Do Kathleen Willey And WND Endorse Roger Stone's Sleazy Sexism? Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily's Jerome Corsi gave Kathleen Willey's latest rantings an uncritical platform in a Feb. 22 article that touts the unsubtly named "Rape PAC," which has a goal of attacking Hillary Clinton's campaign. Corsi adds: "Roger Stone, a confident of former presidents Nixon and Reagan, and author of the 2015 bestselling book 'The Clintons’ War on Women,' has been working with Willey to create the anti-Clinton Rape PAC."
Rsther than explain on what planet Stone's book is "bestselling" -- Amazon ranks it at No. 5,359, hardly a bestseller -- Corsi then quotes Stone whining about "the Clintons’ chronic abuse of women and how Hillary has destroyed any woman who has potentially gotten in the way of their lust for power and wealth.
Corsi failed to mention Roger Stone's own abuse of women, which makes him a very ironic representative of Kathleen Willey.
Just this week, Stone was banned from appearing on CNN for his vicious attacks on Republican strategist Ana Navarro, whom he has called a "Diva Bitch" and "Borderline retarded," and insulting her looks by stating that "Black beans and rice didn't miss her."
Stone has also hurled sexist epithets at other women, including "muff-diver," "elitist c*nt," "professional Negro," and "all around bitch."
And we haven't even gotten to his proud swinger lifestyle which includes possibly more sexual partners than Bill Clinton.
Or that the co-author of Stone's book, Robert Morrow, has some bizarre and creepy sexual fantasies about Hillary. By associating herself with Stone, Willey is associated with this guy too.
How does Willey feel about teaming with a sleazy political operative who has waged his own war on women? Corsi doesn't seem very interested in finding out the answer, and Willey -- whose latest campaign to get Clinton-haters to buy her a house to make up for her apparently terrible financial management skills has stalled out at a paltry $6,795 of the $100,000-plus she wants -- hasn't publicly addressed the issue.
MRC Uses Man-In-Women's-Restroom Incident To Freak Out About Transgenders Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center has a habit of freaking out about transgenders in general, as well as pushing the right-wing "bathroom myth" -- in which allowing transgenders to use the restroom or locker room of their gender identity will somehow create perversion and danger to women -- regardless of the facts.
Mairead McArdle gives the myth another go in a Feb. 19 NewsBusters post, derisively referring to the issue as "confused commodes." She howled about how "a cisgender man invaded a women’s locker room last week" in Seattle. But the article McArdle cites about the incident does not describe the culprit as "cisgender" -- indeed, McArdle later flip-flops and admits that "this particular man seemed only to be making a clumsy statement about the new rule and did not try to identify himself as a woman."
McArdle goes on to baselessly claim that the incident -- even though it had nothing to do with gender identity and may, for all we know, been perpetrated by a right-wing activist protesting the idea of using the bathroom of one's gender identity -- as a "dangerous precedent" and "The man could just as easily have been a predator pretending to identify as a woman."
Well, no. McArdle refuses to acknowledge that there's simply no evidence to support the right-wing claim that allowing transgenders to use facilities consistent with their gender identity opens the door to predators.
But, apparently, hating transgenders gets clicks at the MRC, so expect McArdle and others to keep forwarding their factually deficient propaganda.
WND's Still Kinda Pushing Scalia Conspiracy Theories Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily's attempt to promote conspiracy theories about Antonin Scalia's death may be fizzling out, but that doesn't mean it's stopped nudging the thing along.
This time around, Cheryl Chumley does the honors. She writes in a Feb. 24 article that a doctor whotreats members of Congress pointed out that Scalia died from "his many medical conditions" and that "there was nothing suspicious to see and those who thought otherwise were not fully informed."
But WND dog-whistles the conspiracy with the headline "Scalia death: Nothing to see here, doctor says" (which remains in the URL but has since been changed on the article itself). And Chumlmey herself highlighted "the failure of authorities to perform an autopsy that could confirm or deny much of the information put forth by law enforcement and medical officials," as pointed out by Donald Trump, and quoted a "close friend" of Scalia who was "stunned and shocked" at his death.
Chumley followed that up with an article credulously quoting comedian Dick Gregory effectively repeating the conspiracy theories that WND has tried to promote: "You know they murdered him, right? ... They said they found him with a pillow over his face. That place where he was, it’s a place where money folks go and do their freak stuff. One of the most powerful people in the world and he ain’t got no bodyguard, man?"
Chumley added that "Gregory’s quips underscore the questions that still remain over Scalia’s February 13 death, despite the findings from authorities that nothing unusual or suspicious occurred, as WND reported."
We shouldn't be surprised -- WND did continue to push Obama birther conspiracies for years after the facts undermined them.
MRC's Baker Unhappy Scalia's Questionable Ethical Behavior Is Reported Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's Brent Baker whines in a Feb. 19 NewsBusters post:
A story topic so enticing, they ran it twice. Apparently, not even dying is enough to deter media hostility – if you’re a conservative. Headline on page A6 in Thursday’s Washington Post: “Justice Scalia’s free stay at luxury ranch highlights judicial ethics questions.” Subhead: “Should judges socialize with people who could have cases before them?” (Online version: “Why Justice Scalia was staying for free at a Texas resort”).
Page A2 of Friday’s paper: “Justices travel often, but it’s not always clear who pays.” Subhead: “Scalia was staying free at the resort in Texas where he died.”
Both stories led with plenty of innuendo about Scalia, only getting to other justices deep in the articles.
Baker offered no evidence to contradict the claims made in the article, which means he's upset those claims were made at all. That seems to make him a would-be censor.
And it's quite hilarious that the the MRC, which can'tstopbringingup Chappaquiddick even though Ted Kennedy's been dead for years, has now declared any mention of possible ethical breaches by Scalia to be verboten because he just died.
WND Takes The Side Of Another Tax Protester Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily has a soft spot for scofflaws and activists who refuse to pay the taxes they owe. After all, one of WND's early financiers was a businessman who's currently in prison for tax evasion (not to mention threatening a judge and fleeing the country to avoid an earlier attempt at justice).
In that spirit, Alex Newman wrote a lengthy Feb. 21 WND article on Doreen Hendrickson, who he claims is now "sitting behind bars" for "sign a form under penalty of perjury that she believed to be inaccurate" -- her tax returns.
In WND tradition, Newman is highly biased toward Hendrickson's plight, to the point that he leaves out inconvenient facts. At no point in his 77-paragraph article does Newman bother to quote from the prosecution's case (though he claims that "The Justice Department did not respond to repeated requests by phone and email for information from WND") or even to describe exactly what Hendrickson did, let alone demonstrate what was supposedly false about the amended tax returns she was allegedly compelled to sign.
Apparently, Newman was incapable of performing a simple Google search that would have quickly uncovered the DOJ press release on Hendrickson's sentencing (which occurred last April, meaning Newman had many months to work on this story) that explained exactly what Hendrickson did:
According to court filings and evidence presented at trial, Hendrickson and her husband, Peter Hendrickson, filed federal income tax returns for the years 2002 and 2003 on which they falsely claimed they earned zero wages. Based on these false returns, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued the Hendricksons more than $20,000 in income tax refunds that they were not entitled to receive. In 2006, the Tax Division sued the Hendricksons to recover these refunds. As part of that litigation, Judge Edmunds ordered the Hendricksons to file corrected amended tax returns for 2002 and 2003 that reported all of their income, and further ordered them to repay their fraudulently obtained refunds to the IRS. Judge Edmunds also barred the Hendricksons from filing additional false tax returns.
In 2009, Peter Hendrickson was convicted of filing multiple false income tax returns, including the 2002 and 2003 returns that he filed jointly with his wife. The tax returns at issue were based on the false and frivolous tax theories that Peter Hendrickson promoted in his book, “Cracking the Code,” and on his website, Lost Horizons. Peter Hendrickson was sentenced to serve 27 months in prison in that case.
The evidence presented at Doreen Hendrickson’s trial showed that she violated the injunction issued by Judge Edmunds when she failed to file amended 2002 and 2003 tax returns. Also, in direct violation of Judge Edmunds’s order, Hendrickson filed a false income tax return for 2008 on which she falsely claimed that wages she earned as a movie extra were not taxable. This tax return was submitted while her husband was under indictment for filing false tax returns.
Newman never explains why Dorren Hendrickson's claim that she made no money in 2002 and 2003 is accurate, given that the DOJ apparently provided evidence that she did, in fact, have income. He also fails to mention that Pete Hendrickson spent time in prison for filing false tax returns.
And even though Newman had months to write this story, the only thing he says of Pete Hendrickson's anti-tax screed is that "WND has not reviewed the book nor its arguments" and quotes him as asserting "This entire affair is an effort to discredit my book."
Newman went on to repeat Pete Hendrickson's assertion that "many Americans had successfully used the arguments he advances and posted the evidence of success online." Well, that's notquite true: there's at least one case in which someone using his arguments was fined $2,500 for doing so.
That case also noted that Pete Hendrickson has a previous conviction for conspiring to blow up a mailbox on tax day, and it exposes the tricks he pushes in his anti-tax book, such as an "unduly narrow -- indeed, wholly unreasonable -- definition of 'person.'" It adds that "Mr. Hendrickson has been enjoined 'from filing any tax return, amended return, form * * * or other writing or paper with the IRS that is based on the false and frivolous claims set forth in Cracking the Code that only federal, state or local government workers are liable for the payment of federal income tax or subject to the withholding of federal income, social security and Medicare taxes from their wages.'"
The ruling sums up Hendrickson's book as "an antitax screed, short on substance and long on invective" and is "largely an exercise in twisting the meaning of words into what the author wants them to mean, even if statutes, regulations, and case law define those words otherwise."
The fact that Newman could not or would not find any of this information tells us he's serving as a stenographer and propagandist, not a reporter.
CNS Serves Up Ridiculous Anti-Hillary Bias As 'News' Topic: CNSNews.com
The mission statement for CNSNews.com states in part that it tires to "cover stories that are subject to the bias of omission and report on other news subject to bias by commission."
And how does it do that? By engaging in a lot of bias by commission.
Take, for example, this Feb. 17 "news" article by Susan Jones on a Hillary Clinton speech:
Repeating the same promises and platitudes that African-Americans have heard for years from the Democrats who claim to represent them, Hillary Clinton on Tuesday went a step further: She mentioned her (white) "privilege"; and she said Democrats need to hold candidates accountable, "not just every two or four years...but every single day."
She made all the old, familiar promises: expanding pre-school; dismantling the "school-to-prison pipeline"; ending "excessive incarceration"; addressing re-segregation in the nation's schools; making college affordable; ending "gun violence"; ending the "epidemic of African Americans being killed by police or dying in custody"; banning the box on federal job applications; ending income disparities; and creating jobs in America's inner cities.
Again: This is a "news" article from a "news" organization that purports to loathe "bias by commission."
If a reporter for the so-called "liberal media" used a "news" article to dismiss a Republican presidential candidate's speech as nothing but "promises and platitudes," CNS' parent, the Media Research Center, would be screaming bloody murder. But the MRC apparently has no problem with such a heavy political slant as long at its own right-wing agenda is being furthered in the process.
If someone from CNS can explain why such egregious bias is not just permitted but encouraged on its pages when it's run by an organization that attacks media bias, feel free to contact me.
WND Not Even Bothering To Do Real Birther Reporting Anymore Topic: WorldNetDaily
How much does WorldNetDaily notwantto cover birther stories involving people other than Barack Obama? It's not even assigning reporters to write about it anymore.
The last bylined birther-related story at WND was a Feb. 12 article by Douglas Ernst on Donald Trump's threats to file a lawsuit challenging Trump's eligibility. It's a relatively balanced article -- not somsething that happened when WND covered the issue of Obama's eligibility.
Since then, WND has simply copied-and-pasted (read: stolen) the works of others in reporting on new birther issues:
A Feb. 18 article on a Cruz birther case heading to court was stolen from CNN.
A Feb. 22 article on Trump now going after Marco Rubio's eligibility was stolen from Politico.
By contrast, WND assigned reporter Paul Bremmer to cover Glenn Beck's declaration that he's fasting to benefit Cruz's campaign. Priorities!
MRC Loves That Spanish-Language Channel Is Spreading Anti-Clinton Sleaze Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center couldn't be more psyched that a news program on the Spanish-language network MegaTV spread a sleazy report about Hillary Clinton. From a Feb. 22 post credited only to "MRC Latino Staff":
A few days ago, we covered a one-sided pro-sanctuary cities story on Mega Noticiero and wondered aloud whether this new national Spanish-language newscast was going to do anything to differentiate itself from the rest of the market. Boy, were we wrong.
Interesting things happen when your network is not partially owned by a top Clinton Foundation donor who has pledged his “full might” to electing Hillary Clinton to the presidency. Case in point: Mega Noticiero actually went there and covered a fresh story regarding Hillary Clinton’s alleged lesbian proclivities:
MARIA ELVIRA SALAZAR, ANCHOR, MEGA NEWS: Now, the supposed ex-lover of former President Bill Clinton is assuring that Hillary is a lesbian. Miss Sally Miller, who was once Miss Arkansas, says she had a romance with Bill in 1983, and that the then Governor of that state told her that Hillary didn't like having sex with him, because she preferred sex with women.
The story aired during the newscast’s new “Political Circus” segment, a daily roundup of the varied goings-on of the campaign trail and highlight, per Salazar, “what goes on under the tent.”
The story has yet to air on any other major national television newscast, in English or Spanish. Mega Noticiero was evidently willing to take the risk involved, trust its viewers to watch the reporting and let them decide for themselves.
The item signals the beginning of what appears to be real market differentiation in the national Spanish-language media space.
So it's good that a media outlet is expressing "real market differentiation" by acting like the obsessive Clinton-haters at WorldNetDaily -- which, unsurprisingly, promoted the same claim -- by promoting a woman who's widely considered to have no credibility? Apparently it is at MRC Latino.
When we pointed it out to MRC Latino on Twitter, he/she/they responded, "the post simply observes, takes note of the dynamics of the coverage out there." They later added: "focus is not promotion or endorsement, but analysis of what's already out there and going on in media segment."
That's a disingenous defense. MRC Latino could have distanced itself from the content of the smear it was promoting has it talked about "market differentiation," but it didn't. And MRC Latino is not afraid to judge content, at least when it comes to content that doesn't mesh with its ideology: Five days earlier, "MRC Latino Staff" dedicated a post to attacking the very same news show for a story on sanctuary cities, declaring that it was "breathtaking, to say the least, in the scope of its bias."
MRC Latino, meanwhile, chearly has no problem with the breathtaking bias of the Hillary smear promulgated by the very same people.
That's some very shoddy "media research" there. But that's what you get when people who aren't very fond of Latinos monitor Latino media.
There’s a reason Florida is one of the most desired places to live: it’s Jeb Bush.
There is a reason that Florida is a strong, Republican-controlled state: Jeb Bush.
There is even a reason Marco Rubio is running for president today: Yep, Jeb again.
As New Hampshire voters come down to the wire, I think Republican voters there and across the country need to take a serious, second look at Jeb.
While I think we have a remarkable field — from a brilliant businessman like Donald Trump, a conservative champion like Carly Fiorina, a charismatic Rubio, and respected governors like Chris Christie and John Kasich, Jeb may fit the bill of what Americans want this November.
With all of the noise in the current campaign, it’s vitally important we conservatives look for a leader with a strong track record, a real leader.
Surely the American people will look for these qualities come November — and Jeb has them in spades.
Ruddy went to bat for Jeb again on Feb. 17, doing his best to spin Bush's electoral problems:
Bush has had his share of stumbles, but he has shown resiliency for several reasons.
First, he has had a powerful conservative record as governor in Florida. No candidate in the race comes close to Jeb’s record on taxes, spending, pro-life, pro-gun, state’s rights and other issues conservatives are about. It’s indisputable.
Second, he has a national organization ready to fund and sustain him though a primary with either Trump or Cruz, and later through a fierce general election campaign against Hillary.
Third, while appearing rusty in early debates, Bush has risen to the occasion, having given a strong performance in Charleston.
So far, Jeb Bush has outperformed. The pundits said he would be an asterisk in New Hampshire. But he came in a solid fourth place, ahead of Rubio.
If he comes in second or third in South Carolina, he will be positioned as the leading establishment candidate through Super Tuesday.
After that, he will have an even stronger hand in primary states ahead like Florida, California, New York, Illinois, to name a few.
And, if day one of a Jeb Bush presidency happens, the country will be in very good hands.
Remember, Ruddy is a player in Florida Republican politics, where Bush is from and where Newsmax is headquartered. He's tried to playkingmaker for various Republican candidates there, and at one point was a possible candidate for the Senate seat currently held by Democrat Bill Nelson.
Of course, in between thouse two columns on Bush, Ruddy wrote one praising Donald Trump, gushing, "Donald Trump is a born winner."
Logrolling In Our Time, Jim Fletcher Edition Topic: WorldNetDaily
We've documented that one of Jim Fletcher's duties as a WorldNetDaily columnist is to crank out rave reviews of WND-published books. He does this yet again in his Feb. 14 WND column:
America has endured epic crises in her history: the Great Depression, world wars, even internal strife. Perhaps none, though, compares with the current Thing in the White House. David Kupelian has it right in his spot-on new book, “The Snapping of the American Mind: Healing a Nation Broken by a Lawless Government and Godless Culture.” Kupelian, whose books are correctly defined by an endorser as “fearless,” has that rarest of virtues: he doesn’t care what critics think when he says things that need to be said.
In fact, Kupelian starts off early in “Snapping” by correctly defining the agenda of the Obama administration, calling it a “largely concealed agenda.” This key understanding, of course, is markedly different from those in the majority who lament the “incompetence” of Obama.
“The Snapping of the American Mind” is the kind of book that mavericks write and produce, and I dare say if we didn’t have independent outlets, the average American would know next to nothing. Because people do know what’s going on, thanks in large part to researchers like Kupelian, the country has a chance to survive the Marxist-in-chief. In fact, Kupelian also keenly understands what other fighters like David Horowitz understand: Our opponents have contempt for the “niceness” that has gripped the Republican Party.
Kupelian is having none of it. An example of how he skillfully dismisses ideological opponents: “To my liberal friends: Do me a favor and don’t tell me, ‘But the ’50s had racial segregation.’ Yes, and today we dismember, poison, vacuum, crush the skulls of, chemically burn, or decapitate three thousand beautiful human babies every single day. So just drop it.”
Every single chapter in “Snapping” is gold. The reader will learn not only why we are where we are, but also he points to the ultimate solution: not the false messiah so many are embracing, but the Real One.
(One final note: I love books with an index. This one has one; just an added reason to get it, read it, absorb it.)
Fletcher fails to mention even once that not only is the book published by WND, Kupelian is WND's managing editor. Yet every single mention of the book's title in this purported review is linked to WND's online store. Hype over substance!
MRC-Mark Levin Business Arrangement/Love Affair Watch Topic: Media Research Center
It says something about the business relationship the Media Research Center has with right-wing radio host Mark Levin that the lead story on MRC's "news" website CNSNews.com yesterday was Levin starting a TV channel, with the giant patriotic handout shot of Levin that being the lead story entails (screen shot above). And CNS managing editor Michael W. Chapman has all the fawning details:
Best selling author, talk-radio giant, and conservative leader Mark Levin is branching out further in the digital media world by launching LevinTV, through the media company CRTV. The first episode of LevinTV will air on March 7.
Levin, who reaches millions of people daily through his radio program, The Mark Levin Show, will expand his audience through this digital based television platform, which is described as “America’s new televised Town Hall meeting,” in a statement from CRC Public Relations.
“I have the greatest audience in the world and I give them my best every night,” said Mark Levin. “I am thrilled we are expanding our Town Hall meeting place for patriots, by taking TV broadcasting to a new level on multiple platforms where I will speak directly to my audience -- uncensored, without middlemen, and commercial free.”
Chapman didn't mention that the MRC is apparently one of those platforms where Levin can speak "uncensored, without middlemen, and commercial free." Nor did he mention that Levin's PR firm, CRC Public Relations, also does work for the MRC.
But that wasn't enough Levin boosterism for CNS. It followed up with an article by Susan Jones that's nothing more than a transcription of a speech by Levin.
WND's Farah Denounces Jewish Profiling, Hides That WND Columnist Did It Topic: WorldNetDaily
Joseph Farah writes in his feb. 16 WorldNetDaily column:
It’s been going for decades in Washington – especially in the military and intelligence sectors.
Jews and former Israelis continue to be negatively profiled for government employment and contractor positions, especially those that involve security clearances.
Impossible you say?
No, it’s a dirty little fact and hardly a secret in Washington.
How can this be so when Barack Obama and the Washington establishment consistently denounce the idea of “profiling” people?
The sad fact is there is a growing bias against Israel in Washington, under the Obama administration, on college campuses where Israel defenders are often denied a forum to speak, in short, wherever so-called “progressives” reign supreme.
Farah didn't mention that one of his own WND columnists engaged in a more vile form of Jewish "profiling" -- to the point that it's arguably anti-Semitism.
WND columnist Ted Nugent proclaimed earlier this month that gun control was some kind of Jewish-led conspiracy, posting on his Facebook page pictures of Jewish politicians that included a small Israeli flag stamped on each individual’s face. He later defended the post, ranting, "What sort of racist prejudiced POS could possibly not know that Jews for guncontrol are nazis in disguise?" White nationalists loved it.
Yet Farah and WND has been silent about this offensive behavior by one of its columnists. Then again, Farah is too gutless to drop Ann Coulter's column no matter how offensive she gets gecause WND needs the clicks she brings.
(P.S. Two days after Farah's column appeared, Nugent finally apologized for the post, though it's still live on his Facebook page. WND hasn't mentioned that, either.)
NewsBusters Channels WND, Frets Over Hillary Coughing Fit Topic: NewsBusters
NewsBusters' Mark Finkelstein loves his conpsiracy theories -- he will forever be associated with his claim that a checkered scarf worn by NBC host Matt Lauer might very well be a "Palestinian support scarf."
So it's not really a surprise to see Finkelstein channel his inner WorldNetDaily in a Feb. 16 post:
How can we put this politely? "Choked up," our hind quarters . . . In the most blatant case of the MSM covering for a liberal candidate with a potentially serious health issue that this NewsBuster can remember, CNN's Brianna Keilar has described a Hillary Clinton coughing fit as a case of Clinton getting "choked up."
Readers are urged to watch this clip from Hillary's speech in Harlem today. This is someone experiencing a serious, extended, coughing fit. Yet on Don Lemon's CNN show this evening, Keilar described this as Hillary being "choked up so badly that she struggled to speak for a few minutes and they actually cheered to fill the time." Rightttt.
This isn't the first time on the recent campaign trail that Hillary has suffered a serious coughing bout.
We're not kidding about the WND reference. Here's what WND wrote about the same incident:
Yet again, Hillary Clinton’s messaging to a supportive audience has been interrupted by a severe coughing fit.
A video posted online shows her at a recent appearance before a supportive fan base at the Schomburg Center for Research in Black Culture in New York.
Part way through her address, she starts coughing.
The hacking continues for half a minute while she's virtually unable to talk, then she gets out a cough drop. She sips water. She still coughs.
She tries to continue, with a voice like a bad case of laryngitis.
At a minute-and-a-half, she's still coughing.
At two minutes.
At nearly three minutes, she's recovering but still clearly affected.
WND had reported only about two weeks earlier on her issues with coughing.
WND's Scalia Conspiracy Theory Fail Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily's attempt to forward conspiracy theories about the death of Antonin Scalia seem to be running out of gas -- and it's not just because it's hiding inconvenient facts that refuse to play along.
In a Feb. 16 WND article, Cheryl Chumley highlights how the conspiracy has been "stoked" by the revelation of John Poindexter, who owns the Texas guest ranch where Scalia died, being -- gasp! -- pictured with President Obama and had "received an award from Obama for his Vietnam military service." Chumley then quoted a fringe blogger adding, "Coincidence? That will be for you the readers to decide."
Somehow, Chumley overlooked the fact that, as the Washington Post reported, Scalia's stay at the ranch was free, seemingly in appreciation of the Supreme Court declining last year to take up an age discrimination lawsuit involving a company Poindexter owns.But then, that conspiracy isn't as juicy as the one Chumley is trying to push.
WND followed that with an unbylined Feb. 17 article complaining that Scalia conspiracy theorists like itself -- er, "skeptics" -- are being mocked as conspiracy theorists. The article made sure to present the conspiracy as credible, highlighting how "Justice Scalia was found dead by millionaire Democratic Party donor and Obama ally John Poindexter near America’s unsecured, dangerous, porous, and cartel-controlled Southern Border" and lamenting that "If foul play or accidental poisoning was involved with the death of Scalia, much of that evidence has already been destroyed or corrupted when his body was washed and embalmed at a funeral home less than 24 hours after his body was discovered."
WND didn't mention the Poindexter case before the court, nor did it note that even Scalia's son rejects the conspiracy theories: "Our family just has no doubt that he was taken from us by natural causes. ... We accept that. We’re praying for him. We ask others to accept that and pray for him."
WND is having trouble finding people who aren't fringe whackjobs to keep the conspiracy going. Not a good sign for a "news" organization trying to pretend it has some journalistic credibility.
The Media Research Center -- which doesn't exactly like gays in the first place -- has been on a bit of a tear with anti-gay sniping the past few days.
In a Feb. 14 post, Dylan Gwinn cheered an episode of "Family Guy" in which cartoon protagonist Peter Griffin being glad his son sent sent a picture of his gential to a girl instead of a guy: "So how about that, huh? An expression of relief and joy that your son isn’t gay on major network television? Not necessarily something you see every day. So that would be good."
A couple days later, Gwinn was distressed that boxer Manny Pacquiao, a candidate for political office in the Philippines, was being held accountable for likening gays to animals, lamenting that "Predictably, Pacquiao apologized for causing any offense in a Facebook video."
Gwinn sarcastically groused that "Pacquiao’s comments were greeted with warmth and understanding by the media and LGBT activists."But he quoted only Filipinos commenting on it, not Americans.
Meanwhile, Mairead McArdle picked Gwinn's anti-gay baton for a Feb. 15 rant attacking Adidas:
Adidas has jumped on the politically correct bandwagon with a Valentine’s Day Instagram post showing a same sex couple.
The picture of what looks like two women in a romantic embrace is captioned with the old Beatles line, “The love you take is equal to the love you make.” By Monday it had over 96,000 comments and counting.
Adidas responded to some of the displeased comments, “No, this is a day for love. Happy Valentine’s Day.”
Business Insider, Buzzfeed, Mic.com, and other news outlets rushed to lionize the company for standing up for LGBT people.
Adidas has been a vigilant promoter of the LGBT agenda.
Adidas and the other companies should keep in mind that the LGBT lifestyle is still hotly debated in psychological circles.
Note that McArdle is ranting over something that she says merely "looks like two women in a romantic embrace." The Adidas Instagram post in question shows only legs and is arguably ambiguous as to the sex of the people involved. Adidas never explicitly confirmed that it's a same-sex couple, and McArdle seems angry that Adidas would invoke "love" in defending it.
The screenshot of the Instagram post accompanying McArdle's post is weirdly and needlessly cropped, as if the upper thighs of what might be a same-sex couple were somehow offensive.
And McArdle's proof that "the LGBT lifestyle is still hotly debated in psychological circles" is of an article at the conservative National Review -- which convolutedly asks, "Is it possible to to avoid 'homophobia' (a deliberately imprecise term) while preserving 'heteronormativity' (which at least sounds more scientific)?" -- not the first place one would go to find a fair "debate" on the subject.