WND Managing Editor Denies Basic Facts In Bundy Case Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily managing editor David Kupelian begins his April 24 column by writing, "Why is the most powerful man in the United States Senate, Harry Reid, setting up Cliven Bundy, an aging Nevada rancher who supposedly owes grazing fees, to be destroyed?
Wait, what? Did Kupelian just say that Bundy "supposedly owes grazing fees"?
That is a fact that is not in dispute. Bundy grazes his cattle on federal land; therefore, he owes the federal government grazing fees. Pretty much every other rancher who grazes cattle on federal land pays those extraordinarily low grazing fees; Bundy hasn't. In the Salt Lake Tribune, Chris Wangsgard sums up the legal history substantiating that Bundy owes grazine fees:
In November 1998, Bundy made this argument in the U.S. District Court for Nevada. The court decisively rejected this same argument, ruling, "...the public lands in Nevada are the property of the United States because the United States has held title to those public lands since 1848, when Mexico ceded the land to the United States." Bundy now chants these same rejected arguments on Fox News and right-wing blogs.
The court also rejected Bundy’s claim that Nevada law somehow trumps federal law, thus giving him free grazing rights. The court ordered Bundy to remove any non-permitted cattle from BLM land by the end of November 1989. Perhaps suspecting Bundy would ignore his order, the judge specified that he would face fines of $200 per day for each unpermitted cow he refused to remove.
Bundy doesn’t owe a million dollars for grass; he owes that for intentionally refusing to obey a federal judge’s order for more than 20 years. He has talked himself into believing that federal law, including a federal judge’s orders, doesn’t apply to him. He has foolishly encumbered whatever ranching inheritance he might once have been able to pass on to his children.
Bundy not only refused to obey the court’s 1998 order, he expanded his illegal grazing onto new allotments of BLM land. In 2013, the court gave Bundy 45 days to remove his cattle and expressly ordered that the United States is entitled to impound any cattle Bundy fails to remove.
Kupelian is supposed to be a journalist, yet he refuses to acknowledge basic facts about the subject of his writing.
Kupelian went on to dismiss as "bizarre" Reid's assertion that the militia thugs who rushed by Bundy's side were "domestic terrorists." But as Wangsgard points out, "Bundy and his supporters instigated an armed confrontation rather than complying with any of the court’s orders."
Kupelian then likens the situation at the Bundy Ranch to the 1993 standoff in Waco, Texas, which "result[ed] in the FBI burning the entire compound down to the ground, killing 76 people inside – including many women and children." In fact, an investigation concluded that the David Koresh's Branch Davidians were responsible for igniting it, simultaneously, in at least three different areas of the compound. The investigation also found that some the victims inside the burned compound were shot to death, either by apparent suicide or homicide.
Kupelian also tried to whitewash "the deadly Ruby Ridge confrontation and siege in 1992," where, in his version of events, "Randy Weaver, accused of a minor firearms violation, was entrapped by the federal government, wrongfully targeted with an arrest warrant, ambushed by U.S. marshals, and saw his dog, and then his 14-year-old son, shot dead. Thanks to outrageous 'shoot-on-sight' rules of engagement given to government snipers, Weaver’s wife, Vicki, was also shot dead while standing in a doorway holding her baby."
Apparently, in the world Kupelian occupies, selling two illegal sawed-off shotguns is a "minor firearms violation," and shooting and killing a federal agent constitutes entrapment.
MRC Glosses Over RNC Spokesman's Falsehood Topic: NewsBusters
The Media Research Center is a de facto arm of the Republican Party, so it's no surprise that it would gloss over a falsehood told by a Republican spokesman.
In an April 25 NewsBusters post, MRC news analyst Matt Hadro claimed that Republican National Committee Sean Spicer "flayed the media for its double standard over Republican and Democratic controversies, on CNN on Friday morning," claiming "that the media had largely ignored Democratic Illinois Governor Pat Quinn, whose campaign recently tweeted – and then deleted – a link to an article likening black Republican voters to Jews working with Nazis."
But that's not what Spicer said. As the transcript Hadro supplies makes clear, Spicer said that "Pat Quinn, the Democratic governor of Illinois, the President's home state, made Jewish -- anti-Semitic Jewish and black comments."
There's a huge difference between Quinn's campaign tweeting a link to a columnist making an outrageous comparison -- which is what actually happened, as fellow NewsBuster Tom Blumer concurs -- and Quinn himself making "anti-Semitic Jewish and black comments," which clearly did not happen.
Rather than call Spicer out for his blatant falsehood, Hadro reinterprets it to what he thinks Spicer might have meant. That's what passes for media criticism at the MRC.
After the Times smeared as a rock-ribbed racist through the use of selective quotes the new hero of resistance to tyranny in America, there was a new development: The video recording of the actual remarks emerged.
To say the New York Times bent over backwards to make Bundy look like an unregenerate bigot would be an understatement. I suggest you view the video for yourself at the end of this column. Does he seem like a hater to you? Or does he actually sound like a man with compassion for blacks who have been systematically abused by a new plantation mentality imposed by government dependence?
Farah never explains how the supposed context of Bundy's words makes his references to "the negro" and his wondering if they were "better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy" any less offensive.
Farah also goes full Jack Cashill and declares that Harry Reid's use of two words has a larger meaning than he can actually prove:
Meanwhile, the guy who I suspect is the mastermind of the efforts by government to make an example of Cliven Bundy yesterday showed his own hand.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid called on all of his “progressive” friends to form a “united front” against Bundy.
For those of you untrained in the tactical and strategic arts of the totalitarian left, let me explain that terminology. “United front” has special meaning to only one group – communists. If you doubt what I, a former commie, have to say about it, just Google the term. See for yourself. What Harry Reid’s use of this term suggests is the left considers Cliven Bundy and all those rallying around his cause to be the most important target of the day. The “progressives” are apoplectic about this showdown in the desert. After all, they are supposed to be the champions of hardworking people. The government is supposed to be the friend and savior of working people. Yet, what Cliven Bundy has done, using “progressive” terminology, is to “heighten the contradictions” of socialist reality.
Yet, apparently, Bundy's references to "the negro" and "picking cotton" carry no deeper meaning to Farah -- none that he'll admit to in public, anyway.
WND pulls a similar stunt in an unbylined April 25 "news" article declaring, "Even as elements of a traditional media bound to newsprint continued to blast Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy on Friday for his remarks about blacks, he was getting more support, from blacks." The only blacksWND can name, however, is right-wing activist Niger Innes and a bodyguard for Bundy.
The unbylined article then asserts:
First came the chorus of critics who blasted Bundy as a bigot and racist, but given his status as a folk hero for standing up to the federal bureaucracy, in the shape of the Bureau of Land Management, there was immediate suspicion that there was some context to the quote.
Again, WND fails to explain how the supposed context makes Bundy's words less offensive.
In both of these articles, WND engages in content theft by making a copy of Bundy's remarks from the version posted at Media Matters (disclosure: my employer) and placing that video in a WND-controlled frame so that it can run ads before it. WND doesn't even bother to alter the Media Matters ID logos, which makes the content theft all the more blatant.
So, to recap:
WND demands context for Bundy, but it unashamedly steals the work of others.
Newsmax A Little Too Eager To Forgive AFP For Inappropriate Image Topic: Newsmax
In an April 23 Newsmax article, Sandy Fitzgerald seems unusually eager to forgive Americans for Propsperity for using an inappropriate image in an attack ad:
Americans for Prosperity has quickly apologized for a television advertisement for the upcoming Colorado Senate race that mistakenly used a grim photo of Democratic Sen. Mark Udall standing with President Barack Obama after the Aurora cinema shooting.
The television spot cast blame on the incumbent senator for being closely allied with Obama and Obamacare, blaming him for the cancellation of nearly 335,000 health insurance policies in Colorado, reports The Los Angeles Times.
However, the photograph was one that was taken two days after the July 2012 mass killing at a movie theater while Udall and Obama were visiting victims and their families. Democratic Gov. John Hickenlooper, who was also there visiting, was cropped out of the photo used in the ad.
Victims' families complained about the use of the photo, saying it was an "utter disgrace," and to "insinuate the somber expressions were for anything other than their compassionate response to our heartbreak is beyond unconscionable."
The conservative group, upon hearing of the families' concerns, quickly apologized to the families and replaced the photograph with a different one of Udall and Obama.
Actually, AFP wasn't quite as contrite as Fitzgerald would have you believe. The Denver Post quoted Dustin Zvonek, state director for AFP Colorado, as still in attack mode, "Fortunately, we can and will change the image. ... Sen. Udall can't change his record that led to over 335,000 Coloradans receiving letters indicating that their health care policy had been canceled."
WorldNetDaily is still furiously spinning away Cliven Bundy's racist comments. The latest attempt comes in an April 25 article by Sarah Kupelian -- daughter of WND managing editor David Kupelian who was telling us just a few short days ago that Bundy was "America's newest hero" -- fretting about how Bundy's remarks will affect minority outreach day today at the Bundy Ranch, which was totally previously scheduled before he mouthed off, and gets an opinion on Bundy's racism from the totally unbiased view of his live-in press secretary:
Talking to Shawna Cox, who spends virtually all of her time at the Bundy Ranch and fields calls for the besieged family, WND jumped to the big question: “Is Cliven Bundy a racist, and what exactly does he think about slavery?”
“Of course not!” she replied strongly, regarding racism, adding, “We believe slavery is horrible!
“Friday night we are actually planning a party and specifically inviting blacks and Latinos,” said Cox. “We started planning this party way before these comments were made.”
Cox told WND that after last Friday’s party, Bundy began asking why it was that not many blacks or Latinos were present. So the controversial rancher met with some of the minorities in the community on Monday or Tuesday, she said, to reach out to them and invite them to today’s party.
“I know the man. He’s a God-fearing man,” she said. “This is a really good man who loves and cares about all people,” she added with conviction.
If you can't trust the conviction of a live-in press secretary, who can you trust?
Newsmax's Dershowitz Still Pushing For Pollard's Release Topic: Newsmax
Newsmax has published another column by Alan Dershowitz calling for the U.S. to release Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard, including this argument:
Sixth, the recent declassification of a 1987 CIA damage assessment concerning Pollard confirms, in the words of Weinberger’s Assistant Secretary of Defense Lawrence Korb, that “Pollard did not divulge the most sensitive U.S. national security programs” and “provided intelligence only on the Soviet Union’s activities in the Middle East.”
The document also reveals that, whereas the sentencing judge overturned the plea agreement because Pollard had spoken to the media in supposed violation of the agreement’s terms, the interview had in fact been authorized by the government.
As we've documented, Pollard did a lot more than what Dershowitz claims. And the partially released damage assessment to which Dershowitz refers reveals that too, according to the National Security Archive:
The documents provided information on PLO headquarters in Tunisia; specific capabilities of Tunisian and Libyan air defense systems; Iraqi and Syrian chemical warfare productions capabilities (including detailed satellite imagery); Soviet arms shipments to Syria and other Arab states; naval forces, port facilities, and lines of communication of various Middle Eastern and North African countries; the MiG-29 fighter; and Pakistan's nuclear program. Also included was a U.S. assessment of Israeli military capabilities.4
Pollard's disclosures were alarming to U.S. officials for several reasons, some of which were noted in their official declarations (Document 7a, Document 10) – some of which were direct responses (Document 9) to claims and analysis made by Pollard in his sentencing memorandums (Document 6, Document 8b). One, despite the fact that both the U.S. and Israeli considered each other legitimate intelligence targets, was Israel's willingness to run a human penetration operation directed at the U.S. government. Another, was the damage to the intelligence sharing arrangement with Israel – since its acquisition of material from Pollard weakened the U.S. position vis-a-vis intelligence exchanges with Israel. In addition, there was no guarantee that such documents, revealing both sources and methods as well as assessments, would not find their way to the Soviet Union via a Soviet penetration of the Israeli intelligence or defense community – as had happened with a number of other allies. Further, since Israel was a target of U.S. intelligence collection – particularly technical collection - operations, the documents could be used by Israeli counterintelligence and security organizations to help Israel neutralize or degrade U.S. collection operations.
Dershowitz is not going to mention this. Will anyone else at Newsmax?
WND's Farah Falsely Claims Bundy Is Victim Of A Sting Topic: WorldNetDaily
Joseph Farah huffs in his April 24 WorldNetDaily article:
There’s some high-fiving going on over at the New York Times.
A reporter got Cliven Bundy, the Nevada rancher who became a hero to millions for standing up to gun-toting federal authorities, to step in a big cow pie.
In a profile of Bundy, who likely didn’t have the benefit of a slick New York public relations firm to keep him to the script, the Times apparently got him to say some appallingly racist remarks. It’s unclear what the context of those remarks were, if there is a recording or what the circumstances were that prompted them.
This was a sting operation by the New York Times. The entrapment target wasn’t so much Bundy, but anyone in public life who denounced the Bureau of Land Management’s Gestapo-like tactics in dealing with him.
Criminal suspects who are entrapped by authorities in sting operations often see their cases dismissed.
Cliven Bundy won’t be so fortunate after been stung by the New York Times.
Nagourney, who interviewed Bundy and reported on the statements, said he didn’t ask a question during the press conference, where the only members of the media were himself and a Times photographer.
“The stuff he is in trouble over today was stuff he said on his own unprompted toward the beginning of the event. He said it and I just kept my head down, kept my tape recorder on took notes and that was it,” Nagourney said.
None of Bundy’s supporters seemed to react to the quote and no one from Bundy’s entourage sought to clarify or defend it while he was visiting, Nagourney said, though he immediately knew it was going to be big.
“It’s just one of those things you hear it and you go this is really news, N-E-W-S,” he said.
Nagourney visited Bundy’s ranch on Saturday but said he didn’t publish the piece until Wednesday because there were no other outlets there to compete with, which gave them time to “get the story right.”
“I’m really into transparency, the key point was I was there and with him, I was holding a tape recorder and a notebook, it wasn’t like sneaking into a meeting, it was a public event he called a press conference,” Nagourney said.
Perhaps Farah assumes there was some dishonesty in Nagourney's reporting because that's how he runs WND. DishonestyaboundsinWND'sjournalism -- that's Farah style, so it's no wonder he thinks other journalists are as dishonest as the ones he employs.
While Farah concedes that Bundy's remarks were "appallingly racist," he's still giving the guy a pass:
Let me say this: Cliven Bundy may be an old racist, redneck coot. But that’s not why he was targeted and treated like a serial killer. And, yes, even racist, redneck coots grazing their cattle on public land don’t deserve to be surrounded by armed federal agents.
No one should apologize for defending Bundy. He was never held up as a paragon of virtue or for his intellectual prowess. His case was simply an illustration of what happens when the government is out of control and loses all perspective of right and wrong.
Terry Jeffrey writes in an April 23 CNSNews.com article:
The acreage the federal Bureau of Land Management currently owns in the state of Nevada is more than all the land in all of the states of New England combined, according to data published by the Congressional Research Service.
By contrast, the BLM does not own a single acre of land in any New England state.
Meanwhile, as of this writing, CNS has published no original coverage of Cliven Bundy's racist remarks, and it has refused to place wirearticles about the remarks on its front page so that readers are aware of them.
Damage Control: WND Tries To Clean Up After Lawless Rancher's Racist Remarks Topic: WorldNetDaily
Just two days after WorldNetDaily proclaimed scofflaw rancher Cliven Bundy to be "America's newest hero," WND went into full damage-control mode after Bundy proved himself to be less than heroic.
An unbylined April 24 article tried to suggest that Bundy's statement in a press conference that "I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro" -- that "I’ve often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy?" -- was less than accurate by crediting "the reporting of Adam Nagourney in the New York Times" for the quote. WND added, "Questions or other comments preceding the quotes were not available, leaving unknown the context of Bundy’s response."
When a video surfaced quoting Bundy in all his racially charged glory -- and showing that Bundy was, in fact, accurately quoted -- WND had to change tactics. An article by Bob Unruh features an interview with Bundy's son Ammon in which he baselessly asserts that his father was "taken out of context" and ludicriously claims that he was actually "trying to reach out to the black and Hispanic communities."
Shockingly, Unruh quotes criticism of Bundy's remarks, but they are buried far down in the article.
Meanwhile, in an article posted before Bundy's racist statements were revealed, Richard Viguerie used an April 23 WND column to defend Bundy with a misleading claim:
The BLM claims the Bundys owe the feds more than $1 million in fees and penalties.
Bundy notes that these fees were never authorized by Congress or passed into law. The BLM just started charging them on its own, without congressional statute. According to the U.S. Constitution, Congress makes the laws in America, not the BLM.
In fact, the BLM did just start charging grazing fees willy-nilly; they were authorizedin a 1986 executive order signed by -- wait for it -- President Reagan.
Viguerie goes on to rant that "the GOP so desperately needs new leadership," without mentioning that the sainted Ronald Reagan -- whose style of GOP leadership is what Viguerie would most like to see -- who created the fees that Bundy has refused to pay.
UPDATE: Unruh scrounges up a "prominent black leader" to claim that Bundy's remarks weren't racist, but it turns out it's just Alan Keyes, who's not prominent and isn't leading anyone of note.
In that spirit, Ken Shepherd devotes an April 23 NewsBusters post to having a fit over the Associated Press "betraying the news wire's devotion to absurd political correctness over an obligation to report that which is objectively true" by identifying Manning by her preferred gender:
According to the 2013 AP Stylebook, AP reporters are to "[u]se the pronoun preferred by the individuals who have acquired the physical characteristics of the opposite sex or present themselves in a way that does not correspond with their sex at birth." Of course, "If that preference is not expressed, use the pronoun consistent with the way the individuals live publicly."
None of those stated conditions is met in Pfc. Manning's case. Bradley Manning may have privately dabbled in cross-dressing, but throughout his military career and court martial he presented himself as a man. It was only after his conviction that he announced his desire for gender reassignment therapy and for a legal name change to Chelsea. Manning has obviously not "acquired the physical characteristics of the opposite sex" seeing as he's in military custody and the military is not providing hormone therapy nor allowing him to "present" himself as a female by the wearing of female inmate clothing.
The Associated Press has sacrificed its obligation to report the truth in order to not run afoul of the language police on the Left. This is a grave disservice to the average news consumer as well as to the quest for truth that should mark general news journalism.
Shepherd's post claiming Manning only "privately dabbled in cross-dressing" is illustrated with a photo of, yes, Manning dressed as a female. That would seem to take away the "privately dabbled" argument.
And really, who better to call out "the language police on the Left" than the homophobic, transphobic language police on the right?
WND's Corsi Latches Onto Another Crazy Birther Because Of Course He Would Topic: WorldNetDaily
Apparently, WorldNetDaily sent Jerome Corsi to cover the upcoming trial of a conspiracy theorist who has a new twist on the birther conspiracies Corsi and WND love so much. Corsi writes in an April 20 WND article:
In a nearly empty courtroom at the Southwark Crown Court by the historic London Bridge, a hearing took place in a criminal case that not only has national security implications for the United Kingdom, but, curiously, is woven into the increasingly bizarre fabric of the controversy over Barack Obama’s presidential eligibility.
When it came his time to speak, defendant Michael Shrimpton, a middle-aged London barrister by profession and self-proclaimed intelligence expert, politely issued to the judge a series of interrogatories that made clear he plans to launch a vigorous defense, representing himself before the court. The criminal charges brought by the British government against Shrimpton under Section 51(2) of the Criminal Law Act 1977 accuse him of falsely notifying the British government to prepare for a terrorist nuclear attack on the 2012 Olympics in London that the British government claims had no basis in reality.
It’s the same Michael Shrimpton who appears in a 2008 video that began re-circulating earlier this year on the Internet in which he claims to have been privy to shocking intelligence information on Obama’s origins. Shrimpton contends to this day that the CIA collected DNA from then-Sen. Obama and a grandparent, establishing that Stanley Ann Dunham was not Obama’s biological mother.
The video naturally has raised questions about Shrimpton’s credibility and his qualifications to make such an extraordinary claim.
Surprisingly, even Corsi doesn't sound terribly convinced by Shrimpton's claims, which makes you wonder why he's even bothering with this when he has never written about the numerous birther debunkings and wouldn't even have to leave the country to do so. Yet Corsi devoted two more articles to Shrimpton.
Richard Bartholomew notes that "Shrimpton has also submitted a defence filing. It’s a remarkable document, in which he lays out his credentials and expounds conspiracies on subjects ranging from the fate of Madeline McCann to the supposed Vatican origins of the Koran." Alrighty then.
Conspiracy theorists are known by the company they keep, so we not only have Corsi devoting three articles to Shrimpton, birther Christopher Monckton comes to Shrimpton's defense in an April 22 WND column that starts off with the grandiose insistence that he's so important that British Prime Minister David Cameron reads it:
No doubt Mr. Cameron reads my WND column avidly every week, as every well-informed and discriminating statesman does. So my advice, Dave, baby, is to watch out before you take on Mr. Shrimpton, who faces perhaps the least well-founded and certainly the most bizarre criminal charge of the century.
Her Majesty’s Government (not yet a Shrimpton government) now finds itself in a pickle. If Mr. Shrimpton is of unsound mind, as they think he is or they would not have demanded a psychiatric examination, then the prosecution is bound to fail, at colossal cost to taxpayers.
If Mr. Shrimpton is sane, then HMG will find it has has bitten off more than it can chew. For Shrimpton will exercise every right of the defense to call secret intelligence evidence, such as reports from the network of nuclear-monitoring military satellites, and even a report of a supposed DNA test establishing that Mr. Obama was born in Kenya. Don’t ask me what that has to do with a plot to blow up the London Olympics. Mr. Shrimpton may or may not have all his marbles in the right place, but the prosecution is plainly out to lunch.
So, in short: Yes, birtherism -- and censorship of any fact contradicting it -- is alive and well at WND.
No, CNS, 'The Ten Commandments' Did Not 'Win Nielsen Ratings' Topic: CNSNews.com
An April 22 CNSNews.com article by Michael Chapman declares, "'Ten Commandments'--Made in 1956--Wins Nielsen Ratings." But that's not quite what happened, which is clear once you start reading Chapman's story:
“The Ten Commandments,” a movie made 58 years ago starring the conservative Charlton Heston as “Moses,” and which is broadcast by ABC every year at Easter, won the Nielsen ratings for adult viewers ages 18-49 and for total viewers on Saturday, April 19, pulling in 5.87 million viewers and beating NBC, FOX and CBS.
In 2013, “The Ten Commandments” on ABC drew 5.9 million viewers, and in 2012 it garnered 6.9 million viewers. This year, with an audience of 5.87 million, the movie easily beat NBC’s Dateline Saturday Mystery (4.49 million viewers), FOX’s UFC: Werdum vs. Browne (1.99 million watchers), and CBS’s Mike & Molly show (2.2 million).
As the evening continued, “The Ten Commandments” still garnered the largest total audience, beating out CBS’s Criminal Minds (2.86 million viewers), CBS’s 48 Hours (5.49 million), and NBC’s Saturday Night Live (2.79 million).
So, no, "The Ten Commandments did not "win" the "Nielsen ratings" -- it won its time slot. As USA Today reports, the film was not even among the top 20 programs of the week, it drew only about one-third the viewers of the top-rated program, "NCIS," and it drew fewer viewers than the latest episode of "Game of Thrones," which does not even air on broadcast TV.
Nevertheless, Chapman goes on to promote how "Ten Commandments" star Charlton Heston "was a liberal early in his career but became more conservative in the 1980s." He doesn't explain the obvious -- that Heston was a liberal at the time "The Ten Commandments" was released in 1956.
Sarah Kupelian lays it on thick in the opening of her April 22 WorldNetDaily article:
Cliven Bundy doesn’t normally do interviews on Sundays. But this Easter Sunday, the 67-year-old Nevada cattle rancher stepped out of his church, leaned up against the side wall and talked to America about what really matters to him deep down, revealing a side to him not normally seen in media interviews.
This appears under the headline "America's newest hero: The real Cliven Bundy."
Because this is a puff piece, you won't see Kupelian contrasting Bundy's statement that “I do respect the United States government. I pledge allegiance to that flag and honor it very much" with his earlier assertions that he doesn't recognize the existence of the federal government.
While the interview with Bundy is identified in the article as being taken from "radio talker Dianne Linderman on Talk Radio Network’s nationally syndicated 'Everything That Matters' show," it's not until the end-of-article bio that Kupelian is a producer on that show.
And even then, the disclosure isn't complete: Nowhere is it mentioned that Sarah Kupelian is the daughter of WND managing editor David Kupelian. So, lots of self-promotion and nepotism to go around.
An April 15 column by Morris attacked a plan to move away from the Electoral College and toward a popular vote to elect the president as a scheme to elect Republicans:
Why are Democrats pushing this plan?
Democrats usually see a smaller percentage of their people go to the polls than Republicans do.
Under the electoral vote system, they figure why beat the drums to get a high turnout in New York City when the state will go Democrat anyway? But, if its the popular vote that matters, the big city machines can do their thing -- with devastating impact.
And think of the chances for voter fraud! Right now, the biggest cities, the ones most firmly in Democratic control (e.g. Washington DC, New York, Detroit, Chicago, San Francisco, etc.) are all solidly in blue states. Not only does this make it unnecessary to maximize turnouts there, but it also makes it unnecessary to promote double voting, fraudulent voting, and all the other tricks of the trade at which Democrats excel.
But if the popular vote determines who will be the next president, we can bet that the machines will be out in force lining up voters, real and phony, to pad their statistics.
This was followed by an April 20 article by Todd Beamon touting how "Conservatives and leading liberals slammed the campaign to effectively end the Electoral College's role in presidential elections, saying that the National Popular Vote Compact Law circumvents the Constitution, saying it resembled President Barack Obama's abuse of the law through his extensive use of executive orders." Beamon added that Morris "charged in an exclusive Newsmax column that the effort is ripe for voter fraud and would guarantee that Democrats win the White House every four years."
But we don't recall Morris having anything to say about a Republican attempt to change the Electoral College. Last year, Republicans in Pennsylvania tried to change the electoral vote there from a winner-take-all system to one apportioned by the vote in congressional districts, which would create more Republican electoral votes.
That's vote-rigging at least as egregious as what he claims the popular-vote plan does. What's his position on it?
What could be more boring to Americans than the latest news about a lawsuit brought by a group of political activists in Uganda? Especially since the case is currently in the mind-numbingly boring stage of endless interrogatories and depositions?
But this is no ordinary case.
The defendant, Pastor Scott Lively of Abiding Truth Ministries, says Americans need to be paying very close attention, because the outcome could well set a new precedent – that an international agenda based on anti-biblical standards could trump the U.S. Constitution’s freedom of speech and religion.
This article is just another excuse to mislead about the lawsuit against Lively by Sexual Minorities Uganda, or SMUG.
As he did in an August 2013 article, Unruh lies by asserting that "SMUG alleges Lively must be punished for criticizing homosexuality, calling his speech a 'crime against humanity' in violation of 'international law.'" In fact, SMUG has stated that "none of Plaintiff’s claims are predicated on any speech or writing of the Defendant, odious and ignorant as they may be. His speech is merely circumstantial evidence of the discriminatory intent and motive behind his campaign to deprive LGBTI persons of fundamental rights and thus admissible to help prove the elements of the conspiracy to persecute." Unruh doesn't mention that, of course.
Much of the article is devoted to repeating the case according to Lively's defense attorney. Unruh does not allow SMUG to rebut the claims, nor does he mention any of the things SMUG says Lively has said.
If Unruh wants Americans to be "paying very close attention" to this lawsuit, he is doing his readers no favors by telling only one side of the story and implicitly declaring that the other side has no merit by mischaracterizing their case.
Reporters are supposed to tell the full truth without fear or favor. Unruh apparently fears homosexuals and clearly favors Lively.