Fake News: WND Still Falsely Claiming Calif Bill Would Ban The Bible Topic: WorldNetDaily
For the past month or so, WorldNetDaily has been spreadingfake news about a proposed California law to ban anti-gay conversaion therapy, claiming that it bans the Bible. WND's Bob Unruh rehashes the fake news once again in a June 5 article:
Californians who don’t want their lawmakers to ban the Bible, to criminalize counselors who help people with same-sex attractions and to dictate their moral values apparently will have one chance to tell them.
That’s at a hearing before the legislature’s Judiciary Committee on June 12, where AB 2943 will be discussed.
It would make counseling against same-sex lifestyles a crime by calling it “consumer fraud.”
The bill also would ban printed materials that advocate for ways to become free of unwanted same-sex attractions. And several experts contend the broadly written proposal could ban sale of the Bible.
Unruh is simply repeating politically motivated lies. He hides the fact that the bill's sponsors specifically state that its bill does not ban the Bible -- it simply bans conversion therapy as a commercial service.
Interestingly, at no point in his quoting of opposition to the bill does Unruh quote anyone offering proof of the efficacy of conversion therapy.
Given that publishing fake news was a key reason WND almost died earlier this year (even if Joseph Farah won't acknowledge it), shouldn't it be more careful about what it publishes?
NEW ARTICLE: CNS' Managing Editor of Gay-Bashing, Part 2 Topic: CNSNews.com
Michael W. Chapman is still using his Media Research Center-provided platform to rage against the LGBT community. Read more >>
WND Columnist: Whites Are The New Jews Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily columnist Ilana Mercer still laments the end of apartheid in her native South Africa. Now she's working up white victimhood in her June 7 column, basically portraying whites as vilified as Jews:
Clever catchphrases such as “white privilege” create political reality, they don’t reflect it.
By banging on about systemic racism and the evils of whiteness, the lunatics running the country’s academic and corporate asylums indoctrinate the dumb and terrorize deviationists.
Here in the U.S., these sub-intelligent assaults on the identity of Europeans, Caucasians, melanin-deficient men – whatever you wish to call the majority that founded America – is being institutionalized.
In South Africa, the writer’s birthplace, this impoverished, linguistic onanism is already institutionalized. We know where that has led.
Ominously, American universities, the University of Wisconsin-Madison is an example, are offering courses framing “whiteness” as a “problem.” “The Problem of Whiteness” in UW–Madison’s vernacular.
Notice how that’s phrased. A problem is something good people get rid of, solve.
“The Problem of Whiteness.” “The Jewish Problem.” See where this might lead?
Note the linguistic similarities between the language of white haters and Jew killers.
The program known as “The Final Solution” was the Nazi’s solution to what they termed “The Jewish Problem.”
Likewise, whites as whites are said to be a problem. Whites qua whites are described as intrinsically bad.
Mercer might have a point if whites were a historically oppressed minority in America. They're not.
After the British Embassy in Belarus flew a rainbow-gay flag above its front door on May 17, the International Day Against Homophobia, the Interior Ministry issued a statement denouncing the U.K.'s actions as contrary to the "traditional family" and the "Christian" values of Belarusians.
The Interior Ministry also stressed that "same-sex relationships" are "fake" because only a man and a woman together can produce children, and added that the Belarus government will protect traditional marriage and give it exclusive rights in the law.
In a May 17 Instagram post showing the rainbow flag, the U.K. Embassy said that it had posted "a rainbow flag today to support the LGBT community and draw public attention to the discrimination that LGBT people are constantly facing."
In reaction, the statement by the Belarus Interior Ministry said that Britain was challenging the country's "traditional values," reported the BBC.
"The overwhelming majority of Belarusians stick to traditional family values, including Christian ones," said the Interior Ministry. "And such statements [by the British] are a challenge to these values."
Relationships between men and women are the "only way of reproduction," said the Ministry. "No matter which way you look at it, a same-sex relationship is a fake. And the essence of the fake is always the same -- the erosion of the truth."
"The LGBT community and the whole struggle for its rights and this community’s [homophobia] day itself are all just fake!” said the Interior Ministry.
Chapman curiously didn't mention something that was in the BBC article: "In a report last year, human rights group Amnesty International said the LGBT community faced growing discrimination in Belarus as a result of repressive government policies." Then again, he's probably down that that type of repression.
Double Standards Galore in MRC's Outrage Over Samantha Bee Topic: Media Research Center
There were a lot of double standards flying about when the Media Research Center wenty after Samantha Bee for tagging a vulgar expression on Ivanka Trump.
Kyle Drennen complained that one reporter pointed out that Bee is a comedian: "When Roseanne crossed the line, the press rightfully criticized her. But when Bee hurled her invective at the First Family, Soboroff’s first instinct was to claim she’s just 'a comedian.' The hypocrisy is stunning."
As is the MRC's. We remember when Hank Williams Jr. likened President Obama to Hitler, the MRC's first instinct was to dismiss it as a "bad joke."
Peter Sifre declared: "It is absolutely wrong to call a woman the 'C' word. However, the moral relativism of the left naturally leads to the conclusion that it is allowed if the correct intersectional categories are checked off by the offender and if they agree with the offender’s politics. It would be wrong if it was a random woman on the street but it is okay if it is the president’s daughter. It would be wrong if a man said it but it is okay because Samantha Bee said it. This is the antithesis of individual responsibility."
Meanwhile, we don't remember the MRC getting offended by anything Ted Nugent -- a current board member of the National Rifle Association and a visitor to the White House under Donald Trump -- has done, which include calling Hillary Clinton a "toxic cunt."
WND Somehow Manages To Once Again Escape Being Sued Over Its Seth Rich Conspiracy-Mongering Topic: WorldNetDaily
There's another Seth Rich lawsuit: This time, family spokesman Brad Bauman is suing several people, including Texas businessman Ed Butowsky, for promoting the false idea that the Democratic National Committee "assigned" Bauman to be a spokesman for the Rich family or is otherwise involved in the situation.
A May 2017 WND article by Alicia Powe used Butowsky's accusation as a hook to interview Bauman about it. His unequivocal denial is the lead, but Powe did what she could to undermine it by suggesting Bauman's political history may indicate a DNC link:
The spokesman for the family of murdered Democratic National Committee staffer Seth Rich emphatically denies that the DNC is funding his salary.
Brad Bauman, a professional Democratic crisis public-relations consultant who has frequently criticized President Trump, abruptly ended a call with WND when asked about his connection to the DNC.
“That is patently 100 percent false!” he shouted, when asked if he was hired by the DNC, just before disconnecting the call.
Bauman refused to indicate who is paying his salary.
He is a consultant with Pastorum Group in Washington, D.C., a firm with progressive ties. In his role as a communications consultant, Bauman offers “strategic communications advice to Democratic candidates and labor unions,” his LinkedIn page states. The Pastorum Group Facebook page features many comments blasting Republicans and Trump, and members of the firm even protested President Trump’s 100th day in office.
From 2011 to 2014, Bauman was executive director of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, according to his LinkedIn page. He “worked with major progressive allies to craft and push progressive agenda items in Congress” and “founded Progressive Action PAC.”
Heavy.com reported Bauman has called for civil disobedience to push for an “independent investigation of Russia.”
Despite Bauman’s statement to the contrary, a Texas businessman who hired a private eye to look into Rich’s murder told WND that the DNC “assigned” Bauman to represent the Rich family.
Ed Butowsky, a wealth management and financial adviser, said the Rich family asked him for assistance in stopping top D.C. lobbyist Jack Burkman from representing himself to media as their spokesman.
“Joel Rich’s exact words were ‘the DNC assigned [Bauman] to us,'” Butowsky said.
Butowsky said has never spoken to Burkman, “but all I know is that Mr. Rich didn’t like him, that he wouldn’t listen and kept making up stuff.”
In an interview with WND on May 16, Bauman explained that he was put in touch with Rich’s family by two of Rich’s friends – both of whom worked for the DNC – and that the family requested help because they had more media requests than they could handle.
Another May 2017 article by Powe features a WikiLeaks tweet calling Bauman "a professional Democrat crisis PR consultant. A separate May 2017 article by Powe and fringe conspiracy-monger Liz Crokin, echoed WikiLeaks in calling Bauman a "Democratic political crisis consultant." A June 2017 article by Powe once again called Bauman "a Democratic political crisis consultant."
WND has miraculously avoided becoming a defendant in other lawsuits -- by Rich's parents and his brother -- aimed at shutting down those who push bogus conspiracy theories despite also trading in some of those very same conspiracy theories.
Mark Levin Dictates CNS' Editorial Agenda, Apparently Topic: CNSNews.com
The Media Research Center is close buddies with right-wing radio host Mark Levin -- so much so that in the first four months of this year, the MRC's "news" division, CNSNews.com, publishced 33 articles that simply transcribe what Levin said on his radio show. Now, it appears that the MRC has decided to hand over partial control over CNS' editorial agenda to Levin.
Craig Bannister dedicated a May 26 CNS blog post to Levin's latest crusade, insisting that "the appointment of Special Counsel Robert Mueller is unconstitutional – and he’s not the only constitutional scholar to make the case." Bannister enthusiastically touted how "Levin credits Northwestern Law School Professor Steven Calabresi for raising many of these points with him over the weekend. 'I agree completely with his analysis,' Levin says."
Two days later, CNS editor in chief Terry Jeffrey devoted his column to parroting Levin's claims:
Calabresi concluded that those targeted by Mueller "should challenge the constitutionality of his actions on Appointments Clause grounds."
Mark Levin, who served with Calabresi in the Reagan Justice Department, agrees.
"Every defendant, suspect and witness, etc., in this matter," Levin said on his website, "should challenge the Mueller appointment as a violation of the Appointments Clause."
But that wasn't enough. With the coming of summer comes a new crop of interns to the MRC, some of which got assigned to CNS. So the interns harassednofewerthansixsenators with the exact same question: "Professor Steven Calabresi of Northwestern Law School and Mark Levin have argued that Robert Mueller’s appointment violates the Appointments Clause because he is a principal officer exercising at least the authority of a U.S. attorney but was not appointed by the president or confirmed by the Senate. Do you agree that Mueller’s appointment is unconstitutional?"
That's not reporting -- that's doing the bidding of a right-wing radio host.
WND Absurdly Blames Pedophile Congressional Candidate On A Democrat Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily's Art Moore raises his Democrat-blaming game to a whole new level in a June 1 article:
A confessed pedophile who served prison time for threatening to assassinate the president of the United States is running for Congress in Virginia.
The candidacy of Nathan Larson, an independent, was made possible by former Democratic Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, who restored the rights of felons in 2016 to vote and run for office.
Larson would not have been eligible to run for office or vote before August 2016, when McAuliffe, a longtime Clinton operative, restored the rights of some 13,000 felons.
McAuliffe, who is thought to be a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2020, initially issued a blanket clemency that restored the rights of 200,000 felons in April 2016.
But the state Supreme Court struck down the order, ruling McAuliffe exceeded his legal authority. The governor then trimmed the number.
McAuliffe was chairman of the Democratic National Committee, co-chairman of President Bill Clinton’s 1996 re-election campaign and chairman of Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign.
Blaming McAuliffe for Larson's candidacy is absurd -- Moore provides no evidence that McAuliffe specifically pardoned Larson so he could run for office, let alone offers any proof that McAuliffe encouraged Larson in any way to run. McAuliffe's goal was to circumvent lifetime disenfranchisement laws in Virginia restore voting rights to felons who had completed their sentences, which Larson apparently had.
Moore apparently has no faith in the Virginia electorate to reject an admitted pedophile at the ballot box.
It's this sort of kneejerk hatred of their perceived enemies that helped lead WND to its recent near-death experience. It appears WND has no intention of altering those disastrous, highly biased editorial policies.
MRC's Graham Doesn't Like Fact-Check That Fits His Interpretation Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center continues its politically motivated and desperate "fact-checking the fact-checkers" campaign -- which might be more meaningful if MRC was concerned about fact-checking itself first -- with a May 29 post by Tim Graham ranting about a New York Times fact-check that accurately pointed out that Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats were not defending the violent gang MS-13 by pointing out that they are humans and not animals,as President Trump apparently claimed.
Graham grumbled that the Times fact-checker "sounded like Pelosi's press secretary on the MS-13 charge. Pelosi says murderous gang members have a 'spark of divinity, dignity and worth,' but somehow that's not to be interpreted as defending gangsters?"Well, no, Tim. Pelosi did not deny that MS-13 are a bunch of violent thugs and did not defend or justify any MS-13 crime -- the textbook definition of "defending" a group.
Graham then complained that the fact-check accurately pointed out that because Trump phrased his "animals" comment ambiguously "he left room for interpretation," huffing:
This is why people criticize "fact checks." This is an interpretation check. You suggest that it's fair for Pelosi to "interpret broadly," and "FALSE" when Trump "interprets broadly" in return. To claim "Democrats have been precise" in exaggerating Trump's comments beyond MS-13 to all "immigrants" is to sound like a paid spokesman for the Democrats.
Here, Graham gives away his biased game. He's the one don't an "interpretation check" -- he has decided that Trump's words are unambiguous despite the evidence to the contrary, and that an after-the-fact CYA statement by the White House press office is the final word on what Trump allegedly meant to say. In Graham's eyes, anyone who accurately points out that what he said is different from what he may have meant is somehow lying.
Because the Times fact-check sticks to facts and doesn't bend to Graham's biased, reflexive defense of Trump, he rates it "deeply distorted." He's really talking about himself.
A shocking new book has torn away the curtain from the secret, subversive "Deep State" and exposed the plotting and tactics of those trying to destroy the Trump Presidency.
"The Plot to Destroy Trump: How the Deep State Fabricated the Russian Dossier to Subvert the President," written by Theodore Roosevelt Malloch, CEO of The Roosevelt Group, with a forward by leading Republican political consultant Roger Stone, is a hard-hitting book that rips the lid off of how the Deep State tried to use a phony dossier to spy on Donald Trump's campaign, smear him and block his election.
When that failed, Deep Staters continued to use it, to give birth to an investigation of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government – an investigation which, so far, has cost $16.7 million and produced not a whiff of proof that any such collusion exists.
"Make no mistake: there was a clear attempt, call it a plot, to take down the duly elected President of the United States,"Stone writes in his introduction to the must-read book.
Malloch is a pro-Trump sycophant most recently associated with WorldNetDaily who was reportedly for nomination as President Trump's ambassador to the European Union until he was busted for exaggerating his biography in, among other places, his WND-published autobiography. We last saw Malloch on the TV show of even more conspiracy-obsessed Alex Jones ranting about the "global elites" are being influenced by "Luciferianism." Roger Stone is, of course, a sleaze of the highest order whose unconventional sex life gets a pass from right-wing outlets who got the vapors when President Clinton had an affair with an intern.
The "advertorial" -- and, thus the book it's promoting -- gets off to a bogus start by portraying the Steele dossier as "phony" and "fabricated." As we've pointed out, several parts of the dossier have been corroborated. The "advertorial" adds:
The riveting book notes blatant errors in the dossier. For example, the dossier claims that Trump's attorney Michael Cohen met in "secret meetings with Kremlin officials" in Prague in August, 2016. Cohen has never been to Prague, according to his passport, and in August, 2016, was in Los Angeles for his son's college baseball tryouts.
Actually, special counsel Robert Mueller reportedly has evidence Cohen was in Prague in the summer of 2016 and that he entered through Germany, a trip for which he would not have needed a passport.
Nevertheless, the "advertorial" goes on to quote Malloch as saying that the dossier is part of a "carefully designed plot that begins with Christopher Steele and runs through the FBI, CIA and NSA, all in an attempt to subvert the Trump Presidency."
We suspect the dossier is more factually verified that Malloch's book.
MRC: Mocking Someone's Looks Is Off Limits -- Unless It's A Liberal Topic: Media Research Center
When Michelle Wolf made a joke about White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders burning facts to make a "perfect smoky eye" at the White House Correspondents' Dinner, the Media Research Center did its best to make it about Sanders' looks: Scott Whitlock, for instance, asserted that Wolf "Wolf made jokes at the expense of Sarah Sanders's looks," and "made jokes many saw as attacks on the physical appearance of Sarah Huckabee Sanders," and P.J. Gladnick declared that it "sure sounds like a slam on her appearance."
OK, so attacks on the looks of the people you're attacking are out of bounds. So how does the MRC explain this May 27 tweet from its NewsBusters Twtter account which unambiguously mocks commentator Mark Shields as having "JOWLS A FLAPPING!"?
Must be nice to never have to live up to the standards you demand others follow.
While the hardcover edition of the highly acclaimed “The Gospel in Every Book of the Old Testament” won’t release to bookstores nationwide until September, due to high demand and anticipation for Joseph Farah’s “breakthrough Bible book,” WND Books is making the digital e-book version available immediately in the WND Superstore and at Amazon.
The one-of-a-kind book has already attracted large advance orders from both Christian ministries and bookstore chains has been “adopted” by missions organization Gospel for All Nations, which is accepting tax-deductible contributions and grants to support the large first printing of an expected 100,000 copies.
The decision to release the e-book months before the hardcover is also an effort to generate the funds necessary for the large first printing necessary to meet unprecedented demand – the largest in WND Books’ 20-year history.
The claim that the digital release is intended to help fund the physical release -- and coming months before the planned physical release as well -- tells us that the fundraising campaign isn't going well.
Again, what WND doesn't say is more important than what it does. Where's the proof of these massive "advance orders" for the book? If those orders are so solid, why can't WND simply get a bank loan to finance the publishing? And why the scare quotes around "adopted"? Why not just tell readers the nature of the deal with Gospel for All Nations that lets WND take tax-deductible donations?
Meanwhile, the digital campaign doesn't seem to be going well. As of this writing, Farah's book is ranked No. 31,087 at Amazon's Kindle Store, and No. 5,863 in the "Religion & Spirituality" section. Even in one highly specialized category, it's ranked only 14th. That seems to contradict the idea of "unprecedented demand" for the book that Farah and WND claim exists.
Most of the article, meanwhile, is taken up with blurbs from Farah's fellow right-wing Christians touting the book -- which are little more than logrolling and not indicative of the book's quality or value.
CNS Managing Editor Freaks Out After Pope Refuses To Hate A Gay Man Topic: CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com managing editor Michael W. Chapman thinks he's more Catholic than the pope. But he's also a raging homophobe, so he loves it when right-wing Catholic clerics hate gays as much as he does. So when Pope Francis reportedly refused to condemn a gay man, Chapman was on it.
Juan Carlos Cruz, who as a boy was sexually abused by the Chilean priest -- abuse that reportedly was covered up by the bishops of Chile -- said that in a recent meeting with Pope Francis, the Holy Father told him that God made made him gay and "loves you like this." The Pope apparently did not say that Cruz should seek to avoid homosexual behavior, which is "intrinsically disordered" and a serious sin, according to the 2,000-year-old teaching of the Catholic Church.
The Church also teaches that sodomy -- homosexual behavior, not the inclination -- is one of the four sins that cry to Heaven for vengeance.
Apparently, the Pope did not advise Cruz to try to avoid homosexual behavior and seek therapy that could help him to live a celibate life or be healed from his affliction.
The next day, Chapman complained that "several LGBT activists have praised the pontiff" for his reported remarks, huffing that "The Catholic Church does not teach that God made certain people homosexual." He also quoted a right-wing cardinal ranting that homosexuality "defiles everything, stains everything, pollutes everything. And as for itself, it permits nothing pure, nothing clean, nothing other than filth.…"
On May 23, Chapman had another follow-up quoting Cardinal Timothy Dolan calling for a "clarification" of what the pope said, adding that he does not think the Pope "would feel competent to speak" on whether one is born a homosexual. Chapman wrote that "It is the teaching of the Catholic Church that persons with same-sex attractions must be treated with the same dignity and respect accorded to all people" -- then quoted St. Bernardine of Siena calling homosexuality a sin that "has always been detested by all those who live according to God" that reduces people to "vile and useless and putrid things." He then quoted another saint calling sodomy "disgustingly foul."
Chapman didn't explain how these statements mesh with that whole "dignity and respect" thing.
WND's Cashill Finally Sours On One Of His Favorite Rogues Topic: WorldNetDaily
Back in April, WorldNetDaily columnist and rogue-lover Jack Cashill rushed to the defense of Republican Missouri Gov. Eric Greitens after he was accused of blackmailing his mistress with a compromising photo. Now that he has resigned, Cashill is finally starting to change his tune.
In his May 30 column, Cashill dismissed Greitens because he "took too long" to convert to conservatism, calling it "too convenient, too shallow" and huffing, "He either had not enough brains or too much ambition or, as history proved, both." He then lamented that "conservatives are held to a different set of standards than are liberals – by the media, of course, but also by their fellow conservatives."
Cashill then attacked the prosecutor in the blackmail-related case, calling her "stunningly inept" and guilty of "any number of irregularities." Those charges were ultimately dropped, but then Cashill cited the thing that ultimately forced Greitens to resign: the possible release of donors to a dark-money group that helped him get elected. Cashill concluded by lamenting once more about the supposedly "much tougher set of rules" Republicans must follow.
Cashill really needs to research his rogues a little closer before he rushes to defend them.
MRC Backs Away From Bogus Claim Federal Money To Planned Parenthood Pays For Abortion Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's Katie Yoder has been among the mostegregious offenders in pushing the never-proven anti-abortion canard that federal funding to Planned Parenthood pays for abortion because money is "fungible" -- never mind that the money is specifically earmarked for other purposes and is prohibited by law from paying for abortion. Now it seems Yoder is edging away from her falsehood.
The Hyde Amendment generally bars federal funding (aka taxpayer funding) for abortion, but pro-life politicians note that money is fungible. The argument that Planned Parenthood could offset costs with public funds to free up other resources for abortion, is a point made by pro-life groups.
Yoder has ceased presenting the "fungible" claim as a fact, just something promoted by "pro-life" groups and politicians. That tells us she knows the argument is bogus.
Of course, since Yoder sympathizes with the anti-abortion activists, she'll never come right out and admit the talking point is false -- that wouldn't look good for her side. But, hey, it's a baby step toward honesty.