WND Ratchets Up the Gay-Bashing Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily's ratcheted-up gay-bashing is not just a one-day deal -- WND has featured attacks on gays every day this week (and that's not counting its war with Ann Coulter for not hatinggays enough).
We already noted Tuesday's barrage of gay attacks by Joseph Farah, David Kupelian and Les Kinsolving. But there's been much more:
On Monday, there was a column by Nancy Pearcey asserting that homosexuality is a "denigration of physical anatomy."
On Wednesday, the officiant at Rush Limbaugh's latest wedding, Ken Hutcherson, declared that homosexuality "inarguably kills its participants," adding, "Oh, by the way, God wants His rainbow back!"
Today, Kupelian checks in again, claiming that the agenda of the gay conservative group GOProud -- Coulter's speech before which is the bone of contention between her and WND -- "sounds an awful lot like a mainline homosexual-rights organization pretending to be 'traditional conservative' and fooling Republicans." And Farah once again criticizes conservatives for not being as anti-gay as he is.
WND has always hated gays. It's just the theme of the week this time.
NewsBusters' Sheppard Hides Facts About Rauf's Statements Topic: NewsBusters
In an Aug. 19 NewsBusters post, Noel Sheppard issues a one-sided attack on Imam Feisel Abdul Rauf,who wants to build an Islamic community center near Ground Zero in New York. Sheppard quotes Rauf's statements on a post-9/11 edition of "60 Minutes" as evidence that Rauf is not "the moderate cleric so many in the media have been claiming he is," but he doesn't tell the full story.
Rauf's statement that "the United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened" is a view also held by the 9/11 Commission and Glenn Beck, thus making it somewhat less than radical. As for Rauf's statement that "in the most direct sense, Osama bin Laden is made in the USA," Sheppard failed to highlight that "60 Minutes'" Ed Bradley backed up that assertion immediately after Rauf made the statement. From the "60 Minutes" link that Sheppard himself provides:
BRADLEY: Bin Laden and his supporters were in fact recruited and paid nearly $4 billion by the CIA and the government of Saudi Arabia in the 1980s to fight against the mujahadeen rebels against thte former Soviet Union, which had invaded Afghanistan. After the Soviets pulled out, the Saudis, our best friends in the Arab world, our staunchest ally during the Gulf War, poured hundreds of millions of dollars into the newly formed Taliban regime until 1999, when the Saudi government feared that bin Laden and the Taliban were out of control.
It seems that Rauf is doing a better job of telling the truth than Sheppard is.
WorldNetDaily's dumping of Ann Coulter from its "Taking America Back" conference brought a stinging rebuke by Coulter. The Daily Caller reports:
Conservative pundit Ann Coulter responded today to the announcement that WorldNetDaily was dropping her as a speaker for one of their events, calling WorldNetDaily Editor Joseph Farah a “publicity whore” and a “swine.”
Coulter was bumped from the speakers list of WND’s September “Taking America Back National Conference” after it was announced that she had accepted a speaking gig at a New York City party hosted by GOProud, a Washington-based group that represents gay conservatives.
“[F]arah is doing this for PUBLICITY and publicity alone,” Coulter wrote in an email to The Daily Caller on Wednesday afternoon.
WND posted an email exchange between Coulter and Farah in their public announcement that she would be removed from the list of speakers. Coulter expressed anger that he quoted her from their private emails on the issue.
“[T]his was an email exchange [between] friends and even though I didn’t expressly say “OFF THE RECORD” and I believe everything I said, he’s a swine for using my private emails politely answering him.” Coulter wrote in the email to TheDC. “[W]hy would he do such a despicable thing? … for PUBLICITY.”
The conservative pundit said that WND is well known for making decisions just to get attention, citing the conspiracist site’s regular articles about President Obama’s birth certificate.
“I will say that [Farah] could give less than two sh-ts about the conservative movement — as demonstrated by his promotion of the birther nonsense (long ago disproved by my newspaper, human events, also sweetness & light, american spectator and national review etc, etc etc). He’s the only allegedly serious conservative pushing the birther thing. for ONE reason: to get hits on his website.”
(She mentioned in the email that she had typed it in a rush.)
Coulter added that she would not be losing anything from the dropped speaking engagement since WND had not been able to come up with the money to pay her anyway.
WND is responding to Coulter in a mmostly surprising way: ratcheting down the rhetoric. From an Aug. 18 WND article:
Farah responded to Coulter's remarks, saying, "Ann is angry. I hope she calms down and there can be some restoration, repentance and forgiveness. She said some mean things about me, but I can sleep at night knowing I did the right thing in God's economy."
David Kupelian, WND's long-time managing editor, added, "Ann Coulter's a hero to many, but her angry accusation that we were motivated by publicity couldn't be more off-base. This wasn't Farah's sole decision; our executive team, including me, discussed this at length in a serious and thoughtful manner, and in the end, we went with what we considered to be the principled decision."
The response is surprising only in tone; the contents are still suspect. Farah doesn't respond to Coulter's claim that her statements to him were off-the-record and not meant for publication. And Kupelian's claim that WND made a "principled decision" that wasn't "motivated by publicity" is laughable considering WND's lack of principles and historic embrace of attention-getting stunts. And if WND wasn't trying to milk the controversy for publicity purposes, why did it devote an entire article to reactions to the kerfuffle?
WND repeated its statement of the disingenous double standard that Coulter would continue as a WND columnist -- which may be another reason why Farah and Kupelian are reacting with relative restraint (and more evidence that WND has no principles). If WND truly cared about principle, it would stand by its anti-gay agenda and dump her as a columnist as well.
Also repeated is Farah's statement that WND has "the broadest ideological forum of commentators in any news or opinion publication or website anywhere on the planet," which, as we noted, is also a disingenuous claim.
As we've previously noted, this is all about money and -- WND's protestations to the contrary -- publicity. The question now is whether Coulter will now speak the truth about WND to such an extent that it will finally drop her column.
(P.S. While WND quotes Coulter's response in its article, it edits out the part where she said WND couldn't afford to pay her.)
Newsmax Becomes Safe Haven for Dr. Laura Topic: Newsmax
When "Dr." Laura Schlessinger announced on Aug. 17 that she was quitting her radio show in the wake of her N-word rant, she said that "I want to be able to say what's on my mind and in my heart, and what I think is helpful and useful, without somebody getting angry, some special interest group deciding this is the time to silence a voice of dissent and attack affiliates and attack sponsors." In her search for an outlet that wouldn't ask her any pesky questions, she knew exactly where to go: Newsmax.
IN an "exclusive Newsmax interview" with David Patten -- Newsmax's resident master of sycophantic profiiles of right-wingers -- Dr. Laura spouted off on the circumstances of her resignation with no danger whatsoever of being questioned about things like her pecuiliar view of the Constitution. She claims that criticism of her offensive comments by others means that "my First Amendment rights don't exist. ... I want my First Amendment rights back. I can't have them while I'm on radio."
Patten fawningly notes that Schlessinger "was recently nominated for a Marconi award and was named one of the top seven radio hosts in radio history," as well as a "best-selling author and syndicated Newsmax columnist."
Nope, no pesky, probing questions here -- just Patten serving up softballs.
NewsBusters: Strippers Don't Kill People, Muslims Do Topic: NewsBusters
In an Aug. 17 NewsBusters post, Lachlan Markay takes offense at the idea forwarded in a Time magazine article that the area surrounding Ground Zero isn't exactly "hallowed ground" because it contains, among other things, a strip club:
Gee, could it have anything to do with the fact that pole dancers didn't fly planes into the twin towers? For some, the right to build a mosque and the move's moral implications are two distinct issues, and $10 lap dances have exactly nothing to do with either.
[...]
Surely Gray forgot to add that this particular "private house of worship" is devoted to the same religion in whose name those 2,700 Americans were killed, built where landing gear from one of the planes that hit the towers fell, scheduled to be opened on September 11 of next year, and named after the Islamic Caliphate who conquered much of Medieval (Christian) Spain.
I say he must have forgotten to add those details since they would accurately frame the argument against the Ground Zero mosque, and surely he was not trying to intentionally distort that argument.
Of course if he were, he would also have to explain why strip clubs have any bearing whatsoever on the sanctity of an historic or prestigious location. There are three strip clubs within a few blocks of the White House. Is Gray suggesting that the White House is not a sacred location?
Of course, nobody is claiming that the area "within a few blocks of the White House" is sacred ground. And Markay misses the point -- that the proposed Islamic center location is obviously not "hallowed ground" because a similar distance away is a strip club that nobody is declaring to be similar "hallowed ground."
MRC's CMI Baselessly Attacks Mosque Imam Topic: Media Research Center
In an Aug. 16 MRC Culture & Media Institute article on the "questionable ties" of the organizer of the so-called "Ground Zero mosque," Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, Alana Goodman writes:
Rauf has also made comments that some have called radical, and associated with individuals involved in extremist organizations. Critics say that his background and statements make him a poor candidate to build a mosque in such a sensitive location.
“I wouldn’t say that the United States deserved [the Sept. 11 attacks], but the United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened,” said Rauf on CBS “60 Minutes” on Sept. 30, 2001. “[W]e have been an accessory to a lot of – of innocent lives dying in the world. In fact, it – in the most direct sense, Osama bin Laden is made in the USA.”
Goodman fails to mention that the view that U.S. policy played a role in inflaming radical Islamists to commit 9/11 is also shared not only by the 9/11 Commission but also Glenn Beck. That strongly suggests this statement is not as "radical" as Goodman would have you believe.
WND's Unprincipled Half-Dumping of Coulter Topic: WorldNetDaily
An Aug. 17 WorldNetDaily article announces that "Conservative superstar Ann Coulter today was dropped as a keynote speaker for WND's "Taking America Back National Conference" next month because of her plan to address an event titled "HOMOCON" sponsored by the homosexual Republican group GOProud that promotes same-sex marriage and military service for open homosexuals." WND describes the opposing principles involved:
Asked by Farah why she was speaking to GOProud, Coulter said: "They hired me to give a speech, so I'm giving a speech. I do it all the time."
Farah then asked: "Do you not understand you are legitimizing a group that is fighting for same-sex marriage and open homosexuality in the military – not to mention the idea that sodomy is just an alternate lifestyle?"
Coulter responded: "That's silly, I speak to a lot of groups and do not endorse them. I speak at Harvard and I certainly don't endorse their views. I've spoken to Democratic groups and liberal Republican groups that loooove abortion. The main thing I do is speak on college campuses, which is about the equivalent of speaking at an al-Qaida conference. I'm sure I agree with GOProud more than I do with at least half of my college audiences. But in any event, giving a speech is not an endorsement of every position held by the people I'm speaking to. I was going to speak for you guys, I think you're nuts on the birther thing (though I like you otherwise!)."
But Farah sees this speech to GOProud in a very different light than does Coulter.
"Earlier this year, GOProud was permitted to sponsor the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, the biggest event of its kind," said Farah. "This bad decision resulted in consistently conservative groups dropping sponsorship and withdrawing from participation – much to their credit. GOProud is about infiltration of the conservative movement and dividing it from within with twisted and dangerous ideas way out of the mainstream of American public opinion. Ann Coulter is, I'm afraid, validating this effort for money. I support her speaking to people with whom she disagrees on college campuses. That's a good idea. I do it, too. But if you see the way GOProud is exploiting its coup in getting Ann Coulter to speak to its HOMOCON event, you begin to understand what a mistake this is for a conservative icon like Coulter."
Then the hypocrisy kicks in:
Joseph Farah, editor and chief executive officer of WND, said the decision was a gut-wrenching one for his team because of their fondness for Coulter as both a person and writer-speaker.
"Ultimately, as a matter of principle, it would not make sense for us to have Ann speak to a conference about 'taking America back' when she clearly does not recognize that the ideals to be espoused there simply do not include the radical and very 'unconservative' agenda represented by GOProud," said Farah. "The drift of the conservative movement to a brand of materialistic libertarianism is one of the main reasons we planned this conference from the beginning."
[...]
Coulter will remain a weekly columnist for WND.
"There's a different standard for columnists and speakers at our conference," Farah explained. "We boast the broadest ideological forum of commentators in any news or opinion publication or website anywhere on the planet – and we will continue to do that. We think people should hear all points of view discussed openly and honestly. However, this conference is a serious event designed to provide some real leadership for those who are serious about changing the direction of this country. There is simply no room there for compromisers or for people who accept money from those determined to destroy the moral fabric required for self-governance and liberty."
First, Farah's claim that dumping Coulter for being too nice to gays is laughable. WND has a virulently anti-gay agenda, and that same day published no less than three gay-bashing columns, including one by Farah himself.
Second, Farah's claim that WND has "the broadest ideological forum of commentators in any news or opinion publication or website anywhere on the planet" is disingenuous. As we've previously noted, the only actual liberals on WND's roster of 50 or so regular columnists are Bill Press and Ellen Ratner; the rest are conservative, conservative Christian, libertarian, or some combination thereof. On any given day, liberal opinions on WND's commentary page are outnumbered at least 7-to-1 by right-wing opinions. And we can't recall the last time, if ever, that WND presented an unfiltered pro-gay view -- after all, it refused to tell its readers that warblogger Matt Sanchez, who wrote for WND for several months, used to make gay porn.
Third, Farah proves he doesn't really have the courage of his principles by keeping Coulter on as a columnist. Since WND is one of the outlets allowed to publish Coulter's column a few hours before its official release, it likely draws a significant amount of traffic to WND. If Coulter goes away, so does that traffic.
In other words, it's about money. Just as Coulter indicated that she will speak before any group that pays her, Farah knows that Coulter brings in readers and revenue to WND. Dumping Coulter as a speaker is an extremely low-risk move; canceling her column is not. The one real principle they share is raking in the cash.
MRC's Spin Fails Again on News Corp.'s RGA Donation Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's attempt to spin away News Corp.'s $1 million contribution to the Republican Governors Association gets another failed turn by Tim Graham, who uses an Aug. 18 NewsBusters post complaining that the Washington Post's article on the donation is "ruined by reality" because the Post also noted that "Until now, the News Corp./Fox political action committee had given 54 percent of its donations to Democrats and 46 percent to Republicans, according to the Center for Responsive Politics."
But as Ben Demiro of Media Matters points out, Graham ignores the key words "Until now" and the obvious implication that such a balance in News Corp.'s political contributions no longer exists due to the $1 million donation.
Like fellow MRC employee Dan Gainor before him, Graham can't point to a similar cash donation made by a news organization to a liberal political group, which would also seem to undermine his premist.
For most of Aug. 17, the above-the-nameplate story on WorldNetDaily's website was a piece by Bob Unruh on CNN's Jeffrey Toobin retracting a suggestion that Terry Lakin, the Army officer throwing away his career to promote birther fantasies, was racist.
Needless to say, WND does not treat its own retractions that way.
As we've detailed, WND makes its retractions as quietly as possible. One false story was simply deleted from WND's website without explanation; another was replaced with a completely different story with a note at the top that downplays the extent of the changes made.
And rather than the public shame WND tries to impose on Toobin and CNN, WND treats its falsehood promoters with great respect -- just a week after executive news editor Joe Kovacs wrote the story that had to be completely replaced, WND did a puff piece on his WND-published book.
WND has no publicly disclosed policy for dealing with corrections -- which is strange consideringallthefalsehoods that make it into print.
Newsmax's Walsh Smears Unemployed As Lazy, Greedy Topic: Newsmax
Apparently, all the people James Walsh hangs out with on his "Florida barrier island" are as reactionary as he is. From Walsh's Aug. 16 Newsmax column:
I purchase gas and some lottery tickets. Mom looks bewildered and says, “The lottery? You aren’t the type.” I reply, “As my eldest son says, it is a tax on the stupid, but I see it as a donation to the state. I would rather the state have it, than have Mr. Obama redistribute it.”
Mom’s eyes light up, “Can you imagine Obama and Congress passing 99 weeks of workers compensation for those lazy bums? Like clockwork at noon every day, they start filing in for 6 packs and 12 packs of beer and bottles of wine. At 6 or thereabouts, they wander over to the bar and stay for hours, even until dawn. I have found them sleeping on our gas islands. They couldn’t make it across the street.
"They joke about living off workers comp and welfare and their girlfriends’ paychecks. They say they will not work for peanuts and that the government owes them a living. These bums just expect handouts. What is Congress thinking? There are some legitimate unemployed but, these people never work.”
Mom sighs, “I get up at 5 every morning and start cleaning the area by 5:30. While our young people are fighting in Iraq, these loafers just demand more and more handouts. The bleeding hearts in Washington give it to them.”
Heading for the door, I say, “They vote and that is what the pols count on.” Mom’s parting words are, “They are too lazy to vote, unless they are paid. I saw it in Chicago and Milwaukee.”
Walsh continues:
Next I head for the supermarket. Gathering my groceries, I choose the checkout line manned by a retired businessman, who is working for the health benefits. His business in the Midwest employed 150 workers, but he sold it when the labor union problems began to intensify. He notes that, although his employees made more than he did, Obama would classify him as “the rich.”
He laments the class warfare mentality of the president and most Democrats but admits to being a lifelong Democrat. Current Democrats, he says, lack the stature of Harry Truman, Scoop Jackson, and Jack Kennedy. Today he has something to show me — a lengthy supermarket receipt for items including steaks, shrimp, and crab-meat purchased using a food stamps credit card.
The remaining balance on the card is in excess of $2,000.
“Wow,” I comment. “That is some card, some money, some good deal. Was it a local or a tourist?” He says it was a person who spoke very little English but managed to question the amount of the purchases.
The teenage bagger, hearing the conversation says, “I never saw $2,000 in my life. Some people get it all.”
A 60-something man behind me in line laughs, “What do you expect from the redistribution of wealth — Obama economics. It ain’t his money, and what’s ours is now everyone’s. You wanted change, and you are getting it. The Democrats have the greatest scam going — a sucker is born every minute.”
Walsh doesn't explain how the supermarket manager obtained a copy of the receipt or is able to speak so knowledgably about how much was purportedly on the "food stamps credit card."
New Article: WorldNetDaily Rewards Liars Topic: WorldNetDaily
WND executive Joe Kovacs penned a completely false article. Not only was he apparently not punished for it, WND did a puff piece on his book a week later. Read more >>
Gainor's False Equivocation on Media's Political Donations Topic: Media Research Center
The MRC's Dan Gainor writes in an Aug. 17 Twitter post regarding News Corp.'s recent $1 million donation to the Republican Governors Association: "Left up in arms about News Corp contributions. Open Secrets: Media contributions 3-1 Dem over Repub."
But Gainor doesn't really support his point. As evidence to support his claim, Gainor links to a OpenSecrets.org page titled "Books, Magazines & Newspapers: Top Contributors to Federal Candidates and Parties." But most of the entries on that page don't run news operations -- they publish magazines and books.
Of the organizations of the list that own news operations -- News Corp., Advance Publications, Newsmax Media, Ogden Newspapers, Greenspun Media Group, Landmark Media Enterprises, Harris Publications and Meredith Corp. -- only Meredith matches News Corp. for the amount of donations made by the company itself; all the other media firms' donations are by employees, not the company.
Further, News Corp. as an entity far outstripsthe political donations of others; it's listed as making $270,000 in donations. Meredith, by contrast, made only $23,550 in donations.
Oh, and Gainor offers no evidence of a news organization making a similar corporate cash contribution to a liberal political cause as News Corp. made to the RGA. Is that because there isn't such a thing?
Joseph Farah takes the lead in his column, which attacks Glenn Beck for not opposing gay marriage, which somehow demonstrates that he "shares a materialistic worldview with Marx, Engels and Saul Alinksy [sic]":
Beck doesn't care about one of the most blatant and despicable examples of judicial tyranny in the history of our country. He doesn't care about the institution of marriage and its 5,000-year history. He doesn't care that the Bible says God created marriage way back in Genesis and that Jesus affirmed that. He doesn't care that the family is the building block of a society and that smarter men have explained how you simply can't have freedom and self-governance without it. He also doesn't seem to care about what might become of children adopted into such unions.
That, my friends, is the perfect illustration of what's wrong with the materialist worldview – whether it is held by a raving Marxist or a conservative entertainer.
Farah was followed by his chief toady, David Kupelian, who like Farah argued that if you don't hate gays, you're not a real conservative:
Very simply, most people in today's America, including conservatives, are afraid of "the gay issue." Although most know deep down there's something wrong with homosexuality, they don't want to be called "intolerant," "bigoted," "hateful" or "homophobic." Even though they don't really want open gays in the military, and disapprove of same-sex marriage, are repulsed by Obama's appointment of notorious gay activist Kevin Jennings as the nation's "safe schools" czar, and on and on – the "gay issue" no longer registers on their radar screen as one on which they should take a public stand.
[...]
The answer is: You better care, because once gay marriage is legalized in America – something for which there is virtually no precedent in the 5,000 years of Western Civilization – your schools will be required to teach your children that homosexuality is totally normal, your pastors and rabbis will fear preaching their faith's core moral values, and gender confusion and immorality will reign supreme in America.
Moreover, polygamy will inevitably be legalized also, since there simply will no longer be any legal basis for keeping polygamy illegal. For Muslims living in the U.S., for whom polygamy is allowed under the Quran (up to four wives), we will see large numbers of polygamous marriages within the United States of America, just as there are in France today – where polygamy is still illegal! (The French so fear their Muslim subculture, they don't enforce the law. In fact, French taxpayers pay for free housing for many polygamous Muslims, subsidizing special multi-room apartment units to accommodate the various wives and their children.) And of course, polygamy's legalization in the U.S. will serve as a powerful magnet to draw vastly more Muslims to immigrate to the U.S., and no doubt will encourage more American men to convert to Islam to give religious cover to their dreams of convening their own personal harem.
Beyond man-man, woman-woman and polygamous "marriages," every other type of degenerate combination imaginable – and unimaginable – will be civilly sanctified in America as marriage. If two men can be married, then three men can be married. It's difficult to grasp just how perverse life will be in that kind of nightmare America.
Perhaps most ominous, the official normalization of homosexuality, including same-sex marriage, has the unique potential to undermine Christianity and render it effectively illegal.
The two competing worldviews cannot mutually co-exist: Traditional, Bible-believing Christians believe homosexuality – like adultery and fornication – is a serious sexual sin. On the other hand, the goal of gay rights is the total normalization and de-stigmatization of homosexuality, to render sexual orientation officially equivalent to race, color and gender as a minority characteristic to be protected. If the latter view becomes sanctified in American law and culture, then a person who expresses the belief that homosexuality is a sin will become a social outcast, like the Ku Klux Klansman is today. That is, opposing sexual immorality because it violates God's laws of life will be considered identical to, and equally reprehensible as, an irrational hatred of blacks and Jews.
Even Les Kinsolving, as is his wont, tries to get in on the gay-bashing festivities, embracing the fallacious reasoning that homosexuality equals pedophilia equals bestality equals necrophilia:
Surely there is an enormous majority of the United States that has very strong moral disapproval of the Massachusetts-based NAMBLA – the North American Man/Boy Love Association.
If the adult males in this organization can demonstrate to Judge Vaughn Walker of San Francisco that their young boyfriends are with them in bed by choice, why should moral disapproval be any proper basis to deny rights to adult pedophiles and their (often younger than teenage) lovers?
Will the New York Times also endorse a constitutional right for polygamy?
Polygamy's practitioners are so often arrested and imprisoned, though polygamists have nothing of the AIDS and syphilis rates of this nation's homosexuals, who co-habit with multiple partners.
Another alternative sexual orientation with none of the AIDS and syphilis rates of homosexuality are the zoophiliacs, or practitioners of bestiality.
Should this alternative orientation also be tolerated if the human practitioner can demonstrate that his animal lover did not resist or run away but willingly participated?
And when will there be such tolerance for that sexual orientation called necrophilia, or the sexual attraction to corpses?
Or for those who engage in incest? Does the New York Times editorial department believe that if marriage is a constitutional right for two men or two women that there also is a constitutional right of brothers to marry brothers (or their fathers) and sisters to marry their sisters (or mothers)? And if not, Times people, why not?
Remember when Christopher Ruddy hated Bill Clinton? Not any more. The rapproachement took a further step when Clinton actually paid a visit to Newsmax's offices, and had this picture taken of him and Ruddy:
The once great and powerful country called America now sits by and allows an insane tyrant Ahmadinejad to obtain nuclear weapons as the leftist in the White House takes a bow for imposing the toughest sanctions against Iran yet. Tough but worthless, Mr. President, and you better hope Iran doesn't give a bit of that radioactive material to some crazy friend who hates America. Heck, that person may be working for you! Your administration is filled with hate-America folks.
Members of this Chicago dictatorship view murderers like Mao Tse-Tung as their heroes. Saul Alinsky clones now head up many areas of government. What will become of this once great nation if this group is allowed to continue unchecked?
Have we lost our country? Are we now under a dictatorship? I am getting that very feeling more and more each day. I sense the people have lost any ability to change the course we are on. Even the media, who once protected us from government corruption, are delighted to aid in the destruction.
Congress arrogantly ignores the will of the people. Voters are now having their votes overturned by one judge. Meanwhile, the most powerful man in the free world plays footsies with dangerous and determined crackpots. All of this has me seriously asking the following question: Can we survive another two years of team Obama?
Can the elections in November honestly bring us back from a total meltdown of our nation?
Unlike any other time in U.S. history, our First Amendment freedoms of speech and religion are in jeopardy. As if recently passed "hate-crime" laws and a politically correct culture weren't bad enough, now our president is using international pressure and possibly law to establish a prohibition against insulting Islam or Muslims.
Let me remind us how we got here.
Speaking for most founders in his day, John Jay, America's first chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, appointed by George Washington himself, said, "Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers."
Two hundred years later, President Obama has already denied America's rich Judeo-Christian heritage before the eyes and ears of other countries, as he publicly declared in Turkey on April 6, 2009, for the whole world to hear: "We do not consider ourselves a Christian nation."
Then there was Cairo in June 2009, when President Obama vowed to establish "a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world … I also know civilization's debt to Islam. … I also know that Islam has always been a part of America's story. … And since our founding, American Muslims have enriched the United States. … So I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed."
[...]
Another big question is: What did the president mean when he said, "That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn't"? It makes no sense at all to refer to a partnership between a country and religion – America and Islam. Why not say partnership between America and Muslim nations or a partnership between Americans and Muslims or even a partnership between Christianity and Islam? That comment is very strange to me and has a much deeper meaning.
[...]
(Next week in Part 2, I will discuss how the Obama administration has changed course in just this past year regarding passing anti-First Amendment defamation of religion resolutions, as well as demonstrate how Obama has been prejudice in his treatment of Islam versus Christianity).
