:
The real reason America’s big cities are dragging the rest of the nation kicking and screaming into socialism is that, for decades, those cities have been run by arrogant, power-mad, progressive leftists. Want to know why Detroit looks like a war zone bombed by an enemy power? It’s because it has been run for so long by leaders like former Mayor Coleman Young, who reigned over Detroit for almost two decades. Young was secretly a member of the Communist Party USA – an organization loyal to an enemy power!
What on earth do we expect to happen when, instead of elevating worthy statesmen as leaders, we instead turn our cities over to parasitic unions and plundering politicians dedicated to tearing down everything America has traditionally stood for, everything that has made this nation – including her shining cities – the envy of the world?
What could be worse than turning our thriving metropolises, the engines of civilization and progress, over to corrupt leftist “progressives” – a euphemism for neo-Marxists – with no clue how to run a candy store, let alone a great city? The only thing worse would be to make the same mistake with the entire country – which of course is exactly what we have done in elevating a corrupt Chicago politician and leftist revolutionary to the presidency of the United States of America.
Where Did Noel Sheppard Get His Radio Ratings Numbers From? Topic: NewsBusters
Noel Sheppard writes in an Aug. 19 NewsBusters post:
NewsBusters reported Friday that counter to claims by the liberal media, conservative talk radio host Sean Hannity fired the Cumulus network due to his concerns about how the owners are managing their stations.
Data obtained by NewsBusters show that Hannity is actually right, and that in the key demographic of people aged 25 to 54, Cumulus has lost roughly 50 percent of its listeners since buying the stations in September 2011.
But where is Sheppard getting his numbers from? "Data obtained by NewsBusters" is utterly meaningless unless he provides a source.
Further, radio ratings tend to be proprietary and not publicly available -- one must pay to obtain that information. It's likely that Sheppard is violating somebody's confidentiality agreement by reporting these murky numbers.
That's one reason why Sheppard has left them so murky. Another reason might be that he obtained them from Hannity or his representatives, which would explain how they exclusively focus on denigrating Cumulus.
Because he won't tell us whose ratings numbers these are or how he got them -- and because he clearly has an agenda -- Sheppard's numbers simply can't be taken at face value. Yet people like Jeffrey Lord of the American Spectator have done just that.
Given the many things for which Sheppard has had to issue corrections (and the many other things he has yet to correct), he has not earned that kind of trust.
NEW ARTICLE -- 'The Newsroom' Is Right: WND Makes Up Stuff Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily and Joseph Farah engage in their usual thin-skinned whining about the HBO show portraying WND has having fabricated a story. But "The Newsroom" is more correct than it may know about WND's bogus "journalism." Read more >>
NewsBusters Defends Jennifer Rubin By Heathering Her Topic: NewsBusters
Wannabe new-media guru Matthew Sheffield uses an Aug. 15 NewsBusters post to mount a weird defense of conservative Washington Post blogger Jennifer Rubin from former Post ombudsman Patrick Pexton's opnion that she should be fired "because she’s just plain bad." After citing some of Pexton's criticisms, Sheffield writes:
There are several laugh-lines in the above paragraphs, one of which is Pexton's claim that Rubin "parrots and peddles every silly right-wing theory to come down the pike." If Pexton had any actual working knowledge of the conservative blogosphere, he would know that many conservatives dislike Rubin because they believe she is not enough of a team player and does not endorse arguments they see as valid. But that doesn't matter. Liberals accuse her of being a parrot for far-right beliefs so it must be true.
That's right -- Sheffield's "defense" of Rubin is to Heather her by declaring she's "not enough of a team player."
Sheffield then turns his ire in the direction of a different Post blogger:
In truth, if any Post blogger deserves to be fired, it is Ezra Klein for his creation of the infamous Journo-list where politicians and liberal news reporters and opinioneers collaborated on how to shape the news to become more liberal. Nothing that Rubin has actually or allegedly done was ever as outrageous and abusive of reader trust than Journo-list. Klein created it before he worked for the Post but was never fired after it was exposed while he was in the paper's employ.
This from a man who, along with everyone else at the MRC, has been utterly silent about Groundswell, where conservative news reporters and opinioneers collaborated on how to shape the news to become more conservative. What a hypocrite.
WorldNetDaily really wants us to know that black kids killed another white person.
In an unbylined Aug. 20 WND article headlined "Police: Black Teens Kill White Man 'For Fun,'" we are told that Australian baseball player Chris Lane was killed in Oklahoma "by three black teenagers who simply 'wanted to see someone die.'"
WND included a picture of who it claimed were the suspects:
Gosh, they sure look black, don't they? That's very much in line with WND's fearmongering over "black mobs" that it has given Colin Flaherty space to peddle over the past year or so.
But it appears WND was too enamored of its race-baiting prospects to tell the truth. Compare WND's picture of Michael Jones to the picture of jones posted at numerousothernewssites:
Not only does the real Jones not look anything like WND's version of him, he's pretty clearly not black.
Will WND correct its story? Or does it consider Jones to be an honorary black person because he (allegedly) took part in a murder?
UPDATE: WND has quietly updated the story with new photos of the suspects and deleted any mention of the suspects' race -- even changing the headline to "Teens kill baseball player 'for fun.'" WND has not alerted its readers to the fact that the article has been corrected.
The change, however, undercuts all the race-baiting that has been going on in the comment thread on the article.
UPDATE 2: Despite the fact that WND changed the story (without telling readers, of course), WND's Twitter account is still promoting the original race-baiting headline several hours after the fact:
MRC's Dan Joseph: My Speculation About Transgenders Is Totally Accurate! Topic: Media Research Center
Last week, Media Research Center videographer Dan Joseph embarrassed himself last week by pretending to be a transgender woman -- which, in Joseph's case, meant dressing in gym clothes and talking with a lisp, while still wearing his goatee -- and asking to use the women's locker room, all for the purpose of mocking a new transgender-rights law in California. Joseph's callous mocking has drawn the ire of transgender advocacy groups.
Now, Joseph is trying to defend himself. In an Aug. 19 tweet aimed at Media Matters' examination of his video -- which points out that "Transgender women don't typically walk around in men's clothing will full faces of facial hair. They don't typically refer to themselves as 'a transgender.' And they certainly don't stand outside of women's restrooms announcing themselves and asking passerbys for permission to "go in there... and change and shower and stuff" -- Joseph responds: "mmfa takes on my video on transgender bathroom law.But nothing inaccurate about our description of laws potential."
Huh? Speculation -- which is what "potential" is -- is neither accurate nor inaccurate. It's just speculation.
Also notice that Joseph makes no effort to apologize for his crude mockery of transgenders, something that is also missing from the remainder of his Twitter account. But given that his fellow MRC co-workers have transgender freak-outs on a surprisingly regular basis as part of their anti-gay agenda, such lack of common decency is to be expected from Joseph.
WND Still Trying Not To Go Birther on Ted Cruz Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily's lack of enthusiasm for questions about Ted Cruz's eligibility to be president continues in a surprising manner: It farmed out the story of Cruz releasing his birth certificate by copying-and-pasting a story from the Dallas Morning News.
WND followed that up with an article by Garth Kant featuring birther Rep. Steve Stockman trying to split hairs:
To hear Rep. Steve Stockman, R-Texas, describe it, the difference between President Obama and Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas – on the question of their eligibility for the highest office in the land – may be a case of comparing apples and oranges.
The congressman said with Cruz, it is a legal question of whether he is eligible to serve as president – whereas the issue with Obama is not really about where was born, but whether his documentation is authentic.
Cruz released a copy of his birth certificate Sunday to the Dallas Morning News, as some have begun questioning the possible presidential contender’s eligibility, just as many have questioned Obama’s eligibility since 2008 when the argument was first raised by Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.
The Cruz birth certificate shows he was born in Canada in 1970 to an American mother, which gave him American citizenship.
Obama, on the other hand, is the subject of Stockman’s proposed legislation calling for a congressional investigation of both the president’s constitutional eligibility and the authenticity of the birth certificate he released to show he was born in Hawaii.
In an exclusive interview with WND, Stockman said, in the case of Obama, it is more of a question about the validity of the documentation as well as his forthrightness, whereas with Cruz, it is more of a matter for legal and constitutional scholars to decide.
Kant's uncritical presentation of Stockman's opinion on Cruz's citizenship conflicts with WND's longtime insistence, as articulated in a 2011 column by R.D. Skidmore, that to meet the "natural born citizen" requirement for the presidency, both parents must be U.S. citizens. Kant concedes this later in the article when he states that "there are many more nuances" to the issue.
Back in July 2011, when Obama spoke to members of La Raza (a radical immigration advocacy group), he stated, “Now I know some people would want me to bypass Congress and change the laws on my own . . . the idea of doing on my own is very tempting. But that’s not how the system works. That’s not how democracy functions.”
No, Joseph Farah, 'The Newsroom' Is Still Right: WND Makes Stuff Up Topic: WorldNetDaily
It was inevitable: Joseph Farah has devoted a column to WorldNetDaily's cameo appearance in HBO's "The Newsroom," with all the usual thin-skinned ranting and dishonest defense that implies:
Now, talk about irony: WND boasts among its full-time reportorial staff two reporters who are experts on Islamic terrorist groups. More than that, they are the only two reporters in the world who regularly talk to Islamic terrorists. One of them, Aaron Klein, a multiple New York Times best-selling author, wrote a book about his experience called “Schmoozing With Terrorists.” No reporter at any other news organization in the world could write such a book, because no reporter at any other news organization does it. (WND boasts the only two.) Take my word for it: Our guys are the least likely journalists to be fooled into reporting about a fake terrorist organization.
Except, of course, that they have. As we pointed out in WND's previous attack on "The Newsroom," Klein falsely accused the charity Islamic Relief of having terrorist ties and raising money for nonexistent orphans. Or did Farah forget about that because the article was purge d from the WND website and replaced with a retraction so legalistic it sounds like it was written by attorneys in a desperate attempt to avoid a libel lawsuit from Islamic Relief.
Farah continues by asking, "Want some more irony?" Sure, why not? Lay it on us, Joe:
The plot line mirrors closely an actual journalistic faux pas committed by another news organization some might consider a competitor to WND. Last February, Breitbart.com ran a bogus story reporting an allegation that a group named “Friends of Hamas” had donated money to organizations connected to Chuck Hagel, who was then under consideration for secretary of defense. While Hagel had plenty in his background for which he should be ashamed, there was no such group as “Friends of Hamas.” Again, this is not a mistake WND could possibly make, given the expertise of our reporting staff.
Meanwhile, WND has made the mistakes of treating an April Fool's story as real, hyping a bogus "Kenyan birth certificate" for Barack Obama, and made a claim about Obama that was so bogus even fellow birthers were compelled to shoot it down -- among many other mistakes. Oh, and spent seven years fighting a defamation lawsuit from a man who WND smeared as a "suspected drug dealer" before abruptly flip-flopping before the case was to go to trial and retracted the claim in an out-of-court settlement.
Farah has even more irony to spread:
The irony and absurdity doesn’t end there, sadly. HBO is the same cable network that in 2012 became infamous for a show called “Game of Thrones,” which featured a prop of the severed head of President George W. Bush on a stick. Even HBO was forced to apologize for that episode.
Remember that Farah runs a website that placed Hillary Clinton's autobiography in a bookstore's science-fiction section and portrayed Obama as the Antichrist. Funny, we don't recall Farah apologizing for any of that.
And how's this for irony? Joseph Farah, who's complaining that HBO "had to make up mistakes committed by us," has been caught telling lie after lie after lie.
Speaking of lies, Farah tells another one here:
Earlier in the episode, another character in the show disparaged WND with the following line: “Keeping in mind that WorldNetDaily reported that Obama murdered his gay lover.” Of course, that slur, too, was a complete fabrication.
Farah has also apparently forgotten that WND posted an Oct. 12, 2012, article by Jerome Corsi with the screaming headline "TRINITY CHURCH MEMBERS REVEAL OBAMA SHOCKER!" in which it is strongly hinted that Obama played a role in the deaths of at least one gay man who "was murdered to protect Obama."
NewsBusters' Pierre Still Dishonestly Shielding Catholic Church From Priest Abuse Scandal Topic: NewsBusters
Dave Pierre is NewsBusters' resident apologist for the sexual abuse conducted by Catholic Church priests, even going so far as to claim that one bishop's paying off abusive priests rather than subjecting them to the criminal justice system was "fast and economical."
Pierre is at it again in an Aug. 12 NewsBusters post proclaiming that former Milwaukee Archbishop (and current cardinal and head of the New York City diocese) was vindicated over a judge's ruling that the creation of a cemetery trust fund that effectively shielded more than $50 million from exposure to lawsuits from victims of abusive priests was permitted. Pierre insists that "Dolan created the trust for the explicit purpose of protecting donors' donations and having them used as they were intended – for the care of over 100 Catholic cemeteries in the archdiocese."
Pierre didn't mention that Dolan specifically stated that he created the trust fund because "I foresee an improved protection of these funds from any legal claim and liability," which would seem to belie any vindication Pierre is claiming. Just because Dolan's creation of the fund is legally permitted doesn't mean that shielding the funds from abuse lawsuits wasn't a motivation for creating it.
Pierre then turns his venom on David Clohessy, head of the Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests, calling him "nasty" and a "bigot."
Perhaps if the church Pierre so zealously defends hadn't turned such a blind eye to abuse by its priests for so long, Clohessy -- who himself was abused by a priest -- wouldn't have to be so "nasty."
Media Matters details how, despite his shady history, Stansberry is still championed not only by WND but other conservative websites and personalities as well. Further, Newsmax is among the conservative organizations that have rented out their mailing lists to Stansberry & Associates.
Media Matters has also documented how Stansberry has no problem using racial and homophobic epithets on his radio show for "premium" subscribers, denouncing as "fucking bullshit" that people get mad at him over it.
Again: Stansberry is a WND columnist. Which means they apparently have no problem with such behavior.