Ellis Washington Derangement Syndrome Watch Topic: WorldNetDaily
Since the end of World War II, I contend that we have an even more wicked, incorrigible enemy that Western civilization must fight, but unlike Hitler's conspicuous legions of Brownshirts and SS shock troops goose-stepping in front of the Reichstag, this enemy of modern times, this Liberal-Muslim Axis has as its greatest weapon deception, lies and Machiavellian tactics. They hide in the halls of Congress, the White House, the courts, behind 501(c)(3) organizations.
Liberalism and Islam are essential mirror images of one another whose end worships power and control above all else. Liberalism is a political philosophy that over the past 300 years has morphed into a pagan cult-like religion of death, exerting absolute political hegemony and societal domination. As a religion, liberalism can move and function in ways that other bona fide religions (Judaism, Christianity) could never venture while at the same time wielding dictatorial political power over virtually the entire world.
Since the 1860s and the advent of the scientific cult of Darwinian evolution (so essential to the Liberal-Muslim Axis), the Judeo-Christian traditions found in Natural Law philosophy have been meticulously removed from the rule of law. Under perverse notions of fairness, equality, egalitarianism (which is an equality of results), President Obama and his homeland security secretary, Janet Napolitano, as well as their equivalents across the world, force law-abiding citizens to undergo increasingly invasive procedures to board a plane. Every time a Muslim attempts or commits a terrorist attack on an airplane the Liberal-Muslim Axis therefore places more laws on our backs.
Only courageous patriots can ultimately defeat this diabolical Liberal-Muslim Axis. Let us start this New Year with this strategy as our aspiration. Let all red-blooded Americans endeavor to make the Democratic Party into the Whig Party of the 21st century and begin to terrify the terrorists before they lift a hand against our wonderful country.
WorldNetDaily has a long history of anti-gay animus -- typified in the past couple weeks alone by endorsing the execution of gays and expressing shock at the mere idea that that conservatives might be within close proximity to gay people -- continues with its latest fear-mongering adventure.
A Jan. 1 WND article by Bob Unruh repeats a right-wing group's complaint that "slaying of a homosexual man by a same-sex-marriage advocate is being suppressed from media lists of the top news stories of 2009 in Maine." Unruh uncritically repeats claims by the group that "it is almost certain that the shooter and the victim were engaged in debauchery during the evening" and that the alleged shooter "as a member of Portland's Harbor Masters homosexual leather club, a group dedicated to the practice of sadomasochism." The alleged shooter "and his partner, Buck, were testifying in favor of legalizing homosexual marriage in Maine" four days after the shooting incident, Unruh reported.
Unruh goes on to add that "This case of homosexual-related crimes being ignored by the national media is hardly unique." That's a rich claim given WND's own history of ignoring facts that don't mesh with its right-wing, anti-Obama ideology -- most notably Orly Taitz's record of shoddylawyering.
This story was followed by a column by Joseph Farah -- who has his ownhistory of anti-gay freak-outs -- on the subject, in which he suggests that the Mainecase is an argument against gay marriage. He continues:
Well, I have a feeling that if the shoe were on the other foot, a case like this would have received much more national media attention.
Let me give you a hypothetical example.
Let's pretend that it was a married Christian who got up and made the impassioned plea against same-sex marriage. It later turned out he had killed a prostitute with whom he was cavorting in a stupor induced by the use of drugs and alcohol.
Of course, that's a flawed example. The preceding offense is much different -- prostituion is illegal; possession of a gun is not. Further, the offense is less tangentally related to marriage than the Maine shooting. The "married Christian" is showing massive hypocrisy by dallying with prostitutes; neither Farah nor WND offer evidence that the alleged Maine shooter was in a sexual relationship with the man he shot, or that the victim was a prostitute.
That the shooter belonged to, in Farah's words, "a local homosexual sadomasochistic leather club" is utterly irrelevant, since sadomasochism is hardly limited to homosexuals, nor is it illegal.
Newsmax Repeats False White House Visit Claim Topic: Newsmax
A Dec. 31 Newsmax article by John Rossomando states that "White House records show that ACORN CEO Bertha E. Lewis visited him in the White House in early September," citing "Andrew Breitbart’s blog BigGovernment.com."
Only, not so much.
As Politico has reported, the Bertha Lewis who visited the White House is not the one who heads ACORN, whose middle initial is M, not E. Further, as Media Matters adds, more than 100 Bertha Lewises show up in a WhitePages.com serach.
Perhaps Rossomando shouldn't be treating every single thing Breitbart reports as gospel truth.
In his Jan. 1 WorldNetDaily column, Robert Ringer describes Saul Alinsky this way: "Like all crusade leaders, he clearly had a huge ego – an ego that made him comfortable in the role of arbiter of right and wrong." This is clearly not a criticism of the man, because Ringer exercises his own ego in declaring himself moral arbiter over Alinsky and Barack Obama.
Just two paragraphs after making that statement, Ringer pronounces his judgment in "psychoanalyzing Saul Alinsky," declaring him to be "a man in search of a cause ... in search of a following to carry on an ill-defined campaign against the power elite."
That's followed up by once again declaring Obama "soulless," adding: "In Obama, I see no laughter, no beauty, no love, and no creativity." What is his evidence for this claim? What empirical basis does he use to declare this? Who knows? He feels no need to share what, if any, standards he's using with his readers.
In other words, it seems that Ringer is on nothing more than an ego trip, using his column at an extremist website and his alleged status as, according to his end-of-column bio, "author of three No. 1 best-sellers, including two books listed by the New York Times among the 15 best-selling motivational books of all time" as a shield around hisvicioushatred of Obama.
Even the name of his column, "A Voice of Sanity," is increasingly delusional -- after all, isn't it the crazy ones who keep insisting that they're sane?
Bozell's Double Standard on Celebrities' Politcal Opinions Topic: Media Research Center
The MRC's Brent Bozell promoted his organization's list of insuffiently conservative quotes of the year in a Dec. 31 Newsmax interview, keeping up the ruse that a blog post by a non-reporter working for a non-news organization -- winner of the MRC's top award -- constitutes "reporting."
As we've detailed, the selection of this quote is more about the MRC's near-pathological hatred of Ted Kennedy than its stated goal of exposing "the year's worst reporting."
But Bozell also made this statement about insufficiently conservative statements by celebrities: "This is why you listen to these people from Hollywood and you tell them they really need to stick to memorizing their lines and repeating their lines. Don’t use that mind of yours. Don’t exercise that brain muscle, because you tend to make a fool out of yourself."
If Bozell is so opposed to celebrities expressing political opinions, why does his NewsBusters blog include in its roster of bloggers Pat Boone and Charlie Daniels?
Is Frank Rosenbloom taking secret liberties with the prescription medications he has access to as a medical doctor? That's the only explanation we can think of for his Jan. 1 WorldNetDaily column, in which he embarks on a wild anti-Obama fantasia:
It's Jan. 20, 2017, and we are gathered together in a small house on the edge of a lake in Eastern Texas. We comprise multiple families and by occupation include former college professors, lawyers and physicians. All of us are conservative, forced to withdraw from our professions and seek refuge in an out-of-the-way place in a red state. Three months ago, we refused to sign the required pledge to abide by the "Freedom of Choice" law, which mandates the promotion of abortion, homosexuality and other anti-Judeo-Christian acts.
All eyes are glued to NBC News, the sole remaining newscast, for coverage of the inauguration of President Barack Hussein Obama for his third term in office. In 2015, both houses of Congress voted to abolish presidential term limits. No amendment to the Constitution was needed, they argued, as it had become irrelevant in a "real democracy." Challenges to the new law were struck down by the Supreme Court, with Chief Justice Michelle Obama stating: "The people have spoken."
Important speakers at the event included Prime Minister Nancy Pelosi. She was recently elevated to her new position for a 10-year term by presidential order. Pro-Consul Harry Reid, lifetime Senate leader, and Vice President and Propaganda Minister Joe Biden also spoke.
The new Chinese premier, Chew Us Up, spoke for over one hour, praising President Obama for inviting China to share the naval base at Pearl Harbor following their successful retaking of Taiwan. Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez lauded Mr. Obama for his efforts to promote socialism. Chavez and his wife will be vacationing with President Obama and Chief Justice Michelle Obama in Australia after the inevitable fall of that isolated nation to the ongoing Chinese naval blockade. He also noted the recent Chinese occupation of Mongolia as a major step toward relieving the pressure of overpopulation in his country.
When states went bankrupt, the federal government seized control with the help of Mr. Obama's civilian domestic security force, The Acorn Brigade, also known as the "Nut Squad." In exchange for federal bailouts, the states had to relinquish all states' rights. Mr. Obama redistributed the property repossessed by the states to previously illegal immigrants and the poor. This, along with government-funded free health care, ensured that one party rule would continue indefinitely.
Conservatives predicted that it would happen, but the warnings fell on mostly deaf ears. Now, as many former supporters of Mr. Obama suffer the same fate, they realize, much too late, the consequences of ignoring history.
Dec. 24, 2009: the night the U.S. died, a day that will live in infamy; it will be viewed by future generations as the darkest day in world history. The names of the perpetrators of the death of freedom for the entire world, Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid,will be remembered, alongside those of earlier tyrants, for all time.
We don't know what to say. Is there a doctor in the house to talk Rosenbloom down from his bad trip?
Ponte: 'Unionization Often Leads to Violence' Topic: Newsmax
Lowell Ponte writes in his Dec. 30 Newsmax column as an argument for not allowing Transportation Safety Administration employees to join a union:
Unionization often leads to violence. Ask the black conservative who was severely beaten in St. Louis a few months ago by goons of the Service Employees International Union or the anti-Democrat protesters Teamsters thugs beat in Philadelphia.
Choosing Kenneth Gladney, the "black conservative who was severely beaten," may not have been Ponte's best example, since the evidence Gladney was "severely beaten" is dubious at best.
We're not sure what Ponte is referring to regarding the "anti-Democrat protesters Teamsters thugs beat in Philadelphia," but it appears to be a 1998 incident involving anti-Clinton protesters; years of Judicial Watch-fueled litigation resulted in a settlement in which, apparently, the Teamsters paid an undisclosed sum to the protesters and did not admit any wrongdoing.
Two incidents a decade apart, which did not involve unionization, are evidence that "Unionization often leads to violence"? To Ponte it is. And isn't a significant amount of unionization-related violence instigated by the employer who's fighting unionization and not the union?
WND Still Waging Losing Battle Against Wikipedia Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily has long waged battle against Wikipedia, a battle marked by a serious misunderstanding on WND's part about how Wikipedia works.
That fundamental misunderstanding continues in a Dec. 30 article by Chelsea Schilling detailing all the upsetting things that have been posted about WND and editor Joseph Farah on their respective Wikipedia pages.Schilling describes it as a "Wikipedia campaign of hurling smears at WND's founder, Joseph Farah." One of those claims is that Farah was called a "noted homosexual" -- and we know how touchy Farah is about anything regarding Teh Gay. (But Farah's anti-gay paranoia didn't keep WND from publishing Molotov Mitchell's gay-baiting smear, did it?)
There is, however, one little hitch to Farah's pending litigiousness: There's no evidence of the existence of a "Wikipedia campaign" against Farah or WND. Wikipedia users -- not any official operator of Wikipedia -- are the ones who made those changes and, therefore, should be the primary target of a libel lawsuit.
Nevertheless, Farah comments further: "Wikipedia has now demonstrated a long pattern of defamatory attacks on me and my work. We are very close, I believe, to being able to make a strong libel case against this phony 'free encyclopedia' viewed by hundreds of millions of people." Again, Farah should be directing his ire at those users, not Wikipedia itself.
the funny thing is, WND has previously defended such behavior. A June 16 article by Bob Unruh complained that a federal prosecutor, citing death threats, was seeking "newspaper readers who participated in a forum about a tax protest case" -- even highlighting an ACLU chapter's statement that it "always fought for the fundamental right to engage in anonymous political speech and we want to protect the rights of anonymous commenters."
Really, what those anonymous Wikipedia editors are doing is nothing more than political speech protected by the First Amendment. If newspaper commenters -- and death threat-hurling WND commenters -- are protected, why not Wikipedia? If Wikipedia is to be held responsible for the actions of its commenters, shouldn't WND be getting a visit from the Secret Service right about now?
Farah has no libel case because he has no evidence that Wikipedia itself or anyone directly employed by it has a policy of deliberately or recklessly maligning WND or Farah -- unlike, say, the case Clark Jones had against WND, which WND abruptly settled after seven years of litigation.
Further, the fact that WND lies about or libels people -- mostlyPresidentObama, but the list of WND's victims includes us as well -- seemingly on a daily basis also pretty much negates any whining about libel by WND, not to mention highlights the rank hypocrisy of WND's little anti-Wikipedia jihad.
Whether the individual far-left zealot in America is stupid, deluded or evil, the end game shall play out in the same manner: It will result in a society in which an unproductive, mediocre, larcenous few squeeze everyone else for their profit and pleasure.
Our current president is one of those few. This is indeed sad, for, in addition to the groundbreaking nature of his presidency, Barack Obama is obviously a gifted man. He could have actually accomplished something meaningful with his life; instead, he has dedicated that life – from early on, mind you – to destroying the greatest nation, and people, that has ever come along.
Can you think of a greater evil?
I do not advocate extreme measures. However, if Americans who have recently become aware of how deeply imperiled we are, and those who shortly will be, do not dedicate themselves to utterly disenfranchising the political left over the next five to 10 years, they will, in a very short time, become impossible to extricate without the expenditure of force, blood and lives.
Molotov Year of Hate Ends with Smears, Gay-Baiting Topic: WorldNetDaily
Molotov Mitchell caps off his year of hate by beginning his supposedly humorous Dec. 30 WorldNetDaily video of 2010 predictions by stating that "the loonies took over the asylum" -- accompanied by an image of President Obama in Joker makeup -- and "Democrats have climbed into their Zeros and are planning to kamikaze into our health care system."
He then offers the following as predictions:
"In the middle of a joint session speech, Nancy Pelosi's face will finally snap like a rubber band." (Accompanied by the on-screen text "Botox Overdose.")
"Barack Obama will finally show America his birth certificate." Followed by: "WorldNetDaily's Joseph Farah will expose this birth certificate as a forgery created by a lovesick and obsessed Chris Matthews."
"It will come out that Obama has been a homosexual all along. No one will be surprised."
Interesting that Mitchell considers schoolyard-level gay-baiting to be an acceptable form of adult political discourse. But then, if you'll recall, Mitchell has endorsed the execution of homosexuals. Put two and two together, won't you?
CNS Hides Facts on Crisis Pregnancy Centers Topic: CNSNews.com
A Dec. 30 CNSNews.com article by Penny Starr -- who called Harry Reid a baby-killer last week -- offers a sadly unsurprising one-sided view of a new Baltimore law ordering crisis pregnancy centers to post a sign stating that they do not provide or give referrals on abortion or contraceptives. Butin focusing only on anti-abortion activists' reaction to the law, Starr ignores facts that contradict their claims.
Starr quotes one activist as saying, "These centers are among the few places that women in Baltimore can get medically accurate information to make a truly informed choice when facing a life changing and difficult decision about an unplanned pregnancy," adding that they "present the truth about all of the options available." But that doesn't appear to be true.
A 2006 report by the office of Rep. Henry Waxman found that when 23 random crisis pregnancy centers were called, 20 of them wrongly tied abortion to breast cancer or infertility or mental illness. And a 2008 report by NARAL Pro-Choice Maryland found that every one of the 11 pregnancy centers it visited in Maryland offered up some piece of false information; in once center, a male counselor locked the door and acted "controlling and intimidating."
Then again, such facts might get in the way of Starr wanting to smear someone else as a baby-killer.
WorldNetDaily is clearly not ready to tell its readers about Orly Taitz's shoddy lawyering in her birther cases. But it appears to be still interested in (selective) reporting on her doings anyway.
A Dec. 28 WND article by Bob Unruh states that Taitz wants to move one of her cases to a court in Washington. Unruh doesn't mention that Taitz has been accused of suborning perjury in the case -- even though it seems like something that would need to be addressed before any change of venue is granted. As we've previously noted, the judge in the case has taken the accusation seriously.
Unruh also doesn't mention that the judge from whom Taitz is seeking the change of venue has fined Taitz $20,000 for her repeated frivolous filings in the case.
Further, Unruh ignores statements by former Taitz ally Charles Lincoln, who not only accuses Taitz of shoddy lawyering but also hints at an apparent deeper personal relationship with the married Taitz -- even though they were published several hours before Unruh's article was.
In other words, WND is still protecting its readers from the full truth about Taitz, even though it's highly relevant to the case -- after all, WND is slavishly following Taitz's diktat not to report on negative information about her. So what else is new?
I could not help but smile to myself when I got a gander at Barack Obama’s vile White House “Christmas” ornaments. Many of them were defiled with images of history’s most evil men, including the murderer of untold millions and cultural executioner Mao Tse Tung.
And it was hard not to laugh when Michelle Obama tried to explain the decadent ornaments away. She and Barack were unaware of the images, she said, as the ornaments were decorated and sent to them from her various groups (clearly groups of a seditious and conspiratorial nature).
An ornament depicting Ronald Reagan, discovered later in a photograph, was supposed to render the Mao ornament insignificant. But it really changed nothing: if someone has a picture of Reagan in his office, does it make it OK for him to have a picture of Hitler too?
This type of ugliness is not new. Obama’s cultural pollution is no accident.
He uses his brand to market the most destructive and cancerous ideas in human history. Obama uses proxies to get the most noxious narrative into the national dialogue, the daily workplace, and the minds of our youth.
WND Misleads About Jennings Again Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily has a longrecord of spreading lies and distortions about Kevin Jennings. Add another one to the list.
A Dec. 24 WND article by Bob Unruh makes a big deal out of Jennings allegedly calling Jerry Falwell a "terrorist." Unruh eventually gets around to explaining that Jennings was responding to Falwell's assertion that Mohammed was a terrorist, but then goes on to suggest that Falwell never called him that, only that Falwell called him "a violent man, a man of war."
In fact, as Media Matters points out, Falwell did indeed say in a 2002 "60 Minutes" interview, "I think Mohammed was a terrorist." Nowhere does that statement appear in Unruh's article.
Will NewsBusters Admit It Falsely Smeared Baucus? Topic: NewsBusters
NewsBusters caused a stir this week with a Dec. 27 post by P.J. Gladnick that essentially accused Democratic Sen. Max Baucus of being intoxicated in delivering a speech on the Senate floor. Smearing a Democrat, of course, is catnip for right-wingers like Matt Drudge.
The problem? At no point does Gladnick offer any evidence to support the claim. Nevertheless, Gladnick offers a pre-emptive dismissal of any response from Baucus' office as a lie:"Do you really expect a candid response? And who in the Baucus Senate office will reply? His military affairs aide, Captain Morgan?"
But hey, why let a little thing like lack of evidence stand in the way of smearing a Democrat?
Mark Finkelstein goes on in a Dec. 29 post to sneer at MSNBC's David Shuster pointing out, in a Twitter post, that Baucus "always speaks in a halting fashion."Finkelstein then follows up by making fun of MSNBC for referencing Baucus "in the same sentence with a variation on the word 'blasted.'"
Like Gladnick, Finkelstein offers no evidence to support his claim that Baucus was drunk (his end-of-post note that "Baucus wasn't blasted, and the parrot wasn't dead: 'e was just restin'" doesn't count).
Further, neither Gladnick nor Finkelstein have seen seen fit to report to their readers that Baucus has indeed respond to the smear (but Politico has). Wouldn't want those pesky facts to get in the way of a good smear, eh?
(P.S. We swear we saw at one point yesterday a Newsmax story on disgraced former Rep. Mark Foley bashing Baucus over this -- also reported by Huffington Post -- but it seems to have disappeared from the Newsmax website. Foley, if you'll remember, was a favorite of Newsmax chief Christopher Ruddy until reports of Foley's dalliances with teenage congressional pages became public. Foley has since apologized for his remarks on Baucus.)