WND has published a series of unhinged and flagrantly homophobic columns in response to the vote to allow openly gay youth into the Boy Scouts of America.
In the week following the Boy Scouts' May 23 decision to accept openly gay youth into the organization, WND has published responses from some of America's most notorious anti-LGBT activists, each peddling the myth that the BSA's decision will increase rates of pedophilia and other forms of sexual abuse.
In a May 24 column, Liberty Counsel spokesman Matt Barber claimed that the BSA's decision was "rooted in pure evil" and joked that camping trips would have to include a disco ball to accommodate gay scouts:
Ultimately, this decision had nothing to do with "tolerance" or "inclusivity." Neither did it concern the best interests of the boys who make up Boy Scouting. Instead, this decision was rooted in pure evil. It had everything to do with money. "For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs" (1 Timothy 6:10).
And wandered from the faith they have.
Now come the many griefs.
What a camping trip! Imagine the pup tent. Your son and Jimmy - who's got a crush on him - along with Billy and Billy's boyfriend Bobby, all snuggly warm in the middle of nowhere. But make room for Sammy (formerly Suzie) and Sammy's boyfriend Gary (formerly Gertrude).
Don't forget to hang the disco ball.
In a May 27 column, conservative commentator Mychal Massie warned that boys would be "brainwashed" into accepting homosexuality and claimed that boys would be "coerced into homosexual behavior" because of their hormones:
Why should we be spending money fighting lawsuits and/or endangering our children by knowingly giving predators and the deluded access to our boys? Sensitivity is about not picking on someone who is different. Sensitivity is not synonymous with having our children brainwashed into accepting that which is aberrant as normal.
Let me also point out there is a reason boys and girls are separated in organizations such as this. Amongst other reasons, it has to do with hormones. Are we now supposed to believe that some of our boys will not be coerced into homosexual behavior?
In a May 26 column titled "Texas Boy Scout Massacre," Linda Harvey, founder of the anti-gay hate group Mission America, claimed that the BSA would actively cover up instances of sexual abuse by scouts in order to defend their gay-inclusive membership policy:
They have power now, they will use it and it won't be done responsibly. It won't be child-friendly and it will cost the families of America.
As time rolls on, there will be incidents of abuse. Will the Boy Scout organization report these? Let's not kid ourselves. They just showed how compromised/intimidated/clueless they are. Expect cover-up upon cover-up in the future, eventually resembling the Catholic Church scandal.
And sadly, many parents have no clue, thinking, what's the harm? Where's the threat? An openly homosexual 12 year old in my son's troop - what's the big deal? They don't know the possible risks, because compromised churches have bought the lie and are too sheltered to know what they are dealing with.
Notoriously homophobic WND columnist Les Kinsolving recycled his go-to anti-gay talking point, that accepting gay youth had paved the way for the Boy Scouts to accept other "sexual orientations," including bestiality:
This 60 percent actually approved a measure that said no youth may be denied membership in the Boy Scouts "on the basis of sexual orientation or preference alone."
Can you believe this?
Believe it - and realize that this statement inevitably proclaims that the Boy Scouts will not reject any boy who has engaged in coprophilia, pedophilia, bestiality or any of the many other alternative sexual orientations.
854 adults stamped a "bull's eye" on the Boy Scouts as pederast targets.
Now, bigger and/or more manipulative lads, with cell phones and other pornography resources stirring their sinews, will greedily entrap any and all boys who seem easy prey.
Eroticize the campsite and you eroticize boys to one another and to their leaders. "Gay Scoutmasters" will arrive soon to "help" "their" lads, to train and encourage them - to believe they are naturally "that way."
WND columnist Les Kinsolving equated homosexuality to bestiality, suggesting that people who engage in bestiality should receive the same legal protections afforded to gay people in same-sex relationships.
In a May 20 column titled "Why Not An Additional 'B' To LGBT?," Kinsolving suggested that people engaged in bestiality should be allowed to legally marry animals, equating homosexuality with bestiality and suggesting that animals are capable of consenting to sex with humans:
If lesbians, male homosexuals, bisexuals and transsexuals should have the right to marriage licenses - as a few states, including Maryland, now provide - why should the real animal lovers (whose orientation is bestiality) not be allowed to marry?
The argument that animals are incapable of making a choice is surely invalid in that some animals choose to run away when fondled by humans, while others do not - which certainly indicates their ability to choose.
Have there ever been any reports that apprehended practitioners of bestiality have as high a rate of AIDS and syphilis as do homosexuals?
WND's Kinsolving is a notorious homophobe. During the debate over Maryland's marriage equality law in 2012, he claimed that voters would repeal the measure because gay people are more likely to have syphilis.
The membership of the National Rifle Association has unanimously adopted a resolution proposed by a WND columnist expressing opposition to any and all additional restrictions against guns during the session of its annual meeting. This position puts the activists in attendance out of step not only with the American people, but with the broader membership of the organization.
The resolution was offered by fringe gun activist Jeff Knox during the open session of the May 4 meeting. Knox is head of the Firearms Coalition, a hardline organization that promotes the "unencumbered right to arms" and opposes "any moves toward more restrictive and/or intrusive gun laws." He also writes a column about gun policy for WND, a discredited right-wing website known for its conspiracy theories. Knox's father Neal is credited with leading NRA hard-liners to crush the group's moderate wing in the 1970s and 1990s, helping to establish the organization as a no-compromises right-wing lobbying powerhouse.
The text of Knox's resolution cites its necessity as "a public repudiation of the lies and distortions from the media and politicians suggesting that the majority of NRA members support the expansion of gun control laws as clearly and unequivocally we do not." Polling indicates that the public -- including self-described NRA members -- overwhelmingly support at least one proposal to strengthen gun laws, the expansion of the background check system.
Speaking on behalf of the resolution, Knox claimed it was necessary to establish that "the members here gathered soundly and solidly oppose any and all new restrictions on our Second Amendment rights." John Fafoutakis of Sheraton, Wyoming, seconded Knox's resolution, saying that "we will not compromise. To all those gun-grabbers in Washington, to all their members of the lapdog presstitute news media, and to the gun-grabbers of the United Nations who want to disarm all law-abiding Americans, I have these kind words for you: fill your hand you son of a bitch."
After voting to strike a clause of the resolution requiring its text be published in the NRA's magazine, the membership in attendance passed it unanimously.
After lashing out at critics for highlighting his "sarcastic" tweet that all Muslims should be killed following the Boston Marathon bombings, frequent Fox News guest Erik Rush doubled down on his anti-Muslim rhetoric, calling Islam "wholly incompatible with Western society" and saying America is at war with the religion.
In the wake of the bombings at the Boston Marathon, Rush tweeted, "Everybody do the National Security Ankle Grab! Let's bring more Saudis in without screening them! C'mon!" After another Twitter user criticized Rush for blaming Muslims, Rush responded, "Yes, they're evil. Let's kill them all." Rush later claimed that the now-deleted tweet was "sarcasm," but in his weekly WorldNetDaily column, Rush lashed out by calling his critics "dhimmis" and smearing Islam as "wholly incompatible with Western society." Rush went on to claim that America is at war with Islam and that "While killing people is definitely undesireable, that is what war tends to be about":
It is important that we know the extent to which many of our fellow citizens have been indoctrinated into this suicidal worldview. Despite the interpretations of my words and liberals' tiresome claims that the right is prone to violence, we know that with very few exceptions, violence is the way of the left (as well as Islamists). This also gives rise to curiosity as to what evil deeds large numbers of these dhimmis might be willing to do if properly motivated. As we have seen relative to the Occupy movement, violence -- whether throwing rocks, Molotov cocktails, or engaging in recreational rape -- is a natural progression.
In the end, of course, this is just another case of the words of someone on our side (as it were) being manipulated to malign and discredit, whereas our enemies and those on the left - whether in the press, politics, entertainment, or elsewhere - are allowed to say whatever dangerous, irresponsible, malicious, slanderous things they like with impunity.
For the record, I still maintain that Islam is, by its nature, wholly incompatible with Western society. I analogize liberalism, which is promoting this dhimmitude, to Stage 3 cancer in America's body politic. For the record: While killing people is definitely undesirable, that is what war tends to be about.
And we are at war -- just study the history of Islam, or ask any Islamist.
As advocates prepare for oral arguments in the challenge to California's Proposition 8 and the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the right-wing media, typified by The Wall Street Journal, is wrongly pushing the idea that ruling in favor of same-sex couples would lead to the problems they claim resulted from the Court's Roe v. Wade decision, which struck down laws banning abortions.
Perry v. Hollingsworth, which will be argued on March 26, is a challenge to a California constitutional provision that excludes same-sex couples from marriage. Windsor v. U.S., to be argued March 27, challenges a federal statute, Section 3 of DOMA, which denies married same-sex couples and their families protections and benefits provided to different-sex married couples under federal law.
Some in the right-wing media have taken this opportunity to push a parade of falsehoods about marriage equality. For example, after Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH) announced his support for marriage equality, which he attributed to having an out gay son, WND editor Joseph Farah wrote "I guess we should all be grateful Rob Portman's son didn't choose to become a polygamist or a serial killer." Fox News contributor Cal Thomas promoted the same myth that marriage equality leads to polygamy.
However, with support for marriage equality rapidly on the rise, this faulty logic is not likely to persuade a majority of Americans or of the justices. The right-wing media have pivoted to another scare tactic: if the Court strikes down democratically-enacted laws, then the country will have a political and cultural backlash similar to the one they say the Court unleashed in Roe v. Wade, which struck down abortion bans 40 years ago.
Radio host Rush Limbaugh attempted to draw this comparison between Roe and the gay marriage cases. On the March 25 edition of his radio show, Limbaugh claimed that the reason "abortion so roils our culture is that it hasn't been democratically decided. The Supreme Court, nine people in black robes just decided one day that abortion is in the Constitution, and that has led to constant acrimony."
Former federal Judge Michael McConnell invoked a similar argument when he wrote in an op-ed for The Wall Street Journal:
We learned from Roe v. Wade that the Supreme Court endangers its own legitimacy and exacerbates social conflict when it seeks to resolve moral-legal questions on which the country is deeply divided without a strong basis in the text of the Constitution. The court sometimes intervenes when the legislatures of the 50 states are approaching a consensus. When it jumps into a live political controversy, the justices look like they are acting like legislators.
A March 25 Wall Street Journal editorial states that "the two cases before the High Court are less about the institution of marriage than the sanctity of democratic institutions and the proper role of the courts." It warns against the Justices interrupting "the give-and-take on contentious moral and social issues the Constitution is designed to encourage." It compares this possibility to abortion:
The Supreme Court does not have a good record legislating cultural change. A ruling on behalf of same-sex marriage could enshrine Hollingsworth and Windsor with Roe v. Wade, the 1973 abortion decision that imposed a judicial diktat even as laws in many states were liberalizing. Instead of finding a rough consensus inside the political mainstream, abortion became an all-or-nothing combat that still rages.
This characterization of abortion laws 40 years ago is flatly inaccurate. As Linda Greenhouse, a veteran Supreme Court writer and lecturer at Yale Law School, and Yale Law Professor Reva Siegel wrote,
Before Roe, despite broad popular support, liberalization of abortion law had all but come to a halt in the face of concerted opposition by a Catholic-led minority. It was, in other words, decidedly not the case that abortion reform was on an inevitable march forward if only the Supreme Court had stayed its hand.
After Roe: The entanglement of abortion in party realignment explains how, over time, Republicans and Democrats came to switch position on the abortion issue, leaders before base, and assume their current polarized positions on abortion, an evolution that took nearly twenty years after the Court handed down Roe. Our paper argues that when you line up the evidence, political realignment better explains the timing and shape of political polarization around abortion than does a court-centered story of backlash.
To the question of whether one can avoid conflict over such issues by avoiding courts, the answer from an accurate pre-history of Roe v. Wade is: no. The abortion conflict escalated before the Supreme Court ruled.
And because a strong majority of Americans believes that Roe should not be overturned, Roe might not be a particularly persuasive cautionary tale.
In a column for birther website WND, National Rifle Association board member Ted Nugent blamed gun violence on leftists and advanced a number of false arguments about gun policy, including the long-debunked claim that higher gun availability leads to lower gun crime.
Expressing support for armed teachers in schools, Nugent claimed that gun violence was the product of "anti-gun leftist policies":
The left has lied for decades about guns because they hate guns, despise the Second Amendment and blame the NRA families for crime and violence in our cities.
Truth is, it is the socialist stooges who are responsible for violence. It is their policies that prevent good guys from arming and protecting themselves and creates the big lie of "gun free" slaughter zones.
It isn't just anti-gun leftist policies that have enabled thugs to breed and prosper. The violence on America's streets is the result of a number of other leftist big-government policies that have worked to destroy families and entire communities by discouraging accountability and rewarding dangerous behavior.
That's the turbo destructo modus operandi of the socialists: Intentionally destroy something and then claim the solution to fix it is always more government, more laws, more control and less freedom.
Nugent concluded his piece by claiming that "Leftist stooges ... don't care one bit about protecting kids":
Good people want to protect our children. Leftist stooges want to create conditions for evil to flourish. They don't care one bit about protecting kids.
Never trust leftist goons. They will put you and your children at risk to advance their socialist, anti-freedom agenda.
Nugent's piece is peppered with untrue statements about gun violence. For example, Nugent blamed "socialist stooges" for creating "'gun free' slaughter zones," when most mass shootings that have occurred since January 2009 took place where guns were allowed to be carried.
Zeb Colter, an anti-immigrant character from World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) that has recently drawn the ire of right-wing pundits like Glenn Beck, would be right at home in the conservative media. Many of Colter's bigoted and flawed arguments have been the right's stock-in-trade for years.
Beck targeted the Colter character on his radio show, arguing that Colter is "demonizing the Tea Party." Beck also accused the WWE of "mocking me for standing up for the Constitution." Beck's co-host Stu Burguiere complained: "It seems that the villain, the guy you're supposed to hate, is this stereotype of a conservative that I've never met."
Colter currently appears on WWE programming alongside wrestler Jack Swagger, spouting a lot of heated anti-immigrant rhetoric in the middle of a scripted feud with Mexican-born wrestler Alberto Del Rio. According to WWE, Colter's rhetoric is intended to "to build the Mexican American character Del Rio into a hero given WWE's large Latino base."
WWE explains that in order "to create compelling and relevant content for our audience, it is important to incorporate current events into our storylines."
Conservative commentator and National Rifle Association board member Ted Nugent wrote in his latest column that African-Americans are the only ones who don't realize that President Obama is continuing the Democratic Party's decades-long destruction of black America.
In his February 20 WND column, titled "I Honor Blacks - The Dems Destroy Them," Nugent highlighted several metrics by which black America is struggling and commented:
Barack Obama, the guy who received roughly 93 percent of black American votes, is the clear and present engineer of the destruction of black America.
It's not all the president's fault, but the economic and social policies he endorses are destroying what is left of a once proud and strong black America.
The truth is that the Democratic Party has been the engineer of the destruction of black Americans, and everyone knows it except the very people who need to know it the most - black Americans.
The turbo-destruction will continue for black Americans until they realize that dirty Democrat politicians are their true enemy, not their salvation. Fortunately, some are beginning to embrace this self-evident truth.
The truth will set those black Americans free who want to be free, who want to be the best they can be, who want to leave their grandchildren a better, stronger America.
Elsewhere in the column Nugent praised "the tapestry of black America" as "rich and vibrant," and claims that "black musical thundergods" influenced his "fire-breathing musical career." He concludes, "Say it loud: my music is black and I'm proud!"
National Rifle Association board member Ted Nugent published a column on birther website WND alleging that if a Republican president had the same drone policy as the Obama administration, "Jesse Jackson and Al Not-So-Sharpton would be lisping their ebonic mumbo-jumbo that the policy and the president are racist and bigoted."
Nugent recently became "an exclusive WND columnist," and told Media Matters that he was attracted to the website's audience of "bold, straight truth-logic celebrants with whom I share honest American common sense."
Among other predictions made by Nugent in his column:
The "99-percenter" crowd of intentionally unemployed Americans would move into Lafayette Park across the street from the White House, where they would pitch their tents and refrigerator boxes, ingest massive amounts of mind-altering chemicals and then try to storm the gates of the White House.
The residents of East St. Louis, Detroit, Chicago and other cities would burn their own neighborhoods in protest.
Representatives from NARAL, the pro-abortion group, would say had they known the Republican president was going to issue such an order, they would have wished their parents had aborted them.
In previewing a segment on Nugent's views on firearms on February 1, CNN reporter Deb Feyerick claimed that he had "a very deep connection with the facts and the facts that he needs to make his argument." During the Feburary 4 segment on CNN's Erin Burnett OutFront, Feyerick and host Erin Burnett gave serious treatment to Nugent's conspiracy theory that Obama wishes to confiscate firearms, even discussing what would happen if the government attempted to "take all the guns away tomorrow." Nugent's opposition to gun violence prevention proposals was also praised by Fox News host Bill O'Reilly, who stated on the February 5 edition of The O'Reilly Factor, "Now that kind of straight talk is what the Republican Party needs."
During a January 9 interview with WND, Nugent suggested, "there will come a time when the gun owners of America, the law-abiding gun owners of America, will be the Rosa Parks and we will sit down on the front seat of the bus, case closed." Civil rights leaders condemned Nugent for his comparison between gun owners and civil rights activist Rosa Parks. Later that month, Nugent told WND that having Vice President Joe Biden and Attorney General Eric Holder head a gun safety task force is "like hiring [serial killer and cannibal] Jeffrey Dahmer to tell us how to take care of our children."
National Rifle Association board member Ted Nugent said that President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder are "promoting" racism and that the Obama administration has a "racist agenda." In the past week Nugent has been praised by media figures on CNN and Fox News.
NUGENT: Again it really is a nation divided. And it's never been more divided. The racism that President Obama and Eric "Gunrunning" Holder promote is just heartbreaking and it's tragic and those of us that know better have got to constantly expose their ruse and their scams and their racist agenda.
Just a week ago, CNN reporter Deb Feyerick praised Nugent as having a "deep connection with the facts" in the gun policy debate. In a follow-up segment on CNN's Erin Burnett OutFront, Feyerick and host Erin Burnett treated Nugent's conspiracy theory that Obama will confiscate firearms as a serious policy debate. On Tuesday, Fox News host Bill O'Reilly applauded Nugent's opposition to gun violence prevention proposals, stating, "Now that kind of straight talk is what the Republican Party needs."
This is not the first time Nugent has addressed the topic of race for WND. On January 9, the conspiracy clearinghouse published an interview with Nugent where he claimed, "there will come a time when the gun owners of America, the law-abiding gun owners of America, will be the Rosa Parks and we will sit down on the front seat of the bus, case closed." Nugent's comparison between gun owners and Rosa Parks was roundly denounced by civil rights leaders.
Nugent, an ardent defender of the Confederate flag, has a lengthy history of making racially charged comments. In a July 6 column for The Washington Times, Nugent wrote, "I'm beginning to wonder if it would have been best had the South won the Civil War." He has also claimed that real Americans are "working hard, playing hard, white motherfucking shit kickers who are independent" and that African-American rappers appearing on MTV are "big uneducated greasy black mongrels."
National Rifle Association board member Ted Nugent is the newest weekly columnist for the discredited birther conspiracy website WorldNetDaily. Asked how this will affect his relationship with The Washington Times, Nugent side-stepped the question, telling Media Matters, "I am so busy going places I never pay attention to leaving."
After contributing 184 opinion pieces to the Times since May 2010, according to a Nexis search, he has not authored a piece for the paper since January 1 -- a rare but not unheard-of lapse for the verbose rocker.
An un-bylined February 6 WorldNetDaily article states that Nugent is "an exclusive WND columnist," and features praise from CEO Joseph Farah:
Exuding a love of liberty, guns and America that elicits either delight or dismay - depending on your perspective - the outspoken rock showman, humanitarian and TV host Ted Nugent debuts today as an exclusive WND columnist.
Nugent's column, entitled "The Ted Offensive," will appear on the news site each Thursday.
"Ted Nugent rocks," said Joseph Farah, editor and chief executive officer of WND. "And I don't mean just as a music star. He rocks as an outspoken entertainer who is so politically incorrect. We're honored that he would choose WND to sound off about what's on his mind every week."
In his first column for WND, Nugent lashed out against Obama, Biden, and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) for supporting an assault weapons ban, calling them "socialists and Marxists" who "don't care about mass murder" but instead want "their boots on our necks." He accuses Obama of using "Rule 10 and 12" of Saul Alinsky's "12 Rules For Radicals" to promote the ban.
WND regularly publishes a wide array of conspiracy theories, particularly ones related to President Obama's birth certificate. The WND "Superstore" sells an array of birther paraphernalia, including Jerome Corsi's WND-published tome "Where's the Birth Certificate?" and his follow-up e-book, "Where's the REAL Birth Certificate?"
"We knew all along that the brilliant minds at WND deserved me," said Nugent when reached by email to discuss how he had landed the WND gig, "but now that our sacred hunting season is winding down, I decided the time was right to unleash the ultimate self-evident truth logic beast upon an unsuspecting public. America needs me now more than ever."
After the White House released a picture of President Obama skeet shooting at Camp David, conservative bloggers were quick to claim that the photo had been altered or created with Adobe Photoshop or a similar graphics editing program. This follows a long, bizarre tradition of conservative media labeling a wide range of pictures and documents related to the president as fraudulent.
In the past few years, conservatives have accused President Obama and his staff of Photoshopping the short and long-form versions of the president's birth certificate, two separate photos of the president with his family, two Situation Room photos from the day of the bin Laden raid, a photo of Obama throwing a football, and now a photo of the president shooting skeet.
During an interview last month with The New Republic, President Obama was asked if he has ever fired a gun. After the president told the magazine that he goes skeet shooting with guests at Camp David, conservatives -- as well as reporters from more mainstream outlets -- sought proof. In order to quiet the skeptics, on Saturday the White House released a photo of the president shooting clay targets at Camp David in 2012:
Linking to the picture on Twitter, White House senior adviser David Plouffe joked, "let the photoshop conspiracies begin!" While Plouffe was mocking the penchant of some conservatives to turn everything related to President Obama into a conspiracy, some conservative outlets quickly proved his point by doing just that (New York Magazine has produced a comprehensive roundup of the skeet shooting conspiracies).
In an article posted Sunday at conservative website American Thinker -- an outlet frequently touted and cited by Rush Limbaugh -- titled "Seven Reasons Why it's a Photoshop," blogger Michael Harlin concluded, "if he's shooting skeet, then I'm Daffy Duck." (While the headline calls it a Photoshop, Harlin seems to waver on whether the picture was manipulated or merely "staged like everything else in President Obama's life.")
To give you some idea of the level of analysis in the piece, among Harlin's evidence that something is off about the Obama picture is his observation that unlike Obama, "most shooters wear baseball style caps" to help "block unwanted sun in your eyes."
Obama is wearing sunglasses (or tinted protective eyewear) in the photo.
It's easy to point and laugh at analyses like these, but conservatives' obsession with these Photoshop conspiracies shows the type of paranoid nonsense that has passed for journalism at many prominent conservative outlets during the Obama era.
In this report we examine right-wing claims that the president's allies have altered:
The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) has issued a press release expressing concern over the "inappropriate invocations of Hitler, Nazis, and general Holocaust imagery" in debates about gun violence after the Sandy Hook shooting.
In a related blog post, the ADL wrote: "These comparisons, made by political pundits on national news programs as well by others outside politics, are not only misplaced and offensive, relying on factually incorrect premises and exaggerations, but also deflect attention away from an important national discussion."
Some of their examples of this type of imagery include:
The group spotlighted conservative media figures arguing that the Holocaust could have been averted if Jewish people in Germany had better access to firearms, and explained that "Gun control did not cause the Holocaust; Nazism and anti-Semitism did."
In addition to the instances highlighted by the ADL, Media Matters has documented additional instances of conservative media making references to Nazis and other totalitarians in the midst of discussions about gun violence.
With Sen. John Kerry's confirmation hearing as secretary of state scheduled for January 24, media reports will likely invoke the coordinated 2004 campaign to "Swift Boat" Kerry. While the smears from the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (SBVT) have long-since fallen apart under scrutiny, Jerome Corsi, one of the masterminds behind the campaign, is revisiting his old attacks.
A look at Corsi's "reporting" during the 2008 campaign and Obama's presidency confirms what quickly became clear during his efforts to hamstring Kerry's presidential run: he has utterly no credibility and his alleged reporting should not be taken seriously by media outlets.
Prior to the 2004 election, with the backing of major Republican donors, Vietnam veteran John O'Neill co-founded SBVT in an attempt to derail Kerry's presidential bid by casting doubt on his military service. The group launched a series of dishonest ads in August of that year, accompanied by Unfit for Command, a book co-authored by O'Neill and Corsi. In its review of Unfit for Command in October 2004, The New York Times explained that while the book was filled with "discredited," "faulty" and "totally unconvincing" claims, if Kerry's presidential bid were to fail, the tome would "go down as a chief reason."
When the book was released, co-author Corsi was practically unknown in political circles. He was a regular poster at conservative message board Free Republic and worked at a financial marketing group. After Media Matters highlighted a series of offensive comments he had made at Free Republic -- including calling Muslims "ragheads" and "boy buggers" and labeling Hillary Clinton a "fat hog" -- Unfit for Command co-author John O'Neill repeatedly tried to distance himself from Corsi to tamp down the controversy. While O'Neill tried to claim Corsi merely helped edit Unfit for Command, Corsi was listed as co-author on the book jacket and promotional materials for the book touted his involvement in co-writing it.
Shortly before the 2004 election, Corsi was hired by conservative publication WorldNetDaily, which has served as his main outlet. During the 2008 campaign and Obama's presidency, Corsi has used his WND platform to promote a staggering number of outlandish conspiracies about the president, including that Obama has a fake birth certificate and stolen Social Security number; that Obama is both secretly gay and secretly Muslim; and that Obama and his family have lied about the true identity of his father, who may be either communist writer Frank Marshall Davis or "some Indonesian."
In this report:
- "Where's The Birth Certificate?": Corsi Is Leading Birther Conspiracy Theorist
- "Where's The Real Birth Certificate?": Corsi Led Charge To Declare Obama's Long-Form Fake
- "I've Always Thought The Father Was Indonesian": Corsi's Quest To Find Obama's "Real" Father
- Corsi: Obama Is Possibly Gay, Definitely A Muslim
- A Superhighway To The Education Camps
WorldNetDaily founder and birther conspiracy theorist Joseph Farah will not be among the speakers at a right-wing Presidential Inaugural Prayer Breakfast according to the event's organizer, who criticized his work and said he had been incorrectly listed as a featured guest. It's surprising that Farah is considered too toxic to speak at the event -- which his publication had promoted -- considering the history of its organizer and other reported attendees.
Rev. Merrie Turner, the conservative pastor who is hosting the event and says she has done so since 1993, told Media Matters, "It is against my beliefs to be openly targeting someone like the president of our country, we have enough enemies outside the country."
Turner said Farah's name had been wrongly listed among the speakers headlining the January 21 event and would be removed: "It was incorrectly picked up by our staff, I am going to be correcting that." Farah's website had also reported that he was a "distinguished guest" who was "scheduled to appear at the breakfast to lead prayers for the nation."
Farah is the founder and CEO of WorldNetDaily, the conservative website that has been the driving force behind conspiracies about President Obama's birth certificate and a wide range of other outlandish and incendiary theories.
Prayer breakfast materials still list Rep. Michelle Bachmann and televangelist Pat Robertson as "Special Guests & Speakers" for the event. But Farah's name has been removed since Media Matters contacted the organization. His name still appears in a press release announcing the event, and a flyer linked to on the prayer breakfast site also features Farah's name and picture.
Asked if she was aware of Farah's past anti-Obama work, Turner said, "I was not, honestly."
"He was not invited to be involved. He had permission to write an article about it and it's gone much further than that. That was the initial intent, I never met him before and I didn't know anything about his efforts," Rev. Turner added.
Farah and Bachmann's office did not respond to repeated requests for comment.
Asked if she will seek to keep Farah from being among the official speakers, Turner said, "Absolutely, this is not going to by any means be an event for anything being said negative about the president, that will not be allowed."
Despite Turner's suggestion that Farah didn't fit the theme of the event due to his history of anti-Obama commentary, both Turner and other scheduled speakers have their own history of outrageous remarks.