Why Worldnetdaily.com is a good website...

this site is useless

5
Your rating: None Average: 5 (2 votes)

Comments

Why I Support WorldNetDaily

Excellent article. 

The question most conservatives need to ask themselves is: "Do I believe I can compromise with those who would undermine me?"  ......For me, the answer to this question is an emphatic NO !!!  NO one is above the law. The BC issue really isn't about an extreme right wing conspiracy theory. It is about honesty and arrogance, plain and simple. Throughout my life as a private citizen I have had to prove my ID and citizenship where proof was required, driver's license, military service, employment, firearms, mortgage, etc. Is the President above the law???

My disillusionment with the Republican Party of today is that it continues to display an  increasing willingness to compromise on honesty with those who seek our harm and a distatseful arrogance in how they view and treat the American people who don't agree with their world views.  As a conservative Christian I don't always agree with everything posted by Worldnet. However, I too will continue to support them as they are willing to ask the tough questions and press the issue until an honest answer is given. Stand for something or fall for anything.

Thank you for your comment!

Like you, I do not agree with all of the things Worlnetdaily offers, but that is not a reason to toss the baby out with the bath-water. They do offer articles of a completely different focus than many other sites, and sometimes, that difference is beneficial.

I am not what one would call a 'birther', but like you, I want to know why Obama or any presidential candidate can go so far into this process without having firmly established his bona fides for the job.

I'd have had the same questions about McCain, by the way.

Still, I think the larger point is that directing an anti-worldnetdaily campaign is only useful to one side of the argument, and it isn't the right.

Thanks again, and I hope you'll stop back by!

M

Van Jones isn't the only example.

WND recently did a piece on long term, well paid FBI informant and hateful racist Hal Turner.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=108901

Why was my tax money from 2001 to 2007 harnessed for hate? Only the Fibbies know. But I believe they only stopped the hate subsidy because hackers busted their snitch. Now, to save face, they've arrested Hal. Yet the media, left and right, are silent. It's as if a recitation of a vague intent to arrest badguys is enough to TOTALLY excuse years of hate subsidy with no questions asked. Sorry, but that crap don't cut it.

One would hope the news media BESIDES WND would cover some of this stuff. Giving Hal Turner my tax money, over years, raises many, many questions. Is it too much to ask that 10% of the media attention which was focused on Ron Paul's decades-old (and mild, compared to Hal's BS!) get focused now on just WTF was the Bush FBI thinking? And if they'll pay Hal Turner for this kind of stuff, why not the nutjob waving around an AR15 at a political rally?? Who knows how many weird employees we all have on April 15th every year? I sure as hell don't, but until the rest of the media gets at least a TEENY bit curious about the scandal, I'm gonna be glad WND exists, nutty stories and all.

I couldn't agree more...

JMR, That story is another example of one that gets no attention in the mainstream press, but Worldnetdaily does. One can find dozens of such stories where Farah's nose for scandal results in wider exposure of wrong-doing. Are there some of what you've termed 'nutty stories'? Yes, sure. However, there are many good, original reports that you will not find elsewhere. If worldnetdaily goes away, as some at this site think it should, it would leave a sad vacuum in coverage.  Your point is well-taken, and I simply couldn't agree more!

Thanks for reading and responding!

M

Another example you won't get elsewhere:

I surfed over to wnd.com to see what's on their front page today for further research to buttress your point, and found this story on the potential illegality of Obama's speech to school kids scheduled for tomorrow. I've not seen that reported anywhere else, either.

 

 

Well, on this subject I'll have to admit I'm in the minority.

I am no more or less for or against Obama speaking to school kids than Bush or any President. They all do it. My problem is with the very existence of public schools, because I disagree with the ideas behind them and because I think the free market will deliver education best. More at:

http://www.schoolandstate.org/home.htm

Anyway, thanks for agreeing with me on the Hal Turner affair. I'm sorry, but I still want answers on that one. I'm especially curious about the end of their relationship, and whether it was hacker-induced (if so, that hacker deserves a taxpayer's friend award, IMO). The temptation is strong to semi-prank call the FBI, asking various pointed questions made obvious by a blatant subsidy for a bigot, but for now I'm going to resist. I will instead continue my quest to get SOMEONE the news media to notice this Hal Turner FBI-Subsidy Scandal.

One would *think* radio talkers like Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh, if not some of the lefties, would WANT to talk a bit about tax subsidies to an explicitly-racist competitor, even if some talkers (coughHannitycough!) have obvious personal reasons to want the Hal Turner story to go-away ASAP. My bet is they all haven't mentioned Hal at all. But what do I know? Stuff like this, which seems "what the F---???!!" important to me, is treated by these guys as a non-story. AFAIK, none of them has discussed it (but I'd love to be wrong, and I will readily admit to not listening to any of these gasbags!).

I agree with you on the schools.

They shouldn't exist at all, and I made mention of this in my article here.

Thanks again!

M

WND is an embarassment

If they don't like stories about Obama's birth certificate, then don't read them. They don't need to agree. I cannot fathom, however, what could be wrong, in this era of political fakery, in demanding that a President provide his bona fides for that office. The requirement is law.

No, it isn't. Please point to the law that requires any prospective President to prove to Joseph Farah's satisfaction that he is constitutionally eligible to the office. You can't, of course, because no such law exists. Besides, contrary to birther blather, Obama has indeed provided one more birth certificate than most Presidents or presidential candidates ever have. I don't remember seeing Reagan's birth certificate, or either President Bush's; do you? Birthers also love to prattle on about how the original certificate would supposedly make the controversy go away. Like hell it would. Anyone who thinks the COLB is a forgery could just as easily say the same about the original, long-form certificate. Both are official certifications by the State of Hawaii. Either could be forged, but assuming neither is, both tell us everything we need to know from a constitutional perspective. Besides, I see little reason why Obama should want this this controversy to go away. It doesn't hurt him at all; in fact it helps him by making his ideological opponents look like the conspiracy nuts that a significant chunk of them unfortunately are. For the rest of us, it's not just a question of "If you don't like stories about X, don't read stories about X." It's more like this: if a newspaper's stories about X prove that the newspaper lacks credibility, then think twice, and a third time, before believing anything that same paper has to say on any other subject, either. That doesn't mean they will always be wrong. In Jones's case, they weren't. That doesn't make WND a respectable publication any more than the John Edwards / Rielle Hunter makes the National Enquirer a respectable publication. Right in one instance does not translate into right in general.

When using Edwards/Hunter & the Enquirer as an example

Please consider the possibility that you might be making the other side's point. After all, how good a job did the MSM do on Edwards' love child before the Enquirer did the grunt-work for them? The answer to that question synchs up quite well with how good a job did the MSM do on the FBI's Hal Turner bigotry-subsidy scandal, doesn't it? And Edwards is FAR from the only story the Enquirer has broken -- they're the ones who nailed Rush Limbaugh for the hillbilly heroin habit, after all, which quite possibly saved both his hearing and his life, even though conservatives remain ungrateful to this day. Anyway...

It's as if the body politic *needs* these non-mainstream sources of news for actual journalism to happen. At least, that's what I think. I'd love to be proven wrong, and for someone to show me a huge Hal Turner Outrage piece I've missed. But so far, by far, the best job on Hal has been done by WND from what I've seen. If Limbaugh, Beck, O'Reilly, and for all I care Rachel Maddow want to change that fact tomorrow, they can. But I predict they all won't, and THAT is why the journalism world needs WND & The Enquirer, much as many folks love to hate them. They do the grunt-work the "journalists" on the cocktail party circuit refuse to do.

I agree, but then there's this too:

I think sometimes WND and others sling a bunch of mud at presumptively 'possible targets,' hoping to see if it will stick.

Sometimes, it does. (Turner, Jones, etc.)

M

Well, the Turner scandal is obviously dirt to me...

But I fail to see the FBI or any politician paying ANY political price for what I consider a scandal of the first order. I will admit that maybe I'm oversensitive to the issue because of the huge attention paid to the ancient (and by comparison, very tame) Ron Paul newsletters. Hell, one of the PMSNBC talking heads went apesh!t the other day about some obscure woman saying the words "great white hope," which until then I had assumed was the title of an old movie about white boxers losing to black boxers rather than a terrible racial epithet of some sort. So I see double standards about racism all over the place these days, and most of the time I'm silent. But not this time. I'm pissed off. This was too much like what I imagine a bad acid trip would be like, so I feel the need to make noise and trouble about it until the right thing happens and a head of some sort rolls.

Anyway, one of the problems with Hal's stuff and discussing it is that the vast majority of it is so vile & mindless (my tax dollars at work!). I'm desperately trying to focus my attention on a few questions; like what did Hal get paid per year, how often, what nutcases got arrested due to Hal's antics, what attacks/vandalism happened because of Hal, what politicians* knew Hal was on the Federal payroll & when, and was the hacker exposure the reason for the breakup of the FBI's financial relationship with Hal.

* Since Hal supposedly wanted Cynthia McKinney lynched, she's known to be curious, too. I'm not exactly thrilled to be allied with such a controversial left-winger, but if Cynthia's wild-woman antics are what it takes to get this Hal Turner Fibbie scandal noticed, then I'm cool with it. After all, my own rants here & elsewhere clearly haven't worked too well...

I don't disagree

I'm not saying there isn't a place for WND, the National Enquirer or other yellow journals.  They certainly do uncover real news every now and then.  If the heading of this post was "Why Worldnetdaily.com is a necessary evil," and if the author of the post hadn't endorsed one of two birther memes (either that Obama hasn't established his bona fides as a natural born citizen, or that he's under some nonexistent duty to do so to their satisfaction) I wouldn't have bothered arguing with him at all.  I'm not behind Jon's boycott of the site; I just think it's a group of cranks who, on balance, do more harm than good.  As is the National Enquirer.

Ok, that's understandable

I'm just on the other side of the harm than good scale (barely!) for these birdcage liners. Call it a result of my first amendment absolutism, it gets me into lots of trouble but I can't help it.

What I don't get about the birthers is the newspaper announcement time travel back to 1961 thing. It's just too nutty, so I have no idea why WND is entertaining it. The only conceivable reason would be "to get attention," in which case, it worked. But it's still nutty. And I don't think there exists a birth certificate on this planet, long or short or any other form, which will satisfy some of these people. They hate Obama like I hate just about all politicians.

birth announcement

The other theory I've heard, only slightly less nutty, is that the Dunhams intentionally planted the ads to give Stanley Ann Dunham an advantage in any custody battles with Barack Sr.  As if Barack Sr. would not have been able to produce contrary evidence, then only a year or two old, that BHO was born in Kenya after all, were that the case.  It also doesn't explain how the Dunhams got the State of Hawaii to put out these birth announcements, or how BHO later persuaded the State of Hawaii to issue a COLB falsely claiming he was born in Hawaii.  Birthers love to point out the irrelevant fact that people born outside of Hawaii can get birth certificates in Hawaii.  They can, of course, but these certificates won't state that the person was born in Hawaii, as the COLB does.

Psssst... I was talking about

the Constitutional requirement that a President be a Natural Born Citizen. It is law.

It is in the Constitution, isn't it?

Now, speaking of Straw men, and how you've erected one, who on Earth proposed that there is a law requiring Obama(or anybody else) prove to the satisfaction of Joe Farah(or anyone else) that he is a natural born citizen?

I don't remember saying that. Could you point it out for me?

No? Then your long and tortured discourse on the issue is irrelevant to the article I posted.

Thanks for reading, however, even if you imagined a thing that wasn't there at all.

M

psst, you are either sloppy at best, or disingenuous at worst.

Hardly. You are the one who wrote:

I cannot fathom, however, what could be wrong, in this era of political fakery, in demanding that a President provide his bona fides for that office. The requirement is law.

That lends itself to only two reasonable interpretations: 1. You think Obama hasn't proved his bona fides as a natural born citizen; or 2. You think that "proving one's bona fides" to Joseph Farah's satisfaction is a separate legal requirement. Either way, you are full of shit, the only question is which kind of shit you are full of. So go ahead, explain in clear and unambiguous terms which flavor of Kool-Aid you're drinking, and I promise to leave the other flavor alone.