Ball, LA, May 2009
WorldNetDaily has been raising donations to pay for it’s advertising billboards, the first of which reportedly appeared in Ball, Louisiana in 2009.
While the “Where’s the birth certificate?” signs have appeared across the country, some media companies (Adams Outdoor, Lamar, Clear Channel, CBS and Steen Advertising) have refused (according to WorldNetDaily) to carry them. The most recent to refuse was Adams Outdoor who said that they felt that the ad would “not be good for the company.”
In reporting this story, WorldNetDaily makes two curious statements. The first is the subtitle of the story: “Adams Outdoor Advertising fears having ‘permits pulled’ by politicians.” Other statements in the story were attributed to Adams Vice President Rick Steele. This one, however, is only attributed to an unnamed “Adams Official”, and the story suggests only phone conversations with Steele. So who said that? Did anyone really say it at all?
The second curious thing is the misleading characterization of the billboard as a “four-word question.” It is that, but it is also an ad for the WorldNetDaily web site. Contributors who think they have been promoting questions about Barack Obama’s birth certificate have, in fact, been paying for ads for WorldNetDaily. The four-word question itself is meaningless to anyone who isn’t already informed on the topic; others probably think they can go to wnd.com to order a copy their birth certificate. The police dispatcher in Ball, Louisiana, I talked to back in 2009 didn’t have any idea what the sign meant. Mainly though, those who already question the birth certificate are prime advertising targets for WorldNetDaily.
Update:
I sent an email to Adams Outdoor Advertising Vice President Rick Steele, and asked him if someone at Adams really said that they were afraid that their permits would be pulled if they displayed the WND ad. His reply: “I don’t know anything about that.”
Unfortunately I have no confidence at all that WND is reporting this, or any other story accurately.
There is rarely an “issue” of that internet blog paraded as journalism which does not contain multiple outright lies and fabrications.
Considering it’s supposed to be a “Christian” news source, one wonders if they just forgot the whole “thou shalt not bear false witness” part of Christianity.
I have great confidence that WND is reporting this, and every other story, inaccurately.
These billboards are strictly reader-paid advertisements for WND.
That’s *all* they are because Joseph Farrah himself has claimed he’s not a birther and as you’ve aptly pointed out, there’s no other info is provided on these signs.
When advertisements are so cryptic that one must go to a web page in order to find out what it’s about, it is purely advertising.
Otherwise one would have to take the position that WND is singing to their own choir while using said choir’s money to do so.
That would be a ridiculous advertising premise.
Bottom-line: WND has tricked their “patriot readers” into paying for WND’s own advertising under the premise that such billboards can somehow unseat Obama.
As for Christian news sites, the only one I read is the Christian Science Monitor. (http://www.csmonitor.com)
While they can feature op-ed articles with a right-slanting bias, overall they’re fairly “flat” in their journalism and provide a quality site mostly free from nutcases.
When they were at the bottom of the totem pole prior to Constantine.
I must be pretty dense. Today is the first time I realized that the signs were just ads for WND.
Doc, is that image photoshopped? The lighting of the ad looks weird.
Doc confirmed it’s real. Suckers…
It looks odd because it is one of those electronic LED billboards.
Ah, I notice by the colour pattern, now that I know what to look for. 🙂
That’s not the billboard, that’s an image a billboard. An image of a billboard doesn’t prove anything.
I’m ashamed to admit I never realized it before now either.
And it’s perfectly consistent with the site’s m.o. Joe’s column today is all about releasing the “secret weapon” that will help the Republicans pass controversial budget-cutting legislation. Only in the final paragraphs does he finally come clean on what the “secret weapon” actually involves: giving $30 to WND.
how can you malign WND’s money raising schemes, don’t you know that WND is the home of that famous philosopher Chuck Norris, and all WND readers did not come from no monkey, evolution is impossible in the 6000 year old earth. Stop making fun of them!
Oh, I forgot Pat Boone, the bible thumping singer that hates gays.
Yep. Unless, of course, a sheet of red paper and some fancy postage options really total up to that much, which I doubt.
But hey! You get three free months of the Whistleblower, just in case the crap you read online isn’t enough. 😀
Actually, it’s not three *months* of Whistleblower; it’s three *issues*. I once ordered something from WND, and your delivery comes with three back issues of the magazine, all at once.
You then have to promptly contact them and cancel if you want to avoid receiving and being charged for new issues starting the next month.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=275417
Farrah comments on Hawaii’s privacy laws.
His conclusion:
“The office administering these policies has also determined that the individual has a significant privacy interest in his or her home contact information, date of birth and ethnicity.
Yet, under these guidelines, Hawaii has an obligation to release the long-form birth certificate because all of the relevant privacy matters have already been disclosed with the public release of the short-form certificate.
What possible privacy breaches could occur by releasing the long-form birth certificate – unless, of course, that information is actually different from what has been provided by Obama himself, the hospital claiming his birth, state officials and the newspaper announcements revealing his birth date, parentage and address?
In other words, Hawaii officials either can’t read their own laws, or they are actively involved in an extensive and elaborate cover-up of a matter of great public interest, national security and constitutional integrity – all the while claiming falsely their hands are tied by their own privacy laws.”
Sorry that doesn’t make any sense to me.
Try sniffing glue for a while… (or severe cranial trauma if you’d rather). Eventually you’ll be able to understand Joseph Farrah (and nothing else…)
> because all of the relevant privacy matters have already been disclosed with the public release of the short-form certificate
I don’t know what US law (or case law) says about this issue, but in my country you do not automatically waive your privacy rights towards the state.
I.e. if I publish how much I earn every year, still the IRS wouldn’t be allowed to give this information to anyone – the law is clear and has no “waiver” provision.
Thanks. I knew he was wrong. I just couldn’t figure out why.